SAGE Open

Does Path-Goal Theory Principal Leadership Styles

Contribute to the KPIs of Teacher Job Performance?

Journal: SAGE Open

Manuscript ID SO-20-4304

Manuscript Type: SAGE Open - Research Paper

Fo
school leadership, path-goal theory, principalship, teacher performance
Keywords:
KPIs, sustainable job development

Main Discipline or Subject

rP
Education
Area:

Approaches: Quantitative
ee

Methods: Correlation Research Design with Pearson Correlation and Regression

Directive Leadership communicates comprehensive expectations,

schedule tasks, and outline specific guidance for followers – team
rR

members to complete given tasks. Directive leaders set team standards,

regulations, and procedures for executing tasks to maximize team goals
for sustainable development. The study investigated the contribution of
principal leadership styles to key performance indicators of teachers for
ev

the sustainability of their job performance in private secondary schools.

Path-goal theory’s four leadership styles and five KPIs of teachers’ job
were used in the study. Although several studies and research findings
iew

Abstract: permeate path-goal theory literature on this specialty, teacher job

performance was predominantly a solitary unit. A total of 1217 private
secondary school teachers participated in the present study. The study
results indicate that directive leadership the most significant contributor
to sustainable teacher job performance, following supportive leadership
and achievement-oriented leadership. Although participative leadership
illustratively was an inherent predictor, its contribution to sustaining the
job performance of teachers was not promising. More to the point,
directive leadership yields encouraging teacher job performance KPIs for
sustainable job development in a non-Western context.

http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 1 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
4
5 Does Path-Goal Theory Principal Leadership Styles
6
7 Contribute to the KPIs of Teacher Job Performance?
8
9 Abstract: Directive Leadership communicates comprehensive expectations, schedule tasks, and
10 outline specific guidance for followers – team members to complete given tasks. Directive leaders set
11 team standards, regulations, and procedures for executing tasks to maximize team goals for
12
sustainable development. The study investigated the contribution of principal leadership styles to
13
14 key performance indicators of teachers for the sustainability of their job performance in private
15 secondary schools. Path-goal theory’s four leadership styles and five KPIs of teachers’ job were used
16 in the study. Although several studies and research findings permeate path-goal theory literature on
17 this specialty, teacher job performance was predominantly a solitary unit. A total of 1217 private
18 secondary school teachers participated in the present study. The study results indicate that directive
19 leadership the most significant contributor to sustainable teacher job performance, following
20 supportive leadership and achievement-oriented leadership. Although participative leadership
21
illustratively was an inherent predictor, its contribution to sustaining the job performance of teachers
Fo

22
23 was not promising. More to the point, directive leadership yields encouraging teacher job
24 performance KPIs for sustainable job development in a non-Western context.
rP

25
26 Keywords: school leadership; path-goal theory; principalship; teacher performance KPIs,
27 sustainable job development
28
ee

29
30
31
1. Introduction
rR

32
33 A school constitutes a designated institution that purports teaching and learning. As an
34 establishment for students and youth refinery in general, schools harness formal education in society.
35
ev

The school system is embedded in a society where human factors predominantly determine its
36
37 functioning, instructional, and administrative management processes. Categorically, two sets of
38 human factors (teaching besides non-teaching staff) deliver educational services in secondary
iew

39 schools. In the institutional structure of schools, secondary school principals hierarchically preside
40 over the teaching stuff, school’s functioning, and management. Their appointment is based on
41 qualifications, teaching experience, and knowledge. They are considered the ‘major subjects’ for a
42 significant decision making towards school goals’ attainment (Bass, 1999).
43 Considerably, the complexity and scope of principals’ roles have dramatically been altered over
44
the years. Contended by Ololube (2004), the traditional roles of principals have been replaced with
45
46 responsibilities including but not limited to placement and admission of students, preparation and
47 school budget administration. Staff assignment and orientation, curriculum development, instruction
48 supervision and improvement constitute other non-traditional roles of principals. Likewise,
49 principals also supervise, coordinate, direct, control and sustain teacher performance to tune the
50 schools’ institutional performance standards.
51
52 1.1. Principal Leadership Styles
53
54 To discharge the preceded duties efficiently for sustainable performance, principals tend to be
55 directive, participative, supportive, or achievement-oriented in their leadership dispositions. These
56 leadership styles are integral to the path-goal theory (Holdford, 2003; House, 1976; Northouse, 2018).
57
Discerned by its composite nature, path-goal theory (PGT) is extrapolated by researchers as
58
paradoxically flummoxing.
59
60 The theoretical paradigm dioramas various leadership styles established on its intertwined
assumption brackets. ‘Directive, participative, supportive, and achievement-oriented’ leadership

1
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 2 of 15

1
2
3
styles are the distinct leadership styles of path-goal theory. Diverse studies divulged the traditional
4
5 path-goal leadership theory as an antidote to job success, standard operating procedures (SOPs),
6 authority systems, and comprehending exigent goals virtue of task schedule and executing
7 assignments (Northouse, 2018).
8 Pragmatically, in the school milieu, the tendency of a leadership style that integrates all
9 components of PGT could be a frustrating task. To achieve empirical outcomes, a prerequisite of PGT
10 comprises leaders - principals willingness to direct, assist and guide subordinates - teachers towards
11 job goals. Thus, it is demanded of principals (based on PGT) to outline clear school goals for teachers
12
and remove any hindrances towards achieving the set goals. The fulfillment of this requirement
13
14 enables teachers to perform to expectations. Integrated into PGT are assumptions of expectancy
15 theory where aptly, contributive performances of followers – teachers commensurate motivation
16 (Isaac et al., 2001) for sustainable teacher job performance.
17 However, PGT insufficiently expounds on the principals’ leadership styles and sustainable
18 teacher job performance connection. The theory so far fails to explicate amicable regulations that
19 detail how leadership styles could sustain teacher job performance. PGT exhibits less-sophisticated
20 assumptions on how principals leadership styles (four types) make contributions to teacher job
21
performance indicators a) teaching planning, b) classroom organization, c) classroom discipline and
Fo

22
atmosphere, d) monitoring and evaluation, e) teachers leadership (Atsebeha, 2016) to sustain
23
24 teachers’ job performance. Hence, this study was essential to comprehend how principal leadership
dispositions apprise key job performance indicators (KPIs) of teachers for the sustainability of their
rP

25
26 job performance.
27
28 1.2. Path-Goal Theory and School Principal Leadership
ee

29
30 Primevally in leadership literature, the emergence of path-goal theory dates back to Evans’
31 works in the 1970s Evans (1970), House and Dessler (1974), House (1971), and House et al. (House &
rR

32 Mitchell, 1974) modified in 1996 (Northouse, 2018) in House (1996). Four leadership styles – directive,
33 participative, achievement-oriented, and supportive leadership traditionally characterize by the
34
theory. Directive leaders layout instructions, directions, regulations, and standards for tasks to
35
ev

subordinates with integral expectations on how and when to execute and complete them. In the view
36
37 of Northouse [1], a working environment with high-pressure that demands followers to complete
38 and attain complex tasks and goals is suitable for directive leadership. Effective directive leadership
iew

39 among principals shaped friendly, healthy, and approachable principal-teacher relationship.

40 Therefore, principals should make conscious efforts to establish responsive relationship with their
41 teachers within directive style of leadership.
42 Supportive leadership accentuates the humanitarian needs of subordinates, well-being –
43
suitable working environment development, fair treatment, respect and acknowledgment
44
(Northouse, 2018). The leadership style inferably is described as well-disposed and approachable by
45
46 Northouse. Teachers – subordinates participate in considerable policy-making, decisions, and
47 implementation processes. Thus, teachers may make recommendations for principals that improve
48 teaching and learning efficiency. With participative leadership, Northouse acknowledges that the
49 leadership style generates cooperative decision-making, - thus, teachers’ recommendations and
50 suggestions are integral policy-making incorporations in participative leadership. It is, therefore the
51 requirement of principals to promote the continuous improvement of teachers to maximize the
52
benefits of the participative leadership style.
53
Achievement-oriented principals empower teachers – subordinates with the expectations of the
54
55 institution. They frequently outline well-defined goals with high-performance tendencies.
56 Achievement-oriented leaders - principals commit to their subordinates' potentials – teachers and
57 enhance extensive improvement of performance (Northouse, 2018).
58 More to the point, while directive principals widely outline task directions to teachers but tend
59 not to engage them in schools’ administrative decisions, supportive leadership compliments –
60 informs and reinforces the directive leadership. Supportive principals empower teachers with

2
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 3 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
amicable working conditions that commensurate with personal and job integrity, dignity, and high
4
5 morale towards attaining challenging institutional goals. On the other hand, setting goals and
6 objectives that energize and motivate teachers are fundamental to achievement-oriented leadership.
7 Participative principals integrate the creativity and expertise of teachers in decision-making to
8 maximize goals by incorporating suggestions and recommendations. Meanwhile, studies suggest
9 participative principals should alleviate teachers acknowledging their negligence, nonperformance
10 tendencies, and slips.
11
12
1.3. KPIs for Sustainable Teacher Job Performance
13
14 Teaching-learning is traditional to schools, and they are fundamental to the refinery of youth in
15 society. Principals – school leaders coordinate teachers and their activities (executing duties) towards
16
attaining sustainable teaching for effective learning. Thus, principal leadership apexes direct and
17
coordinates teachers’ efforts to advancement in schools (Bolman & Deal, 2018; Hoerr, 2005).
18
19 Principals can sustain the teaching process for effective learning by categorically assigning to
20 teachers classified tasks. Teachers’ KPIs, scheduled frameworks for goals, and teacher competence
21 criteria guide principals to appraise and measure teacher job performance (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014;
Fo

22 Ishak et al., 2009; Lockett, 1992; Parmenter, 2015). The job performance of teachers can be measured
23 as teaching-planning, classroom organization, classroom atmosphere and discipline, monitoring and
24 evaluation, and teacher leadership (Atsebeha, 2016).
rP

25
Teaching planning comprises organizations of lesson plans, management of classroom
26
atmosphere, activities, and lesson delivery (Savage, 2014). Classroom organization is an inherent
27
28 component of teaching planning. It characterizes the arrangement of furniture and seating styles of
ee

29 students and studying core content. The organization of the classroom also consists of encouraging
30 students’ participation in lessons and making them appreciate their physical classroom environment
31 (Stronge, 2018; Unger, 2011). While tests, exams, and homework constitute monitoring and
rR

32 evaluation of student learning assessment procedures (Brookhart, 2010; Glas et al., 2006), classroom
33 discipline and atmosphere involve sustaining a healthy, safe, fair and friendly classroom milieu for
34
optimum learning and appropriate communication (Bandstra, 2016; Glas et al., 2006). Teacher
35
ev

leadership, the last teacher job performance construct, comprises guidance, motivation, and
36
37 mentoring of students while exerting a positive impact on them (Dalton & Boyd, 1992; Farr, 2010).
38
iew

39 1.4. Leadership Styles of School Principals and Job Performance of Teachers

40
41 Empirically, educational leaders – principals facilitate and solve issues in society (Miller, 2016;
42 Williams-Boyd, 2002). Ideally, principals at private secondary schools are crucial to promoting and
43 sustain job performances among teachers. Under principals’ leadership styles adopted at schools,
44 their actions and inactions, directly and indirectly, contribute to teacher job performance at all levels
45 to sustain the performance of teachers. Thus, school leaders – principals are integral to school
46 performance in general (Hamilton, 2016). Some fundamental roles of principals include corroborating
47 curricular standards, appraising teaching strategies, monitoring student achievement and progress.
48
Principals also schedule and facilitate teachers for sustainable performance, an enabling
49
50 environment; achievement-oriented leadership guides them towards attaining ambitious goals.
51 Within the framework of PGT, principals are tasked to obviate hindrances and elucidate paths for
52 their teachers – subordinates to perform tasks given them effectively (Northouse, 2018).
53 In general, principals facilitate both teaching and non-teaching stuff academically and
54 administratively by outlining directions and instructions on how to discharge their duties towards
55 the achievement of ambitious goals. Effective leadership includes principals giving directions – action
56 plans; what, when, and how to implement, motivate subordinates – teachers, set achievable and
57
ambitious goals, sustain amicable relations with teachers to achieve job goals.
58
59 Diverse empirical study findings reiterate the effectiveness of PGT, thus, certify the contribution
60 of the four-PGT principals’ leadership styles on the KPIs of teachers. However, teacher job
performance was measured either as a variable or a single component; hence it cannot be applied to

3
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 4 of 15

1
2
3
the subcategories discussed earlier. For instance, in Edo, Imhangbe et al. (2018) investigated
4
5 principals leadership styles’ influence on teacher-job-performance and found relevant relationships
6 between democratic leadership style and teacher job performance. Likewise, in Tigray, Ethiopia,
7 Atsebeha (2016) study revealed a significant influence of supportive leadership on the primary school
8 teacher job performance. There exist similar studies conducted in the related area in varied contexts
9 and backgrounds (Machumu & Kaitila, 2014; Mwangi, 2013; Okoji, 2016; Somech, 2005; Wachira et
10 al., 2017).
11 Indisputably, KPIs of teacher-job-performance were treated as a single variable in prior studies.
12
Consequently, school and educational leaders – principals are incapable of determining the positive
13
14 or negative contribution of each style of leadership to each KPI of teacher job performance. Hence,
15 they are unable to sustain the job performance of their teachers.
16 Schools could experience an eventual reduction in teacher productivity and efficiency as a result
17 of decreased job performance. Subsequently, the low performance of teachers could bring forth high
18 attrition rates of teachers, less motivation, and job satisfaction (Aziri, 2011; Vangel, 2011), which
19 would lead to the unsustainable performance of teachers. Inevitably, schools would fail to achieve
20 set goals and objectives, hence, experience a decline in the school’s overall performance.
21
Vividly, empirical investigation about the contribution of principals’ PGT leadership in each
Fo

22
teacher job performance domain is recommendable to sustain the performance of secondary school
23
24 teachers. Knowledge of how principal’s PGT styles of leadership contribute to each of the indicators
of teacher-job-performance will guide school leaders - principals, supervisors, and coordinators to
rP

25
26 identify and cope with the problematic and negative contributions of the varied leadership styles.
27 Consequently, will sustain teacher job performance and efficiency.
28 School principals – males and females adopt diversifying leadership dispositions to manage
ee

29 schools. Although the study reveals women are less-represented in terms of leadership, the
30
usefulness of leadership has been illustrated by several studies in diverse backgrounds to having
31
little or no relationship with gender (Appelbaum et al., 2003). Across Sweden, Norway and Australia,
rR

32
33 Gibson (1995) analyzed 209 persons working in different leadership positions in a comparative study.
34 The study investigated leadership positions within four domains (dimensions) of leadership – goal
35 emphasis, international facilitation, work facilitation and support. These studies revealed gender
ev

36 differences in leadership dimensions across the studied countries.

37 In addition, KPIs of teacher-job-performance were treated as a single unit in prior investigations,
38 previous studies investigated principal leadership styles holistically but failed to examine the gender
iew

39
of teachers especially against each of the domain of teachers’ job performance. Therefore, school
40
principals do not have a clear idea about how they can sustain the performance of their teachers.
41
42 Hence, the present study contributes enormously to literature in the related field.
43
44 1.5. Research Question
45
Does Path-Goal Theory Principal Leadership Styles Contribute to the KPIs of Teacher Job Performance?
46
47
48 2. Methodology
49
50 2.1. Measures and Procedures
51
52 The present study was carried out in the Lahore division of Pakistan. Five hundred and nine
53 (509) private schools in urban centers were purposefully recruited to participate in the study. The
54 schools were recruited on the criterion that they were co-education secondary schools. By virtue of
55 the focus of the study, teachers were sampled for the study. The researchers issued 1379 copies of the
56 investigation instrument – questionnaire to teachers of the recruited private schools. Prior to this,
57 consent was obtained from the head office and principals authorized teachers to participate in the
58 study. Teachers – participants were selected on the criteria that they were secondary level class
59
teachers, subject specialists, supervises teaching/lessons and at least having three years working
60
experience.

4
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 5 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
Among the 1379 distributed questionnaires, 1239 were completed and returned. The returned
4
5 questionnaire copies of 22 were considered invalid due to unengaging responses. Thus, the unit of
6 analysis consisted of 1217 teachers comprising 52% females (N = 633) and 48% male (N = 584). The
7 consequential questionnaires treated as the unit of analysis (n = 1217) illustrated an efficient response
8 rate of about 88%, thus, signifies the analysis unit as adequate (Brown & Reilly, 2009; Cohen et al.,
9 2013; Simon & Goes, 2013; Taherdoost, 2017).
10
11 2.2. Instrument
12
13 Saleem et al. (2020) teacher job performance questionnaire – TJPQ and path-goal leadership
14 questionnaire – PGTQ instruments were adopted and employed to collect the data for the
15 investigation; the paper containing the questionnaire was published in an academic journal, which is
16
making it a public domain. Hence, no formal permission was required to use the questionnaire. The
17
two instruments have been used in previously published works certifying their reliability and
18
19 validity.
20 Initially both of the instruments, PGTQ of Indvik (1985), and TJPQ of Atsebeha (2016), were
21 adapted after modifications previously. The instruments’ modification – construct validity and the
Fo

22 head offices coordinated general appearance. They exhibit licit power, structured policies, SOPs
23 towards task execution and teacher’s appraisal.
24 The PGTQ instrument consisted of four (4) PGT leadership styles; directive, participative,
rP

25
supportive, and achievement-oriented leadership. Each construct, in turn, is made of five (5) items.
26
TJPQ likewise assessed 5 KPIs of teacher-job-performance– teaching planning (5 items), monitoring-
27
28 evaluation (4 items), classroom organization (4 items), teacher leadership (5 items), and classroom
ee

29 atmosphere and discipline (4 items). The instrument was designed on a 4-level Likert scale; 4 =
30 strongly agree, 3 = agree, 2 = disagree, 1 = strongly disagree and used to collect data on the perspective
31 of teachers’ job-performance (Imhangbe et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2011; Likert, 1932; Yin et al., 2014).
rR

32
33 2.3. Analysis Procedures
34
35 In the current study, the researchers employed a t-test, Pearson correlation, multiple regression
ev

36 models as analytical methods to measure the perspective of teachers on their sustainable job
37 performance. Data analysis software (SPSS) was employed in the analysis process. Analytically, the
38
iew

first order independent variables – PGT leadership styles (directive, participative supportive,
39
achievement-oriented), and second-order dependent variables – KPIs of teacher-job-performance
40
41 (teaching planning, classroom organization, monitoring and evaluation, classroom atmosphere and
42 discipline, teacher leadership) variables demonstrated hierarchical-directionality from first-order to
43 second-order variables.
44 This study was not involved in any clinical investigation on human subjects. However, the
45 researchers fulfilled all the ethical requirements. A recruitment blurb was sent to participants before
46 data collection, Participants’ were authorized to withdraw from the study prior to the publication of
47 this investigation.
48
49
3. Results
50
51
52 3.1. Pattern of Leadership Styles
53
Teachers assigned the highest parentage (41%) to principal directive leadership style (see Figure
54
55 1). However, teachers rated the lowest percentage (10%) on a participative leadership style in the
56 studied schools. Moreover, supportive and achievement-oriented leadership had a higher
57 percentage; teachers assigned 26% to supportive leadership, and 23% to achievement-oriented
58 leadership styles, respectively. These results evidenced that the PGT directive leadership style was
59 used by most of the principals, and it was suitably contributive in the studied schools.
60

5
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 6 of 15

1
2
3
4 Achievement- Directive Leadership
5 oriented Leadership 41%
6 23%
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16 Supportive Participative
17
Leadership Leadership
18
26% 10%
19
20 Figure 1. Shares of PGT Leadership Styles
21
Fo

22
23
24 3.2. Gender Influence
rP

25
26 Among the teachers, female teacher (X = 3.51, SD = 0.26) scored higher in achievement-oriented
27 leadership against male teachers (X = 3.30, SD = 0.24; t (382) = 0.85, p < 0.01). While the rest of scores
28 were insignificant statistically, however, male teachers (X = 3.36, SD = 0.23; t (382) = 0.72, p < 0.01)
ee

29 scored significantly higher on classroom atmosphere and discipline as against female teachers (X =
30 3.34, SD = 0.28) (see Table 1).
31 Analytically, there were no significant gender differences found among constructs of principal
rR

32
leadership and teacher job performance KPIs. According to Table 1, there, however, existed minimal
33
34 gender differences between males and female viewpoints in terms of classroom atmosphere and
35 discipline (d = 0.11) and achievement-oriented leadership (d = 0.09). As such, it was statistically
ev

36 appropriate (Yang et al., 2019) to combine male and female perspectives into a single variable
37 accordingly.
38
iew

39
40
Table 1. Gender differences.
41
42 Female, N = 633 Male, N = 584
43 Constructs X SD X SD F t(df) d
44
45 Directive Leadership 3.34 0.31 3.32 0.28 1.37 2.62(382) 0.12
46 Participative Leadership 2.76 0.24 2.51 0.14 0.50 0.69(382) −0.15
47 Supportive Leadership 3.49 0.23 3.63 0.25 2.21 −1.62(382) −0.16
48
49 Achievement-oriented Leadership 3.51 0.26 3.30 0.24 0.29 0.85(382)* 0.09
50 Teaching Planning 3.19 0.24 3.12 0.31 0.63 −2.46(382) 0.16
51
Classroom Organization 2.99 0.34 3.10 0.20 2.41 1.58(382) 0.08
52
53 Monitoring and Evaluation 3.30 0.26 3.28 0.25 1.32 0.63(382) −0.24
54 Classroom Atmosphere and Discipline 3.34 0.28 3.36 0.23 1.94 0.72(382)* 0.11
55
Teacher Leadership 3.19 0.33 3.19 0.20 0.57 2.11(382) −0.15
56
57 *p < 0.01. X, Mean, SD, Standard Deviation.
58
59
60

6
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 7 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
4 3.3. Relationship among Principal Leadership Styles and Teachers’ KPIs of Sustainable Job Performance
5 Illustrated in Table 2, M = 3.78, SD = 0.61 for directive leadership was the highest mean against
6
M = 2.87, SD = 0.70 for participative leadership, which represents the least mean out of the four PGT
7
styles of principal leadership domains assessed. Meanwhile, a higher mean score; M = 3.58, SD = 0.33
8
9 was reported for supportive leadership compared to M = 3.49, SD = 0.35 for achievement-oriented
10 leadership. On the other hand, the highest mean value was reported for teaching planning - M = 3.36,
11 SD = 0.22 for the KPIs’ constructs. An ensuing higher mean score; M = 3.32, SD = 0.24 was reported
12 for classroom organization, followed by M = 3.30, SD = 0.52 for monitoring and evaluation, M = 3.29,
13 SD = 0.19 for teacher leadership and finally, classroom atmosphere and discipline – M = 3.25, SD =
14 0.20. The mean scores for teacher job performance KPIs were reportedly satisfactory with M  3
15
threshold (Ali, 2019; Appiah, 2016), which means it is crucial to study the contribution of each of the
16
PGT leadership style to each of the KPI, and these KPIs are integral to sustain teacher job performance
17
18 in the secondary schools.
19 Pearson correlation computed construct contribution, which revealed that the first-order PGT
20 leadership styles significantly contributive to the second-order five KPIs of sustainable teachers’ job
21 performance. The orders – first and second revealed a high positive significant contribution of
Fo

22 directive leadership to teaching planning (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). However, a significantly smaller and
23 negative contribution was revealed of participative leadership to teacher leadership (r = −0.11, p <
24
0.05). Vividly, a moderate level model was revealed since all variable contribution was beyond 0.30,
rP

25
whereas those beyond 0.50 and the scale were predominantly associated contributed (Cohen, 1992,
26
27 2013) (Table 2).
28
ee

29 Table 2. Pearson correlation.

30
Constructs DL PL SL AL TP CO ME CD TL
31
rR

32 DL −
33 PL 0.28* −
34 SL 0.55** 0.27* −
35 AL 0.43* 0.34 0.54* −
ev

36 TP 0.71* −0.26* 0.62* 0.46* −

37 CO 0.60* −0.25* 0.59* 0.51* −0.24 −
38
iew

ME 0.56* −0.18** 0.57* 0.48* 0.30* 0.44 −

39
40 CD 0.65* 0.19* 0.60* 0.40* 0.24** −0.11** −0.28* −
41 TL 0.53* −0.11** 0.42* 0.39* 0.24 0.27* 0.10* 0.12* -
42 M 3.78 2.87 3.58 3.49 3.36 3.32 3.30 3.25 3.29
43 SD 0.61 0.70 0.33 0.35 0.22 0.24 0.52 0.20 0.19
44 *p < 0.01, 2-tailed, **p < 0.05. X, Mean, SD, Standard Deviation. DL, Directive Leadership Style; PL,
45 Participative Leadership; SL, Supportive Leadership; AL, Achievement-oriented Leadership; TP,
46 Teaching Planning; CO, Classroom Organization; ME, Monitoring and Evaluation; CD, Classroom
47
Atmosphere and Discipline; TL, Teacher Leadership.
48
49
50 3.4. Model Testing Results
51
52 Table 3 showed a series of multiple regression results. The first regression model was run on the
53 first KPI of sustainable teacher job performance: teaching planning. The second model was on
54 classroom organization, the third, monitoring and evaluation, classroom atmosphere and discipline,
55 and the last, teacher leadership. Looking at the model fit indices, principal leadership contributed the
56
largest percentage of the variance of classroom atmosphere and discipline (73.1%), while it elucidated
57
58 the smallest variance of monitoring and evaluation (58.4%).
59 Except for the component of participated leadership style, all components of principal
60 leadership styles showed significant positive contribution in the five jobs KPIs of teachers to sustain
their job performance in the secondary schools.

7
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 8 of 15

1
2
3
To be specific, however, the relative contribution power was inconsistent across the five models,
4
5 that is, the four different leadership styles of the contribution of principal leadership for sustainable
6 teacher job performance. Taking a closer look at the contribution size of each leadership style of
7 principals, the directive leadership of principals showed the most considerable contribution into all
8 the KPIs: teaching planning, classroom organization, monitoring and evaluation, classroom
9 atmosphere and discipline, and teacher leadership, for sustainable teacher job performance in the
10 schools.
11
12 Table 3. Regression on KPIs for Sustainable Teacher Job Performance
13 Dependent Variables
14 Independent Monitoring Classroom
15 Teaching Classroom Teacher
Variables and Atmosphere and
16 Planning Organization Leadership
Evaluation Discipline
17
Constant 1.432 1.728 2.021 1.983 2.108
18
19 Directive Leadership 0.69* 0.64* 0.60* 0.66** 0.61*
20 Participative 0.18** 0.21* 0.13** 0.23** 0.16**
21 Leadership
Fo

22 Supportive 0.42* 0.57* 0.52* 0.47* 0.47*

23 Leadership
24
Achievement- 0.37* 0.33** 0.44* 0.37* 0.51*
rP

25
oriented Leadership
26
27 Adjusted R-squared 0.713 0.613 0.584 0.731 0.604
28 *p < 0.01, **p < 0.05. β values are standardized regression coefficients (SRC), and n = 1217.
ee

29
30 In addition to that, the contribution size of each leadership style indicated by the regression
31 coefficients to sustain the job performance of teachers is presented in Figure 2. The contribution size
rR

32 is illustrated on Y-axis for each of the models, the intersecting lines and the high value indicate the
33
relative importance and contributive strength of each independent variable.
34
35
ev

36
37
38
iew

39
40
41
42 0.7
43 0.6
44
Leadership Styles

45 0.5
46 0.4
47
48 0.3
49 0.2
50
0.1
51
52 0
53 Teaching Planning Classroom Monitoring and Classroom Teacher Leadership
54 Organization Evaluation Atmosphere and
55
Discipline
56
57 KPIs of Sustainable Teaher Job Performance
58
59 Directive Leadership Participative Leadership
60
Figure 2. Comparison of the Contribution Effect Size

8
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 9 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
4. Interpretation of Results
4
5 Apart from western countries, the articulation of PGT (House, 1971) leadership styles’ influence
6 and applications have been revealed to vary situationally (Smith, 2011). The current study
7 investigated the influence of principal leadership on KPIs of teacher job performance among private
8
secondary level schools in Pakistan within the framework of PGT. The present findings besides the
9
10 illustrative significant influence of principals’ PGT leadership styles on KPIs of teachers’ job, they
11 also bridged the literature gap on principal’s PGT leadership dispositions in non-western contexts
12 private education sector.
13
14 4.1. Leadership Styles’ Influence and Applications
15
16 Comparatively, principal participative leadership revealed negative and little or no influence on
17 the KPIs of a teacher. The current findings contradict previous studies’ which found a positive
18 relationship – influence between KPIs of teachers’ job and participative leadership (Adeyemi, 2010;
19 Atsebeha, 2016; Basit et al., 2017; Omeke Faith & Onah Kenneth, 2012; Ozuruoke et al., 2011).
20 Characteristically, participative leadership of principals revealed a negative relationship –
21
influence on teacher leadership. It, however, revealed rather, a positive relationship with classroom
Fo

22
organization, monitoring and evaluation, and teaching planning as well as atmosphere and discipline
23
24 of classroom. Participative leadership illustrated both positive and negative relationships – the least
influence on the job performance of teachers. The current findings controvert at large a substantial
rP

25
26 positive relationship between teacher job performance and democratic leadership at the public school
27 sector outside of Asia (Imhangbe et al., 2018).
28 Furthermore, besides classroom atmosphere and discipline, principals participative correlated
ee

29 negatively with classroom organization, teaching planning, teacher leadership, and monitoring and
30
evaluation. Illustrative leadership of principals had both mean and correlation values below the
31
threshold (Ali, 2019; Appiah, 2016; Cohen, 1992, 2013).
rR

32
33 Pragmatically, variations in the findings of the current could be attributed to; a) principals
34 personally are obliged to perform tasks, b) ambiguous job tasks of teachers pose challenges to their
35 performance, and c) high levels of teacher job performance expectations. Illustrated in the
ev

36 methodology, teachers might be obliged to heed to dictatorial SOPs issued by the head office as
37 principals outline directions for task performance. However, the absence of gender differences in the
38 schools studied certifies that teachers are obliged to head to dictatorial SOPs from head offices.
iew

39
40
4.2. Gender Influence of Principal Leadership Styles
41
42 Notably, there exists a little evidence – literature gap about teachers’ gender differences in terms
43 of principals’ leadership styles influence on their (teachers) job performance KPIs. Previous studies
44
had little emphasis on gender diversity about teacher perspectives of their job performance and
45
46 principals’ leadership styles. Significantly, the current study bridges the research gap on gender
47 differences. As revealed in the present study, female teachers undertook prestigious achievement-
48 oriented leadership evaluations although they appraised the classroom atmosphere and discipline
49 complicated.
50 Implacably, masculine private secondary school Pakistani teachers per the findings manage
51 appropriately, classroom atmosphere and discipline compared to the feminine teachers besides
52 achievement-oriented leadership. This finding bridges the literature gap on gender differences and
53
provides a podium of reference for further studies in the related field especially, gender differences
54
55 among teachers of secondary schools. Although relevant, the current findings – gender differences in
56 teachers’ perspectives on principals’ leadership styles and their job performances cannot be
57 generalized due to purposive and limited sample size.
58 However, there were no gender differences found in the dimension of the classroom atmosphere
59 and discipline versus achievement-oriented leadership style among the teachers studied. This implies
60 that in situations where when SOPs of jobs are present for task execution among teachers, associating

9
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 10 of 15

1
2
3
teachers’ gender to a particular leadership style may become irrelevant. These findings corresponded
4
5 to the argument of Northouse (2018) that non-participative principal leadership works well in
6 conditions where teachers – subordinates are required to follow dictatorial SOPs in ambiguous job
7 situations. Meanwhile, autocratic leaders are obliged to execute tasks (Euwema et al., 2007; Maloş,
8 2012) personally.
9 Besides the preceded illustrious rationale to the gender variation revealed in the present study,
10 principal leadership could be influenced by the organizational framework, culture, social system, and
11 other contextual factors (Walker et al., 2012). Contextually, principal leadership, standards and styles
12
could be restructured pertinent to countries (Dimmock & Walker, 1998; Heck, 1996; Lassibille &
13
14 Navarro Gómez, 2000; Smulyan, 2000). Oplatka (2004) insisted that non-Western and Western
15 systems differ educationally and attributed the difference to educational systems and structure,
16 cultural, national, and social settings.
17
18 4.3. Non-Western Context and PGT Leadership
19
20 Interestingly, illustrated by the regression results and correlation matrix, the current study
21 provided first-hand empirical evidence across a non-western developing nation – Pakistan. The study
Fo

22 commended previous investigations that principals from non-western developing nations are more
23 likely to adopt non-participative, autocratic and summative evaluation which contradicts the
24 Western democratic spirit (Oplatka, 2004).
rP

25
According to Miller (2016), non-western school principals were bound to adopt the autocratic
26
and task-oriented leadership style to enhance teacher professionalism and student performance. on
27
28 such a basis, Miller argued school principals are agents tasked to improve schools, facilitate teachers
ee

29 and are problem solvers. In addition, embracing the broadly used PGTQ and TJPQ instruments, the
30 present study established teachers’ perspectives on distinct PGT leadership influence on private
31 secondary school teachers' job performance.
rR

32 Indisputably, the current study contributes enormously to existing literature on PGT from the
33 secondary school teachers’ perspective. Arguably, abstract and strategic languages of principals
34
should be interpreted into operational forms that support and direct task execution among teachers
35
ev

(Saleem et al., 2020). Thus, teachers’ recommendations and suggestions in decision-making become
36
37 crucial.
38 This ascertains that need to investigate teachers’ perspective of principals’ leadership styles
iew

39 influence their job performance. Obliged to supervise closely and rate students' performance,
40 teachers become the immense staff (Robbins & Coulter, 2017), who implement the decisions of
41 principals in every given situation. There also exists little evidence of teacher perspectives on the PGT
42 styles’ influence and the teacher job performance subconstructs – classroom organization,
43
atmosphere and discipline, teacher leadership, teaching planning, and monitoring and evaluation,
44
and this research updates this aspect of teachers’ perspective.
45
46 Contributive Power
47
48 4.4. Contributive Functionality of Principal Leadership
49
50 Empirically, based on educational and school diversity, cultural and contextual characteristics
51 could affect principals’ leadership, school norms and values. This vividly could result in a variation
52 among school leaders and principals in other contexts (Dimmock & Walker, 1998; Heck, 1996).
53 Principals’ leadership roles, duties and practices contextually vary from developed to developing
54 countries as teachers require work clarity with integral motivation at all stages of their job.
55 Studies have revealed pragmatic evidence that passive (non-participating) directive leadership
56 promptly offer rapid teacher-job motivation and clarify compared to other forms of leadership styles
57
(Malik et al., 2016). Directive principals are said to facilitate teachers, elevate schools and are problem
58
59 solvers. Their directive leadership styles could ameliorate teacher professionalism and performance
60 in both developing and non-western countries.

10
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 11 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
New empirical evidence was revealed in regression results of the current study that directive
4
5 leadership made contribution in all the KPIs to sustain the job performance of teachers. Principals’
6 directive leadership is effective in teaching planning, atmosphere and discipline of the classroom,
7 organization of the classroom, monitoring and evaluation as well as teacher leadership. Meanwhile,
8 the least influence was established by the participative leadership style according to the teacher’s
9 perspective. Additionally, supportive leadership demonstrated a more substantial influence on each
10 construct of the KPIs – teacher job performance than achievement-oriented leadership.
11 Generally, the study established that directive leadership demonstrated the largest and
12
maximum positive significant contribution to the KPIs of private secondary school teachers’ job
13
14 performance. Pragmatic phenomena attested to this claim in the current study where two viable
15 conditions were provided for high correlative contribution– a) achievement-oriented principals to set
16 ambitious goals, and b) supportive principals motivate teachers to conquer hindrances to performing
17 tasks to expectation. That is, directive principals are outlining directions for teachers to carry out tasks
18 as expected, commended by Northouse (2018), directive leaders – principals, provide guidance for
19 their followers – teachers on ‘what and how to perform what’ through clear descriptions.
20 Empirically, the results also bridged the literature gap in PGT. The results established that there
21
exists a close relationship between teacher job performance constructs and PGT. Firstly, directive
Fo

22
leadership exhibited the highest positive correlation with all the KPIs of teachers according to the
23
24 perspective of private secondary school teachers. The teachers reiterated the use of a directional
leadership style.
rP

25
26 Secondly, a weak/low relative relationship was revealed among PGT’s participative leadership
27 and KPIs of teachers from the perspective of teachers. Thirdly, teacher job performance constructs
28 had a more robust (higher) relationship with supportive leadership but revealed a moderate
ee

29 relationship with achievement-oriented leadership. This implies that private secondary school
30
principals amidst ambitious goals being set to provide support and motivation for teachers to achieve
31
them (Atsebeha, 2016; Northouse, 2018) to maximize good performance.
rR

32
33 In sum, this foundational choice illustrates PGT’s directive characteristics. It hereby makes
34 provisions for pragmatical evidence to buttress the assertion that amidst ambitious and challenging
35 goals, supportive and motivational directives given by school principals enable teachers to
ev

36 accomplish tasks propitiously to maximize secondary school teachers’ performance.

37
38 5. Study Limitations and Potential Investigations
iew

39
40
Fundamentally, the present study scope was narrowed down to Pakistan, a non-Western Asian
41
42 nation and only teachers in secondary schools – the private sector. Thus, the findings of the study
43 cannot be generalized to other education systems. However, the conceptual and cultural factors
44 revealed to influence participative leadership is essential. Furthermore, the study was conducted
45 within the framework of the four principals’ PGT leadership dispositions and the (5) constructs of
46 teacher-job performance. It hereby suggested that varied variables, leadership paradigms and styles,
47 and KPIs of teacher-job performance – especially, PGT’s mediating variables (tasks and followers –
48 teachers’ characteristics) should be included and tested in future studies.
49
50
51 6. Conclusion
52 The present study established that principals' PGT leadership promotes all KPIs of teachers’ job
53 performance, which sustain the performance of teachers in private secondary schools. The current
54
study revealed several essential contributive functions of PGT principal leadership styles for
55
56 sustainable teachers’ job development. Significantly, it is limited to the only private education sector
57 in an Asian and non-Western context. The study illustrated principals four leadership styles (in the
58 private education sector) as articulated in PGT (directive, supportive, and achievement-oriented
59 leadership). Thus, development of the job performance of secondary school teachers in the following
60 domains; classroom organization, monitoring and evaluation, teaching planning, teacher leadership

11
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 12 of 15

1
2
3
and atmosphere and discipline of classroom. The study also established that there exists no gender
4
5 influence on the KPIs of teachers – when they are obliged to perform tasks according to job SOPs.
6 Regardless of PGT leadership relevant contribution in the context of private secondary school
7 teachers, participative leadership exhibited a controversial - unhelpful relationship with all the
8 teacher job performance constructs. As such, it is recommended that private secondary principals
9 should be trained on the fundamental participative leadership practices and functions for sustainable
10 teachers’ job development.
11 Considerably, based on the established contributive relationship between principals PGT
12
leadership styles and KPIs of sustainable teacher-job performance in private secondary schools, it is
13
14 advisable they constructively take on board participative leadership. In addition, the autonomy and
15 independence of teachers should be motivated and nurtured to boost their performances
16 sustainability. Thus, as suggested by Hallinger and Kantamara (2000); Oplatka (2004), a family-like
17 environment’ is being promoted in schools within participative leadership. This is necessary because
18 teacher motivation, support, and complementary responsibility is an eventual requirement for
19 sustainable development.
20
21
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Fo

22
23
24 Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
rP

25
26 References
27
28
ee

29 Adeyemi, T. (2010). Principals leadership styles and teachers job performance in senior secondary schools in
30 Ondo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 2(6), 83-91.
31
rR

32 Ali, M. M. (2019). Associations Between High School Students’ Perceptions of Mathematics Classroom Learning
33 Environment and their Academic Achievements and Attitudes in Puntland State, Somalia. (Master of
34 Education), Northeast Normal University, (G42)
35
ev

36 Appelbaum, S. H., Audet, L., & Miller, J. C. (2003). Gender and leadership? Leadership and gender? A journey
37 through the landscape of theories. Leadership & organization development journal.
38
iew

Appiah, D. (2016). Senior High School Students’ Attitude Towards Mathematics and Perception of their Mathematics
39
40 Classroom Learning Environment. (Master of Philosophy in Mathematics Education ), University of
41 Education, Winneba,
42
Armstrong, M., & Taylor, S. (2014). Armstrong's handbook of human resource management practice: Kogan Page
43
44 Publishers.
45 Atsebeha, A. T. (2016). Principals’ leadership styles and their effects on teachers’ performance in the Tigray
46
region of Ethiopia. University of South Africa.
47
48 Aziri, B. (2011). JOB SATISFACTION: A LITERATURE REVIEW. Management Research & Practice, 3(4).
49 Bandstra, A. (2016). Beyond control: Heart-centered classroom climate and discipline: BookBaby.
50
51 Basit, A., Sebastian, V., & Hassan, Z. (2017). Impact of leadership style on employee performance (A Case study
52 on a private organization in Malaysia). International Journal of Accounting & Business Management, 5(2),
53 2289-4519.
54
55 Bass, B. M. (1999). Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European journal of
56 work and organizational psychology, 8(1), 9-32.
57
Bolman, L. G., & Deal, T. E. (2018). Reframing the path to school leadership: A guide for teachers and principals: Corwin
58
59 Press.
60 Brookhart, S. M. (2010). Formative assessment strategies for every classroom: An ASCD action tool: ASCD.

12
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 13 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
Brown, F. W., & Reilly, M. D. (2009). The Myers-Briggs type indicator and transformational leadership. Journal
4
5 of Management Development, 28(10), 916-932.
6 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological bulletin, 112(1), 155.
7
8 Cohen, J. (2013). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences: Routledge.
9 Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2013). Research methods in education: routledge.
10 Dalton, J., & Boyd, J. (1992). I teach: A guide to inspiring classroom leadership: Heinemann.
11
12 Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Comparative educational administration: Developing a cross-cultural
13 conceptual framework. Educational administration quarterly, 34(4), 558-595.
14
Euwema, M. C., Wendt, H., & Van Emmerik, H. (2007). Leadership styles and group organizational citizenship
15
16 behavior across cultures. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial,
17 Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 28(8), 1035-1057.
18
Evans, M. G. (1970). The effects of supervisory behavior on the path-goal relationship. Organizational behavior
19
20 and human performance, 5(3), 277-298.
21 Farr, S. (2010). Teaching as leadership: The highly effective teacher's guide to closing the achievement gap: John Wiley &
Fo

22
Sons.
23
24 Gibson, C. B. (1995). An investigation of gender differences in leadership across four countries. Journal of
rP

25 international business studies, 26(2), 255-279.

26
27 Glas, C., Scheerens, J., & Thomas, S. M. (2006). Educational evaluation, assessment and monitoring: A systematic
28 approach: Taylor & Francis.
ee

29 Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2000). Educational change in Thailand: Opening a window onto leadership as a
30
31 cultural process. School Leadership & Management, 20(2), 189-205.
rR

32 Hamilton, E. (2016). Assessing the Relationship of Principals' Leadership Styles on Teacher Satisfaction and Teacher
33
Turnover: Northcentral University.
34
35 Heck, R. (1996). Leadership and culture. Conceptual and methodological issues in comparing models across
ev

36 cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 74-97.

37
Hoerr, T. R. (2005). The art of school leadership: ASCD.
38
iew

39 Holdford, D. A. (2003). Leadership theories and their lessons for pharmacists. American Journal of Health-System
40 Pharmacy, 60(17), 1780-1786.
41
House, R., & Dessler, G. (1974). The path-goal theory of leadership: Some post hocand a priori tests. Contingency
42
43 Approachesto Leadership (Carbondale, Ill.: Southern Illinois University Press, 1974), 29-55.
44 House, R. J. (1971). A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative science quarterly, 321-339.
45
46 House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working Paper Series 76-06.
47 House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. The Leadership
48 Quarterly, 7(3), 323-352.
49
50 House, R. J., & Mitchell, R. (1974). Path–goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business, 3, 81–97.
51 Imhangbe, O., Okecha, R., & Obozuwa, J. (2018). Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ job performance:
52
Evidence from Edo State, Nigeria. Educational Management Administration & Leadership,
53
54 1741143218764178.
55 Indvik, J. (1985). A path-goal theory investigation of superior-subordinate relationships: University of Wisconsin--
56
Madison.
57
58 Isaac, R. G., Zerbe, W. J., & Pitt, D. C. (2001). Leadership and motivation: The effective application of expectancy
59 theory. Journal of managerial issues, 212-226.
60

13
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
 SAGE Open Page 14 of 15

1
2
3
Ishak, M. M., Suhaida, M., & Yuzainee, M. (2009). Performance measurement indicators for academic staff in Malaysia
4
5 private higher education institutions: A case study in UNITEN. Paper presented at the PMA Conference
6 2009.
7
8 Lassibille, G., & Navarro Gómez, L. (2000). Organisation and Efficiency of Education Systems: some empirical
9 findings. Comparative Education, 36(1), 7-19.
10 Lee, J. C.-k., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning
11
12 community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment to students.
13 Teaching and teacher education, 27(5), 820-830.
14
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of psychology, 22 140, 55-55.
15
16 Lockett, J. (1992). Effective Performance Management: A strategic guide to getting the best from people: Kogan Page.
17 Machumu, H. J., & Kaitila, M. M. (2014). Influence of Leadership Styles on Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Case of
18
Selected Primary Schools in Songea and Morogoro Districts, Tanzania. International Journal of
19
20 Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 6(4), 53-61.
21 Malik, S. Z., Saleem, M., & Naeem, R. (2016). Effect of leadership styles on organizational citizenship behaviour
Fo

22
in employees of telecom sector in Pakistan. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 54(2), 385-406.
23
24 Maloş, R. (2012). THE MOST IMPORTANT LEADERSHIP THEORIES. Annals of Eftimie Murgu University Resita,
rP

25 Fascicle II, Economic Studies.

26
27 Miller, P. (2016). Cultures of educational leadership: Global and intercultural perspectives: Springer.
28 Mwangi, W. (2013). Effects of leadership styles on teachers‟ job performance and satisfaction: a case of public secondary
ee

29 schools in Nakuru County, Kenya. M. Sc. Thesis submitted to Kenyatta University, Kenya,
30
31 Northouse, P. G. (2018). Leadership: Theory and practice: Sage publications.
rR

32 Okoji, O. O. (2016). Relationship between secondary school principals’ leadership style and teachers’ job
33
performance in selected rural communities of Ondo State, Nigeria. Annals of Modern Education, 8(1), 27-
34
35 36.
ev

36 Ololube, N. (2004). Professionalism: An institutional approach to teachers’ job effectiveness in Nigerian schools. Paper
37
presented at the seventh international LLinE Conference.
38
iew

39 Omeke Faith, C., & Onah Kenneth, A. (2012). The influence of principals’ leadership styles on secondary school
40 teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational and Social research, 2(9), 46.
41
Oplatka, I. (2004). The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics and reality. Comparative
42
43 Education, 40(3), 427-448.
44 Ozuruoke, A., Ordu, P., & Abdulkarim, M. (2011). Leadership Style and Business Educators’ Job Performance in
45
46 Senior Secondary Schools in a Changing Environment. Journal of Educational Social Research, 149.
47 Parmenter, D. (2015). Key performance indicators: developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs: John Wiley &
48 Sons.
49
50 Robbins, S. P., & Coulter, M. (2017). Management, 13e: Pearson India.
51 Saleem, A., Aslam, S., Yin, H.-b., & Rao, C. (2020). Principal Leadership Styles and Teacher Job Performance:
52
Viewpoint of Middle Management. Sustainability, 12(8), 3390. Retrieved from
53
54 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3390. doi:10.3390/su12083390
55 Savage, J. (2014). Lesson Planning: Key concepts and skills for teachers: Routledge.
56
Simon, M., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertations and scholarly research: Recipes for success (2013 Ed.). Cottage Grove,
57
58 OR: Dissertation Success LLC.
59 Smith, A. J. (2011). Implementing Core Values in the High-Tech Industry.
60
Smulyan, L. (2000). Balancing acts: Women principals at work: SUNY Press.

14
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen
Page 15 of 15 SAGE Open

1
2
3
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing
4
5 school effectiveness. Educational administration quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
6 Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of effective teachers: ASCD.
7
8 Taherdoost, H. (2017). Determining sample size; how to calculate survey sample size. International Journal of
9 Economics and Management Systems, 2.
10 Unger, M. S. (2011). Organized Teacher, Happy Classroom: A Lesson Plan for Managing Your Time, Space and Materials:
11
12 F+ W Media, Inc.
13 Vangel, K. (2011). Employee responses to job dissatisfaction.
14
Wachira, F. M., Gitumu, M., & Mbugua, Z. (2017). Effect of Principals’ Leadership Styles on Teachers’ Job
15
16 Performance in Public Secondary Schools in Kieni West Sub-County.
17 Walker, A., Hu, R., & Qian, H. (2012). Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness and
18
School Improvement, 23(4), 369-399.
19
20 Williams-Boyd, P. (2002). Educational leadership: A reference handbook: Abc-clio.
21 Yang, Z., Asbury, K., & Griffiths, M. D. (2019). An exploration of problematic smartphone use among Chinese
Fo

22
university students: Associations with academic anxiety, academic procrastination, self-regulation and
23
24 subjective wellbeing. International Journal of Mental Health and Addiction, 17(3), 596-614.
rP

25 Yin, H., Lu, G., & Wang, W. (2014). Unmasking the teaching quality of higher education: students’ course
26
27 experience and approaches to learning in China. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 39(8), 949-
28 970.
ee

29
30
31
rR

32
33
34
35
ev

36
37
38
iew

39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60

15
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/sageopen