principal leadership style
TRANSCRIPT
10
The relationship between principal’s
leadership style and its effect on
teachers’ performance.
By
Frank E. Peart
Teacher‟s Diploma
Buff Bay Primary School,
Portland, Jamaica.
A study submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts
degree (Guidance and Counselling) at The International University of the
Caribbean
2006
11
ABSTRACT
The study aimed at discovering “The relationship between principal‟s leadership
style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.”
By
Frank E. Peart
The study was confined to eight schools in West Portland: three Primary Schools,
three All Age Schools and two High Schools. The sample consisted of fifty eight
(58) respondents where fifty were teachers and eight were principals.
The study undertaken revealed that:
Teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their
principal whose leadership is most times not in the best interest of the teachers.
The study points out that fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by
their principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily
routine. While most principals employed a mixture of each leadership style in
their daily routine an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the
teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of
benefits it offers, such as: the ability to share their ideas and opinions, take part in
the decision making process and are motivated by rewards for achieving goals.
12
Of interest is the finding that shed a dismal light on the principals where sixty
eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal supports the
idea of his teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do
so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two percent (72 %) of the
teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more than five years in the
profession.
13
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to offer with the profound gratitude my indebtedness to the teaching staff
of The International University of the Caribbean, especially those from North
Middlesex. The favourable interpersonal relations have helped in no small way to
inspire confidence in tackling this research.
I must record my special thanks to the following members of staff in particular
who have guided me in this research.
To Mrs. V. Johnson (Lecturer at IUC), my chief advisor whose insight and
patience and helpful suggestions guided the work from beginning to end.
To Dr. Adlyn White who in the initial stages guided me in formulating my
proposal.
The School staffs, Principals of the schools and teachers of the schools used in
this research have been especially cooperative, and I offer my sincere thanks to
them.
To Mr. Dwayne Knight who taught me how to make and calculate the tables
charts.
14
Finally, I must record my gratitude to my special friend Ms. Camile Franklyn
whose personal sacrifice enabled me to pursue this course.
15
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
THE BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM.
The Jamaican education system has for sometime experienced low academic
performance of students in its primary, all age and secondary schools. As a result
many stakeholders have expressed grave concern over this very unfortunate
situation. Poor academic performances of some of these students are laid at the
feet of the classroom teachers with unlimited amount of blame which in many
cases cannot be rationally justified.
The researcher is of the view that the principal‟s leadership style has a
tremendous effect on teachers‟ performance and students‟ academic performance.
Hence the decision to research the topic: “The relationship between principal‟s
leadership and its effect on teachers‟ performance.”
School is an important public institution which promotes society‟s educational
community and as a result they are subject to high expectations. However,
without proper leadership and a mutual environment; the teacher is likely to lack
or be passive to values and behaviours necessary to motivate students into doing
well.
16
The researcher has observed from his own teaching experience that different
principals lead / operate their schools relatively different and likewise the
teachers‟ performance are relatively different. This is evident in students‟
educational achievements during and at the end of their school years at the
different levels of the school system: primary, all age and high school.
It is not uncommon to hear stakeholders shower praises or blame on teachers
when students do well or do poorly in the Nation‟s Standardized Tests. We often
forget that the instructional leader is the principal. Sometimes because of the lack
of recognition to this fact, some principals fail to conceive that their leadership or
lack of it is the main determinant in students‟ educational achievements via their
teachers‟ performance. When this is not the case, it is not uncommon to find
principals who are domineering in supervising the school‟s programmes and
constantly sideline teachers and other members of staff, to the detriment of the
school‟s goals.
Thus, one of the main reasons for selecting this area of study is based on the
researcher‟s own recollections of school principals and their leadership styles and
their motivation on teachers for better performance has influenced students into
the right direction. The recent resurgence of concerns with the supposed
escalations in the number of students attending and leaving schools without being
able to read competently, and the record number of headlines in the media
expressing disgusts at the Educational system‟s poor achievement record in some
17
schools. Dr. Tufton, (2003). In an analysis of the general educational System Dr.
Tufton revealed that 92 percent of school leavers having no academic
qualifications. He went on to say that these are persons who have passed no
exams and are for the most part barely semi – literate. “This is totally inadequate”
said Dr. Tufton. Jamaica Observer 2003. Other such headlines include:
„Education on the ropes‟ by Dr. Ralph Thompson 2004, Jamaica Observer. Not
even a full year since the publication of Dr. Ralph Thompson‟s article, Dr. Davis
(2005) referred to the youths in his constituency as a cohort of irredeemable.
Other studies and analysis have revealed that poor achievement in school was
prevalent in various section of the Island. These concerns heighten the need to
investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on
teacher performance.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
This study is designed to investigate the relationship between principal leadership
style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.
18
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
This study seeks to determine whether or not principal leadership style affects
teachers‟ performance.
Over the years, parents and other stakeholders in the educational system have
contended that principal‟s leadership style dictates the outcome of teachers‟
performance, and as a result the principal leadership style has been placed under
sharp scrutiny (as teacher performance vary widely throughout West Portland.)
The purpose of this research is to help principals and teachers become more aware
of the kind of relationship that needs to be established in the schools which will
motivate teachers for greater performance.
Another very important purpose of this study is to assist stakeholders in
appreciating the entire role that principals play in the educational institution. This
study will also prove valuable to school assessors, especially when assessing the
school in general, they will be able to use this new knowledge to link the outcome
of students‟ performance to the relationship that exist between the principal and
his / her staff.
19
It will also serve to inform principals of the profound consequence their
leadership styles play in shaping the outcome of teachers‟ academic performance
and students‟ educational achievement.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
Different leadership styles exist and these range from the authoritarian leadership
style to the democratic leadership style. Each has its advantages and
disadvantages. Studies have shown that leadership styles of leaders affect their
members and their performance either positively or negatively (Hegarty, 1997).
The same is true for school system, where the leader fails to expedite his / her
mandate in a manner conducive to the staff and clients; such business is on a
course for failure. Therefore, this study is significant in that it will seek to clear
the discrepancies as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style affects teachers‟
performance. The fact that, there are discrepancies over such a pertinent subject
gives rise to the need for the study. (The educational institutions should not be
taken for granted, since they are our formal means of socializing the youths and
people in general).
There are a number of assessors and Education Officers who are trained to help
teachers improve their performance. This study will prove relevant and add to
their existing knowledge. The principals and teachers with whom this issue rest,
20
will gain insights in how best they can cooperate to maximize students‟ interest
and performance. It is the view of the researcher that principals and teachers
would become more aware of their leadership style. Through this awareness they
should be able to create a mutually conducive environment to enhance the
school‟s goals through their performance and interaction. The researcher strongly
believes that this study will benefit teachers; that is, if it turns out that principal‟s
leadership style affects teachers‟ performance, then they will be able to monitor
their own performance as it relates to students‟ achievement. Other stakeholders
and the society in general will be able to evaluate the use of their taxed dollars
more effectively.
21
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction:
It is the researcher‟s view that the purpose of a school‟s leadership is to create a
productive organization as measured by the quality of learning and behaviour
which take place inside the school. This productivity takes place with and through
people. Influencing and not demanding is important for productivity. Influencing
suggests that the workers accept and agree with the decision or suggestion and are
willing to identify with the job. It is a two - way process between a leader and
those he or she leads.
The nature of leadership is dependent on the leader and what he or she brings to
the job – knowledge, skills, values – and on the followers – their needs,
expectations, knowledge, skills and attitudes. It is on this premise that the
researcher seeks to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership
style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.
The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human
relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs
(Espinosa, 1976). The preceding was an attitude that was advocated by Espinosa
some three decades ago, it‟s interesting to note that in 2003, Bennis felt the need
22
to promote the same approach in as much that he refined the concept. Bennis put
forward the following ideas.
Today‟s school environments have become more complex and diverse where all
children are expected to learn and where high learning standards set the vision of
educational success for all students. In a rapidly changing and more
technologically oriented society, students will need to acquire the knowledge and
skills that will help them achieve success in school and in life. The evolving
nature of school environments has placed new demands on Principals. Where
knowledge of school management, finance, legal issues and state mandates were
once the primary focus for the preparation of school principals.
Education reform has created an urgent need for a strong emphasis on
development of Principals leadership skills to promote good teaching and high
level learning. Moreover, Principals must recognize and assume a shared
responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but
also for their teachers and their personal, social, emotional, and physical
development. The increasing diversity of school communities places a premium
on school Principals whose leadership styles can create a vision of success for all
students via their teachers‟ performance (Bennis, 2003).
23
This argument was not a far cry from The Institute for Educational Leadership
(2003), after citing a long list of the principal‟s traditional managerial
responsibilities, went on to add:
Principals today must also serve as role model not just for his students but
also for his teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical
techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their
skills if needs be. They must collect, analyze and use data in ways that fuel
excellence. They must rally students, teachers, parents, local health and
family service agencies, youth development groups, local businesses and
other community residents and partners around the common goal of
raising student performance. And they must have the leadership styles that
can foster these skills and knowledge to exercise the autonomy and
authority to pursue these strategies.
In fact, on closer examination, many of the goals set out under the mandate of the
Jamaican Ministry of Education Youth and Culture and to be more specific the
Life long Learning Center and The Human Employment and Resource Training
(HEART/ NTA), (2004) will depend on transforming the current hierarchical
model of school into that of a professional community. It is important to note that
school leadership was the foremost among their concern.
24
Hargreaves spoke about a similar matter when he was invited to address
principals‟ at Oregon about Public School Reform in New Brunswick.
In his presentation, Sustaining Professional Learning Communities, Hargreaves
stressed the need for educators to replace “strings of interaction with enduring
bonds and relationships” and to “work and learn in collaborative groups” by
pursuing “professional learning with colleagues” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 9). He
also encouraged principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared systemic
responsibility” stressing the need for “data guided instructional decision-making”
and the promotion of “continuous, embedded, focused professional development”
for teachers (Ibid. p. 25). He further argued for periodic evaluation of school
improvement as a way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as
“strolling or cruising to moving schools” (Ibid. p. 44).
The researcher is of the view that the relationship between principal‟s leadership
style and its effect on teachers‟ performance is not a new phenomenon but
acknowledges that the traditional leadership of non collaboration with teachers
was up held due to a primary belief that principals were able to deal successfully
with any task or situation single handedly; if truth be told, in some instances the
leadership of principals were interpreted as that of a specialist and as such their
leadership was viewed as exclusive. While writers such as (Espinosa (1976), and
James – Reid (1982), have long explained the benefits of mutual leadership
among principals and their teachers.
25
Nonetheless the trend continues, as current authors on school leadership
(Lambert, 2000; Ogawa & Bossert, 2000; Harris, 2003) contend that it seldom
exists in schools. Ogawa and Bossert (2000) proposed that the primary approach
to current school leadership was still based on a technical-rational perspective that
promoted hierarchical structures and prevented substantive collaboration among
school professionals. This technical-rational model of school leadership is
founded upon principal omnicompetence rather than collaborative leadership
(Hord, 2005). Emihovich and Battaglia (2000) reinforced this belief with findings
from their study on the prevalence of collaborative leadership in schools.
Their study found that most principals still perceived their primary roles to be
building and program managers rather than collaborative professionals. Jackson
(2000) considered the hesitance among principals to share leadership as partly due
to the fact that the school effectiveness literature continues to propagate the view
of leadership centered around “strong head teachers with dynamic or forceful
personal qualities” rather than “leadership that is widely spread among
educational stakeholders” (p. 70). Ogawa & Bossert, (2000) and Harris (2003)
proposed that it was the hierarchical organizational structure, with its clearly
defined roles and communication channels that prevented principals from sharing
leadership with teachers.
26
Despite the reasons for the technical-rational approach to school leadership, plus
the multiplicity of indiscipline in our schools, it is clear that this approach
contrasts significantly with the leadership required in professional learning
communities. The new perspective of school leadership, one that supports the
principles of professional learning communities, represents principals as “post-
heroic leaders” (Louis & Kruse, 1995, p. 234) who share the responsibility for
school effectiveness. Schools that embrace the PLC model no longer depend upon
a hierarchy of roles based on competence and authority. In these schools,
principals take on the role of co-learners who model and facilitate the practices of
questioning, investigating and seeking solutions (Klein-Kracht, 1993; Harris,
2003). In professional learning communities, leadership becomes a shared process
as principals recognize the potential of teacher collaboration and actively build
leadership capacity on a school-wide level (Lambert, 2000). Sharing leadership
and building leadership capacity, the foundations upon which professional
learning communities are built, represent a very different perspective of
organizational leadership from the technical-rational approach that currently
exists in many schools.
Harris (2003) describes successful school communities as places where a shared
sense of purpose is developed between principals and teachers, who then engage
in collaborative work and accept joint responsibility for the outcomes of their
work. She also argued strongly for the creation of an infrastructure that supported
collaboration and a culture that reinforced mutual leadership.
27
Harris arguments though so brief resonated well with that of Morehouse &
Tranquilla (2005). They point out in their evaluation of principals, that principals
that were most effective were the ones that were sensitive to teacher issues. This
success was backed up by effective two way communication between principals
and teachers.
Essentially, if schools are to be transformed into the teaching/learning
communities that the Ministry of Education envisaged, then foremost among the
changes that should be is that of the principal‟s leadership style, that is from the
traditional non collaborative to one of mutuality among principals and teachers.
The importance of the alignment between actual and expected leadership styles in
this regard has been highlighted in studies that showed that principal‟s leadership
style is the best discriminator between high participation and low participation by
teachers (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman & Jacobson, 2003).
Another good reason to do so is because of the high evidence of some of the
factors that contribute to teacher satisfaction and better performance.
In a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase, Joseph (1999), the teachers
revealed that principals who want to promote classroom instruction and better
28
teacher performance must talk openly and freely with teachers about teaching and
learning, provide time and encourage peer connections for teachers, empower
teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers' professional development, and lead
and motivate teachers
The Principal -Teacher Relationship.
The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human
relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs
(Espinosa, 1976). As a staff developer, the principal must possess skills,
knowledge, and creativity to set up with the staff high – but attainable standards
and help them to achieve them (Doggett, 1987).
The principal should be very concerned about the long-term developmental needs
of teachers. This can be enhanced by the principal establishing a good work ethics
with the teachers and making sure the avenues or medium for effective
communication are available and fully utilized. For the school to be effective both
the principal and each teacher must realize they need each other in mutual
partnership to plan and implement strategies for the effective leadership of the
school at their respective levels. Instead many advocate of educational reform in
Jamaica argue that principals should have more power without even assessing
how they use the enormous power they already have. Dr. Thompson (2006),
29
board member of both the National Council on Education and the Early
Childhood Commission is agitating for „more power for principals‟. Dr.
Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals – akin to a corporate
executive – to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the classroom.
However, as James – Reid (1982) puts it. “The Jamaican School principal exerts
his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the
school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his
personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be
challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will
eventually make his administrative performance becomes ineffective, and that is
just the beginning of failure for the school.”
The researcher is of the view that principals should engender a leadership style
that supports a style of pedagogy that encourages teachers to motivate and
facilitate students‟ learning and also to help students appreciate their role in their
own learning. In the words of Glasser, (1993), “effective leaders „lead – manage‟
rather than „boss – manage‟. That is, while it is clear that principals have a vested
authority that should command respect and duty, it is fool – hardy to think that
just having that authority will get the job done in the best possible way. We
should be reminded that teachers are not things and that they operate on
complexities such as values, perceptions and (attitudes – feelings and belief).
Studies have shown that individuals have a tendency to act in accordance with
30
their feeling and belief, R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson (1968). Therefore, it is in
the best interest of the school that the principal lead his teachers in a way that is
amicable to those variables.
Stone (1995) supports Glasser (1993), in his views about principals‟ leadership.
“Where principals frequently have low expectations of some teachers; the low
expectations adversely affect teachers‟ and students‟ self concepts and overall
performance at school. Teachers may internalize these expectations and function
accordingly.” This phenomenon is referred to as the self fulfilling prophecy.
Hemphill (1990) states, “Schools that are especially effective in teaching children
academically are characterized by school pride, collegiality and a sense of
community; which is the result of good leadership.” Undoubtedly, like Fiedler‟s
Contingency Model (1967), the researcher is cognizant that there are several
leadership styles that can be effective depending on the situation. Even so, the
leader who achieves good results by directives and administrative authorization,
without consultation with others is probably the expectation. It is difficult to
produce excellence by command when what goes on behind closed classroom
doors is not easily monitored or controlled.
The researcher strongly believes that leadership should be shared at all levels to
reduce animosity. This belief is held as a fact postulated Dr. Miller (1987), he
31
states, “The advantages of shared leadership responsibilities between the principal
and teacher promote better instruction and improve students‟ morale.”
The fact is good leadership empowers all. If teachers are empowered students will
be empowered, it is just common sense. It is undoubtedly clear, that different
types of situations warrants different types of behaviours. There is hardly any
guarantee that every leadership style will always be effective. It should be
understood that any leadership style used by the leader while administering the
affairs of his/her office is likely to have an effect on the organization‟s
performance at all levels be it positive or negative. For all intents and purposes,
Fullan and Stiegelbever, (1999) put it together well. “Principals are expected to
provide leadership in schools as well as use their managerial skills to ensure that
optimum conditions exist for teaching and learning; leadership is always
concerned with influencing and inspiring the staff and students of the school to
collectively develop a vision of excellence for the school and to work in concert
to achieve that vision.”
It can never be overstated that mutual relationship of leadership is a primary
ingredient for success in most school communities today; therefore, as principals‟
venture into the educational system it would be wise to note that some principles
of leadership are universal: you will only go as far as your team. No matter your
astuteness, your devotion, tenacity and know-how, without a supporting team, you
will not succeed. And without leaders in that supporting team, you will fail.
32
Theoretical Framework
Likert's leadership styles Theory
American psychologist, R. Likert (1903-1981), identified four main styles of
leadership, in particular around decision-making and the degree to which people
are involved in the decision. These leadership styles are: Exploitive authoritative,
Benevolent authoritative, Consultative and Democratic.
In the Exploitive authoritative style, the leader has a low concern for people and
uses such methods as threats and other fear-based methods to achieve
conformance. Communication is almost entirely downwards and the
psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored.
The Benevolent authoritative style is somewhat different in that the leader adds
concern for people to an authoritative position; a 'benevolent dictatorship' is
formed. The leader now uses rewards to encourage appropriate performance and
listens more to concerns lower down the organization, although what they hear is
often rose-tinted, being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss
wants to hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all
major decisions are still made centrally.
While the distinction of upward flow of information from subordinates to the
leader is clear in the consultative leadership style when compared to the previous
two leadership styles, it is still cautious and rose-tinted to some degree.
33
However, in sharp contrast to exploitive authoritative and benevolent
authoritative leadership styles, the Democratic leader makes maximum use of
participative methods, engaging people lower down the organization in
decision-making. People across the organization are psychologically closer
together and work well together at all levels.
Applying Likert’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship
According to Likert‟s research, the researcher is of the view that the principals
who will get the best teacher performance are the ones who adopt a democratic
leadership style; Likert‟s research shows that democratic leadership means
involvement, mutual respect, openness, trust, motivation and commitment. In
Likert‟s words „it is an alternative organizational life style‟ which has been found
in mainly in successful companies.
The researcher strongly believes that with the proper development and usage of
Likert‟s theory fourth leadership style (democratic) principals will reap better
performance from their teachers. The researcher is aware that this is not a
universal view as traditionalists among others in the Educational system often
argued that democratic leadership seems to erode the influence of principals. As a
34
teacher the researcher finds this view contrary to the politics of organizational life
in which people at all levels compete for power and influence – the ingredients of
leadership. Further more it is the belief of the researcher that democratic
leadership may increase a principal‟s ability to exert influence over his teachers.
If a principal allows his teachers to take part in management decisions, the
influence of that principal is not necessarily eroded. By demonstrating confidence
and trust in his teachers, the principal‟s ability to exert further influence on them
may be increased rather than diminished.
Dr. Leigh (2005) supports the researcher arguments. She said that the principal
authorized authority does not and cannot command the teachers‟ willingness to
devote their creativity and energy to performing their task to the best of their
abilities… she expands, the legal authority vested on principals by the Ministry on
Education promotes compliance with directives and discipline but does not
encourage teachers to exert effort, to accept responsibilities, or to exercise their
initiative.
Applying Maslow’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship
Maslow (1970) another theorist, in his theory, Maslow viewed individuals‟ needs
rising in five hierarchical levels. These include physiological, security,
belongingness, esteem and self actualization needs. Significantly, higher – level
needs do not become active until lower – level needs are met. Maslow
35
hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that
is more important to the organization and vice versa.
The researcher therefore, thinks that there can be a win – win situation between
principals and their teachers. That is, if principals develop and support systems to
assist their teachers in a holistic way. This method will essentially give them a
broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex
relationships within the school. By deepening their understanding of school
culture, these principals will be better equipped to shape the values, beliefs, and
attitudes necessary to promote a stable and nurturing learning environment with
better teacher performance.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?
2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher motivation
for improved / greater performance?
3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?
36
DEFINITION OF TERMS
James - Reid (1991) defines leadership as a dynamic interactive process
involving the leader, followers and the environmental situation.
Encarta (2006), defines effect as an impression that as the ability to produce a
change in the mind of somebody who sees, hears, or reads something, especially
one that is deliberately intended or engineered
Encarta (2006), defines relationship as a significant association or similarity
between two or more persons such that prediction can be made.
James - Reid (1991) defines teacher performance as nature in which teacher carry
out classroom instructions among the other school related tasks that teachers
expected to take part in order to facilitate and ensure students achievement.
Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) defined the “sample” in research study refers to any
group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks to
apply results is called the population.
Gay (1996) defines the independent variable is an activity or characteristic
believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as
the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment.
37
Gay (1996) defines the dependent variable is the change or difference in
behaviour that occurs as a result of the independent variable; also referred to as
the criterion variable, the effect, the outcome, or the post-test.
Gay (1996) defines correlational research according to attempts to determine
whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more
quantifiable variables.
38
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Introduction:
The study was undertaken to determine the relationship between principal‟s
leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance in three (3) primary
schools, three (3) All – age schools and two (2) High schools in the parish of
Portland.
Research Design: The research design is correlational.
According to Asher (1976) research design is the organization and logic of the
subject, group, data, sources and treatment, allocation from which the comparison
necessary to determine knowledge develops
Beaumont et al. (1997) being consistent with Asher (1976) postulated that
research design is the selecting of samples, assigning individuals to treatment,
measuring out comes, analyzing data and so for the purpose of answering the
research.
Also, Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) put forward the view that research design is the
overall plan for collecting data in order to answer the research questions. It also
describes the specific data analysis techniques or methods that the researcher
intends to use.
39
Correlational research according to Gay (1996) is an attempt to determine
whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more
quantifiable variables. The purpose then of a correlational study may be to
establish relationship (or lack of it) or to use relationship to making predictions.
Discussion of the variables
In an effort to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and
its effect on teachers‟ performance, the researcher will discuss the independent
and dependent variable.
Two variables will be dealt with in this study:
1. Principal‟s leadership style.
2. Teachers performance.
Independent variable: Principal‟s leadership style
Dependent variable: Teachers‟ performance
According to Gay (1996) independent variable is an activity or characteristic
believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as
the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment. For this study, the
independent variable is the principal‟s leadership style. He further states that the
dependent variable is the change or difference in behaviour that occurs as a result
40
of the independent variable; also referred to as the criterion variable, the effect,
the outcome, or the post-test. The dependent variable in this study is teachers‟
performance, which is the level to which the teachers carry out their task in the
classroom, with the students and in the school at large.
Teachers‟ performance will be high or low, depending on the quality of the
independent variable and its effect on the teachers‟ performance. If the
relationship is good / amicable, then performance may be good, if, on the other
hand, the relationship is poor, then performance may be poor.
The independent variable is hypothetically linked in the following manner:
When the atmosphere of the school is open, there is open communication between
principal and teachers. There is constant feed – back between them, and teachers
become involved in the whole decision making process. On the other hand, if the
climate of the school is closed, there is a minimum of communication, little or no
feed – back, little or no involvement and limited support for teachers. In an
atmosphere which is open, therefore, the teachers will feel free to communicate
with their principal and other staff and may have a better sense of purpose. This
will result in a mutual relationship and consequent good performance.
41
If the principal of a school is committed to his school program, he/she will plan
and address concerns for the needs of the teachers. This would lead to
consideration on his part in providing for the professional growth and personal
welfare of the teachers.
Willingness on the part of the teachers to help each other will stem from the
principal‟s sense of commitment, and will result in the teachers understanding
better what is expected of them and will plan for the needs of their students. If
they understand both the expectations of the school and the needs of their
students, then they ought to plan and work towards these ends. If they plan well,
and are able to teach well, then they ought to succeed in their performance
Where a teacher perceives himself as a member of the school organization; and as
such, must make his contribution in terms of teaching, and makes sure that his
students learn, he will prepare well, and will experience pleasure in seeing them
learn. This will result in a good relationship and his performance will be better.
Where there is a good healthy working relationship between the principal and the
teachers‟, there is rapport and consequently, understanding. The principal is able
42
to help the teachers grow professionally and this may boost the teachers to
perform better.
The following Research questions were tested in this study:
1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?
2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher
motivation for improved / greater performance?
3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?
The Sample
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) the “sample” in research study refers to
any group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks
to apply results is called the population. Two samples were drawn from this study.
They were samples (a) principals and sample (b) classroom teachers from eight
schools in West Portland. The decision was taken to use schools at all levels
throughout the communities. Hence the researcher having three primary schools,
three all age schools and two high schools.
Primary school (A) consists of twenty six (26) teachers including the principal,
the vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is seven
hundred and ninety eight (798). Primary school (B) consists of six teachers (6)
and one principal; the student population is one hundred and fifty two (152).
43
Primary school (C) consists of ten teachers (10) and the principal; the student
population is three hundred and five (305)
All age school (D) consists of thirteen (13) teachers including the principal, the
vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is three hundred
and eighteen (318). All age school (E) consists of six (6) teachers including the
principal; the student population is one hundred and thirty eight (138). All age
school (F) consists of six (8) teachers including the principal and vice principal;
the student population is one hundred and fifty (150).
High school (G) consists of thirty (30) teachers plus the principal, one vice
principal one Guidance Counselor; the student population is eight hundred and
fifty six (856). High school (H) consists of thirty five (35) teachers plus the
principal, two vice principals two guidance counselor; the student population is
eight hundred and seventy six (870).
From the total 126 teachers and 8 principals the following were chosen as the
sample: 50 teachers and 8 principals.
44
Table 4.1 shows the number of participants by gender
Participants Gender Total
Males Females
Principals 2 6 8
Teachers 10 40 50
The table 4.1 shows that thirty (50) teachers and three (8) principals participated
in this research. Of the eight principals six were females and two males; while of
the fifty teachers forty or 80 % were females and ten or 20 % were males.
45
Table 4.2 shows the number of participants, Qualification, Years of experience,
and Age Range.
Respondent No. in
Each
category
Qualification No. Years of
experience
No. Age
range
No.
in age
range
Principal 8 Bachelors in
Education
8 10
11-15
Above 16
-
-
8
26-33
34-42
Above
43
-
1
7
Teacher 50 Bachelors in
Education
Diploma in
Education
Pre - Trained
12
38
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16 and
above
11
10
21
8
18-25
26-33
34-42
Above
43
7
9
15
19
Table 4.2 indicates that the fifty teachers were chosen to respond to the
questionnaire items; while the eight principals were selected to respond to
interview. All the principals in the sample had Bachelors Degrees in Education;
they have served for over sixteen years in the teaching profession. Similarly all
but one principal were in the above 43 age range, the other was in the 34 – 42 age
range. The sample consisting of the fifty teachers was more varied in that the
46
teachers were more disbursed across the different ranges: of the fifty teachers,
thirty eight or 76 % had Diplomas in education while the remaining twelve or
24 % had Bachelors Degrees in Education; none of the teachers were in the Pre –
Trained category. Eleven or 22 % served in the profession between one and five
years, ten or 20 % served in the profession between six and ten years, twenty one
or 42 % served in the profession between eleven and fifteen years, the remaining
eight or 16 % served for over sixteen years. Seven or 14 % were in the age range
of eighteen to twenty five, nine or
18 % were in the age range of twenty six to thirty three, fifteen or 30 % were in
the age range of thirty four to forty two; the remaining nineteen or 38 % were in
the age range of over forty three.
47
Table 4.3 shows the distribution of the participants from the eight schools that
participated in this study.
Schools used in the sample Number Total
A 8 8
B 7 7
C 6 6
D 6 6
E 4 4
F 4 4
G 7 7
H
Total
8
50
8
50
Table 4.3 shows that five participants from schools A and H were selected
respectively, four participants each from schools B, C, D and G. And two
participants each from schools E and F. this method was used to reflect the
number of teachers in each of these schools.
The teachers selected in this research were chosen by means of random sampling.
This technique was used as it is thought to yield the best sample from the given
population. Furthermore, Gay (1996), random sampling allows for all individuals
48
in the defined population to have an equal and independent chance of being
selected for the sample. The total of eight principals was used purposively
because the researcher felt that this relatively small sample in its entirety exhibits
the characteristics likely to yield the desired information. Gay (1996) supports the
use of purposive sampling in that it may help the researcher to acquire an in - dept
understanding of the data of interest.
The category of persons who participated could be considered to have a direct
bearing on the problem and more importantly its solution. It is the researcher‟s
belief that they will satisfactorily provide the information needed to help in the
carrying out the research.
Instrumentations
According to Beaumont et al. (1997), the instrument is simply the mechanism for
obtaining the data. This can be questionnaire or an interview schedule, or an
observation instrument.
Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), being consistent with Beaumont et al. (1997) state
that the whole process of collecting data is called instrumentation. They further
state that data refer to the kinds of information researchers obtain on subjects of
their research. Demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion
and so forth, is one kind of data.
49
For the purposes of this study the following instruments were used:
1. Questionnaires for teachers
2. Interview for principals
Questionnaire items are aimed at exposing the matter, identifying the cause –
effect/ relationship and bringing closure to the matter from the teachers‟ point of
view. Interview schedules for principals are also critical to the outcome of this
research.
Questionnaires
Questionnaires have been widely commended by researchers for their
practicability, especially in situations where the researcher has limited time at his
or her disposal. The use of questionnaires allows information to be garnered from
many individuals at the same time and administered collectively. According to
Webb (1966) the questionnaire extends the investigator‟s powers and techniques
of observation by reminding the respondent of each item, helping to insure the
same response to the same item from all respondents, and tending to standardize
and objectify the observation of different enumerators (by singling out particular
aspects of the situation and by specifying the units and terminology for describing
the observations) Bastick and Matalon (2004) support this view. They
emphasized, it is relatively easy to get a large sample with questionnaires, since
they are easy to distribute and can be filled in by many people at the same time.
50
Questionnaires are said to yield a high response rate, and because they allow for
anonymity, respondents usually feel free to pass on information which they may
not have, had the situation been otherwise.
In light of the points advanced in support for the use of questionnaires, the
researcher found this type of instrument very appropriate, as information had to
be collected from individuals with very limited time and who were drawn from
miles apart and sometimes needed transportation to make the delivery, for these
reason, it seems then that with a sample of fifty teachers, the questionnaire was
the most economical data – collecting instrument to be used.
Interviews
According to Good (1972) the interview in its simplest form is as old as face to
face communication between two persons. Gay (1996) advanced Good‟s
argument and justifies the use of interview schedule eloquently. The benefit of the
interview schedule is that the researcher can obtain more accurate answers to the
questions during an interview because he had the added advantage of interpreting
facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures of the individuals. Also, if the
sociologist does not understand the answer he receives, he can ask the individual
to restate it, clarify or explain it more fully.
51
The matter of subjectivity sometimes surrounds the use of interview schedule,
however, the researcher is mindful and appreciates the fact that he maintains his
professionalism and upholds the ethical guidelines of his profession.
After evaluating the points, the researcher considered the interview schedule an
appropriate instrument and one which could reasonably be used as the researcher
had adequate time to get to the eight principals.
Validity and Reliability
According to Asher (1976), validity is a measurement, a concept indicating
authenticity, truth, genuineness of results or observation which is useful, a
purpose; also, the extent to which measurements can predict other measurements.
In research validity is the extent to which accurate conclusion about cause and
effect relationship can be stated.
According to Beaumont et al. (1997) validity is the degree to which a test measure
what it is intended to measure; a test is valid for a group. The degree to which the
conclusions is drawn about the behaviour of a group or represent what actually
occurs.
52
According to Asher (1976), reliability is a concept indicating reliability of studies
agreement among observers, or relationship among similar measures. The
questionnaire and questions will be self-developed and written in simple
language.
Response Mode
Teachers selected for the sample used the 5 – point Likert scale to respond to the
questionnaire. The 5 – point Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual
to respond to a series of statements by indicating whether she or he Strongly
Agrees (SA), Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree
(SD) with each statement.
The Pilot Instrumentation Administration
Before the final form of the questionnaire was prepared for distribution to the
respondents, a pilot or pre-testing was carried out. Fifteen teachers were selected
randomly and were asked to respond to the proposed questionnaire items on the
five point Likert scale. This was done to ensure validity and reliability. Reliability
of research refers to the consistency of the methods, conditions and results of
whatever research is being carried out. In other words test/measurement should be
53
conducted in a systematic manner to ensure reciprocity. Validity refers to how the
test/data scores are used and interpreted and not the instrument itself.
Good (1972) insists on the importance of tryout exercise for the purposes of
validation in terms of practical use.
Reason for the pilot study:
1. The pilot study was done to test the reliability and validity of the instrument.
2. To find out if the instruments used could give reliable and valid information of
the scores.
3. To find out if the sample was appropriate for the selected group.
4. To identify ambiguities or grammatical errors that might be present in each
item.
5. To determine the time required to complete the instrument and to assist in
determining the reliability of each instrument.
The result of the Pilot Study
The fifteen teachers responded to the proposed questionnaire items; of which, a
total of five were found to be having more than one interpretation, confusing and
vague. This led to the rewriting of items which presented problems and a
54
re-administering of them. In the second tryout the participants answered each
items correctly as they were directly related to the particular question suggesting
that the items were valid. However, no statistical analysis was done to substantiate
this. These items were not too difficult because all items were responded to with
related answers.
Data Analysis
Gay postulated (1996), analysis of data usually involves application of one or
more statistical techniques; data are analyzed in a way that permits the researcher
to test the research hypothesis or answer the research questions.
According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) data analysis is the process of
simplifying data in order to make it comprehensible and data is any information
obtained about a sample population. Frequency distribution is a tabular method of
showing all the scores obtained by a group of individuals. The data collected in
this research will be analyzed using the various mathematics instruments such as:
pie charts, tables and bar graphs. These will determine whether or not principal‟s
leadership style affects teachers‟ performance.
Limitations
According to Gay (1996), limitation is an aspect of a study which the researcher
knows may negatively affect the results or generalizability of the results, but over
which he or she has no control.
55
1. Sample size might be too small to make a generalization hence this has affected
reliability.
2. The scope of this study is only on principal‟s leadership style there might be
other factors affecting teachers‟ performance.
3. The instrument may itself not be a true reflection of the thinking of the
subjects.
4. Generalization can only be made with regards to this particular sample.
5. The sample size is not a representation of the entire Portland. It is therefore not
possible to make generalization about all the schools in Portland.
Summary
After reading and analyzing the views of the authorities in the field of leadership
and teacher performance; one would realize that principal‟s leadership style is of
vital importance to teacher performance and the general out come of students‟
achievement. Failure in the principal‟s leadership style leads to dysfunctional
teachers and often results in poor teacher performance.
It is argued that for teachers‟ performance to improve greatly there must be full a
participatory leadership mechanism in the schools. The democratic leadership
style is one of such ways of getting parties, organization and people working to
produce the best results. It is the opinion of the researcher that principals and
56
teachers are no different, therefore, with the proper usage of the democratic
leadership style teachers‟ performance will improve.
57
CHAPTER FOUR
Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Results
This chapter presents data obtained from fifty teachers and eight principals‟
questionnaire and interview with respect to: “The relationship between principal‟s
leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.” The data were presented
and analyzed using the 5 – point Likert scale, for teachers‟ questionnaire. The
scale ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The principals were taken
through interview schedules. The data were analyzed using the relevant tables and
figures such as pie charts and bar charts.
Discussion and Interpretation of Teachers Questionnaires
Research Question 1: Do principal’s leadership style influence teachers
performance?
To find out if principal‟s leadership style influenced teachers‟ performance.
Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 from the teachers‟ questionnaires were
used to determine the degree as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style
influenced teachers‟ performance.
58
Figure 4.4 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style
their principal uses in his /her daily routine
16%
32%52%
Authoritarian
Democratic
Laissez-faire
A mixture ofeach
Figure 4.4 indicates that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the
principals used a mixture of each leadership style. Sixteen (16) or thirty two
percent (32 %) of the respondents principals used the democratic style of
leadership. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents principals used
the authoritarian leadership style. None of the principals use the Laissez-faire
leadership style.
Analysis of the figure revealed some interesting findings. If the researcher is to
appreciate each leadership style as it really is, then one can conclude that the
majority of the respondents have been through some trying times and also through
some favourable times as well. It is important to note that only sixteen (16) or
thirty two percent (32 %) of the respondents are being led under the democratic
style of leadership despite the numerous evidence and writers that have expressed
its conduciveness for better performance. Theorists and educators such as Likert
and James –Reid have written extensively about the benefits of the full
59
participatory form of leadership style which is essentially democratic; this
analysis revealed that only sixteen (16) or thirty two percent (32 %) of the
respondents are exposed to this style of leadership.
Figure 4.5 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style
employed by their principal will motivate them to put out their best performance
as teachers.
20%10%
70%
Democratic
Laissez-faire
A mixture of each
Authoritarian
Figure 4.5 indicates that thirty - five (35) or seventy percent (70 %) of the
respondents chose the democratic leadership style. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20
%) of the respondents chose a mixture of each leadership style. Five (5) or ten
percent (10 %) of the respondents chose the authoritarian leadership style. None
of the respondents responded to the Laissez – faire style of leadership.
The researcher is of the view that the respondents who chose a mixture of each
leadership style represent a small number that subscribed to Fiedlers Contingency
Model of leadership; where the principal act as it suits him/ her depending on the
situation. The results indicated a number of fundamental elements in the schools
system as it relates to principals and teachers relationship. While the majority of
60
the respondents choose the leadership style that is empirically proven to yield
better job satisfaction which will eventually lead to better performance (James-
Reid 1995), a significant number of the respondents choose otherwise despite the
perceived, potential and actual consequences that these leadership styles entail.
The researcher recalled that despite what is recorded in history about the German
Nazi leader, Adolph Hitler (1889 – 1945) his support remained strong even when
he was consumed by his own folly. Also some of the respondents perceived
themselves to be weak and do not want to be held responsible when things go
wrong. Perhaps they are of the view that if they have a leader who is strong,
ruthless and self-serving then they would be safe.
Figure 4.6 shows the respondents perception as it relates to whether or not their
principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching performance.
8%
20%
72%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.6 shows that thirty six (36) or seventy two percent (72 %) of the
respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style influenced
their teaching performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents
Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style influenced their teaching
61
performance. Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents were undecided
while none of the respondents respond to the Disagree or Strongly Disagree item.
The high degree of positive responses in the Strongly Agreed and Agreed are
consistent with current literature on the subject. Espinosa (1976), James – Reid
(1982) and Doggett (1987) all concur with the view that teachers‟ performance
are influenced by their principal‟s leadership style. The researcher is of the view
that, the eight percent (8 %) of respondents who were undecided as to whether or
not their principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching performance took
that stance perhaps because of their world view on leadership.
It is important to note that this question does not show or seek to find out whether
or not principal‟s leadership style influences teachers‟ performance positively or
negatively.
Figure 4.7 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to how their principal‟s
communicate high expectation for the performance of students and staff.
62
30%
12%
58%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.7 shows that twenty nine (29) or fifty eight percent (58 %) of the
respondents Agreed that their principal communicate high expectations for the
performance of students and staff. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal‟s communicate high expectations for
the performance of students and staff. Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the
respondents Strongly Agreed, where as there were no responses for the option
Undecided or Strongly Disagree.
The high degree of positive responses from the respondents towards their
principal‟s leadership style in this regard is a good sign. The researcher is still
concerned because a thirty percent (30 %) degree of negativeness is still relevant
in that, these teachers (on an average reach at least thirty five (35) students per
day). Further more while writers such as Doggett (1987) and Bennis (2000),
emphasized the importance of a principal whose leadership style can create a
vision of success for all students via their teachers‟ performance; this should be
high but attainable and principal should help both teachers and students achieve
63
this. On the other hand, the researcher cannot take the thirty percent (30 %) of the
respondents who Disagreed for granted, as Stone (1995), points out, “Where
principals frequently have low expectations of some teachers‟ and students‟ self -
concepts and overall performance at school. Essentially teachers may internalize
these expectations and function accordingly.”
Figure 4.8 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal‟s
creation of an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students.
8%20%
54%
4%
14%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.8 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (44 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that optimizes
learning for teachers and students. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the
respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that
optimizes learning for teachers and students. Seven (7) or fourteen percent (14 %)
of the respondents Agreed, four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents
Strongly Agreed, while two (2) or four percent (4 %) were Undecided.
64
On close analysis of the figure the researcher recognized that over seventy percent
(70 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal in this
regard. This high degree of negativeness is not good. Especially when you
recognize that, had these responses been more positive than negative it could be
interpreted as behaviours that encourage excellence among teachers.
Figure 4.9 Respondents‟ perceptions of their principal as it relates to their close
supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction.
52%
22%
20%
6%SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.9 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the
respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal demonstrated close
supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction. Eleven (11) or
twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principals
demonstrated close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction.
Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) Disagreed, three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the
65
respondents Strongly Agreed while there was no response for the Undecided
option.
This is another highly negative perception from the respondents towards their
principals‟ leadership style. This may be the facts as perceived by the respondents
or it may be so due to the fact that some principals assign such roles to their
senior teachers and grade supervisors. The reality however, is that many times
after the senior teachers and the grade supervisors get acquainted with the
teachers they are placed in charge of, they tend to relax their supervisory role and
they along with the teachers become tardy.
All this points to what Hargreaves (2003) alluded to when he encouraged
principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared systemic responsibility”
stressing the need for “data guided instructional decision – making” and the
promotion of continuous, embedded, focused professional development” for
teachers. He further argued for periodic evaluation of school improvement as a
way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as “strolling or cruising to
moving schools.” In other words, whether or not principals assign personnel to
over see these aspects of the school‟s programme it is his duty to ensure that they
work effectively. Other wise it would amount to a waste of time.
66
Figure 4.10 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principals‟
creation of a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth
for his staff.
0%
16% 44%
12%28% SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.10 shows that twenty two (22) or forty four percent (44%) of the
respondents Agreed that their principal created a supportive and caring
environment to promote professional growth for his staff. Fourteen (14) or twenty
eight percent (28 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principals create a
supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff.
Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents were Undecided at the
time, Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that
their principals create a supportive and caring environment to promote
professional growth for his staff. There was no response for the Strongly Disagree
item.
Based on the analysis of this particular question, it is evident that most principals
are heading in the right direction. Nonetheless there is still room for improvement.
Bennis (2003) conceded that principals must recognize and assume a shared
responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but
also for their teachers. Therefore, with most of the respondents yielding a positive
67
response towards their principals is really a step in the right direction. This kind
of positive response will no doubt contribute to the organization‟s development
and by extension to the improvement of students‟ achievement via better teachers
performance.
Figure 4.11 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to how their principal
communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she
deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school.
20%
54%
22%
4% SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.11 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (54 %) of the
respondents Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for
everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm
for behaviour in the school. Eleven (11) or twenty two percent (22 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for
everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm
for behaviour in the school. Ten (11) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents
68
Strongly Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for
everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm
for behaviour in the school. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the respondents
Strongly Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for
everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm
for behaviour in the school; where as there was no response for the Undecided
item. The results show a high degree of positiveness from the respondents
towards their principal‟s leadership style in this regard, in fact, when principals
are found to be doing well in this area, it is said that they are on the right path
towards improving behaviours that encourage excellence (Wallace 1996).
Figure 4.12 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to the relationship
between school morale and motivation for performance.
8%
12%
20%60%
SA
A
Un
D
SD
Figure 4.12 indicates that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents
Strongly Agreed that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation
for performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Agreed
69
that there is relationship between school morale and motivation for performance.
Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether
or not there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for
performance. This may be as a result of a practice sustained by a number of
teachers who generally locked themselves away from the affairs of the school.
Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents Disagreed that there is a
relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. There was
no response for the item Strongly Disagree.
This question was used specially to sum up research question one. It is the view of
the researcher that if school morale is high, then there will be more motivation for
better performance. However, while this particular question does not address the
degree of morale in schools, it is relevant in that there is a relationship between
school morale and motivation for performance.
According to White (1979) quoting Theodorson and Theodorson who defined
morale as a commitment to group goals on the part of group members, confidence
in the group‟s eventual attainment of these goals, and satisfaction with the group
experience. High moral involves beliefs in the rightness and importance of goals
of a group, willingness to work for these goals, and belief in their ultimate
achievement.
70
Therefore, when morale is high in a school it is understandable that, the
principal‟s goals are compatible with the teachers‟ ideals and values and hence
group members will feel satisfaction in working for these goals because they
believe the group will succeed in attaining them.
Research Question 2: To what extent does the principal leadership style
influence teachers motivation for improved / greater performance?
To find out the extent to which principal‟s leadership style influence teachers‟ for
improved/greater performance. Questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 from the
teachers‟ questionnaire were used to determine to what extent does the principal‟s
leadership style influence teachers‟ motivation for improved / greater
performance
Figure 4.13 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal
supporting the idea of teachers‟ furthering their education and directly encouraged
them to do so.
71
10%
22%
52%
16%SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.13 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers
furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. Eleven (11) or
twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal
supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged
them to do so. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly
Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their
education and directly encouraged them to do so, five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of
the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers
furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so, while there was
no response for the Undecided item.
The researcher correlated figure 4.2, and figure 4.13 (figure 4.2 gives the details
of the respondents qualifications) to find out if there is a relationship between
what the respondents say and what their actual qualifications are. On close
examination of figure 4.2 one will notice that more than seventy two percent
72
(72 %) of the respondents are Diploma trained. The researcher interprets this as
the entry level qualification for this particular profession; in fact only twelve (12)
or twenty four percent (24 %) of the respondents had Bachelor Degrees. This may
be indicative of the aforementioned analysis. With all factors considered this
result is highly negative towards the principals‟ leadership styles. The matter is
further compounded when one recognized that thirty nine (39) or seventy eight
percent (78 %) of the respondents had over five years of experience in the
profession.
Figure 4.14 shows the respondents perception of their principal‟s awareness of his
responsibilities as leader of the school.
8%
12% 20%
60%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.14 shows that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents
Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the
school. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed
that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Six
73
(6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal is
fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Four (4) or eight percent
(8 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal is fully aware of
his responsibilities as leader of the school. None of the respondents respond to the
Undecided item.
Close analysis of these results showed that over seventy percent (75 %) of
respondents Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as
leader of the school. While this question does not look directly at the effectiveness
of the principal as leader of the school, the researcher found it relevant in that
there is an alignment between what is perceived, expected and what is actually
done by the principal as leader of the school. The importance of this cannot be
overstated. As writers such as (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman &
Jacobson, 2003) postulated that the principal‟s leadership style is the best
discriminator between high participation and low participation by teachers.
Figure 4.15 shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal‟s leadership style
and whether or not it is universal to all his staff.
74
40% 42%
12%6% SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.15 indicates that twenty one (21) or forty two percent (42 %) of the
respondents Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his
staff. Twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their
principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff. Six (6) or twelve percent
(12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style is
universal to all his staff. While three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the respondents
Strongly Disagreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his
staff. There was no response for the Undecided item.
Responses to this question revealed a problem that has plagued many
organizations over the years. The analysis showed that fifty four percent (54 %) of
the respondents had a positive outlook that their principal‟s leadership style is
universal to all his staff, almost contrasting to this figure is the remaining forty six
percent (46 %) of the staff disagreeing that their principal‟s style is universal to all
his staff. The researcher is of the view that what really exists in these schools is a
phenomenon that has plagued interpersonal relationships in many organizations
and gets watered down in production (and in the case of schools – teachers
75
performance. Biases, let us face it, how many persons are going to extend
themselves to their true potential if they perceive that they won‟t be recognized or
be appreciated for it? The matter gets worst when it is no longer a perception but a
fact. The result is indicative of what many persons refer to as: different stokes for
different folks.
Figure 4.16 shows the respondents‟ perception concerning their principal‟s
establishment of good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and
the community.
20%
50%
20%
10%SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.16 shows that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the respondents
Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal relations between his
students, his staff and the community. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the
respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal
relations between his students, his staff and the community. Similarly ten (10) or
twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal
76
established good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the
community. There was no response for the Undecided item.
This relatively high degree of positiveness from the respondents toward their
principals is very important in that the researcher interprets this leadership style as
one that is in the best interest of the school in general. Although these principals
can do very little to change the socioeconomic status of parents, they have
realized the effect of parents‟ involvement in students‟ learning and so work with
parents to facilitate their children‟s learning. Parents‟ involvement may help to
improve teacher performance in that they can provide voluntary assistance to
teachers and school by participating in extra – curricular activities, assisting or
encouraging children in homework assignments and meeting with teachers to
discuss their children‟s welfare (Rutherford 1985) and (The Institute for
Educational Leadership 2003).
Figure 4.17 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to whether or not their
principal compromised the standards and safety of the school.
77
10%
30% 40%
20%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.17 shows that twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents
Strongly Agreed that their principal compromised the standards and safety of the
school. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents Disagreed that
their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. Ten (10) or
twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether or not
their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. The researcher
is of the view that the respondents who were Undecided took this stance because
they believed that matters such as security and standards are portfolios of the
Ministry of Education and not principals. None of the respondents respond to the
Strongly Agree item. Another matter of concern coming from the analysis is the
high degree of respondents who Agreed that their principals compromised the
standards and safety of the school. According to Tranquilla (2005), principals that
were most effective were the ones that were sensitive to teachers‟ issues.
Standards and safety are crucial teachers‟ issues, which should not be treated
lightly.
78
The researcher recalled going to a number of these schools to administer the
questionnaires, on three occasions it was the time when the (Nutri – Products)
truck were delivering Nutri-buns. The crowd of outsiders, their dress, appearance,
language and general behaviour were appalling, for the fifteen minutes to half an
hour these people were let loose on the school compound without any form of
supervision. This was compounded by the fact that incidence of violence against
teachers by students and outsiders had risen in recent years (TVJ news, 2005).
Figure 4.18 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to the question: My
principal works cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the
decision making process to address school programmes.
4%
14%
38%
16%
28%
SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.18 indicates that nineteen (19) or thirty eight percent (38 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff
encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school
programmes, fourteen (14) or twenty eight percent (28 %) of the respondents
Agreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their
participation in the decision making process to address school programmes. Eight
79
(8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their
principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in
the decision making process to address school programme. Seven (7) or fourteen
percent (14 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal worked
cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making
process to address school programme. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the
respondents were Undecided as to whether or not that their principal work
cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making
process to address school programmes.
This result is very interesting, first of all, a majority with a difference of eight
percent (8 %) Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff
encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school
programme.
The researcher is of the view that some principals operate with their teachers on a
need to know basis, and with that thinking they make decisions and take actions
without consulting with the teachers. It is believed that after senior staff meetings
a filtered version is given to the rest of the staff. The researcher recalled a
conversation with a particular teacher who expressed her disapproval of her
principal‟s leadership style: she remarked that her principal, “he just surprised all
80
of us when he got up and said that he is going to give the vacant position to a
particular teacher. Just like that in a staff meeting.” When the principal was
approached about his uncollaborative behaviour, the principal said, “we should
live and let others live”, and that was the end of it. if that was not enough writers
such as Dr. Thompson (2006), board member of both the National Council on
Education and the Early Childhood Commission. Spoke about „More power for
principals‟. Dr. Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals – akin to a
corporate executive – to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the
classroom.
Such behaviour does not motivate or encourage better performance. What it does,
is that it creates resentment. James – Reid (1982), an expert in the Educational
system, sum this up well, she postulated. “The Jamaican School principal exerts
his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the
school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his
personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be
challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will
eventually make his administrative performance become ineffective, and that is
just the beginning of failure for the school.
81
Figure 4.19 shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal as it relates to
whether or not he or she explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟
performance.
10%30%
50%
10% SA
A
UN
D
SD
Figure 4.19 indicates that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the
respondents Disagreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his
teachers‟ performance. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents
Agreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟
performance. Five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed
that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.
Similarly the same number Strongly Disagreed that their principal explored
opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance. None of the respondents
respond to the Undecided item.
The analysis of the results does not say well for the principals, since over fifty
percent (50 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal‟s
leadership style as it relates to the extent to which the principal seek to improve
teachers‟ performance. Many writers have written extensively on how principals
ought to behave. For example, in a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase,
Joseph (1999), the teachers revealed that principals who want to promote
82
classroom instruction and better teacher performance must talk openly and freely
with teachers about teaching and learning, provide time and encourage peer
connections for teachers, empower teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers'
professional development, and lead and motivate teachers. The Jamaican Ministry
of Education and Youth have and continued to make great strides in making the
necessary preparation to improve teachers‟ performance in the classroom.
Numerous workshops and seminars have been arranged for teachers to improve
their skills, so that students‟ achievement can be maximized.
Bennis (2003), points out that principals must recognize and assume a shared
responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but
also for their teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical
techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their skills if
needs be.
Summary and response to principals’ Interview
Interview questions 1, 2, and 3 dealt with the biographical data of the principal.
These are analyzed and interpreted on figure 4.1 to 4.3, the remaining interview
questions will seek to answer research question 3.
Research Question 3: What can principals do to improve teachers’
performance?
83
To find out what principals can do to improve their teachers‟ performance.
Interview questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the principals‟ interview schedule
were used to determine the degree as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style
influences teachers‟ performance.
The responses from the eight principals were very similar.
Interview question 4. What strategies do you have in place for teachers who
you find to be performing poorly?
The principals spoke of a) monitoring programmes, b) demonstration lessons in
the form of workshops and staff development in addition to frequent evaluations
to give feedback.
Interview question 5. How do you boost teachers’ morale?
The principals spoke of boosting teachers‟ morale through encouragement, praise,
and public recognition in the form of awards; a number of principals were very
vocal on the matter. They said that teachers are more satisfied when they
experience a sense of recognition; they feel good about their work - a sense of
personal worth and self – fulfillment which in turn acts as a strong motivator for
even better performance. Some principals emphasized the need to have an on
going incentive programme in place because often times, the feelings of teachers
are taken lightly.Interview question 6. What is your belief on cooperation
among principals and their teachers?
84
The principals‟ responses to this question were almost theoretical. They said that
it is very important as principals need the cooperation and support of the teachers
to carry out the vision and mission of the school in an effective manner.
Interview question 7. Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in
the decision making process of school programme?
All the principals agreed that they allowed their teachers to be active participants
in the decision making process of schools‟. Some principals mentioned that
teachers should understand their individual position as a staff member. They said
this to emphasize that some decisions have to be made at different levels with the
staff and it was not a matter of excluding some teachers. Others talked about the
ills of excluding teachers from the decision making that affect the entire school.
They said that if teachers help to formulate the policies they tend to be more
willing to see and ensure that they materialized and are successful, they would not
allow them to fail. However, some times, if they are not a part of the decision
making they may put up passive resistance; which will lead to failure for the
whole school.
Interview question 8. Do you think that your teachers would perform better if
they were more pleased with your leadership style?
The principals were very pensive when this question was asked.
They all agreed and disagreed to some extent that their leadership styles may or
may not be to the liking of all the teachers, but they unanimously argued that there
85
are many other factors that may cause teachers to perform poorly and most times
these factors are caused by situations that are beyond the control of the principals.
For example, the matter of salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the
classroom and school, security at school and in recent times high levels of
indiscipline and even violence against them from students. Other factors may
cause the teachers to perform poorly and thus affect students‟ achievement.
Interview question 9. Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about your
teachers’ social development beyond the classroom?
One particular principal said that this was something that she was looking into as
a way to be more connected with her teachers. The principals who were in the
system for a long period of time said that this gesture is good when the teachers
are reciprocal, but in reality most times teachers are not too receptive of this and
found it to be inquisitive. Another principal asserted that, many of our teachers
are socially better off than us principals even though we are the principals and
supposedly get a bigger salary. Another principal in expressing her reluctance in
getting involved in teachers‟ social development remarked that it is not that
teachers‟ social development is not important or that it does not concern her.
However, past experience had led her to believe that teachers are sometimes
skeptical about the motive of such concerns and very often one principal‟s
misfortune is generalized so well that it paints a dismal picture of all principals
who attempted to concern themselves about teachers‟ social development.
86
Summary
After the data were collected from the questionnaires and interview schedules
about “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on
teachers‟ performance.” The data were analyzed and the results revealed that
teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their
principals. The study also confirmed that teachers are more satisfied with
principals whose leadership is one that allow principals to make themselves
available to assist in the instruction and professionalism of his students and
teachers for better performance on a whole.
The researcher is of the opinion that all the principals and teachers in all the
schools in Jamaica should be exposed to the full participatory form of leadership
style which is essentially democratic, especially those principals and teachers in
rural schools in Jamaica.
87
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION
The chapter of summarizations and conclusions looks backward and also forward
through consideration of applications, recommendations and needed research
(Good, 1972)
The writer now attempts to present an over view of the research undertaken in
order to determine “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its
effect on teachers performance.” The sample consisted of fifty eight respondents.
Fifty (50) teachers and eight (8) principals from eight (8) schools in West
Portland: three Primary Schools, three All Age schools, and two High Schools.
The data gathered attempted to answer the following research questions:
1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?
2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher
motivation for improved / greater performance?
3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?
88
Findings
The main findings are as follows:
1. The study confirmed what writers such as Espinosa (1976), James – Reid
(1982) and Doggett (1987) were in fact saying that principal‟s leadership style
actually influenced teachers‟ performance. The study showed that over ninety
percent (90 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal‟s leadership style
actually influenced their performance.
2. A majority of fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by their
principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily
routine. While an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the
teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of
benefits it offers, such as: teachers who are led by a principal who employ the
democratic style of leadership are allowed to share their ideas and opinions,
take part in the decision process and are motivated by rewards for achieving
goals.
3. Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal
communicated high expectations for the performance of students and staff.
Despite the fact that seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers disagreed
that their principal created an environment that optimizes learning for
teachers and students.
89
4. Fifty eight percent (58 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal
demonstrated careful supervision of teachers to improve the quality of
instruction. This is further compounded by the fact that sixty percent
(60 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal explored
opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.
5. Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that there is a relationship
between school morale and motivation for performance.
6. Seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers‟ agreed that their principal
communicated respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which
he/she deals with them, thus setting a norm for behaviour in the school. This
contrasted significantly to the fifty four percent (54 %) of the teachers who
disagreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff.
7. Sixty eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal
supported the idea of them furthering their education and directly encouraged
them to do so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two
percent (72 %) of the teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more
than five years in the profession.
8. Seventy percent (70 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal tries to
establish good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the
90
community. Yet fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers disagreed that their
principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation
in the decision making process to address school programmes.
9. Sixty percent (60 %) of the teachers agree that their principal compromises
the standards and safety of the school.
10. The study revealed that there are other factors besides principal‟s leadership
style that may contribute to teachers‟ performance such as the matter of
salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the classroom and school, security
at school and in recent times high levels of indiscipline and even violence
against teachers from students.
Implications
The results of the study based on the responses from the respondents on the
questionnaires and interviews showed that teachers‟ performance is highly
dependent on the qualitative value of the relationship between principal‟s
leadership and its effect on the teachers, Also important to their performance are
the other variables that affect their job satisfaction such as classroom ambiance
and school morale. If these are not in place then the consequences will reflect in
91
their work. Students will not get the level of teaching and instruction that a
satisfied teacher would give.
It is very essential for parents to recognize their role in the education of their
children. Parents can help both the principals and teachers in order to make their
children achieve more academically. They can offer assistance in the following
areas and more according to their abilities: extra curricular activities act as
Teachers‟ Aid and work in the canteen. The fact is when parents and the
community support school the teachers tend to demonstrate a higher level of
performance. Students will benefit greatly from this both academically and
socially. The principals too will find their job more meaningful in that they will
not think that they are alone in operating the school programme. When the
principal, teachers and parents are in unison the school morale will be high, this
will allow very little room for selfish-gratification which can sometimes be
detrimental to students and the school on a whole.
While it is important for principals to communicate high expectations for the
performance of students and staff; it is even more important that principals create
an environment that optimizes learning for the teachers and students. The
implication of this is that teachers and even students thrive on reciprocity.
92
Therefore, the principal is to facilitate the creation of a school ethos that everyone
can be proud of.
Principals should recognize that teachers who are satisfied add value to their
performance which will result in better students‟ academic achievement. When
teachers are empowered they also empower their students. Principals‟ should
recognize the need to empower and motivate their teachers in a way that the
teachers appreciate the urge to improve themselves both academically and
professionally in order to help in boosting their performance and enhance
students‟ academic achievement. This should not be taken lightly as Maslow
hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that
is more important to the organization and vice versa. Therefore teachers will
reflect the behaviour and attitudes that they have acclimatized.
Recommendations
The following recommendations were made:
1. Principals and teachers should recognize the need for a good balance in their
relationship to meet the needs of the school.
93
2. Principals should employ the participatory style of leadership which is
essentially democratic; teachers are more appreciative of this and tend to
perform better under such leadership.
3. Principals should use suggestions that they have been given to help improve
teachers‟ performance and stop viewing them as ideals.
4. The relevant stake holders and other relevant authorities need to take the
matter of school security and safety seriously and do something about it in
order to restrain what appears to be a trend in school violence.
5. The school should recognize the vast resource and skills that parents and the
community at large have and use them to the benefit of the school; this will
be an advantage to the community as well.
6. Recognize that good education for all cannot take place in a state of
inadequacy. The payment of salaries for teachers and principals that are
comparative to current inflation rates. The development of proper
infrastructures that are well equip to meet the needs of the students.
94
Conclusion
The researcher is of the view that if schools are to be transformed into the
learning communities that the Jamaican Ministry of Education and Youth
envisaged, then the relationships between principal and teachers have to be based
on the democratic style of leadership. It is the researcher‟s fervent view that the
democratic style of leadership is the best style of leadership where principal and
teachers are concerned because of its numerous benefits, some of which are
outlined in the review of literature.
The results that were gathered and analyzed in this study concurred with the
views of numerous writers such as Espinosa (1976), James – Reid (1982) and
Doggett (1987) that principal‟s leadership style profoundly affects teachers‟
performance. Therefore, it is in the interest of the principal and teachers to
support and employ a collaborative approach in their relations to ensure that the
schools‟ programmes and students are not incapacitated. This is even more
relevant when one examines some of the compelling implications that may occur
if this is not done: such as the degree to which students‟ instructions for academic
achievements will be catered for by teachers
95
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the
Current Debate About Education Administration (EDAD)
Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf
2. Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000).Education &Society- An Introduction.
Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica
3. Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to Balance Bureaucracy and Community
as an Educational Administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.),
The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers
and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.
4. Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational
Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,
California; USA.
96
5. Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy
statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province
of New Brunswick.
6. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis
and Application 5th
Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster
Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
7. Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4th
Edition.
British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.
8. Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of
Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership
Library of America, Inc.
9. Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational
Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd
Edition. Random
House Inc., 201 East 50th
Street, New York, N.Y. 10022
97
10. L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
11. Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical
approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica.
12. Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology. 2nd
Edition., McGraw – Hill, New York.
13. Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational
Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The
West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados
14. Reid-James, Olga. (1991). Teaching: Its Management and Functions.
Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.
15. Skinner, B.F. (1938). The Behaviour of Organism: An Experimental
Analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.
98
16. Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica
Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.
17. Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education
Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica
18. Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively
6th
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern
Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of
the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.
20 Bennis, Warren, Parikh, Jagdish and Lessem, Ronnie (2003), Beyond
Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology
21 ttp//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.
99
QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHER‟S PERCEPTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL‟S
LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ITS EFFECT ON TEACHER PERFORMANCE.
CONFIDENTIAL
Dear Teachers:
This questionnaire is designed to solicit your response as it relates to: “The
relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher
performance.” Principal‟s leadership style has to do with the managerial running
of the school and the influence and inspiration of his staff and students to
collectively ensure excellence for all concerned. There is no right or wrong
answer. It is a matter of how you feel. We therefore expect you to be very frank
and truthful in expressing your feelings. The information you give is necessary to
guide administration in setting up programmes helpful to teachers. Therefore, if
you feel one way, and give your opinion in another direction, you will misguide
administrators and you will not be of assistance to future teachers.
So please be frank. This questionnaire is completely confidential, and no else will
know of your views, opinions, and feelings. Do not give your names. The
information is for research only, and nothing will be communicated to any other
person.
Thanks for your help.
Frank Peart, (Student)
International University of the Caribbean.
100
INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE
Below are twenty (20) questionnaire items. Items one (1) and two (2) are
biographical data. Your name is not required and your responses will be treated
with strict confidence. The remaining eighteen (18) items directly relate to the
research topic: “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its
effect on teachers performance.”
Please follow the instructions carefully.
Items one (1) to five (5) require you to place a tick on the line of the category
or range that suits you best. Item six (6) requires you to make your own decision.
Items seven (7) to twenty (20) are on the five point Likert Scale. The 5 – point
Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual to respond to a series of
statements or questions by indicating whether she or he Strongly Agrees (SA),
Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with
each statement.
If you Strongly Agree to the question or statement please place a tick under SA;
if you Agree place a tick under A; if you are Undecided place a tick under UN; if
you Disagree, place a tick under D; and if you Strongly Disagree place a tick
under SD.
101
Sample
Teachers’ questionnaire
1. What is your gender? _____Male_____Female
2. In which age group do you belong? ___ (18 – 25)
___ (26 – 33) ___ (34 – 42) ___ (43 and above).
3. How many years of experience do you have? __ (1-5) __ (6-10)
__ (11-15) ___ (16 and above).
4. What is your academic qualification?
____ (Pre-Trained) ___ (Diploma trained) ____ (Bachelors-Degree).
5. What leadership style does your principal use in his /her daily routine?
____ (Authoritarian) ____ (Democratic) _____ (Laissez-faire) ____ (Dictator)
_____ (A mixture of each).
6. What leadership style employed by your principal you feel will motivate you to
perform to the best of your ability? _______________
102
5 – Point Likert Scale
Strongly
Agree
SA
5
Agree
A
4
Undecided
UN
3
Disagree
D
2
Strongly
Disagree
SD
1
7. My principal‟ leadership style influences
my teaching performance.
8. My principal communicates high
expectations for the performance of students
and staff.
9. My principal creates an environment that
optimizes learning for teachers and students.
10. My principal demonstrates close
supervision of teachers to improve the
quality of instruction.
11. My principal creates a supportive and
caring environment to promote professional
growth for staff.
12. My principal communicates respect and
courtesy for everyone by the manner in
which he deals with them, thus setting a
norm for behaviour in the school.
13. There is a relationship between school
morale and motivation for performance.
14. My principal supports the idea of
furthering my education and directly
encourages me to do so
15. My principal is fully aware of his
responsibilities as leader of the school
16. My principal leadership style is
universal to all his staff
17. My principal tries to establish good
interpersonal relations between his students,
his staff and the community.
18. My principal compromises the standards
and safety of the school.
19. My principal works cooperatively with
his staff encouraging their participation in
the decision making process to address
school programmes.
20. My principal explores opportunities to
improve his teachers‟ performance.
103
Sample
Principals’ Interview Schedule
1. Which of the following age group do you belong? ___ (18 – 25)
___ (26 – 33) ___ (34 – 42) ___ (43 and above)
2. Which of the following range do you belong in terms of teaching
experience? ___ (1 – 5) ___ (6 – 10) ___ (11 – 15) ___ (16 and above).
3. What may I ask is you academic qualification?
4. What strategies do you have in place for teachers who you find performing
poorly?
5. How do you boost teachers‟ morale?
6. What is your belief on cooperation among principals and their teachers?
7. Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in the decision
making process of school programme?
8. Do you think that your teachers would perform better if the were more
pleased with your leadership style?
9. Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about teachers‟ social
development beyond the classroom?
104
Sample
Letter to Principal.
Frank Peart
16 Halls Avenue
Port Antonio
Portland P.O.,
January 27, 2006
The Principal
Hope Bay All Age School
Hope Bay P.O.,
Portland
Dear Principal,
I am a final year student at the International University of the Caribbean. As a
part of the requirement for the Bachelor of Guidance and counseling Degree
programme. I am currently conducting a research to investigate: The relationship
between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher performance.
I am asking your permission to conduct this research at this institution from some
teachers who can provide the necessary information of the topic under
investigation. The information received is going to be used for the research only.
With thanks.
Yours truly,
…………….
Frank Peart.
105
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the
Current Debate About Education Administration (EDAD)
Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf
2. Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000). EDUCATION & SOCIETY- An
Introduction. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica
3. Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to balance bureaucracy and community
as an educational administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.),
The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers
and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.
4. Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational
Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,
California; USA.
106
5. Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy
statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province
of New Brunswick.
6. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis
and application 5th
Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster
Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.
7. Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4th
Edition.
British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.
8. Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of
Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership
Library of America, Inc.
9. Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational
Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd
Edition. Random
House Inc., 201 East 50th
Street, New York, N.Y. 10022
107
10. L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher
Psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
11. Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical
approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica.
12. Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology.
2nd
Edition., McGraw – Hill, New York.
13. Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational
Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The
West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados
14. Reid-James, Olga. (1991). TEACHING: ITS MANAGEMENT AND
FUNCTIONS. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.
15. Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behaviour of organism: An experimental
analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.
108
16. Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica
Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.
17. Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education
Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica
18. Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively
6th
Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.
19. White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern
Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of
the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.
20. http//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.