The relationship between principal’s

leadership style and its effect on

teachers’ performance.

By

Frank E. Peart

Teacher‟s Diploma

Buff Bay Primary School,

Portland, Jamaica.

A study submitted in conformity with the requirements for the Bachelor of Arts

degree (Guidance and Counselling) at The International University of the

Caribbean

2006

10
 ABSTRACT

The study aimed at discovering “The relationship between principal‟s leadership

style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.”

By

Frank E. Peart

The study was confined to eight schools in West Portland: three Primary Schools,

three All Age Schools and two High Schools. The sample consisted of fifty eight

(58) respondents where fifty were teachers and eight were principals.

The study undertaken revealed that:

Teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their

principal whose leadership is most times not in the best interest of the teachers.

The study points out that fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by

their principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily

routine. While most principals employed a mixture of each leadership style in

their daily routine an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the

teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of

benefits it offers, such as: the ability to share their ideas and opinions, take part in

the decision making process and are motivated by rewards for achieving goals.

11
Of interest is the finding that shed a dismal light on the principals where sixty

eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal supports the

idea of his teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do

so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two percent (72 %) of the

teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more than five years in the

profession.

12
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I wish to offer with the profound gratitude my indebtedness to the teaching staff

of The International University of the Caribbean, especially those from North

Middlesex. The favourable interpersonal relations have helped in no small way to

inspire confidence in tackling this research.

I must record my special thanks to the following members of staff in particular

who have guided me in this research.

To Mrs. V. Johnson (Lecturer at IUC), my chief advisor whose insight and

patience and helpful suggestions guided the work from beginning to end.

To Dr. Adlyn White who in the initial stages guided me in formulating my

proposal.

The School staffs, Principals of the schools and teachers of the schools used in

this research have been especially cooperative, and I offer my sincere thanks to

them.

To Mr. Dwayne Knight who taught me how to make and calculate the tables

charts.

13
Finally, I must record my gratitude to my special friend Ms. Camile Franklyn

whose personal sacrifice enabled me to pursue this course.

14
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

THE BACKGROUND TO THE PROBLEM.

The Jamaican education system has for sometime experienced low academic

performance of students in its primary, all age and secondary schools. As a result

many stakeholders have expressed grave concern over this very unfortunate

situation. Poor academic performances of some of these students are laid at the

feet of the classroom teachers with unlimited amount of blame which in many

cases cannot be rationally justified.

The researcher is of the view that the principal‟s leadership style has a

tremendous effect on teachers‟ performance and students‟ academic performance.

Hence the decision to research the topic: “The relationship between principal‟s

leadership and its effect on teachers‟ performance.”

School is an important public institution which promotes society‟s educational

community and as a result they are subject to high expectations. However,

without proper leadership and a mutual environment; the teacher is likely to lack

or be passive to values and behaviours necessary to motivate students into doing

well.

15
The researcher has observed from his own teaching experience that different

principals lead / operate their schools relatively different and likewise the

teachers‟ performance are relatively different. This is evident in students‟

educational achievements during and at the end of their school years at the

different levels of the school system: primary, all age and high school.

It is not uncommon to hear stakeholders shower praises or blame on teachers

when students do well or do poorly in the Nation‟s Standardized Tests. We often

forget that the instructional leader is the principal. Sometimes because of the lack

of recognition to this fact, some principals fail to conceive that their leadership or

lack of it is the main determinant in students‟ educational achievements via their

teachers‟ performance. When this is not the case, it is not uncommon to find

principals who are domineering in supervising the school‟s programmes and

constantly sideline teachers and other members of staff, to the detriment of the

school‟s goals.

Thus, one of the main reasons for selecting this area of study is based on the

researcher‟s own recollections of school principals and their leadership styles and

their motivation on teachers for better performance has influenced students into

the right direction. The recent resurgence of concerns with the supposed

escalations in the number of students attending and leaving schools without being

able to read competently, and the record number of headlines in the media

expressing disgusts at the Educational system‟s poor achievement record in some

16
schools. Dr. Tufton, (2003). In an analysis of the general educational System Dr.

Tufton revealed that 92 percent of school leavers having no academic

qualifications. He went on to say that these are persons who have passed no

exams and are for the most part barely semi – literate. “This is totally inadequate”

said Dr. Tufton. Jamaica Observer 2003. Other such headlines include:

„Education on the ropes‟ by Dr. Ralph Thompson 2004, Jamaica Observer. Not

even a full year since the publication of Dr. Ralph Thompson‟s article, Dr. Davis

(2005) referred to the youths in his constituency as a cohort of irredeemable.

Other studies and analysis have revealed that poor achievement in school was

prevalent in various section of the Island. These concerns heighten the need to

investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on

teacher performance.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

This study is designed to investigate the relationship between principal leadership

style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.

17
 PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study seeks to determine whether or not principal leadership style affects

teachers‟ performance.

Over the years, parents and other stakeholders in the educational system have

contended that principal‟s leadership style dictates the outcome of teachers‟

performance, and as a result the principal leadership style has been placed under

sharp scrutiny (as teacher performance vary widely throughout West Portland.)

The purpose of this research is to help principals and teachers become more aware

of the kind of relationship that needs to be established in the schools which will

motivate teachers for greater performance.

Another very important purpose of this study is to assist stakeholders in

appreciating the entire role that principals play in the educational institution. This

study will also prove valuable to school assessors, especially when assessing the

school in general, they will be able to use this new knowledge to link the outcome

of students‟ performance to the relationship that exist between the principal and

his / her staff.

18
It will also serve to inform principals of the profound consequence their

leadership styles play in shaping the outcome of teachers‟ academic performance

and students‟ educational achievement.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

Different leadership styles exist and these range from the authoritarian leadership

style to the democratic leadership style. Each has its advantages and

disadvantages. Studies have shown that leadership styles of leaders affect their

members and their performance either positively or negatively (Hegarty, 1997).

The same is true for school system, where the leader fails to expedite his / her

mandate in a manner conducive to the staff and clients; such business is on a

course for failure. Therefore, this study is significant in that it will seek to clear

the discrepancies as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style affects teachers‟

performance. The fact that, there are discrepancies over such a pertinent subject

gives rise to the need for the study. (The educational institutions should not be

taken for granted, since they are our formal means of socializing the youths and

people in general).

There are a number of assessors and Education Officers who are trained to help

teachers improve their performance. This study will prove relevant and add to

their existing knowledge. The principals and teachers with whom this issue rest,

19
will gain insights in how best they can cooperate to maximize students‟ interest

and performance. It is the view of the researcher that principals and teachers

would become more aware of their leadership style. Through this awareness they

should be able to create a mutually conducive environment to enhance the

school‟s goals through their performance and interaction. The researcher strongly

believes that this study will benefit teachers; that is, if it turns out that principal‟s

leadership style affects teachers‟ performance, then they will be able to monitor

their own performance as it relates to students‟ achievement. Other stakeholders

and the society in general will be able to evaluate the use of their taxed dollars

more effectively.

20
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Introduction:

It is the researcher‟s view that the purpose of a school‟s leadership is to create a

productive organization as measured by the quality of learning and behaviour

which take place inside the school. This productivity takes place with and through

people. Influencing and not demanding is important for productivity. Influencing

suggests that the workers accept and agree with the decision or suggestion and are

willing to identify with the job. It is a two - way process between a leader and

those he or she leads.

The nature of leadership is dependent on the leader and what he or she brings to

the job – knowledge, skills, values – and on the followers – their needs,

expectations, knowledge, skills and attitudes. It is on this premise that the

researcher seeks to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership

style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.

The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human

relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs

(Espinosa, 1976). The preceding was an attitude that was advocated by Espinosa

some three decades ago, it‟s interesting to note that in 2003, Bennis felt the need

21
to promote the same approach in as much that he refined the concept. Bennis put

forward the following ideas.

Today‟s school environments have become more complex and diverse where all

children are expected to learn and where high learning standards set the vision of

educational success for all students. In a rapidly changing and more

technologically oriented society, students will need to acquire the knowledge and

skills that will help them achieve success in school and in life. The evolving

nature of school environments has placed new demands on Principals. Where

knowledge of school management, finance, legal issues and state mandates were

once the primary focus for the preparation of school principals.

Education reform has created an urgent need for a strong emphasis on

development of Principals leadership skills to promote good teaching and high

level learning. Moreover, Principals must recognize and assume a shared

responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but

also for their teachers and their personal, social, emotional, and physical

development. The increasing diversity of school communities places a premium

on school Principals whose leadership styles can create a vision of success for all

students via their teachers‟ performance (Bennis, 2003).

22
This argument was not a far cry from The Institute for Educational Leadership

(2003), after citing a long list of the principal‟s traditional managerial

responsibilities, went on to add:

Principals today must also serve as role model not just for his students but

also for his teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical

techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their

skills if needs be. They must collect, analyze and use data in ways that fuel

excellence. They must rally students, teachers, parents, local health and

family service agencies, youth development groups, local businesses and

other community residents and partners around the common goal of

raising student performance. And they must have the leadership styles that

can foster these skills and knowledge to exercise the autonomy and

authority to pursue these strategies.

In fact, on closer examination, many of the goals set out under the mandate of the

Jamaican Ministry of Education Youth and Culture and to be more specific the

Life long Learning Center and The Human Employment and Resource Training

(HEART/ NTA), (2004) will depend on transforming the current hierarchical

model of school into that of a professional community. It is important to note that

school leadership was the foremost among their concern.

23
Hargreaves spoke about a similar matter when he was invited to address

principals‟ at Oregon about Public School Reform in New Brunswick.

In his presentation, Sustaining Professional Learning Communities, Hargreaves

stressed the need for educators to replace “strings of interaction with enduring

bonds and relationships” and to “work and learn in collaborative groups” by

pursuing “professional learning with colleagues” (Hargreaves, 2003, p. 9). He

also encouraged principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared systemic

responsibility” stressing the need for “data guided instructional decision-making”

and the promotion of “continuous, embedded, focused professional development”

for teachers (Ibid. p. 25). He further argued for periodic evaluation of school

improvement as a way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as

“strolling or cruising to moving schools” (Ibid. p. 44).

The researcher is of the view that the relationship between principal‟s leadership

style and its effect on teachers‟ performance is not a new phenomenon but

acknowledges that the traditional leadership of non collaboration with teachers

was up held due to a primary belief that principals were able to deal successfully

with any task or situation single handedly; if truth be told, in some instances the

leadership of principals were interpreted as that of a specialist and as such their

leadership was viewed as exclusive. While writers such as (Espinosa (1976), and

James – Reid (1982), have long explained the benefits of mutual leadership

among principals and their teachers.

24
Nonetheless the trend continues, as current authors on school leadership

(Lambert, 2000; Ogawa & Bossert, 2000; Harris, 2003) contend that it seldom

exists in schools. Ogawa and Bossert (2000) proposed that the primary approach

to current school leadership was still based on a technical-rational perspective that

promoted hierarchical structures and prevented substantive collaboration among

school professionals. This technical-rational model of school leadership is

founded upon principal omnicompetence rather than collaborative leadership

(Hord, 2005). Emihovich and Battaglia (2000) reinforced this belief with findings

from their study on the prevalence of collaborative leadership in schools.

Their study found that most principals still perceived their primary roles to be

building and program managers rather than collaborative professionals. Jackson

(2000) considered the hesitance among principals to share leadership as partly due

to the fact that the school effectiveness literature continues to propagate the view

of leadership centered around “strong head teachers with dynamic or forceful

personal qualities” rather than “leadership that is widely spread among

educational stakeholders” (p. 70). Ogawa & Bossert, (2000) and Harris (2003)

proposed that it was the hierarchical organizational structure, with its clearly

defined roles and communication channels that prevented principals from sharing

leadership with teachers.

25
Despite the reasons for the technical-rational approach to school leadership, plus

the multiplicity of indiscipline in our schools, it is clear that this approach

contrasts significantly with the leadership required in professional learning

communities. The new perspective of school leadership, one that supports the

principles of professional learning communities, represents principals as “post-

heroic leaders” (Louis & Kruse, 1995, p. 234) who share the responsibility for

school effectiveness. Schools that embrace the PLC model no longer depend upon

a hierarchy of roles based on competence and authority. In these schools,

principals take on the role of co-learners who model and facilitate the practices of

questioning, investigating and seeking solutions (Klein-Kracht, 1993; Harris,

2003). In professional learning communities, leadership becomes a shared process

as principals recognize the potential of teacher collaboration and actively build

leadership capacity on a school-wide level (Lambert, 2000). Sharing leadership

and building leadership capacity, the foundations upon which professional

learning communities are built, represent a very different perspective of

organizational leadership from the technical-rational approach that currently

exists in many schools.

Harris (2003) describes successful school communities as places where a shared

sense of purpose is developed between principals and teachers, who then engage

in collaborative work and accept joint responsibility for the outcomes of their

work. She also argued strongly for the creation of an infrastructure that supported

collaboration and a culture that reinforced mutual leadership.

26
Harris arguments though so brief resonated well with that of Morehouse &

Tranquilla (2005). They point out in their evaluation of principals, that principals

that were most effective were the ones that were sensitive to teacher issues. This

success was backed up by effective two way communication between principals

and teachers.

Essentially, if schools are to be transformed into the teaching/learning

communities that the Ministry of Education envisaged, then foremost among the

changes that should be is that of the principal‟s leadership style, that is from the

traditional non collaborative to one of mutuality among principals and teachers.

The importance of the alignment between actual and expected leadership styles in

this regard has been highlighted in studies that showed that principal‟s leadership

style is the best discriminator between high participation and low participation by

teachers (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman & Jacobson, 2003).

Another good reason to do so is because of the high evidence of some of the

factors that contribute to teacher satisfaction and better performance.

In a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase, Joseph (1999), the teachers

revealed that principals who want to promote classroom instruction and better

27
teacher performance must talk openly and freely with teachers about teaching and

learning, provide time and encourage peer connections for teachers, empower

teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers' professional development, and lead

and motivate teachers

The Principal -Teacher Relationship.

The way the principal works with his staff and sets the stage for human

relationships will make the difference in what type of school he/she directs

(Espinosa, 1976). As a staff developer, the principal must possess skills,

knowledge, and creativity to set up with the staff high – but attainable standards

and help them to achieve them (Doggett, 1987).

The principal should be very concerned about the long-term developmental needs

of teachers. This can be enhanced by the principal establishing a good work ethics

with the teachers and making sure the avenues or medium for effective

communication are available and fully utilized. For the school to be effective both

the principal and each teacher must realize they need each other in mutual

partnership to plan and implement strategies for the effective leadership of the

school at their respective levels. Instead many advocate of educational reform in

Jamaica argue that principals should have more power without even assessing

how they use the enormous power they already have. Dr. Thompson (2006),

28
board member of both the National Council on Education and the Early

Childhood Commission is agitating for „more power for principals‟. Dr.

Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals – akin to a corporate

executive – to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the classroom.

However, as James – Reid (1982) puts it. “The Jamaican School principal exerts

his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the

school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his

personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be

challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will

eventually make his administrative performance becomes ineffective, and that is

just the beginning of failure for the school.”

The researcher is of the view that principals should engender a leadership style

that supports a style of pedagogy that encourages teachers to motivate and

facilitate students‟ learning and also to help students appreciate their role in their

own learning. In the words of Glasser, (1993), “effective leaders „lead – manage‟

rather than „boss – manage‟. That is, while it is clear that principals have a vested

authority that should command respect and duty, it is fool – hardy to think that

just having that authority will get the job done in the best possible way. We

should be reminded that teachers are not things and that they operate on

complexities such as values, perceptions and (attitudes – feelings and belief).

Studies have shown that individuals have a tendency to act in accordance with

29
their feeling and belief, R. Rosenthal and L. Jacobson (1968). Therefore, it is in

the best interest of the school that the principal lead his teachers in a way that is

amicable to those variables.

Stone (1995) supports Glasser (1993), in his views about principals‟ leadership.

“Where principals frequently have low expectations of some teachers; the low

expectations adversely affect teachers‟ and students‟ self concepts and overall

performance at school. Teachers may internalize these expectations and function

accordingly.” This phenomenon is referred to as the self fulfilling prophecy.

Hemphill (1990) states, “Schools that are especially effective in teaching children

academically are characterized by school pride, collegiality and a sense of

community; which is the result of good leadership.” Undoubtedly, like Fiedler‟s

Contingency Model (1967), the researcher is cognizant that there are several

leadership styles that can be effective depending on the situation. Even so, the

leader who achieves good results by directives and administrative authorization,

without consultation with others is probably the expectation. It is difficult to

produce excellence by command when what goes on behind closed classroom

doors is not easily monitored or controlled.

The researcher strongly believes that leadership should be shared at all levels to

reduce animosity. This belief is held as a fact postulated Dr. Miller (1987), he

30
states, “The advantages of shared leadership responsibilities between the principal

and teacher promote better instruction and improve students‟ morale.”

The fact is good leadership empowers all. If teachers are empowered students will

be empowered, it is just common sense. It is undoubtedly clear, that different

types of situations warrants different types of behaviours. There is hardly any

guarantee that every leadership style will always be effective. It should be

understood that any leadership style used by the leader while administering the

affairs of his/her office is likely to have an effect on the organization‟s

performance at all levels be it positive or negative. For all intents and purposes,

Fullan and Stiegelbever, (1999) put it together well. “Principals are expected to

provide leadership in schools as well as use their managerial skills to ensure that

optimum conditions exist for teaching and learning; leadership is always

concerned with influencing and inspiring the staff and students of the school to

collectively develop a vision of excellence for the school and to work in concert

to achieve that vision.”

It can never be overstated that mutual relationship of leadership is a primary

ingredient for success in most school communities today; therefore, as principals‟

venture into the educational system it would be wise to note that some principles

of leadership are universal: you will only go as far as your team. No matter your

astuteness, your devotion, tenacity and know-how, without a supporting team, you

will not succeed. And without leaders in that supporting team, you will fail.

31
 Theoretical Framework

Likert's leadership styles Theory

American psychologist, R. Likert (1903-1981), identified four main styles of

leadership, in particular around decision-making and the degree to which people

are involved in the decision. These leadership styles are: Exploitive authoritative,

Benevolent authoritative, Consultative and Democratic.

In the Exploitive authoritative style, the leader has a low concern for people and

uses such methods as threats and other fear-based methods to achieve

conformance. Communication is almost entirely downwards and the

psychologically distant concerns of people are ignored.

The Benevolent authoritative style is somewhat different in that the leader adds

concern for people to an authoritative position; a 'benevolent dictatorship' is

formed. The leader now uses rewards to encourage appropriate performance and

listens more to concerns lower down the organization, although what they hear is

often rose-tinted, being limited to what their subordinates think that the boss

wants to hear. Although there may be some delegation of decisions, almost all

major decisions are still made centrally.

While the distinction of upward flow of information from subordinates to the

leader is clear in the consultative leadership style when compared to the previous

two leadership styles, it is still cautious and rose-tinted to some degree.

32
However, in sharp contrast to exploitive authoritative and benevolent

authoritative leadership styles, the Democratic leader makes maximum use of

participative methods, engaging people lower down the organization in

decision-making. People across the organization are psychologically closer

together and work well together at all levels.

Applying Likert’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship

According to Likert‟s research, the researcher is of the view that the principals

who will get the best teacher performance are the ones who adopt a democratic

leadership style; Likert‟s research shows that democratic leadership means

involvement, mutual respect, openness, trust, motivation and commitment. In

Likert‟s words „it is an alternative organizational life style‟ which has been found

in mainly in successful companies.

The researcher strongly believes that with the proper development and usage of

Likert‟s theory fourth leadership style (democratic) principals will reap better

performance from their teachers. The researcher is aware that this is not a

universal view as traditionalists among others in the Educational system often

argued that democratic leadership seems to erode the influence of principals. As a

33
teacher the researcher finds this view contrary to the politics of organizational life

in which people at all levels compete for power and influence – the ingredients of

leadership. Further more it is the belief of the researcher that democratic

leadership may increase a principal‟s ability to exert influence over his teachers.

If a principal allows his teachers to take part in management decisions, the

influence of that principal is not necessarily eroded. By demonstrating confidence

and trust in his teachers, the principal‟s ability to exert further influence on them

may be increased rather than diminished.

Dr. Leigh (2005) supports the researcher arguments. She said that the principal

authorized authority does not and cannot command the teachers‟ willingness to

devote their creativity and energy to performing their task to the best of their

abilities… she expands, the legal authority vested on principals by the Ministry on

Education promotes compliance with directives and discipline but does not

encourage teachers to exert effort, to accept responsibilities, or to exercise their

initiative.

Applying Maslow’s Theory to Principal / Teacher Relationship

Maslow (1970) another theorist, in his theory, Maslow viewed individuals‟ needs

rising in five hierarchical levels. These include physiological, security,

belongingness, esteem and self actualization needs. Significantly, higher – level

needs do not become active until lower – level needs are met. Maslow

34
hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that

is more important to the organization and vice versa.

The researcher therefore, thinks that there can be a win – win situation between

principals and their teachers. That is, if principals develop and support systems to

assist their teachers in a holistic way. This method will essentially give them a

broader framework for understanding difficult problems and complex

relationships within the school. By deepening their understanding of school

culture, these principals will be better equipped to shape the values, beliefs, and

attitudes necessary to promote a stable and nurturing learning environment with

better teacher performance.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?

2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher motivation

for improved / greater performance?

3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

35
 DEFINITION OF TERMS

James - Reid (1991) defines leadership as a dynamic interactive process

involving the leader, followers and the environmental situation.

Encarta (2006), defines effect as an impression that as the ability to produce a

change in the mind of somebody who sees, hears, or reads something, especially

one that is deliberately intended or engineered

Encarta (2006), defines relationship as a significant association or similarity

between two or more persons such that prediction can be made.

James - Reid (1991) defines teacher performance as nature in which teacher carry

out classroom instructions among the other school related tasks that teachers

expected to take part in order to facilitate and ensure students achievement.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) defined the “sample” in research study refers to any

group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks to

apply results is called the population.

Gay (1996) defines the independent variable is an activity or characteristic

believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as

the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment.

36
Gay (1996) defines the dependent variable is the change or difference in

behaviour that occurs as a result of the independent variable; also referred to as

the criterion variable, the effect, the outcome, or the post-test.

Gay (1996) defines correlational research according to attempts to determine

whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more

quantifiable variables.

37
 CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Introduction:

The study was undertaken to determine the relationship between principal‟s

leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance in three (3) primary

schools, three (3) All – age schools and two (2) High schools in the parish of

Portland.

Research Design: The research design is correlational.

According to Asher (1976) research design is the organization and logic of the

subject, group, data, sources and treatment, allocation from which the comparison

necessary to determine knowledge develops

Beaumont et al. (1997) being consistent with Asher (1976) postulated that

research design is the selecting of samples, assigning individuals to treatment,

measuring out comes, analyzing data and so for the purpose of answering the

research.

Also, Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) put forward the view that research design is the

overall plan for collecting data in order to answer the research questions. It also

describes the specific data analysis techniques or methods that the researcher

intends to use.

38
Correlational research according to Gay (1996) is an attempt to determine

whether, and to what degree, a relationship exists between two or more

quantifiable variables. The purpose then of a correlational study may be to

establish relationship (or lack of it) or to use relationship to making predictions.

Discussion of the variables

In an effort to investigate the relationship between principal‟s leadership style and

its effect on teachers‟ performance, the researcher will discuss the independent

and dependent variable.

Two variables will be dealt with in this study:

1. Principal‟s leadership style.

2. Teachers performance.

Independent variable: Principal‟s leadership style

Dependent variable: Teachers‟ performance

According to Gay (1996) independent variable is an activity or characteristic

believed to make a difference with respect to some behaviour; also referred to as

the experimental variable, the cause, the effect and treatment. For this study, the

independent variable is the principal‟s leadership style. He further states that the

dependent variable is the change or difference in behaviour that occurs as a result

39
of the independent variable; also referred to as the criterion variable, the effect,

the outcome, or the post-test. The dependent variable in this study is teachers‟

performance, which is the level to which the teachers carry out their task in the

classroom, with the students and in the school at large.

Teachers‟ performance will be high or low, depending on the quality of the

independent variable and its effect on the teachers‟ performance. If the

relationship is good / amicable, then performance may be good, if, on the other

hand, the relationship is poor, then performance may be poor.

The independent variable is hypothetically linked in the following manner:

When the atmosphere of the school is open, there is open communication between

principal and teachers. There is constant feed – back between them, and teachers

become involved in the whole decision making process. On the other hand, if the

climate of the school is closed, there is a minimum of communication, little or no

feed – back, little or no involvement and limited support for teachers. In an

atmosphere which is open, therefore, the teachers will feel free to communicate

with their principal and other staff and may have a better sense of purpose. This

will result in a mutual relationship and consequent good performance.

40
If the principal of a school is committed to his school program, he/she will plan

and address concerns for the needs of the teachers. This would lead to

consideration on his part in providing for the professional growth and personal

welfare of the teachers.

Willingness on the part of the teachers to help each other will stem from the

principal‟s sense of commitment, and will result in the teachers understanding

better what is expected of them and will plan for the needs of their students. If

they understand both the expectations of the school and the needs of their

students, then they ought to plan and work towards these ends. If they plan well,

and are able to teach well, then they ought to succeed in their performance

Where a teacher perceives himself as a member of the school organization; and as

such, must make his contribution in terms of teaching, and makes sure that his

students learn, he will prepare well, and will experience pleasure in seeing them

learn. This will result in a good relationship and his performance will be better.

Where there is a good healthy working relationship between the principal and the

teachers‟, there is rapport and consequently, understanding. The principal is able

41
to help the teachers grow professionally and this may boost the teachers to

perform better.

The following Research questions were tested in this study:

1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?

2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher

motivation for improved / greater performance?

3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

The Sample

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) the “sample” in research study refers to

any group on which information is obtained. The larger group to which one seeks

to apply results is called the population. Two samples were drawn from this study.

They were samples (a) principals and sample (b) classroom teachers from eight

schools in West Portland. The decision was taken to use schools at all levels

throughout the communities. Hence the researcher having three primary schools,

three all age schools and two high schools.

Primary school (A) consists of twenty six (26) teachers including the principal,

the vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is seven

hundred and ninety eight (798). Primary school (B) consists of six teachers (6)

and one principal; the student population is one hundred and fifty two (152).

42
Primary school (C) consists of ten teachers (10) and the principal; the student

population is three hundred and five (305)

All age school (D) consists of thirteen (13) teachers including the principal, the

vice principal and the guidance counselor; the student population is three hundred

and eighteen (318). All age school (E) consists of six (6) teachers including the

principal; the student population is one hundred and thirty eight (138). All age

school (F) consists of six (8) teachers including the principal and vice principal;

the student population is one hundred and fifty (150).

High school (G) consists of thirty (30) teachers plus the principal, one vice

principal one Guidance Counselor; the student population is eight hundred and

fifty six (856). High school (H) consists of thirty five (35) teachers plus the

principal, two vice principals two guidance counselor; the student population is

eight hundred and seventy six (870).

From the total 126 teachers and 8 principals the following were chosen as the

sample: 50 teachers and 8 principals.

43
Table 4.1 shows the number of participants by gender

Participants Gender Total

Males Females

Principals 2 6 8

Teachers 10 40 50

The table 4.1 shows that thirty (50) teachers and three (8) principals participated

in this research. Of the eight principals six were females and two males; while of

the fifty teachers forty or 80 % were females and ten or 20 % were males.

44
Table 4.2 shows the number of participants, Qualification, Years of experience,

and Age Range.

Respondent No. in Qualification No. Years of No. Age No.

range in age
Each experience range

category

Principal 8 Bachelors in 8 10 - 26-33 -

Education
11-15 - 34-42 1

Above 16 8 Above 7
43

Teacher 50 Bachelors in 12 1-5 11 18-25 7

Education
6-10 10 26-33 9
Diploma in 38
Education 11-15 21 34-42 15

Pre - Trained 0 16 and 8 Above 19

above 43

Table 4.2 indicates that the fifty teachers were chosen to respond to the

questionnaire items; while the eight principals were selected to respond to

interview. All the principals in the sample had Bachelors Degrees in Education;

they have served for over sixteen years in the teaching profession. Similarly all

but one principal were in the above 43 age range, the other was in the 34 – 42 age

range. The sample consisting of the fifty teachers was more varied in that the

45
teachers were more disbursed across the different ranges: of the fifty teachers,

thirty eight or 76 % had Diplomas in education while the remaining twelve or

24 % had Bachelors Degrees in Education; none of the teachers were in the Pre –

Trained category. Eleven or 22 % served in the profession between one and five

years, ten or 20 % served in the profession between six and ten years, twenty one

or 42 % served in the profession between eleven and fifteen years, the remaining

eight or 16 % served for over sixteen years. Seven or 14 % were in the age range

of eighteen to twenty five, nine or

18 % were in the age range of twenty six to thirty three, fifteen or 30 % were in

the age range of thirty four to forty two; the remaining nineteen or 38 % were in

the age range of over forty three.

46
Table 4.3 shows the distribution of the participants from the eight schools that

participated in this study.

Schools used in the sample Number Total

A 8 8

B 7 7

C 6 6

D 6 6

E 4 4

F 4 4

G 7 7

H 8 8

Total 50 50

Table 4.3 shows that five participants from schools A and H were selected

respectively, four participants each from schools B, C, D and G. And two

participants each from schools E and F. this method was used to reflect the

number of teachers in each of these schools.

The teachers selected in this research were chosen by means of random sampling.

This technique was used as it is thought to yield the best sample from the given

population. Furthermore, Gay (1996), random sampling allows for all individuals

47
in the defined population to have an equal and independent chance of being

selected for the sample. The total of eight principals was used purposively

because the researcher felt that this relatively small sample in its entirety exhibits

the characteristics likely to yield the desired information. Gay (1996) supports the

use of purposive sampling in that it may help the researcher to acquire an in - dept

understanding of the data of interest.

The category of persons who participated could be considered to have a direct

bearing on the problem and more importantly its solution. It is the researcher‟s

belief that they will satisfactorily provide the information needed to help in the

carrying out the research.

Instrumentations

According to Beaumont et al. (1997), the instrument is simply the mechanism for

obtaining the data. This can be questionnaire or an interview schedule, or an

observation instrument.

Fraenkel and Wallen (2000), being consistent with Beaumont et al. (1997) state

that the whole process of collecting data is called instrumentation. They further

state that data refer to the kinds of information researchers obtain on subjects of

their research. Demographic information, such as age, gender, ethnicity, religion

and so forth, is one kind of data.

48
For the purposes of this study the following instruments were used:

1. Questionnaires for teachers

2. Interview for principals

Questionnaire items are aimed at exposing the matter, identifying the cause –

effect/ relationship and bringing closure to the matter from the teachers‟ point of

view. Interview schedules for principals are also critical to the outcome of this

research.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires have been widely commended by researchers for their

practicability, especially in situations where the researcher has limited time at his

or her disposal. The use of questionnaires allows information to be garnered from

many individuals at the same time and administered collectively. According to

Webb (1966) the questionnaire extends the investigator‟s powers and techniques

of observation by reminding the respondent of each item, helping to insure the

same response to the same item from all respondents, and tending to standardize

and objectify the observation of different enumerators (by singling out particular

aspects of the situation and by specifying the units and terminology for describing

the observations) Bastick and Matalon (2004) support this view. They

emphasized, it is relatively easy to get a large sample with questionnaires, since

they are easy to distribute and can be filled in by many people at the same time.

49
Questionnaires are said to yield a high response rate, and because they allow for

anonymity, respondents usually feel free to pass on information which they may

not have, had the situation been otherwise.

In light of the points advanced in support for the use of questionnaires, the

researcher found this type of instrument very appropriate, as information had to

be collected from individuals with very limited time and who were drawn from

miles apart and sometimes needed transportation to make the delivery, for these

reason, it seems then that with a sample of fifty teachers, the questionnaire was

the most economical data – collecting instrument to be used.

Interviews

According to Good (1972) the interview in its simplest form is as old as face to

face communication between two persons. Gay (1996) advanced Good‟s

argument and justifies the use of interview schedule eloquently. The benefit of the

interview schedule is that the researcher can obtain more accurate answers to the

questions during an interview because he had the added advantage of interpreting

facial expressions, tone of voice and gestures of the individuals. Also, if the

sociologist does not understand the answer he receives, he can ask the individual

to restate it, clarify or explain it more fully.

50
The matter of subjectivity sometimes surrounds the use of interview schedule,

however, the researcher is mindful and appreciates the fact that he maintains his

professionalism and upholds the ethical guidelines of his profession.

After evaluating the points, the researcher considered the interview schedule an

appropriate instrument and one which could reasonably be used as the researcher

had adequate time to get to the eight principals.

Validity and Reliability

According to Asher (1976), validity is a measurement, a concept indicating

authenticity, truth, genuineness of results or observation which is useful, a

purpose; also, the extent to which measurements can predict other measurements.

In research validity is the extent to which accurate conclusion about cause and

effect relationship can be stated.

According to Beaumont et al. (1997) validity is the degree to which a test measure

what it is intended to measure; a test is valid for a group. The degree to which the

conclusions is drawn about the behaviour of a group or represent what actually

occurs.

51
According to Asher (1976), reliability is a concept indicating reliability of studies

agreement among observers, or relationship among similar measures. The

questionnaire and questions will be self-developed and written in simple

language.

Response Mode

Teachers selected for the sample used the 5 – point Likert scale to respond to the

questionnaire. The 5 – point Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual

to respond to a series of statements by indicating whether she or he Strongly

Agrees (SA), Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree

(SD) with each statement.

The Pilot Instrumentation Administration

Before the final form of the questionnaire was prepared for distribution to the

respondents, a pilot or pre-testing was carried out. Fifteen teachers were selected

randomly and were asked to respond to the proposed questionnaire items on the

five point Likert scale. This was done to ensure validity and reliability. Reliability

of research refers to the consistency of the methods, conditions and results of

whatever research is being carried out. In other words test/measurement should be

52
conducted in a systematic manner to ensure reciprocity. Validity refers to how the

test/data scores are used and interpreted and not the instrument itself.

Good (1972) insists on the importance of tryout exercise for the purposes of

validation in terms of practical use.

Reason for the pilot study:

1. The pilot study was done to test the reliability and validity of the instrument.

2. To find out if the instruments used could give reliable and valid information of

the scores.

3. To find out if the sample was appropriate for the selected group.

4. To identify ambiguities or grammatical errors that might be present in each

item.

5. To determine the time required to complete the instrument and to assist in

determining the reliability of each instrument.

The result of the Pilot Study

The fifteen teachers responded to the proposed questionnaire items; of which, a

total of five were found to be having more than one interpretation, confusing and

vague. This led to the rewriting of items which presented problems and a

53
re-administering of them. In the second tryout the participants answered each

items correctly as they were directly related to the particular question suggesting

that the items were valid. However, no statistical analysis was done to substantiate

this. These items were not too difficult because all items were responded to with

related answers.

Data Analysis

Gay postulated (1996), analysis of data usually involves application of one or

more statistical techniques; data are analyzed in a way that permits the researcher

to test the research hypothesis or answer the research questions.

According to Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) data analysis is the process of

simplifying data in order to make it comprehensible and data is any information

obtained about a sample population. Frequency distribution is a tabular method of

showing all the scores obtained by a group of individuals. The data collected in

this research will be analyzed using the various mathematics instruments such as:

pie charts, tables and bar graphs. These will determine whether or not principal‟s

leadership style affects teachers‟ performance.

Limitations

According to Gay (1996), limitation is an aspect of a study which the researcher

knows may negatively affect the results or generalizability of the results, but over

which he or she has no control.

54
1. Sample size might be too small to make a generalization hence this has affected

reliability.

2. The scope of this study is only on principal‟s leadership style there might be

other factors affecting teachers‟ performance.

3. The instrument may itself not be a true reflection of the thinking of the

subjects.

4. Generalization can only be made with regards to this particular sample.

5. The sample size is not a representation of the entire Portland. It is therefore not

possible to make generalization about all the schools in Portland.

Summary

After reading and analyzing the views of the authorities in the field of leadership

and teacher performance; one would realize that principal‟s leadership style is of

vital importance to teacher performance and the general out come of students‟

achievement. Failure in the principal‟s leadership style leads to dysfunctional

teachers and often results in poor teacher performance.

It is argued that for teachers‟ performance to improve greatly there must be full a

participatory leadership mechanism in the schools. The democratic leadership

style is one of such ways of getting parties, organization and people working to

produce the best results. It is the opinion of the researcher that principals and

55
teachers are no different, therefore, with the proper usage of the democratic

leadership style teachers‟ performance will improve.

56
 CHAPTER FOUR

Presentation, Analysis and Discussion of Results

This chapter presents data obtained from fifty teachers and eight principals‟

questionnaire and interview with respect to: “The relationship between principal‟s

leadership style and its effect on teachers‟ performance.” The data were presented

and analyzed using the 5 – point Likert scale, for teachers‟ questionnaire. The

scale ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The principals were taken

through interview schedules. The data were analyzed using the relevant tables and

figures such as pie charts and bar charts.

Discussion and Interpretation of Teachers Questionnaires

Research Question 1: Do principal’s leadership style influence teachers

performance?

To find out if principal‟s leadership style influenced teachers‟ performance.

Questions 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 from the teachers‟ questionnaires were

used to determine the degree as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style

influenced teachers‟ performance.

57
Figure 4.4 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style

their principal uses in his /her daily routine

Authoritarian
16%
Democratic

52%
32% Laissez-faire

A mixture of
each

Figure 4.4 indicates that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the

principals used a mixture of each leadership style. Sixteen (16) or thirty two

percent (32 %) of the respondents principals used the democratic style of

leadership. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents principals used

the authoritarian leadership style. None of the principals use the Laissez-faire

leadership style.

Analysis of the figure revealed some interesting findings. If the researcher is to

appreciate each leadership style as it really is, then one can conclude that the

majority of the respondents have been through some trying times and also through

some favourable times as well. It is important to note that only sixteen (16) or

thirty two percent (32 %) of the respondents are being led under the democratic

style of leadership despite the numerous evidence and writers that have expressed

its conduciveness for better performance. Theorists and educators such as Likert

and James –Reid have written extensively about the benefits of the full

58
participatory form of leadership style which is essentially democratic; this

analysis revealed that only sixteen (16) or thirty two percent (32 %) of the

respondents are exposed to this style of leadership.

Figure 4.5 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to what leadership style

employed by their principal will motivate them to put out their best performance

as teachers.

10% Democratic
20%
70% Laissez-faire

A mixture of each

Authoritarian

Figure 4.5 indicates that thirty - five (35) or seventy percent (70 %) of the

respondents chose the democratic leadership style. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20

%) of the respondents chose a mixture of each leadership style. Five (5) or ten

percent (10 %) of the respondents chose the authoritarian leadership style. None

of the respondents responded to the Laissez – faire style of leadership.

The researcher is of the view that the respondents who chose a mixture of each

leadership style represent a small number that subscribed to Fiedlers Contingency

Model of leadership; where the principal act as it suits him/ her depending on the

situation. The results indicated a number of fundamental elements in the schools

system as it relates to principals and teachers relationship. While the majority of

59
the respondents choose the leadership style that is empirically proven to yield

better job satisfaction which will eventually lead to better performance (James-

Reid 1995), a significant number of the respondents choose otherwise despite the

perceived, potential and actual consequences that these leadership styles entail.

The researcher recalled that despite what is recorded in history about the German

Nazi leader, Adolph Hitler (1889 – 1945) his support remained strong even when

he was consumed by his own folly. Also some of the respondents perceived

themselves to be weak and do not want to be held responsible when things go

wrong. Perhaps they are of the view that if they have a leader who is strong,

ruthless and self-serving then they would be safe.

Figure 4.6 shows the respondents perception as it relates to whether or not their

principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching performance.

SA
8%
A
20%
UN

D
72%
SD

Figure 4.6 shows that thirty six (36) or seventy two percent (72 %) of the

respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style influenced

their teaching performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents

Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style influenced their teaching

60
performance. Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents were undecided

while none of the respondents respond to the Disagree or Strongly Disagree item.

The high degree of positive responses in the Strongly Agreed and Agreed are

consistent with current literature on the subject. Espinosa (1976), James – Reid

(1982) and Doggett (1987) all concur with the view that teachers‟ performance

are influenced by their principal‟s leadership style. The researcher is of the view

that, the eight percent (8 %) of respondents who were undecided as to whether or

not their principal‟s leadership style influences their teaching performance took

that stance perhaps because of their world view on leadership.

It is important to note that this question does not show or seek to find out whether

or not principal‟s leadership style influences teachers‟ performance positively or

negatively.

Figure 4.7 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to how their principal‟s

communicate high expectation for the performance of students and staff.

61
 12% SA
30% A

UN

D
58%
SD

Figure 4.7 shows that twenty nine (29) or fifty eight percent (58 %) of the

respondents Agreed that their principal communicate high expectations for the

performance of students and staff. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal‟s communicate high expectations for

the performance of students and staff. Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the

respondents Strongly Agreed, where as there were no responses for the option

Undecided or Strongly Disagree.

The high degree of positive responses from the respondents towards their

principal‟s leadership style in this regard is a good sign. The researcher is still

concerned because a thirty percent (30 %) degree of negativeness is still relevant

in that, these teachers (on an average reach at least thirty five (35) students per

day). Further more while writers such as Doggett (1987) and Bennis (2000),

emphasized the importance of a principal whose leadership style can create a

vision of success for all students via their teachers‟ performance; this should be

high but attainable and principal should help both teachers and students achieve

62
this. On the other hand, the researcher cannot take the thirty percent (30 %) of the

respondents who Disagreed for granted, as Stone (1995), points out, “Where

principals frequently have low expectations of some teachers‟ and students‟ self -

concepts and overall performance at school. Essentially teachers may internalize

these expectations and function accordingly.”

Figure 4.8 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal‟s

creation of an environment that optimizes learning for teachers and students.

SA
8%
20% 14% A

4% UN

D
54%
SD

Figure 4.8 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (44 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that optimizes

learning for teachers and students. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the

respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal creates an environment that

optimizes learning for teachers and students. Seven (7) or fourteen percent (14 %)

of the respondents Agreed, four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents

Strongly Agreed, while two (2) or four percent (4 %) were Undecided.

63
On close analysis of the figure the researcher recognized that over seventy percent

(70 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal in this

regard. This high degree of negativeness is not good. Especially when you

recognize that, had these responses been more positive than negative it could be

interpreted as behaviours that encourage excellence among teachers.

Figure 4.9 Respondents‟ perceptions of their principal as it relates to their close

supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction.

SA
6%
22% A

52% UN

20% D

SD

Figure 4.9 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the

respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal demonstrated close

supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction. Eleven (11) or

twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principals

demonstrated close supervision of teachers to improve the quality of instruction.

Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) Disagreed, three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the

64
respondents Strongly Agreed while there was no response for the Undecided

option.

This is another highly negative perception from the respondents towards their

principals‟ leadership style. This may be the facts as perceived by the respondents

or it may be so due to the fact that some principals assign such roles to their

senior teachers and grade supervisors. The reality however, is that many times

after the senior teachers and the grade supervisors get acquainted with the

teachers they are placed in charge of, they tend to relax their supervisory role and

they along with the teachers become tardy.

All this points to what Hargreaves (2003) alluded to when he encouraged

principals to embrace “distributed leadership and shared systemic responsibility”

stressing the need for “data guided instructional decision – making” and the

promotion of continuous, embedded, focused professional development” for

teachers. He further argued for periodic evaluation of school improvement as a

way to encourage schools to shift from their positions as “strolling or cruising to

moving schools.” In other words, whether or not principals assign personnel to

over see these aspects of the school‟s programme it is his duty to ensure that they

work effectively. Other wise it would amount to a waste of time.

65
Figure 4.10 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principals‟

creation of a supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth

for his staff.

0%

28% 12% SA
A
16% 44% UN
D
SD

Figure 4.10 shows that twenty two (22) or forty four percent (44%) of the

respondents Agreed that their principal created a supportive and caring

environment to promote professional growth for his staff. Fourteen (14) or twenty

eight percent (28 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principals create a

supportive and caring environment to promote professional growth for his staff.

Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents were Undecided at the

time, Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that

their principals create a supportive and caring environment to promote

professional growth for his staff. There was no response for the Strongly Disagree

item.

Based on the analysis of this particular question, it is evident that most principals

are heading in the right direction. Nonetheless there is still room for improvement.

Bennis (2003) conceded that principals must recognize and assume a shared

responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but

also for their teachers. Therefore, with most of the respondents yielding a positive

66
response towards their principals is really a step in the right direction. This kind

of positive response will no doubt contribute to the organization‟s development

and by extension to the improvement of students‟ achievement via better teachers

performance.

Figure 4.11 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to how their principal

communicates respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which he/ she

deals with them, thus setting the norm for behaviour in the school.

4% SA
20%
22% A

UN

D
54%
SD

Figure 4.11 shows that twenty seven (27) or fifty four percent (54 %) of the

respondents Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for

everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm

for behaviour in the school. Eleven (11) or twenty two percent (22 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for

everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm

for behaviour in the school. Ten (11) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents

67
Strongly Agreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for

everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm

for behaviour in the school. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the respondents

Strongly Disagreed that their principal communicates respect and courtesy for

everyone by the manner in which he/ she deals with them, thus setting the norm

for behaviour in the school; where as there was no response for the Undecided

item. The results show a high degree of positiveness from the respondents

towards their principal‟s leadership style in this regard, in fact, when principals

are found to be doing well in this area, it is said that they are on the right path

towards improving behaviours that encourage excellence (Wallace 1996).

Figure 4.12 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to the relationship

between school morale and motivation for performance.

SA
8%
12% A

60% Un
20%
D

SD

Figure 4.12 indicates that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents

Strongly Agreed that there is a relationship between school morale and motivation

for performance. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Agreed

68
that there is relationship between school morale and motivation for performance.

Six (6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether

or not there is a relationship between school morale and motivation for

performance. This may be as a result of a practice sustained by a number of

teachers who generally locked themselves away from the affairs of the school.

Four (4) or eight percent (8 %) of the respondents Disagreed that there is a

relationship between school morale and motivation for performance. There was

no response for the item Strongly Disagree.

This question was used specially to sum up research question one. It is the view of

the researcher that if school morale is high, then there will be more motivation for

better performance. However, while this particular question does not address the

degree of morale in schools, it is relevant in that there is a relationship between

school morale and motivation for performance.

According to White (1979) quoting Theodorson and Theodorson who defined

morale as a commitment to group goals on the part of group members, confidence

in the group‟s eventual attainment of these goals, and satisfaction with the group

experience. High moral involves beliefs in the rightness and importance of goals

of a group, willingness to work for these goals, and belief in their ultimate

achievement.

69
Therefore, when morale is high in a school it is understandable that, the

principal‟s goals are compatible with the teachers‟ ideals and values and hence

group members will feel satisfaction in working for these goals because they

believe the group will succeed in attaining them.

Research Question 2: To what extent does the principal leadership style

influence teachers motivation for improved / greater performance?

To find out the extent to which principal‟s leadership style influence teachers‟ for

improved/greater performance. Questions 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 from the

teachers‟ questionnaire were used to determine to what extent does the principal‟s

leadership style influence teachers‟ motivation for improved / greater

performance

Figure 4.13 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to their principal

supporting the idea of teachers‟ furthering their education and directly encouraged

them to do so.

70
 10% SA
16%

22% A

UN

52% D

SD

Figure 4.13 shows that twenty six (26) or fifty two percent (52 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers

furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so. Eleven (11) or

twenty two percent (22 %) of the respondents Agreed that their principal

supported the idea of teachers furthering their education and directly encouraged

them to do so. Eight (8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly

Disagreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers furthering their

education and directly encouraged them to do so, five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of

the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal supported the idea of teachers

furthering their education and directly encouraged them to do so, while there was

no response for the Undecided item.

The researcher correlated figure 4.2, and figure 4.13 (figure 4.2 gives the details

of the respondents qualifications) to find out if there is a relationship between

what the respondents say and what their actual qualifications are. On close

examination of figure 4.2 one will notice that more than seventy two percent

71
(72 %) of the respondents are Diploma trained. The researcher interprets this as

the entry level qualification for this particular profession; in fact only twelve (12)

or twenty four percent (24 %) of the respondents had Bachelor Degrees. This may

be indicative of the aforementioned analysis. With all factors considered this

result is highly negative towards the principals‟ leadership styles. The matter is

further compounded when one recognized that thirty nine (39) or seventy eight

percent (78 %) of the respondents had over five years of experience in the

profession.

Figure 4.14 shows the respondents perception of their principal‟s awareness of his

responsibilities as leader of the school.

SA
8%
12% 20% A

UN
60% D

SD

Figure 4.14 shows that thirty (30) or sixty percent (60 %) of the respondents

Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the

school. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed

that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Six

72
(6) or twelve percent (12 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal is

fully aware of his responsibilities as leader of the school. Four (4) or eight percent

(8 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal is fully aware of

his responsibilities as leader of the school. None of the respondents respond to the

Undecided item.

Close analysis of these results showed that over seventy percent (75 %) of

respondents Agreed that their principal is fully aware of his responsibilities as

leader of the school. While this question does not look directly at the effectiveness

of the principal as leader of the school, the researcher found it relevant in that

there is an alignment between what is perceived, expected and what is actually

done by the principal as leader of the school. The importance of this cannot be

overstated. As writers such as (Taylor and Tashakkori, 1997; Huffman &

Jacobson, 2003) postulated that the principal‟s leadership style is the best

discriminator between high participation and low participation by teachers.

Figure 4.15 shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal‟s leadership style

and whether or not it is universal to all his staff.

73
 6% 12% SA
40% 42% A
UN
D
SD

Figure 4.15 indicates that twenty one (21) or forty two percent (42 %) of the

respondents Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his

staff. Twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their

principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff. Six (6) or twelve percent

(12 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal‟s leadership style is

universal to all his staff. While three (3) or six percent (6 %) of the respondents

Strongly Disagreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his

staff. There was no response for the Undecided item.

Responses to this question revealed a problem that has plagued many

organizations over the years. The analysis showed that fifty four percent (54 %) of

the respondents had a positive outlook that their principal‟s leadership style is

universal to all his staff, almost contrasting to this figure is the remaining forty six

percent (46 %) of the staff disagreeing that their principal‟s style is universal to all

his staff. The researcher is of the view that what really exists in these schools is a

phenomenon that has plagued interpersonal relationships in many organizations

and gets watered down in production (and in the case of schools – teachers

74
performance. Biases, let us face it, how many persons are going to extend

themselves to their true potential if they perceive that they won‟t be recognized or

be appreciated for it? The matter gets worst when it is no longer a perception but a

fact. The result is indicative of what many persons refer to as: different stokes for

different folks.

Figure 4.16 shows the respondents‟ perception concerning their principal‟s

establishment of good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and

the community.

SA
10%
20% A
20%
UN
50% D

SD

Figure 4.16 shows that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the respondents

Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal relations between his

students, his staff and the community. Ten (10) or twenty percent (20 %) of the

respondents Strongly Agreed that their principal established good interpersonal

relations between his students, his staff and the community. Similarly ten (10) or

twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents Disagreed that their principal

75
established good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the

community. There was no response for the Undecided item.

This relatively high degree of positiveness from the respondents toward their

principals is very important in that the researcher interprets this leadership style as

one that is in the best interest of the school in general. Although these principals

can do very little to change the socioeconomic status of parents, they have

realized the effect of parents‟ involvement in students‟ learning and so work with

parents to facilitate their children‟s learning. Parents‟ involvement may help to

improve teacher performance in that they can provide voluntary assistance to

teachers and school by participating in extra – curricular activities, assisting or

encouraging children in homework assignments and meeting with teachers to

discuss their children‟s welfare (Rutherford 1985) and (The Institute for

Educational Leadership 2003).

Figure 4.17 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to whether or not their

principal compromised the standards and safety of the school.

76
 30% 40% SA
A
10% 20% UN
D
SD

Figure 4.17 shows that twenty (20) or forty percent (40 %) of the respondents

Strongly Agreed that their principal compromised the standards and safety of the

school. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents Disagreed that

their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. Ten (10) or

twenty percent (20 %) of the respondents were Undecided as to whether or not

their principal compromised the standards and safety of the school. The researcher

is of the view that the respondents who were Undecided took this stance because

they believed that matters such as security and standards are portfolios of the

Ministry of Education and not principals. None of the respondents respond to the

Strongly Agree item. Another matter of concern coming from the analysis is the

high degree of respondents who Agreed that their principals compromised the

standards and safety of the school. According to Tranquilla (2005), principals that

were most effective were the ones that were sensitive to teachers‟ issues.

Standards and safety are crucial teachers‟ issues, which should not be treated

lightly.

77
The researcher recalled going to a number of these schools to administer the

questionnaires, on three occasions it was the time when the (Nutri – Products)

truck were delivering Nutri-buns. The crowd of outsiders, their dress, appearance,

language and general behaviour were appalling, for the fifteen minutes to half an

hour these people were let loose on the school compound without any form of

supervision. This was compounded by the fact that incidence of violence against

teachers by students and outsiders had risen in recent years (TVJ news, 2005).

Figure 4.18 shows the respondents‟ perception as it relates to the question: My

principal works cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the

decision making process to address school programmes.

SA
14% 16%
A

UN
28%
38%
D
4%
SD

Figure 4.18 indicates that nineteen (19) or thirty eight percent (38 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff

encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school

programmes, fourteen (14) or twenty eight percent (28 %) of the respondents

Agreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their

participation in the decision making process to address school programmes. Eight

78
(8) or sixteen percent (16 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed that their

principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in

the decision making process to address school programme. Seven (7) or fourteen

percent (14 %) of the respondents Strongly Disagreed that their principal worked

cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making

process to address school programme. Two (2) or four percent (4 %) of the

respondents were Undecided as to whether or not that their principal work

cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation in the decision making

process to address school programmes.

This result is very interesting, first of all, a majority with a difference of eight

percent (8 %) Disagreed that their principal worked cooperatively with his staff

encouraging their participation in the decision making process to address school

programme.

The researcher is of the view that some principals operate with their teachers on a

need to know basis, and with that thinking they make decisions and take actions

without consulting with the teachers. It is believed that after senior staff meetings

a filtered version is given to the rest of the staff. The researcher recalled a

conversation with a particular teacher who expressed her disapproval of her

principal‟s leadership style: she remarked that her principal, “he just surprised all

79
of us when he got up and said that he is going to give the vacant position to a

particular teacher. Just like that in a staff meeting.” When the principal was

approached about his uncollaborative behaviour, the principal said, “we should

live and let others live”, and that was the end of it. if that was not enough writers

such as Dr. Thompson (2006), board member of both the National Council on

Education and the Early Childhood Commission. Spoke about „More power for

principals‟. Dr. Thompson is pushing for more autonomy for principals – akin to a

corporate executive – to discipline teaching staff for lax performance in the

classroom.

Such behaviour does not motivate or encourage better performance. What it does,

is that it creates resentment. James – Reid (1982), an expert in the Educational

system, sum this up well, she postulated. “The Jamaican School principal exerts

his legal authority as leader of the school, but the extent to which the goals of the

school are achieved is to some degree dependent on his leadership and his

personal characteristic - she continued; even though his leadership may not be

challenged; he may face strong resentment from staff members which will

eventually make his administrative performance become ineffective, and that is

just the beginning of failure for the school.

80
Figure 4.19 shows the respondents‟ perception of their principal as it relates to

whether or not he or she explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟

performance.

10% 10% SA
30% A
50%
UN
D
SD

Figure 4.19 indicates that twenty five (25) or fifty percent (50 %) of the

respondents Disagreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his

teachers‟ performance. Fifteen (15) or thirty percent (30 %) of the respondents

Agreed that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟

performance. Five (5) or ten percent (10 %) of the respondents Strongly Agreed

that their principal explored opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.

Similarly the same number Strongly Disagreed that their principal explored

opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance. None of the respondents

respond to the Undecided item.

The analysis of the results does not say well for the principals, since over fifty

percent (50 %) of the respondents responded negatively towards their principal‟s

leadership style as it relates to the extent to which the principal seek to improve

teachers‟ performance. Many writers have written extensively on how principals

ought to behave. For example, in a survey of teachers done by Blase, Jo; Blase,

Joseph (1999), the teachers revealed that principals who want to promote

81
classroom instruction and better teacher performance must talk openly and freely

with teachers about teaching and learning, provide time and encourage peer

connections for teachers, empower teachers, embrace the challenge of teachers'

professional development, and lead and motivate teachers. The Jamaican Ministry

of Education and Youth have and continued to make great strides in making the

necessary preparation to improve teachers‟ performance in the classroom.

Numerous workshops and seminars have been arranged for teachers to improve

their skills, so that students‟ achievement can be maximized.

Bennis (2003), points out that principals must recognize and assume a shared

responsibility not only for students‟ intellectual and educational development, but

also for their teachers. They must know academic content and pedagogical

techniques so that they can work with their teachers to strengthen their skills if

needs be.

Summary and response to principals’ Interview

Interview questions 1, 2, and 3 dealt with the biographical data of the principal.

These are analyzed and interpreted on figure 4.1 to 4.3, the remaining interview

questions will seek to answer research question 3.

Research Question 3: What can principals do to improve teachers’

performance?

82
To find out what principals can do to improve their teachers‟ performance.

Interview questions 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 from the principals‟ interview schedule

were used to determine the degree as to whether or not principal‟s leadership style

influences teachers‟ performance.

The responses from the eight principals were very similar.

Interview question 4. What strategies do you have in place for teachers who

you find to be performing poorly?

The principals spoke of a) monitoring programmes, b) demonstration lessons in

the form of workshops and staff development in addition to frequent evaluations

to give feedback.

Interview question 5. How do you boost teachers’ morale?

The principals spoke of boosting teachers‟ morale through encouragement, praise,

and public recognition in the form of awards; a number of principals were very

vocal on the matter. They said that teachers are more satisfied when they

experience a sense of recognition; they feel good about their work - a sense of

personal worth and self – fulfillment which in turn acts as a strong motivator for

even better performance. Some principals emphasized the need to have an on

going incentive programme in place because often times, the feelings of teachers

are taken lightly.Interview question 6. What is your belief on cooperation

among principals and their teachers?

83
The principals‟ responses to this question were almost theoretical. They said that

it is very important as principals need the cooperation and support of the teachers

to carry out the vision and mission of the school in an effective manner.

Interview question 7. Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in

the decision making process of school programme?

All the principals agreed that they allowed their teachers to be active participants

in the decision making process of schools‟. Some principals mentioned that

teachers should understand their individual position as a staff member. They said

this to emphasize that some decisions have to be made at different levels with the

staff and it was not a matter of excluding some teachers. Others talked about the

ills of excluding teachers from the decision making that affect the entire school.

They said that if teachers help to formulate the policies they tend to be more

willing to see and ensure that they materialized and are successful, they would not

allow them to fail. However, some times, if they are not a part of the decision

making they may put up passive resistance; which will lead to failure for the

whole school.

Interview question 8. Do you think that your teachers would perform better if

they were more pleased with your leadership style?

The principals were very pensive when this question was asked.

They all agreed and disagreed to some extent that their leadership styles may or

may not be to the liking of all the teachers, but they unanimously argued that there

84
are many other factors that may cause teachers to perform poorly and most times

these factors are caused by situations that are beyond the control of the principals.

For example, the matter of salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the

classroom and school, security at school and in recent times high levels of

indiscipline and even violence against them from students. Other factors may

cause the teachers to perform poorly and thus affect students‟ achievement.

Interview question 9. Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about your

teachers’ social development beyond the classroom?

One particular principal said that this was something that she was looking into as

a way to be more connected with her teachers. The principals who were in the

system for a long period of time said that this gesture is good when the teachers

are reciprocal, but in reality most times teachers are not too receptive of this and

found it to be inquisitive. Another principal asserted that, many of our teachers

are socially better off than us principals even though we are the principals and

supposedly get a bigger salary. Another principal in expressing her reluctance in

getting involved in teachers‟ social development remarked that it is not that

teachers‟ social development is not important or that it does not concern her.

However, past experience had led her to believe that teachers are sometimes

skeptical about the motive of such concerns and very often one principal‟s

misfortune is generalized so well that it paints a dismal picture of all principals

who attempted to concern themselves about teachers‟ social development.

85
Summary

After the data were collected from the questionnaires and interview schedules

about “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on

teachers‟ performance.” The data were analyzed and the results revealed that

teachers depend to a great extent on the advice and support provided by their

principals. The study also confirmed that teachers are more satisfied with

principals whose leadership is one that allow principals to make themselves

available to assist in the instruction and professionalism of his students and

teachers for better performance on a whole.

The researcher is of the opinion that all the principals and teachers in all the

schools in Jamaica should be exposed to the full participatory form of leadership

style which is essentially democratic, especially those principals and teachers in

rural schools in Jamaica.

86
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, IMPLICATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The chapter of summarizations and conclusions looks backward and also forward

through consideration of applications, recommendations and needed research

(Good, 1972)

The writer now attempts to present an over view of the research undertaken in

order to determine “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its

effect on teachers performance.” The sample consisted of fifty eight respondents.

Fifty (50) teachers and eight (8) principals from eight (8) schools in West

Portland: three Primary Schools, three All Age schools, and two High Schools.

The data gathered attempted to answer the following research questions:

1. Do principals‟ leadership styles influence teachers‟ performance?

2. To what extent does the principal leadership style influence teacher

motivation for improved / greater performance?

3. What can principals do to improve teacher performance?

87
Findings

The main findings are as follows:

1. The study confirmed what writers such as Espinosa (1976), James – Reid

(1982) and Doggett (1987) were in fact saying that principal‟s leadership style

actually influenced teachers‟ performance. The study showed that over ninety

percent (90 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal‟s leadership style

actually influenced their performance.

2. A majority of fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers are being led by their

principals who employed a mixture of each leadership style in their daily

routine. While an overwhelming majority of seventy percent (70 %) of the

teachers chose the democratic leadership style because of the wide range of

benefits it offers, such as: teachers who are led by a principal who employ the

democratic style of leadership are allowed to share their ideas and opinions,

take part in the decision process and are motivated by rewards for achieving

goals.

3. Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal

communicated high expectations for the performance of students and staff.

Despite the fact that seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers disagreed

that their principal created an environment that optimizes learning for

teachers and students.

88
4. Fifty eight percent (58 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal

demonstrated careful supervision of teachers to improve the quality of

instruction. This is further compounded by the fact that sixty percent

(60 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal explored

opportunities to improve his teachers‟ performance.

5. Eighty percent (80 %) of the teachers agreed that there is a relationship

between school morale and motivation for performance.

6. Seventy four percent (74 %) of the teachers‟ agreed that their principal

communicated respect and courtesy for everyone by the manner in which

he/she deals with them, thus setting a norm for behaviour in the school. This

contrasted significantly to the fifty four percent (54 %) of the teachers who

disagreed that their principal‟s leadership style is universal to all his staff.

7. Sixty eight percent (68 %) of the teachers disagreed that their principal

supported the idea of them furthering their education and directly encouraged

them to do so. This is indicative of the fact that more than seventy two

percent (72 %) of the teachers only have a Diploma in Education with more

than five years in the profession.

8. Seventy percent (70 %) of the teachers agreed that their principal tries to

establish good interpersonal relations between his students, his staff and the

89
 community. Yet fifty two percent (52 %) of the teachers disagreed that their

principal worked cooperatively with his staff encouraging their participation

in the decision making process to address school programmes.

9. Sixty percent (60 %) of the teachers agree that their principal compromises

the standards and safety of the school.

10. The study revealed that there are other factors besides principal‟s leadership

style that may contribute to teachers‟ performance such as the matter of

salary, inflation, the physical appearance of the classroom and school, security

at school and in recent times high levels of indiscipline and even violence

against teachers from students.

Implications

The results of the study based on the responses from the respondents on the

questionnaires and interviews showed that teachers‟ performance is highly

dependent on the qualitative value of the relationship between principal‟s

leadership and its effect on the teachers, Also important to their performance are

the other variables that affect their job satisfaction such as classroom ambiance

and school morale. If these are not in place then the consequences will reflect in

90
their work. Students will not get the level of teaching and instruction that a

satisfied teacher would give.

It is very essential for parents to recognize their role in the education of their

children. Parents can help both the principals and teachers in order to make their

children achieve more academically. They can offer assistance in the following

areas and more according to their abilities: extra curricular activities act as

Teachers‟ Aid and work in the canteen. The fact is when parents and the

community support school the teachers tend to demonstrate a higher level of

performance. Students will benefit greatly from this both academically and

socially. The principals too will find their job more meaningful in that they will

not think that they are alone in operating the school programme. When the

principal, teachers and parents are in unison the school morale will be high, this

will allow very little room for selfish-gratification which can sometimes be

detrimental to students and the school on a whole.

While it is important for principals to communicate high expectations for the

performance of students and staff; it is even more important that principals create

an environment that optimizes learning for the teachers and students. The

implication of this is that teachers and even students thrive on reciprocity.

91
Therefore, the principal is to facilitate the creation of a school ethos that everyone

can be proud of.

Principals should recognize that teachers who are satisfied add value to their

performance which will result in better students‟ academic achievement. When

teachers are empowered they also empower their students. Principals‟ should

recognize the need to empower and motivate their teachers in a way that the

teachers appreciate the urge to improve themselves both academically and

professionally in order to help in boosting their performance and enhance

students‟ academic achievement. This should not be taken lightly as Maslow

hypothesized that motivational needs at the higher levels promote behaviour that

is more important to the organization and vice versa. Therefore teachers will

reflect the behaviour and attitudes that they have acclimatized.

Recommendations

The following recommendations were made:

1. Principals and teachers should recognize the need for a good balance in their

relationship to meet the needs of the school.

92
2. Principals should employ the participatory style of leadership which is

essentially democratic; teachers are more appreciative of this and tend to

perform better under such leadership.

3. Principals should use suggestions that they have been given to help improve

teachers‟ performance and stop viewing them as ideals.

4. The relevant stake holders and other relevant authorities need to take the

matter of school security and safety seriously and do something about it in

order to restrain what appears to be a trend in school violence.

5. The school should recognize the vast resource and skills that parents and the

community at large have and use them to the benefit of the school; this will

be an advantage to the community as well.

6. Recognize that good education for all cannot take place in a state of

inadequacy. The payment of salaries for teachers and principals that are

comparative to current inflation rates. The development of proper

infrastructures that are well equip to meet the needs of the students.

93
 Conclusion

The researcher is of the view that if schools are to be transformed into the

learning communities that the Jamaican Ministry of Education and Youth

envisaged, then the relationships between principal and teachers have to be based

on the democratic style of leadership. It is the researcher‟s fervent view that the

democratic style of leadership is the best style of leadership where principal and

teachers are concerned because of its numerous benefits, some of which are

outlined in the review of literature.

The results that were gathered and analyzed in this study concurred with the

views of numerous writers such as Espinosa (1976), James – Reid (1982) and

Doggett (1987) that principal‟s leadership style profoundly affects teachers‟

performance. Therefore, it is in the interest of the principal and teachers to

support and employ a collaborative approach in their relations to ensure that the

schools‟ programmes and students are not incapacitated. This is even more

relevant when one examines some of the compelling implications that may occur

if this is not done: such as the degree to which students‟ instructions for academic

achievements will be catered for by teachers

94
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the

Current Debate About Education Administration (EDAD)

Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf

2. Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000).Education &Society- An Introduction.

Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica

3. Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to Balance Bureaucracy and Community

as an Educational Administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.),

The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers

and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

4. Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational

Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,

California; USA.

95
5. Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy

statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province

of New Brunswick.

6. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis

and Application 5th Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster

Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

7. Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4th Edition.

British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.

8. Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of

Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership

Library of America, Inc.

9. Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational

Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd Edition. Random

House Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

96
10. L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher

Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

11. Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical

approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica.

12. Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology. 2nd

Edition., McGraw – Hill, New York.

13. Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational

Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The

West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados

14. Reid-James, Olga. (1991). Teaching: Its Management and Functions.

Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.

15. Skinner, B.F. (1938). The Behaviour of Organism: An Experimental

Analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.

97
16. Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica

Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.

17. Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education

Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica

18. Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively

6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19. White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern

Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of

the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.

20 Bennis, Warren, Parikh, Jagdish and Lessem, Ronnie (2003), Beyond

Leadership: Balancing Economics, Ethics and Ecology

21 ttp//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.

98
QUESTIONNAIRE ON TEACHER‟S PERCEPTION OF THEIR PRINCIPAL‟S

LEADERSHIP STYLE AND ITS EFFECT ON TEACHER PERFORMANCE.

CONFIDENTIAL

Dear Teachers:

This questionnaire is designed to solicit your response as it relates to: “The

relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher
performance.” Principal‟s leadership style has to do with the managerial running
of the school and the influence and inspiration of his staff and students to
collectively ensure excellence for all concerned. There is no right or wrong
answer. It is a matter of how you feel. We therefore expect you to be very frank
and truthful in expressing your feelings. The information you give is necessary to
guide administration in setting up programmes helpful to teachers. Therefore, if
you feel one way, and give your opinion in another direction, you will misguide
administrators and you will not be of assistance to future teachers.

So please be frank. This questionnaire is completely confidential, and no else will

know of your views, opinions, and feelings. Do not give your names. The
information is for research only, and nothing will be communicated to any other
person.
Thanks for your help.
Frank Peart, (Student)
International University of the Caribbean.

99
 INSTRUCTIONS FOR ANSWERING TEACHERS QUESTIONNAIRE

Below are twenty (20) questionnaire items. Items one (1) and two (2) are

biographical data. Your name is not required and your responses will be treated

with strict confidence. The remaining eighteen (18) items directly relate to the

research topic: “The relationship between principal‟s leadership style and its

effect on teachers performance.”

Please follow the instructions carefully.

Items one (1) to five (5) require you to place a tick on the line of the category

or range that suits you best. Item six (6) requires you to make your own decision.

Items seven (7) to twenty (20) are on the five point Likert Scale. The 5 – point

Likert scale is an instrument that asks an individual to respond to a series of

statements or questions by indicating whether she or he Strongly Agrees (SA),

Agree (A), is Undecided (UN), Disagree (D), or Strongly Disagree (SD) with

each statement.

If you Strongly Agree to the question or statement please place a tick under SA;

if you Agree place a tick under A; if you are Undecided place a tick under UN; if

you Disagree, place a tick under D; and if you Strongly Disagree place a tick

under SD.

100
 Sample

Teachers’ questionnaire

1. What is your gender? _____Male_____Female

2. In which age group do you belong? ___ (18 – 25)

___ (26 – 33) ___ (34 – 42) ___ (43 and above).

3. How many years of experience do you have? __ (1-5) __ (6-10)

__ (11-15) ___ (16 and above).

4. What is your academic qualification?

____ (Pre-Trained) ___ (Diploma trained) ____ (Bachelors-Degree).

5. What leadership style does your principal use in his /her daily routine?

____ (Authoritarian) ____ (Democratic) _____ (Laissez-faire) ____ (Dictator)

_____ (A mixture of each).

6. What leadership style employed by your principal you feel will motivate you to

perform to the best of your ability? _______________

101
 Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly
Agree Disagree
5 – Point Likert Scale
SA A UN D SD

5 4 3 2 1
7. My principal‟ leadership style influences
my teaching performance.
8. My principal communicates high
expectations for the performance of students
and staff.
9. My principal creates an environment that
optimizes learning for teachers and students.
10. My principal demonstrates close
supervision of teachers to improve the
quality of instruction.
11. My principal creates a supportive and
caring environment to promote professional
growth for staff.
12. My principal communicates respect and
courtesy for everyone by the manner in
which he deals with them, thus setting a
norm for behaviour in the school.
13. There is a relationship between school
morale and motivation for performance.
14. My principal supports the idea of
furthering my education and directly
encourages me to do so
15. My principal is fully aware of his
responsibilities as leader of the school
16. My principal leadership style is
universal to all his staff
17. My principal tries to establish good
interpersonal relations between his students,
his staff and the community.
18. My principal compromises the standards
and safety of the school.
19. My principal works cooperatively with
his staff encouraging their participation in
the decision making process to address
school programmes.
20. My principal explores opportunities to
improve his teachers‟ performance.

102
 Sample

Principals’ Interview Schedule

1. Which of the following age group do you belong? ___ (18 – 25)

___ (26 – 33) ___ (34 – 42) ___ (43 and above)

2. Which of the following range do you belong in terms of teaching

experience? ___ (1 – 5) ___ (6 – 10) ___ (11 – 15) ___ (16 and above).

3. What may I ask is you academic qualification?

4. What strategies do you have in place for teachers who you find performing

poorly?

5. How do you boost teachers‟ morale?

6. What is your belief on cooperation among principals and their teachers?

7. Do you allow your teachers to be active participants in the decision

making process of school programme?

8. Do you think that your teachers would perform better if the were more

pleased with your leadership style?

9. Is it a policy of yours to concern yourself about teachers‟ social

development beyond the classroom?

103
 Sample

Letter to Principal.

Frank Peart
16 Halls Avenue
Port Antonio
Portland P.O.,

January 27, 2006

The Principal
Hope Bay All Age School
Hope Bay P.O.,
Portland

Dear Principal,

I am a final year student at the International University of the Caribbean. As a

part of the requirement for the Bachelor of Guidance and counseling Degree

programme. I am currently conducting a research to investigate: The relationship

between principal‟s leadership style and its effect on teacher performance.

I am asking your permission to conduct this research at this institution from some

teachers who can provide the necessary information of the topic under

investigation. The information received is going to be used for the research only.

With thanks.

Yours truly,

…………….

Frank Peart.

104
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Achilles, C. M., and William J. Price. (2001) "What Is Missing in the

Current Debate About Education Administration (EDAD)

Standards!" http://www.aasa.org/publications/tap/Winter_2001.pdf

2. Anglin-Hyman, Rhona. (2000). EDUCATION & SOCIETY- An

Introduction. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica

3. Beairsto, B (1999). Learning to balance bureaucracy and community

as an educational administrator. In B. Beairsto and P. Ruohotie (Eds.),

The education of educators: enabling professional growth for teachers

and administrators. Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.

4. Deal, Terrence E. (1993) "The Culture of Schools." In Educational

Leadership and School Culture, McCutchan Publishing Berkeley,

California; USA.

105
5. Department of Education. (2002). A quality learning agenda policy

statement on K-12: Quality schools, high results. Fredericton: Province

of New Brunswick.

6. Gay, L. R. (1996). Educational Research: Competencies for analysis

and application 5th Edition. Prentice Hall, Inc. Simon and Schuster

Company Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458.

7. Gross, Richard. (2005). The Science of mind and behaviour 4th Edition.

British Library Cataloging in Publication dated in.

8. Hogan, R.; R. Raskin; and D. Fazzini. (1990). "The Dark Side of

Charisma." In Measures of Leadership, 343-54 New Jersey: Leadership

Library of America, Inc.

9. Hoy, K. Wayne and Miskel, G. Cecil. (1982) Educational

Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice 2nd Edition. Random

House Inc., 201 East 50th Street, New York, N.Y. 10022

106
10. L. S. Vygotsky. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher

Psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.

11. Matalon, A. Barbara. Bastick, Tony (2004) Research: new and practical

approaches. Stevenson‟s Lithographers, Kingston, Jamaica.

12. Morgan, T Clifford. (1977) Introduction to General Psychology.

2nd Edition., McGraw – Hill, New York.

13. Reid- James, Olga. (2000). Theory and application in Educational

Administration, Faculty of Arts and Education, The university of The

West Indies, Bridgetown, Barbados

14. Reid-James, Olga. (1991). TEACHING: ITS MANAGEMENT AND

FUNCTIONS. Kingston Publishers Limited, Kingston, Jamaica.

15. Skinner, B.F. (1938). The behaviour of organism: An experimental

analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts.

107
16. Thompson. Ralph. (2004). “Education on the ropes.” The Jamaica

Observer. Kingston, Jamaica.

17. Tufton, Dr. (2003). “Low CXC grades expose struggling Education

Sector.” The Jamaica Observer. Kingston, Jamaica

18. Weaver, L. Richard., Sandra Hybels. (2004). Communication Effectively

6th Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill.

19. White, Adlyn. (1979) Placement, Intern Supervision, School and Intern

Characteristics in Relation to Morale and Achievement. University of

the West Indies Mona, Jamaica.

20. http//: www. Leadership and schools @ Yahoo. Com.

108