Conceptual framework

In the educational setting, teacher leaders are at the forefront of “leading” their
teachers and the on-going changes in the educational environment represent significant
challenges for teacher leaders and their organization. This paper will be grounded on
the The Full Range of Leadership Theory. According to Bass (1996), The Full Range
Leadership Theory encapsulates the three types of leaders who express unique sets of
traits that are tied specifically to their leadership styles (cited by Barbuto, 2007). Avolio
& Bass divided each styles into individual dimensions, which showed substantial validity
that allows for predicting a number of leadership outcomes in relation to follower’s job
satisfaction (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sashkin, 2004; Barnett, 2019). This theory founded
a premise that teacher’s perception of expectancies between his effort and performance
is greatly affected by a leader’s leadership behaviour. Later, supported by several
researches, determined that job satisfaction of teachers was highly correlated with the
leadership qualities exhibited by the teacher heads (Bogler, 2006; Nguni et al.,2009;
Korkmaz, 2012).

The resurgence of interest in leadership among educational institution re-

emerged in the mid 1980’s revolving around the notion of transformational leadership
(Pounder, 2008). Bass and Riggio (as cited by Biggerstaf , 2012) argued that,
transformational teacher leaders are marked by their ability to instill intrinsic motivation
within their colleagues, provide guidance and create a positive working environment.
Salter (2014) added that through the strength of their vision and personality,
transformational teacher leaders are able to inspire other teachers and develop a sense
of satisfaction in their job and to work toward common goals.

It is argued that transformational leadership is built on the foundations of

transactional leadership. Transactional leadership style is widely used in educational
institutions. According to Avolioi, Walumbwa, and Weber (as cited by Khan, 2017),
transactional leadership is "largely based on the exchange of rewards contingent on
performance" (p.427). This highlights the idea that teacher leaders give teachers
something they want in exchange for getting something they want (STU Online, 2014).
It posits that teachers require structure, instruction and monitoring in order to complete
tasks correctly and on time. Khan (2017), went on to highlight that transactional
leaders usually lead in this fashion because they are interested in preserving the status
quo.

Conceptually laissez- faire leadership is distinct from other leadership

characterisitcs.  Bass and Riggio claimed that laissez-faire leadership, involves the
absence and avoidance of any form of leadership (Barret, 2019). Supported by
Maslowski, et.al. (2016) that this type of teacher leadership is a style that implies a
“hands off” approach to influence colleagues. Mahmood (2016) concurred, leaders with
this type of style avoid active participation in the responsibility of setting goals,
clarifying expectations among teachers and becoming involved when their leadership
direction is needed of the group. Stafford (2010) clarified that it is not a type of
leadership teacher leaders typically try to embrace, but the result of being distracted
and failing to provide leadership when and where it is needed. In this regard Serrat
(2020), went on to highlight the need for teacher leaders to grasp laissez- faire, its
signs and its consequences, especially on teachers’ motivation and satisfaction.

Conceptual literature

The Definition of Teacher Leadership

For ages people have been looking for a “beacon”, for direction, for purpose and for

meaning to guide their collective activities. Leadership is needed to foster purpose, direction,

imagination, and passion, particularly in times of crisis or rapid change. In this epoch of

perpetual change in the educational sphere people look to leaders for hope, inspiration, and a

pathway that will lead them to success and prosperity (Bolman & Deal, 1994).

As cited by (Dereli, 2003), in the first half of the nineteenth century the word

“leadership” was added to the lexicon of the English language (Bass, 1990). The concept of
leadership is a multi-faceted phenomenon which have been the corner stone of many theories.

Many efforts have been invested in clarifying the definition of teacher leadership. In a recent

paper from the Aspen Institute, Curtis (2013) defines teacher leadership as, “specific roles and

responsibilities that recognize the talents of the most effective teachers and deploy them in the

service of student learning, adult learning and collaboration, and school and system

improvement” (p. 4). Additionally, Curtis (2013) calls teacher leaders, “innovators, researchers,

champions of student learning, leaders of colleagues, and policy advocates” (p. 4). Although

those two definitions conceptualize teacher leadership in slightly unique ways, all of them

reflect the notion that leadership encompasses empowerment and collective agency (Harris,

2003) and teacher leadership involves “teacher influence over key school-wide decision-making

process” (Sebastian et al., 2017, p. 465). The explicit definition of leadership, of course,

depends by the context or goal of the activity or initiative surrounding teacher leadership.

The full range Theory of Leadership

The Full Range Leadership Theory includes three typologies of leadership styles: transformational
leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership. Avolio & Bass divided each styles into
individual dimensions, which showed substantial validity that allows for predicting a number of
leadership outcomes in relation to follower satisfaction and motivation (Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Sashkin,
2004; Barnett, 2019). The first leadership style is transformational leadership where Kouni, Koutsoukos
&  Panta (2018) argued that it is the most beneficial style and most desirable form of leadership. Next, is
the transactional style and is the most common leadership style found in many organizations (Adam,
Choi, Gho & Tan, 2016) . The third one is the laissez-faire leadership which is generally seen as the worst
form of leadership one can have. Barnett (2019) emphasized that laissez-faire leaders are often marked
by a distinct lack of leadership allowing the followers establish rules on their own and only get involved
when things take a turn for the worse in organizations.

Leadership styles

Transformational Leadership Style

Cited by Anderson (2018), according to Burns (1987), transformational leadership is a

style of leadership that transforms follower attitudes, beliefs, and behaviours, to a higher realm

of motivation where the leader inspires followers to be motivated to go above and beyond
current levels of achievement and performance into even higher levels of achievement and

performance. Leaders therefore are considered “primus intra pares”-first among equals (Afful-

Broni, 2004). In addition, Boampong, et.al. (2016) claim that with this style of leadership, the

followers feel trust, admiration loyalty and respect toward the leader and they are more

motivated to do more that they originally expected to do and develop a sense of satisfaction in

their work. Such leaders not only offer coaching and advices but also give followers attention and treat

them as individuals. As a result the organization can achieve the required outcomes. Bass (1990)

admitted four types of transformational leadership styles to include idealized influence (charisma),

inspirational motivation (inspiration influence), intellectual stimulation, and individual consideration.

a. Idealized Influence or Charisma: One can conceive of idealized influence as role-modeling, where the
leader demonstrate a high ethical and moral standards (Stafford, 2010). Leaders provide vision and a
sense of collective mission. They exhibit the value of service before self, sacrificing personal gain for the
mission and their followers, as a result they are endowed by their followers with qualities such as
persistence, determination and courage.

b. Inspirational Motivation (inspiration influence): Stafford (2010) argue that inspirational motivation is
“talking the talk.” Leaders develop and clearly articulate a promising vision of the future and motivate
their followers to be dedicated to the vision of the organization (Avolio & Bass, 2004). Through this
approach followers develop a sense of belonging and are more likely to commit to their organization’s
efforts.

c. Intellectual Stimulation: According to Northhouse (2013), intellectual stimulation consists of

encouraging subordinates to exhibit innovative behaviors, express creativity, and do their utmost to
exhibit performance that exceeds expectations (cited by Barret, 2019).

d. Individual Consideration: Provide mentoring and guidance to followers and considering their
individual needs, abilities and aspirations (Pounder, 2008). Stafford (2010) added, it involves a range of
behaviors, to include listening, coaching, mentoring and teaching and directly addresses followers need
for achievement and growth.

Transactional leadership style

Transactional leader style is less focused on emotion and inspiration. Stafford (2010) posits that
transactional leadership is sometimes afforded less respect than transformational leadership. Aloysius
(2017) argued, transactional leadership highly associated with reward, monitoring and controlling
followers . Transactional leadership is composed of three dimensions: contingent rewards,
management-by-exception (active), and management-by-exception (passive).

Contingent Reward: Leaders reward followers on the basis

of the achievement of specified performance levels.
Contingent Reward: Leaders reward followers on the basis
of the achievement of specified performance levels.
Contingent Reward: Leaders reward followers on the basis
of the achievement of specified performance levels.
Contingent Reward: Leaders reward followers on the basis
of the achievement of specified performance levels.
Leaders reward followers on the basis
of the achievement of specified performance levels
a. Contingent Rewards: leaders reward followers on the basis of the achievement of
specified performance levels.
b. Active Management by Exception: Leaders monitor and actively seek deviations and
provide intervention to correct a situation. In short, it is less proactive and more reactive
in nature
c. Passive Management by Exception: Leaders simply wait for errors and only
intervene if the problems appear serious and when standards are not achieved.

Laissez-faire Leadership Style

Conceptually, it is difficult to describe laissez-faire leadership because it is essentially non-leadership

where leaders do not exercise leadership in any meaningful sense (Pounder, 2008). Laissez-
faire leadership behaviors are seldom observed in entire organizations (Bass, 1990), yet still
perceived in some leaders (Bateh & Heyliger, 2014). Bass and Riggio (2006) argued
laissez-faire leadership involves the absence and avoidance of any form of responsibility
and leadership. A laissez-faire leader does not act when a correction is required. Northouse
(2013) added that they do not provide necessary feedback, offer aid, or develop their
followers in any way.

Teacher Leadership and Teachers’ Job satisfaction

The importance for addressing the concepts of leadership and job satisfaction— whose scope in
the organization and management literature is wide ranging and which gives rise to the competence of
the organization and increases the dynamic relations between leaders and their followers (Cogaltay,
Yalcin, & Karadag (2016). In parallel with this idea, echoed in the educational sphere, the leadership
approaches of leaders affect the job satisfaction of teachers. This assertion is supported by Baylor (2010)
that interacting with teacher leaders contribute to teachers’ experiences in a positive or negative way.
Teacher job satisfaction is often regarded as an important facet in increasing job performance and
reducing turnover among teachers. In addition,  Kouni, Koutsoukos &  Panta (2018) posit that teachers’
satisfaction with their profession is a major concern, since it is directly linked as to how each teacher
carries out his or her role, which reflects on the quality of his or her teaching work and the school
operation.
Gordon defined job satisfaction is seen as the emotional response of individual’s perception
as to whether his needs and wants are satisfied by his job (as cited by Adam, Choi, Gho & Tan, 2016).
In the same light, job satisfaction is defined as a positive or pleasurable emotional state that results from
one’s appraisal of their job or job experiences (Hilmi et al., 2016).  Related literature addresses job
satisfaction generally under two main titles, which are intrinsic job satisfaction and extrinsic job
satisfaction (Bektas 2017). When the factors satisfying the individual derive from the individual
her/himself, this is called “intrinsic satisfaction” (Lee, 2017). In juxtaposition, when the job
satisfaction elements are produced by external sources, this is called extrinsic satisfaction (Bektas
2017).

Extrinsic Satisfaction Factors: Extrinsic satisfaction is satisfaction derived from factors related to the job
context or setting, such as advancement, pay/ compensation, company policies and practices,
recognition, supervision of human relations and technical.

Intrinsic Satisfaction Factors: Intrinsic satisfaction is satisfaction derived from factors associated with the
content of the work, such as independence, security, moral values, authority, ability utilization,
creativity, responsibility, social service, social status, and achievement.

General Satisfaction Factors: General satisfaction combines all the intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction
factors and includes two additional factors: co-workers and working conditions (Weiss et al., 1967)

Summary

The perceived leadership styles among teacher leaders and teachers’ job satisfaction appear to
be connected once the teacher leaders perform their roles and responsibilities to get the work done
through their teachers, teacher leaders apply different types of leadership styles or they may
demonstrate different attitude patterns (Hinic, Grubor, and Brulic, 2017). In this context, the significance
of leadership styles among teacher leaders should not be undervalued as studies supported that
leadership styles in schools put a profound impact on teachers’ general job satisfaction.

The review of related literature reveals that studies heavily focused on principals as teacher
heads and their impact on teachers’ job satisfaction. Furthermore, researches on job satisfaction has
been a major undertaking for business and personal managers, consequently a slim research was
published on Philippine setting regarding job satisfaction among teachers in relation to their perceived
principals’ and/or teacher grade leaders’ leadership styles.

For the purposes of this study, The Full Range Leadership Theory is chosen as the theoretical
framework that focuses on the transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style and
laissez-faire leadership style. This paper will examine the teachers' job satisfaction related to their
perceptions of teacher grade leaders' leadership. A related problem is to examine the teacher's age,
gender, grade level taught, and length of service, as each will be related to both the perceptions
concerning the leadership style of their teacher grade leader, and the teachers' general job satisfaction
in selected elementary schools in the Division of Himamaylan. This paper could add to the existing body
of research in determining the relationship between the perceived leadership styles among teacher
grade leaders and its effect on teachers’ general job satisfaction.

Related studies

Dale (2012) conducted a quantitative study regarding the correlation of the perceived leadership
style of middle school principals to teacher job satisfaction and efficacy. The sample consisted of 142
certified teachers from 8 public middle schools in an East Tennessee school district. Teachers completed
the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, (Bass & Avolio, 2004) and the Job Satisfaction Survey,
(Spector, 1994). The findings from this study suggest that the middle school teachers’ perceptions of
their principal’s leadership style had a statistically significant relationship to teacher job satisfaction. The
findings agree with prior studies that have shown that a principal’s leadership style can have an effect
on the satisfaction of school teachers (Grayson & Alverez, 2008; Hulpia et al., 2009; Shatzer, 2009;
Tillman & Tillman, 2008). Furthermore, the study conducted by Dale (2012) emphasized the need
among school heads to help teachers to feel more motivated. In this regard, Mackenzie (2007) concur
that when workers feel their needs are being met and experience a sense of satisfaction in their job,
they experience a stronger motivation to exert extra effort to accomplish organizational goals.

Another study conducted in 2019 by Sehar & Alwi regarding impact of Head teacher’s leadership
style on teacher’s job satisfaction and work motivation. The purpose of the study was to explore
whether there is an impact of Head teachers’ leadership styles on the job satisfaction and work
motivation of teachers working under them. The research was a cross-sectional survey, the design
used to collect data from the respondents is quantitative co-relational design with a total of 122
teachers and 13 head teachers that were randomly selected from different schools of Karachi for the
data collection. The results of the study revealed that most head teachers leadership style maintain
a positive relationship on teachers’ motivation and satisfaction on their job.
argued that both transactional
and transformational leadership
e ect the
satisfaction level of employees
(Lok & Crawford, 2004)
argued that both transactional
and transformational leadership
e ect the
satisfaction level of employees
(Lok & Crawford, 2004)