Educational Leadership Style of Public Elementary School Heads and their Influence on

the Teachers' Work Motivation and Job Performance of Selected Elementary Schools in
the Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province

SHEENA CLAIRE VILLA DELA PEÑA

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL,

PHILIPPINE CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, DASMARINAS, CAVITE
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
(EDUCATIONAL MANAGEMENT)

2021
 Educational Leadership Style of Public Elementary School Heads and their Influence on
the Teachers' Work Motivation and Job Performance of Selected Elementary Schools in
the Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province

Dela Peña Sheena Claire Villa

An Action Research submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Philippine Christian
University, Dasmarinas, Cavite in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education major in Educational Management. Prepared under the supervision
of Dr. Editha Atendido

ABSTRACT
 DELA PEÑA, SHEENA CLAIRE V., Educational Leadership Style of Public
Elementary School Heads and their Influence on the Teachers' Work Motivation and Job
Performance of Selected Elementary Schools in the Municipality of Indang, Division of
Cavite Province. Action Research. Doctor of Education major in Educational Management.
Philippine Christian University, Dasmarinas, Cavite. August 2021. Professor. Dr. Editha
Atendido

This study was conducted to determine the leadership styles adopted by school principals and

their influence on the work motivation and job performance of elementary school teachers in the

Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province. Specifically, the study was aimed to assess the

leadership styles adopted by school principals; assess the perceived level of motivation and performance

of teachers; examine the influence of the styles adopted by school principals on the motivation and

performance of teachers.; and determine if there is a significant relationship between the leadership style

of school principals and teachers’ motivation and performance.

The path-goal leadership questionnaire and self-reported motivation questionnaire as well as a

self-constructed questionnaire to measure teacher motivation and performance was administered to collect

data from the selected principals and teachers, in the Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province.

Frequency count, and percentage, were used as a statistical tool in this study.

The principals and teachers indicated that supportive leadership style was the style most often

perceived. The data also indicated a statistically significant relationship between the job motivation and

job performance of teachers and the leadership styles employed by the principals

CHAPTER 1
 INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

The Philippine Department of Education acknowledged the important position of the school

principals in the continuity of education amid the COVID-19 crisis. It asserted its obligation to giving

professional development to school principals. The school principals were trained to carry out the

adoption of an array of learning delivery prototypes based on their preparedness, resources, and plans.

They were given an opportunity to be familiar with the range of learning delivery prototypes they can

employ depending on the capacity and situation of the community they are located. They were

capacitated to lead the continuity of education amid the crisis. However, despite such efforts to assist

school principals lead education during difficult times, educational leadership at present is fraught with

many challenges.

With this dramatic shift in the history of the Philippine educational system, and with the lack of

understanding of school administrators’ leadership, it is imperative to conduct a study identifying the

changes that took place to a school during its transition to a new curriculum, as well as the roles played by

private school administrators during the transition.

The role of a school principal in the Covid-19 pandemic is to shape teacher work motivation. For

teachers, the motivation they have, learning effectiveness reflects teachers' beliefs about their motivation,

ability and persistence as learners in an environment of collegial exchange (Liu et al., 2016). Though

teachers' work motivation could directly contribute to their well-being, it is expected that principal

leadership plays a critical role in the relationship between work motivation and well-being.

Given the very important role of the principal in creating learning situations and conditions during the

Covid-19 pandemic, in order to achieve educational goals in the different schools in the Municipality of

Indang, as well as the role of the principal in designing an atmosphere that can motivate all school

members, especially teachers, it will be very useful to know the principals’ implementation of leadership.
So, this study focused on the leadership style of school principals in shaping teacher work motivation and

performance.

STATEMENT OF THE PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to determine the leadership styles adopted by school principals and their

influence on the work motivation and job performance of elementary school teachers in the Municipality

of Indang, Division of Cavite Province. Specifically, this study was aimed to:

1. Assess the leadership styles adopted by school principals

2. Assess the perceived level of performance and motivation of teachers

3. Examine the effect of the styles adopted by school leaders on the motivation and performance of

teachers.

4. Determine if there is a significant relationship between the leadership style of school principals

and teachers’ motivation and performance.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The findings derived from this study can be useful with regards to improving school principals’

leadership styles and their effect on teacher motivation and performance. Moreover, it will strive to

determine whether the directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented styles or a

combination of these leadership styles have a greater effect on the motivation and performance of

teachers. It is hoped that the result derived from this study can also provide insight for educational leaders

and policy makers. Furthermore, it can also serve as a springboard for further study in the same and

related fields.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

 This study will be conducted to determine the leadership styles adopted by school principals and

their influence on the work motivation and job performance of elementary school teachers in the

Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province

The respondents were principals and teachers in the Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite

Province. The data need was taken at the Municipality of Indang, as well as survey from the selected

respondents.

CHAPTER 2

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

A. Review of Related Literature and Studies

This chapter is a presentation of related literature and studies which direction in the conduct of the

study. A brief survey of the literature and studies that are closely related to the study are presented in this

chapter. Among the topics presented in this chapter are the

Principal Leadership Styles

The concept of leadership has been defined in different ways by researchers and has been

analyzed using various theories and approaches. Of course, these concepts have differed according to the

characteristics of the current century and the social, political, and cultural characteristics of society at

various points in time. Leadership style refers to the pattern of behavior a leader adapts to plan, organize,

motivate, and control. It is the extent he/she listens, sets goals and standards, develops action plans,

directs others and gives feedback (Okumbe, 1998). The extent by which a principal succeeds in achieving

the school objective by incorporating both human and physical aspects depend on his administrative

behavior (Okumbe, 1998). Hersey, Blanchard & Johnson (2008) further argues that it is necessary for

principals to be aware of their leadership styles. Several empirical evidence from scholars suggest that
leadership styles can be interwoven and if applied effectively they can breed better results. They continue

to state that not only one leadership style is appropriate in all situations.

As a result, because the leadership styles of organizational managers vary, each of them may have

different effects on employees. When the subject is considered in terms of educational management, it is

known that the leadership style of a school principal is one of the factors affecting the interest, attitudes

and behaviors of the school, especially the sense of belonging and motivation instilled in the stakeholders

(teachers) towards the school. The studies conducted also support this view. Kılıç (2009), in his study

examining the effect of the leadership styles of school administrators on teacher motivation, reported that

school principals who adopted a democratic management style positively affected teachers’ motivation.

According to Daft and Noe (2001), a principal’s leadership style has an effect on teachers as well

as students. In this study, the leadership styles of the path-goal will be discussed first.

Directive style of leadership

House (1997) indicates that the directive style of leadership entails telling followers what needs

to be done by giving them suitable directions. This includes giving the subordinates timetables of specific

work to be performed during a specific period of time. In addition, House (1997) adds that rewards may

also be increased as needed and role ambiguity decreased (by telling the subordinates what they should be

doing). This type of leadership style may be used when the task is unstructured and complex and the

followers are inexperienced (Kemsley, 2011). According to House, this leadership style increases the

followers’ sense of security and control and is, therefore, appropriate to the specific situation. It is also

most effective when people are unsure of the tasks they have to perform “or when there is a great deal of

uncertainty” within their working environment. House (1997) indicates that it “occurs primarily “because

a directive style clarifies what the subordinates need to do and therefore reduces task ambiguity.” In

addition, the relationship between effort and reward is made clear by the directive leadership style and

therefore, the anticipation exists that a planned effort will lead to a valued outcome (House, 1997).
Supportive style of leadership

House (1997) states that a supportive leadership style is used when a leader takes the needs of the

subordinates into account, showing concern for their welfare and creating a friendly working

environment. According to House (1997), the benefit of this style is to increase the followers’ self-esteem

and make the jobs assigned to the followers more attractive. This approach can be best utilized when the

work is stressful and tiresome. Moreover, House (1997) asserts that a supportive leadership style

increases the satisfaction and self-confidence of subordinates and is also important to reduce any negative

aspects present in the situation (Chen & Silverthorne, 2005). However, this means that supportive

leadership would offer very little benefit to those subordinates who are satisfied with their jobs.

Participative style of leadership

The participative style of leadership is similar to what has been stated above under the discussion

of the democratic leadership style. Somech (2005) points out that a participative leadership style refers to

a leader who discusses work-related aspects with his/her followers and takes their ideas or suggestions

into account in order to make a decision and to take a particular action. House (1997) postulates that this

leadership style is best suited to situations when the followers are talented and when their suggestions are

needed and when they are able to share their ideas freely. This style would also be effective when the

situation is unstructured and the willingness of followers to control their environment is strong. However,

this style will be unsuccessful for those subordinates who like to be given directions in the place where

they work and do not perform their tasks in terms of the prescribed outcomes (Somech & Wenderow,

2006).

Achievement-oriented style of leadership

House (1997) explains that the achievement-oriented style of leadership is used when the leader

sets challenging goals for his/her followers in terms of their tasks and high standards are expected and

stipulated. Moreover, House (1997) declares that this type of leadership style can be successful when the
task is difficult and the environment is vague, and in order to increase the self-confidence that enables the

subordinates to attain their goals.

LEADERSHIP AND TEACHERS’ MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

Since principals directly oversee teacher job performance, their leadership styles have a direct

impact on the job performance of teachers.

Day, Sammons, Hopkins and Harris (2009) reveal that many researchers from different countries

and various school settings have confirmed the influence that leadership styles have on school

improvement. Principals who make an important and assessable contribution to the success of their

employees can lead their schools effectively and could improve themselves and their staff (Mulford,

2003). One of the most important tasks of a leader is to enhance his/her own and teachers’ professional

development at all levels of education (Guskey, 2002). This will impact on job performance.

The responsibilities of principal entail promoting the effective performance of teachers. Such

types of tasks promoting the effective performance of teachers are performed not only by the principal but

by the leaders of departments and teams in the school (Usdan, McCloud & Podmostko, 2000). The

principal must therefore also work through these leaders to influence work performance.

More specifically, the team leader’s role is to provide ongoing support and motivation to his/her

team to improve its performance with the aim of attaining high-quality standards for all teachers and

students in the school. In line with this argument,

Akram, Raza, Khaleaq and Atika (2011) argue that teacher performance is indicated as an output

of the ability and motivation of teachers. Hayward (2005) affirms that despite the motivation of

employees to perform, it is necessary to focus on problems that might affect the workers’ performance.

These problems or factors can be the result of underdeveloped competencies, inappropriate performance

goals or lack of feedback about performance

 Kim and Brymer (2011) and War (1998) are of the opinion that an increase in job satisfaction can

lead to improved job performance. Many diverse intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors can inform

teacher job performance. Other factors that influence teacher performance are management styles of

school principals, the way the teachers communicate with each other, the involvement of the teachers in

decision-making, and talents of the teachers which are important to perform different activities. More

factors include the importance that is given to the job to be performed, the rights that employees have,

respect, achievement, feedback and job responsibility, the way the teachers are promoted and the types of

activities to be performed (Kim & Brymer, 2011).

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This section proposes the conceptual framework that will treat in this study. The quality

of input influences the quality of output of which in this research are teachers’ motivation and

performance

Principals’
leadership style
 Directive Teachers’
 Supportive motivation and
 Participative performance
 Achievement-
oriented

Fig. 1 The research paradigm

Fig. 1 shows the relationship of teachers’ motivation and performance with the leadership

style of the principal. The independent variables shown in the figure are principals’ leadership

style. These variables were process in order to improve teachers’ motivation and performance.

HYPOTHESIS
 1. There is no significant difference in the leadership styles of school principals and teachers

performance and motivation

DEFINITION OF VARIABLES

Leadership style- is the ability of a leader to get tasks done with the assistance and cooperation of people

in a school system (Adeyemi, 2010). In this study this pertains to the way a principal in the Municipality

of Indang leads.

Performance- is defined as the result of ability and motivation. In addition, performance is ultimately an

individual phenomenon with environmental factors influencing performance, Hayward (2005). In this

study this implies teachers in the Municipality of Indang carrying out or accomplishing an action or task

or to do something in terms of a specific standard.

Motivation- is defined as the movement to initiate, direct and maintain desired business behaviors. The

main purpose of motivation is to ensure that employees act willingly and efficiently in parallel with the

goals of the organization (Demir, 2015). In this study this refers conditions for the teachers in the

Municipality of Indang to work willingly in line with organizational goals and to be productive.
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

RESEARCH DESIGN

The design that used in this study was ex-post facto research design. Best and Kahn (2006), defines

ex-post facto design as a descriptive research where variables that exist have already occurred with non-

intervention of the researcher. The design was used in this study because leadership styles were already in

the principals and had already been used. The performance and motivation of teachers in the Municipality

of Indang had already occurred.

RESEARCH LOCALE

The study conducted to determine the leadership styles adopted by school principals and their

influence on the work motivation and job performance of in 4 public schools namely: Dr. Alfredo Pio de

Roda Elementary School, Calumpang Lejos Elementary School, Agus-os Elementary School, Kaytapos

Elementary School, all are located in the Municipality of Indang, Division of Cavite Province.

SAMPLES AND SAMPLING TECHNIQUE USED

To determine the sample of the study, the stratified proportional random sampling was used.

Stratified sampling as defined by Thomas (2012), is a probability sampling technique wherein the

researcher divides the entire population into different subgroups or strata, then randomly selects the final
subjects proportionally from the different strata. Stratified random sampling is used when the researcher

wants to highlight a specific sub-group within the population. This technique is useful in such researches

because it ensures the presence of the key subgroup within the sample. Stratified sampling will be used in

this research because the data that is needed shall come from the different subgroups that belong to the

entire population. To compute for the sample, the researcher used Slovin’s formula. Sample for the study

were twenty-two (22) school staff randomly drawn from 4 public schools in the Municipality of Indang,

Division of Cavite Province.

INTRUMENTATION

The study used online questionnaire using google form to collect data from all school staff to

determine the leadership styles adopted by school principals and their influence on the work motivation

and job performance of elementary school teachers. A questionnaire is the means by which a researcher

determines the nature of the relationship between the independent and dependent variables in quantitative

research. The leadership styles that affect the performance and motivation of teachers (the directive,

supportive, participative and achievement-oriented styles respectively) were independent variables, while

the teachers’ job performance and motivation were the dependent variables.

The questionnaire prepared for this study was divided into four sections.

The first section or section “A” of the questionnaire dealt with the biographical detail of the

respondents while the second section or section “B” incorporates items that described the relationship that

existed between principals and teachers taking into account the path-goal leadership styles, namely, the

directive style, the supportive style, the participative style and the achievement-oriented style.

The various leadership styles were probed in specific questions as follows:

 Directive style (Q1, 5, 9, 14 and 18).

 Supportive style (Q2, 8, 11, 15 and 20).

 Participative style (Q3, 4, 7, 12 and 17).

 Achievement-oriented style (Q6, 10, 13, 16 and 19)

Section C measured the perception of principals and teachers regarding teachers’ performance

using the following rating scale.

1. Strongly disagree

2. Disagree

3. Undecided

4. Agree

5. Strongly agree

The fourth section or section “D” addressed the perceptions of principals and teachers regarding

the leadership styles, the different factors that could influence teachers’ job performance. This section

also included open-ended questions.

The fifth section measured teacher’s motivation using 15 questions. Four of the questions were

general motivation questions and 11 questions directly related to specific leadership style. These items

were also measured using the following scale

0- Not at all

1-Once in a while

2-Sometimes

3- Fairly Often

4- Frequently, if not always

PROCEDURE
 The questionnaire was administered to the research participants and the completed questionnaires

were prepared for electronic capturing of the responses participants provided to the questionnaire

questions.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

1. Frequency counts- determine the number of observations that fall under the given category.
2. Percentage-determines the percentage of total observations falling under the given category.
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. RESULTS

In finding out the leadership of the principal that is most effective in shaping teacher work

motivation and performance, it will be discussed through the results of surveys as a strengthening of the

opinion obtained from the recapitulation of the percentage of answers to the questionnaire about the

principal's leadership activities, which the teacher has filled in. The discussion begins with understanding

Table 2, as follows: The current number of all staff at the elementary schools in the research sample is 22.

Information on the demographic characteristics of the teachers is presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics of Participants (N=22)

Variables f %

Gender Female 20 90.9

Male 2 9.1

Age Under 25 0 0

25-29 2 9.1

30-39 9 40.9

40-49 10 45.5
 50-59 1 4.5

Employment status LSB 0 0

Substitute 0 0

Regular Permanent 22 100

Highest Educational Bachelor’s degree 19 86.4

Qualification Master’s Degree 3 13.6

Doctoral Degree 0 0

Teaching experience Less than 1 year 0 18.2

1-2 years 2 9.1

3-5 years 2 9.1

6-10 years 9 40.9

11-15 years 5 22.7

16-20 years 4 0

More than 20 years 0 0

Teaching experience at Less than 1 year 1 4.5

your present school 1-2 years 8 36.4

3-5 years 4 18.2

6-10 years 6 27.3

11-15 years 2 9.1

16-20 years 1 4.5

More than 20 years 0 0

The frequency distribution of gender in Table 2 indicates that 90.1% of school staff were females.

Regarding age in the same table, roughly 45.5% of the staff fell into the 40 to 49years age category.

Furthermore, all the elementary school staff (100%) were full-time, (permanently appointed workers).
Another, the table indicates that the majority (86.4%) of the staff had a Bachelors degree qualification.

And 13.6% with master’s degree which indicates that it is important in educational field. The frequency

distribution of prior experience of the staff depicted in Table 1 shows that 40.9% of the staff had between

six- and ten-years prior experience and 9.1% of the staff had between one and two years of experience in

their current position (at their current school).

The analysis of qualitative responses to the open-ended question namely the perceptions of

participants on the leadership style of the principal regarding the job performance of teachers in school,

included reasons such as the following:

 The leadership style of the principal increases the participation level of teachers in decision

making that needs consultation among teachers.

 The leadership style employed by the school head provides support to teachers to overcome

problems preventing them from accomplishing their goals.

 The leadership style used by the principal encouraged the teachers to give their best

 The principal set as a good model in terms of professionalism

 It helps to foster both a positive and motivating culture for teachers and high-quality experience

for learners.

 The leadership of school head gives challenges that helps in the professional growth.

 The leadership style employed by the school head inspired the teachers to be more flexible at the

same time to be functional in school activities inside or outside the school premises.

 The leadership style employed by the school head makes teachers perform their duties in time and

correct most of the time

 The school head motivated the teacher showcased their talents and to attend different seminar and

workshop that enabled them to be promoted

 The leadership style employed by school head that inspired of being very organized in every

school activities, school planning , reports and ensuring to meet our deadlines.
  The leadership style employed by school head builds harmonious relationship with her

subordinate and has a direct impact on teachers performance. It also increases teacher job

satisfaction and strengthens their commitment to professional growth.

 The leadership style employed by the school head increases the satisfaction of subordinates and

reduce negative aspect present in the situation

 Our school head asks questions instead of providing answers, supports employees instead of

judging them, and facilitates their development instead of dictating what has to be done.

Tables 3-6 presented below report the frequency response patterns of the five aspects that constitute

the four leadership styles (directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented leadership styles).

A brief discussion of the general interpretation of the frequency table of each leadership style follows

directly below each table. A way of interpreting these subsets of response patterns for a particular

leadership style is to examine the last row of each table - the row of total responses. By comparing the

percentage of total “positive” (often, usually, always) responses reported to the percentage of total

“negative” (never, hardly ever, seldom) responses reported for a particular leadership style it can be

deduced whether the majority of participants were generally positively or negatively inclined with regard

to a specific leadership style. This served as a first general indication of whether a particular style was

perceived to be present in principals’ interactions with staff in primary schools. A comparative summary

of the leadership styles were presented in Table 7, the last table of this paragraph.

Directive leadership style questionnaire-questions

Table 3: All the staff: Response distribution of the five attributes of the style

Attributes of the directive style Percentage of responses to each of the seven occurrence-rating level (1-7)

Row Percentage Never Hardly Seldo Occasionally Often Usually Always

ever m

1: I let my staff know what is expected of them 0 0 13.6 0 4.5 40.9 40.9

5: I inform my teachers about what needs to be done 0 4.5 9.09 0 4.5 31.8 50

9: I ask my teachers to follow standard rules 0 0 9.09 0 4.5 27.3 59

 14: I explain the level of performance that is expected of 0 4.5 4.5 0 27.3 22.7 40.9

teachers

18: I give a vague explanation of what is expected of 0 4.5 9.1 0 31.8 27.3 27.3

teachers

Total 0 4.5 7.4 0 14.5 30 43.6

Table 3 indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the directive style is

11.9% compared to the 88.1% “positive” responses.

Supportive leadership style questionnaire questions

Table 4: All the staff: Response distribution of the five attributes of the style

Attributes of the supportive style Percentage of responses to each of the seven occurrence-rating level (1-7)

Row Percentage Neve Hardly Seldom Occasionall Often Usually Always

r ever y

2.I maintain a friendly working relationship 0 0 13.6 0 4.5 36.4 45.5

8: I do little things to make group pleasant 4.5 4.5 13.6 4.5 18.2 36.4 18.2

11: I say hurtful things to subordinates 13.6 18.2 13.6 9.1 9.1 18.2 18.2

15: I assist with problems that hinder performance 0 0 13.6 4.5 18.2 36.4 27.3

20: I behave in a thoughtful manner towards subordinates 0 4.5 0 9.1 18.2 31.8 36.4

Total 3.62 5.44 10.9 5.4 13.62 31.84 29.12

Table 4 indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the supportive style is

19.96%, compared to the 74.58% “positive response.

Table 5: All the staff: Response distribution of the five attributes of the style

Attributes of the participative style Percentage of responses to each of the seven occurrence-rating level (1-7)

Row Percentage Never Hardly Seldom Occasionall Often Usually Always

ever y

3: I consult with my subordinates 0 0 18.2 0 4.5 31.8 45.5

4: Listen receptively to my subordinates 0 0 13.6 0 9.1 31.8 45.5

7: I act with consulting teachers 18.2 13.6 13.6 4.5 22.7 18.2 9.1

12: I ask subordinates suggestions regarding doing 0 0 9.1 0 18.2 40.9 31.8

assignments

17: I ask suggestions about which assignments should be set 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 18.2 40.9 27.3

Total 3.64 3.62 11.8 1.8 14.54 32.72 31.84

 Table 5 indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the participative style

is 19.06%, compared to the 79.1% “positive” responses.

Table 6: All the staff: Response distribution of the five attributes of the style

Attributes of the achievement-oriented style Percentage of responses to each of the seven occurrence-rating level (1-7)

Row Percentage Never Hardly Seldom Occasionall Often Usually Always

ever y

6: I convey to my subordinates that they should perform at 0 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 27.3 54.5

the best level

10: I set challenging performance goals for my 0 4.5 9.1 0 13.6 27.3 45.5

subordinates

13: I encourage continual performance improvement 0 0 9.1 0 22.7 27.3 40.9

16: I show doubt in my subordinates’ performance 4.5 18.2 9.1 9.1 27.3 18.2 13.6

19: I set challenging goals for my subordinates 0 4.5 9.1 0 27.3 22.7 36.4

Total 0.9 6.34 8.18 2.72 19.08 24.56 38.18

Table 6 indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the achievement-

orientated style is 15.42%, compared to the 81.82% “positive” responses

Table 7: Comparison of the proportion (%) of positive (more frequent occurrence) and negative (less frequent)

responses of experienced presence of leadership styles of principals

All staff

Leadership Style Negative Positive

Directive 11.9 88.1

Supportive 19.96 74.58

Participative 19.06 79.1

Achievement-oriented 15.42 81.82

 Table 7 indicates that the teachers and principals (the staff) had observed the following leadership

styles during their principals' interactions with the staff: directive (88%), supportive (75%), participative

(79%) and achievement-oriented (82%).

Table 8. Staff’ perceptions of leadership styles used that present in their interactions with staff

Directive Supportive Participative Achievement-oriented

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Low 16 72.73 2 9.1 16 72.73 19 86.36

Moderate 4 18.18 17 77.27 4 18.18 2 9.1

High 2 9.1 3 13.64 2 9.1 1 4.55

Tables 8 indicates that all the staff perceived the most dominant leadership style of principals to

be the supportive leadership style with a high rating frequency of 13.64%.

Table 9: Frequency tables of leadership style preference indicated by all the staff.

Directive Supportive Participative Achievement-oriented

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

3 13.6 10 45.5 3 13.6 6 27.3

In Table 9, it indicates the preferred leadership style, it is shown that all school staff preferred the

supportive and achievement-oriented styles first or second, and the directive and participative third.

Table 10: Response patterns of all teacher-participants to the performance questions that describe the teacher-performance

construct

Questions Rating levels

 Frequency Strongly Disagree Undecided Agree Strongly Total

disagree agree

1:Assessment done according to the assessment policy 0 0 2 8 12 22

2: Conduct is professional 0 0 2 7 13 22

3:Regularly mark work books 0 1 3 11 7 22

4: Have a positive influence on learners 0 0 1 10 11 22

5:Teachers prepare well for lessons 0 0 2 8 12 22

6 :Teachers check that learners master their work 0 0 1 9 12 22

7:Workbooks signed by teacher and parent 0 0 3 11 8 22

8:Manage class in a disciplined way 0 0 1 8 13 22

9:Know the vision, and mission of school 0 0 1 8 13 22

10:Assessment is done according to schedule 0 0 1 11 10 22

11: Have high, realistic expectations of learners 0 0 1 10 11 22

12: Enrich the curriculum by visits 0 0 2 11 9 22

13. Motivate learners to learn. 0 0 1 6 15 22

14:Use assessment data, improve teaching 0 0 1 8 13 22

15:Test immediately after unit work 0 0 2 8 12 22

16: Love working with children 0 0 1 7 14 22

17: Promote healthy classroom culture 0 0 1 9 12 22

18:Teach at learners competence levels 0 0 1 8 13 22

19:Promote learner participation, group work 0 0 2 10 10 22

20: Keep a record of marks, monitor progress 0 0 1 7 14 22

21: Use teaching media, planned 0 0 1 10 11 22

22:Communicate in an appropriate way 0 0 1 7 14 22

23:Teach learners how to learn 0 0 1 7 14 22

24:Planning consider learner diversity 0 0 1 9 12 22

25:Teachers work according structured schemes 0 0 1 10 11 22

26:Check school attendance, not fall behind 0 0 1 8 13 22

27: Provide opportunities, competent learners 0 0 1 9 12 22

28: Plan so as to engage learners in class 0 0 1 8 13 22

29: Use teaching time effectively 0 0 1 10 11 22

30: Effective classroom discipline policy 0 0 1 10 11 22

Total 0 1 40 263 356 660

 The last row of Tables 10, the row of column totals, indicates that the total strongly agree and

agree responses (the positive responses) form the majority of responses calculated as 93.79%. It can,

therefore, be deduced that teacher performance is perceived in a positive light (at a satisfactory level) by

all the staff.

Table 11: Response patterns of all teacher-participants to the performance questions that describe the teacher-motivation

construct

Questions Rating levels

Frequency Not at All Once in a Sometimes Fairly Frequently, Total

while often if not always

1.You consider yourself highly motivated to do the 0 0 0 10 12 22

best at your job

2.You are motivated by a principal that takes the time 0 0 2 7 13 22

to listen when you have a problem

3.You are motivated by a principal that always tells 0 0 1 6 15 22

you how things should be done.

4.You are motivated by a principal that emphasizes the 0 0 0 6 16 22

need for team-work.

5.You are motivated by a principal that monitors your 0 0 2 7 13 22

work closely and consistently reminds you of

deadlines.

6.You are motivated to be the best teacher in your 0 0 1 6 15 22

school.

7.You are motivated by a principal that does not see a 2 1 3 7 9 22

need for new ideas and new staff development

techniques.

8.You are motivated by a principal that asks for your 0 0 2 7 13 22

opinion when making decisions that affect you

9.You are motivated by a principal that is not willing to 1 1 5 7 8 22

make changes to his/her leadership approach.

10.You are motivated by a principal that does not make 2 2 3 7 8 22

his/her opinion clear on most tasks

11.You are motivated by a principal that encourages 0 0 0 7 15 22

you to develop new ideas and to be creative in your

 job.

12.You are motivated to teach at your school 0 0 0 6 16 22

13.You are motivated by a principal that lets you know 0 0 1 8 13 22

exactly what he/she wants done and exactly how he/she

wants it done

14.You are motivated by a principal that prefers to 0 2 2 8 10 22

communicate by sending emails, memos, or voice

mails, as opposed to calling a meeting.

15. You are motivated to teach under your current 0 0 1 5 16 22

administrator.

Total 5 6 23 104 192 330

The last row of Tables 11, the row of column totals, indicates that the total fairly often and

frequently if not always responses (the positive responses) form the majority of responses calculated as

89.70%.

B. DISCUSSION

Table 2 indicates that 90.1% of elementary school teachers and principals (henceforth, referred to

as staff) were females. The number of females exceeded the number of males in most of the elementary

schools in the municipality. These figures, therefore, reflect the gender composition of elementary

schools in the municipality of Indang.

Regarding age in the same table, roughly 45.5% of the staff fell into the 40 to 49years age

category. Thus, they were a mature workforce to perform different activities in the schools, and they

could understand each other since they did not have a large age difference. This finding was confirmed by

Bolin (2007), who determined significant correlations between age and job satisfaction: older teachers

derived greater satisfaction from self-fulfillment, salary, and collegial relationships.

Furthermore, all the elementary school staff (100%) were full-time, (permanently appointed

workers), which is an important fact concerning the planning of strategies and the execution of tasks as
this ensures the continuity of these aspects. This is supported by Cuyper, Notelaers and Witte (2009) who

comment that permanent employees are often viewed as committed, loyal and stable.

Another, the table 2 also indicates that the majority (86.4%) of the staff had a Bachelors degree

qualification. And 13.6% with master’s degree which indicates that it is important in educational field.

The frequency distribution of prior experience of the staff depicted in Table 2 shows that 40.9% of the

staff had between six- and ten-years prior experience and 9.1% of the staff had between one and two

years of experience in their current position (at their current school). This implies that these teachers and

principals were rich in experience that enabled them to inform novice teachers about the school they were

working for, and this helped them to know each other very well. In addition, they could also act as

mentors or provide adequate information about the schoolwork. Ladd (2013), declares that experienced

teachers on average are more effective in increasing learners’ achievement than the teachers who are less

experienced.

The qualitative data referred to the open-ended questions namely the perceptions of participants

on the leadership style of the principal regarding the job performance of teachers in school made it clear

that most of the respondents of the staff indicated that they realized that the leadership style the principals

employed was extremely supportive of their teaching tasks.

In Table 3, it indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the directive style

is 11.9% compared to the 88.1% “positive” responses. This strongly suggests that the directive leadership

style did present in the principals.

In Table 4, the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the supportive style is

19.96%, compared to the 74.58% “positive response. This strongly suggests that it is perceived that the

supportive leadership style does present in principals

 Table 5 indicates the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the participative style

is 19.06%, compared to the 79.1% “positive” responses. This strongly suggests that the participative style

is perceived to be present among primary school teachers.

In Table 6, the percentage of total “negative” responses reported for the achievement-orientated

style is 15.42%, compared to the 81.82% “positive” responses. This strongly suggests that the

achievement orientated style is perceived to be present in primary school principals

Table 7 indicates that the teachers and principals (the staff) had observed the following leadership

styles during their principals' interactions with the staff: directive (88%), supportive (75%), participative

(79%) and achievement-oriented (82%). This agrees with research findings of Tolbert and Hall (2009)

who observe that individuals can exercise different types of leadership styles. It can be argued that the

staff had a positive perception of all the path-goal leadership styles because the leadership styles all meet

the needs of the teachers and principals. Evidence supporting the current finding is noted by House (1971)

who states that positive perceptions of the path-goal leadership styles of employees increase when there is

good leadership in the organization.

The results create the impression that all the path-goal leadership styles are important to the staff.

This finding is consistent with the findings of House and 143 Mitchell (1974) who reported that the

directive leader gives specific guidance to staff to accomplish their desired expectations, the supportive

leader demonstrates respect for subordinates, the participative leader solicits subordinates for suggestions

and the achievement oriented leader expects subordinates to perform their tasks at the highest level.

Moreover, this finding also corresponds with the findings of Edgerson and Kritsonis (2006) who

state that principals can improve the perceptions of teachers by having a good relationship with teachers.

As was indicated in Tables 3 to 6, the perceptions of all school staff regarding the occurrence of these

leadership styles, (directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented) were positive. These

positive perceptionsf of all school staff imply that there was agreement on how they perceived the
presence of leadership styles manifest under principals in elementary schools in the Municipality of

Indang. Edgerson and Kritsonis (2006) indicate that exposure to different leadership styles assist staff to

function effectively in the classroom and build their own self-esteem. It furthermore enables teachers to

view principals as supporters and facilitators who help to make teachers effective in the classroom. Davis

and Wilson (2000) point out that if a supportive and facilitating environment is experienced teachers will

try hard to accept the leadership of their principals. In addition, Wahlstrom and Louis (2008) state that an

“important component of working relationships is trust, which assists principals and teachers to make

certain greater success in the school environment”.

Tables 8 indicates that all the staff perceived the most dominant leadership style of principals to

be the supportive leadership style with a high rating frequency of 13.64% for all the staff.

House (1996) explains that a supportive leadership style is used when a leader takes the needs of

the subordinates into account, showing concern for their welfare and creating a friendly working

environment. According to House (1996), the benefit of this style is that it increases the followers’ self-

esteem and makes the jobs assigned to the followers more interesting. This approach is most effective

when work is either stressful or boring. Moreover, supportive leadership is important to increase the self-

confidence of subordinates and reduce any negative aspects Kim and Brymer (2011) and War (1998) also

confirm that “increasing the job satisfaction of a person can lead to improved job performance.”

As can be seen in Tables 8., the supportive leadership style is the style that was observed most

frequently. However, this does not mean that the supportive leadership style was the only leadership style

perceived to be used/ needed/ present in the elementary schools.

Differences between the preferred and experienced leadership styles

The question that might well be asked at this stage is how the participants’ perceptions of their

preference of the principals' leadership style and principals’ leadership styles that manifest in the

elementary school environment differ. [Please note that a distinction is made between "preferred
leadership styles of principals / or leadership styles of preference for principals" and "experienced

leadership style/s of principals/ or leadership style/s that present in the interaction of principals with their

staff".

In Table 9, it indicates the preferred leadership style, it is shown that both the principals and

teachers preferred the supportive and achievement-oriented styles first or second, and the directive and

participative third. In contrast, which reports on the experienced leadership styles, shows that the

supportive leadership style is ranked first and the achievement-oriented last, with the directive and

participative styles assigned rank two or three.

This indicates that all the path-goal leadership styles are employed. Bolden et al. (2003) observe

that there is no best style of leadership that is suitable in all situations and Ricketts (2009) points out that

leaders choose all the appropriate leadership styles that apply in specific situations. This means that

factors such as the followers’ maturity levels and the management philosophy of the leader and other

factors impact on the situation (such as the characteristics of the leader, the followers and the situation

itself. It is interesting to note that all staff preferred the supportive leadership

The last row of Tables 10, the row of column totals, indicates that the total strongly agree and

agree responses (the positive responses) form the majority of responses calculated as 93.79%. It can,

therefore, be deduced that teacher performance is perceived in a positive light (at a satisfactory level) by

all the staff combined, the principals and the teachers. In general, it can be stated that teacher performance

was evaluated positively by all the response groups. This can be interpreted as an initial perception of

“satisfactory to above satisfactory” teacher performance.

The last row of Tables 11, the row of column totals, indicates that the total fairly often and

frequently if not always responses (the positive responses) form the majority of responses calculated as

89.70%. It can, therefore, be deduced that teacher motivation is perceived in a positive light (at a

satisfactory level) by all the staff.

 In general, it can be stated that teacher motivation was evaluated positively by all the response

groups. This can be interpreted that when teachers perceived leadership style to be more situational they

had higher level of motivation. From the findings, the behaviors that were perceived as creating a

supportive environment for an individual teacher as identified in Hulleman & Barron (2010) were

important behavior factors that influenced the level of motivation.

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

A. SUMMARY

 Participants preferred the supportive leadership styles somewhat more in their principals than

they did the participative, achievement-orientated or directive leadership styles. Furthermore,

the participants perceived all four leadership styles to be present in the conduct of their

principals.

 A positive perception of overall teacher performance was reported, and

 There was a significant relationship between leadership styles of school principals and

teachers’ performance and motivation. Teachers’ performance and motivation were

statistically significantly influenced by a number of factors which include: preference for

specific principal leadership style; experienced presence of the supportive leadership style in

principals; and qualifications of participants.

 The response pattern of preference for a leadership style; and experience of the presence of

specific leadership styles under all staff seemed similar when it came to the supportive leadership

style. This is also affirmed that most of the teachers were happy with the supportive leadership

style but also felt the need for different leadership style from their principals.

 As mentioned above, it is stated that the style the principal applied should depend on the

situation.
  The teachers who perceived the principal as a more situational leader demonstrated higher levels

of motivation.

B. CONCLUSION

Four leadership styles, namely, the directive, supportive, participative and achievement-oriented

styles are perceived by all staff to manifest in the conduct of their principals. What is indeed

noteworthy, is that this study supports the idea propounded in the literature study that directive

leadership gives specific guidance to staff to accomplish desired expectations; the supportive leader

demonstrates respect for his/her subordinates’ needs and preferences; the participative leader solicits

subordinates for suggestions and participation; and the achievement-oriented leader expects

subordinates to perform their tasks at the highest level. These styles emanate from the prevailing

leadership needs that teacher experience in their schools as suggested by the path-goal theory (House

& Michell, 1974, in House, 1996).

The positive perceptions of all staff (Tables 3 - 6) to the relevant sets of path-goal questionnaire

questions imply that there is an agreement on all staff on which leadership styles present in the

actions of principals. The path-goal theory states that if staff experience that their leader applies a

particular leadership style when the leader intends to use that particular style (in other words

agreement on a specific style), teachers will perceive that the leadership style of the principal (both

teachers’ and principals’ perceptions) supports the advancement of teachers’ performance and leads

to teachers motivation. In addition, path-goal leadership styles assist teachers’ and principals’

efficacy in carrying out tasks cooperatively, increasing the level of satisfaction experienced,

encouraging the promotion of a positive environment in the school, assisting staff to achieve set

goals and guiding the staff with regard to how they should perform the tasks assigned to them.
 In addition, the path-goal theory states that a positive perception shows that teachers view

principals as supporters to teachers. The general perception of all staff was that the supportive style

was the style most often used by principals although all the styles were perceived to present to a

reasonable extent.

The fact that the supportive leadership style was identified as the most experienced/ observed

leadership style among principals in the Municipality of Indang does not imply that the other

leadership styles were not observed in the principals’ interaction with their staff. This finding agrees

with the literature that all four path-goal leadership styles are experienced in the workplace and have

a role to play in teacher performance and motivation: the supportive leadership style cannot alone

improve the performance of all teachers: if principals employ different leadership styles in

accordance with the interest, experience, maturity of employees, and the situation prevailing in an

organization, teachers and work performance can benefit.

All in all, there was a significant relationship between leadership styles of school principals

and teachers’ performance and motivation. Teachers’ performance and motivation were statistically

significantly influenced by a number of factors which include: preference for specific principal

leadership style; experienced presence of the supportive leadership style in principals; and

qualifications of participants.

Supportive leadership presence in principals, along with a staff preference for the supportive

leadership style; positively impact teacher performance and motivation.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Armed with the knowledge that the supportive leadership style was most often experienced to be

present among the principals in the Municipality of Indang– impact positively on the perceptions of

teacher performance and motivation, certain recommendations can be made to assist these principals
with regard to managing their staff with regard to improved teacher performance and motivation.

Therefore, the recommendations for the principals of elementary schools include the following:

1.Path-goal leadership training for principals.

2. Provides opportunities for principals of elementary schools to study and improve their

qualifications in the field of educational planning and management or educational leadership

3. Municipality of Indang can design a program that supports the principals of different elementary

schools to meet on a regular basis and share ideas and experiences on how principals can improve the

performance of the teachers using different path-goal leadership styles.

4. Principals should evaluate their application of leadership styles (a 360 degree evaluation by staff),

principals are placed in a position where their leadership style is assessed objectively by the staff,

which enables such principals to adjust and improve with regard to leadership. Improved leadership

will impact teacher performance.

5. Future research could include the views and understanding of education leaders regarding the

performance of teachers at both elementary and secondary school levels.

REFERENCES

Adeyemi, T.O. 2010. Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ job performance in senior secondary

schools in Ondo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Educational Administration and Policy Studies,

2(6):83-91.

Akram, M.J. Raza, S.A. Kheleaq, A.R. & Atika, S. 2011. Principals’ perception regarding factors

affecting the performance of teachers. Journal of International Education Research (JIER), 7(2):33-32.

Best, J. W., & Kahn, J. V. (2006). Research in education(10th ed.). Allyn and Bacon Publishers.

Bolden, R., Gosling, J., Marturano, A. & Dennison P. 2003. A review of leadership theory and

competency frameworks. Centre for Leadership Studies. Unpublished, University of Exeter. United

Kingdom. Pp 7-8.

Bolin, B. 2007. Handbook of disaster research. New York: Springer.

Cezmi Savas, A. and Toprak, M. (2014). Mediation effect of schools’ psychological climate on

relationship between principals’ leadership style and organizational commitment. Retrieved from

http://selu.usask.ca/document/research-and-publications/srrj/SRRJ-1-1-Smith.pdf on June 22, 2019 at

12:54 p.m

Chen, J.C. & Silverthorne, C. 2005. Leadership effectiveness, leadership style and employee readiness.

Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(4):280-288.

Cuyper, N., Notelaers, G. & Witte, H. 2009. Transitioning between temporary and permanent

employment: A two‐wave study on the entrapment, the stepping stone and the selection hypothesis.

Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82(1):67-88.

Daft, R. & Noe, R. 2001.Organizational behaviour. Fort Worth, Texas, USA: Harcourt College.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D. & Harris, A. 2009. The impact of school leadership on pupil

outcomes.Research report. Department for Children, Schools, and Families. Institute of Education,

University of London, London.

Davis, J. & Wilson, S.M. 2000. Principals' efforts to empower teachers: Effects on teacher motivation and

job satisfaction and stress. The Clearing House, 73(6):349-353.

Demir, M. The Relation between the Teachers Motivation and Inspectors Vocational Guiding Level to

Class Teachers. Master’s Thesis, U¸sak Üniversitesi, U¸sak, Turkey, 2015. Available online:

https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi (accessed on 10 August 2020)

Edgerson, D. & Kritsonis, W. 2006. Analysis of the influence of principal–teacher relationships on

student academic achievement. A national focus. National Journal for Publishing and Mentoring

Doctoral Student Research, 1(1):1-5.

Guskey, T.R. 2002. Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and

Practice, 8(3):381-391.

Hayward, B.A. 2005. Relationship between employee performance, leadership and emotional intelligence

in a South African parastatal organisation. Unpublished thesis. Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South

Africa.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2008). Management of Organizational Behavior: Leading

Human Resources (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education

House, R.J. 1971. A path goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, pp 321-

339.

House, R.J. & Mitchell T. 1974. Path-goal theory of leadership. Journal of Contemporary Business,

3(4):81-97.
House, R.J. & Mitchell, T. 1996. Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy and a reformulated

theory. The Leadership Quarterly, l 7(3):323-352

House, R. 1997. The social scientific study of leadership: Quo Vadis. Journal of Management, 27(3):409-

473.

Hulleman, C. S., & Barron K.E. (2010). Performance pay and teacher motivation

separating myth from reality. Kappan, 91(8), 27-31.

Kempa, R., Ulorlo, M., & Hendrik Wenno, I. (2017). Effectiveness Leadership of Principal. International

Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education (IJERE), 6(4), 306.

https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v6i4.10774

Kemsley, S. 2011. The changing nature of work: from structured to unstructured, from controlled to

social. In: Business Process Management, 6896, 9th International Conference, BPM 2011, Clermont-

Ferrand, France, August 30 - September 2. Proceedings. Berlin: Springer, pp 2-20.

Kılıç, Y. The Influence of School Administrators’ Taking Personal Initiative and Leadership Behaviours

on Teacher Motivation. Ph.D. Thesis, Selçuk Üniversitesi, Konya, Turkey, 2019. Available online:

https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi (accessed on 10 August 2020).

Kim, W.G. & Brymer, R. 2011. The effects of ethical leadership on manager job satisfaction, behavioural

outcomes, and firm performance. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30(4):1020-1026.

Ladd, H.F. 2013.Why experienced teachers are important – And what can be done to develop them.

(Online) Available: from www.scholars.strategynetwork.org. (Accessed 4 November 2013).

Liu, S., Hallinger, P., & Feng, D. (2016). Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does

principal leadership make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59(September), 79–91.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.023
Mulford, B. 2003. School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness.

Faculty of Education, University of Tasmania.

Okumbe J.A, (1998). Educational Management. Theory and Practice. Nairobi. Nairobi University Press

Ricketts, K. 2009. Behaving Intelligently: Leadership traits and characteristics. Lexington: University of

Kentucky, College of Agriculture.

Somech, A. 2005. Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing

school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(5):777-800.

Um, B., Joo, H., & Her, D. (2018). The Relationship between Elementary School Teachers’ Work

Motivation and Well-Being: The Mediating Effects of Principal Leadership and Work Stress.

International Journal of Social Science Studies, 6(12), 67.https://doi.org/10.11114/ijsss.v6i12.3762.

Usdan, M., McCloud, B. & Podmostko, M. 2000. Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the

principalship. Institute For Educational Leadership,1:24.

Wahlstrom, K.L. & Louis, K.S. 2008. How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of

professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly,

44(4):458-495.

War, M. 1998. Life course transitions and desistance form crime. Criminology, 36:183-218.