Fransua Dalachew

Leadership Practices and School performance in
Secondary Schools of Wolaita Zone (Southern

NatioNs, NatioNalities aNd peoples’ RegioNal
State)
By:Fransua Dalachew
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
2019
I
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WOLAITA ZONE (SOUTHERN
NATION, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES’ REGIONAL
STATE
By: Fransua Dalachew
A Dissertation submitted to Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa
University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Policy and
Leadership
2019
Addis Ababa
II
LEADERSHIP PRACTICES AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN
SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WOLAITA ZONE (SOUTHERN
NATION, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES’ REGIONAL
STATE
By: Fransua Dalachew
Approved by the Board of Examiners
Signature
Dr. Kenenisa Dabi ____________________________

Department Head
Dr. Jeilu Omer ____________________________
Internal Advisor
Pro. Ann O’Connel _____________________________
External Advisor
Dr. Tilaye Kassahun _____________________________
Internal Examiner
Dr. Lionel Howard _____________________________
External Examiner
III
Abstract
The research purpose of this study was to investigate Leadership style and Performance of
Secondary Schools of Wolaita Zone. The study investigated principal’s leadership style based on
the perception of teachers and principals self-rating about their leadership style. To investigate
this topic a mixed methodology, that is, qualitative and quantitative design was employed.
Qualitative data were investigated from interviews conducted with all school principals and 20
teachers purposefully selected from the secondary schools selected for this study. Quantitative
data was investigated from the standardized questioners developed by Bas sin 1985 and was
revised several times through subsequent research by Bass and Avolio (1995) to measure the
transformational and transactional leadership styles. The quantitative data was analyzed by
using statistical instrument SPSS version 20. The result of the study indicated that all
principals in the selected secondary schools were male, 90% of them were Bachelor degree
holders, averagely with ten years of service and aged between 31 – 40 years. It also revealed that
87% of teachers were male and 13% of them were female teachers indicating that the teaching
profession is dominated by male teachers. The finding also indicated that, teachers of all sample
secondary schools perceived that their principals frequently exercised transformational leadership
style and fairly often practice transactional leadership style. The study also indicated that there is
no significant difference in the self-rating of their leadership practice of both groups of principals.
The study concluded that there is no difference in leadership style practiced by Grade 3 and
Grade 2 school principals as to the perception of teachers. The study further indicated that
effective school performance requires visionary leadership and it is the transformational
leadership style that could result in effective school performance. The study also suggests that, in
order to achieve effective school performance, principals has to be visionary, share their visions,
mission and values with all stakeholders and implement and evaluate their performance timely.
It also further suggested that those supervisors who evaluate the schools should give directions
how to deal with different problems in school environment so that to achieve the desire goals by
using a positive approach.
Key Words: Leadership, Leadership practice, School performance
I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my advisors, Dr. Jeilu Oumer and Pro. Ann
O‘Connell, for their unfailing encouragement, guidance, constructive comments and useful
suggestions.
Without their unreserved dedication and expert guidance completion of this study would have
been impossible.
I am also indebted to thank all those officials of Zonal educational office who gave me their
support in providing me with necessary information and encouragement.
I am also indebted to thank all Principals and teachers in filling the questionnaire presented to
them and responded for the interview by devoting their time for this purpose.
Finally, most of my deepest appreciation is to my wife Sintayehu Teshome for her patience,
understanding and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. I wish also to appreciate my
daughters Mary Fransua and Veronica Fransua and my son Benedict Fransua who were very
patient when this study took considerable time.
II
Table of Contents
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….……I
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………….…...III
Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………………...…IV
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..……..VII
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………X
ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR ACRONYMS…………………………………………………...XI
CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................... 1

1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................ 3
Table 1: Grade of schools /Wolaita Zone Education Department/ ......................................... 8
1.2. Statement of the Problem ............................................................................................. 9
1.3 Objective of the Study .................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Basic Questions ............................................................................................................... 14
1.5 Conceptual Frame ........................................................................................................... 16
1.6. Significance of the Study ............................................................................................... 20
1.7 Delimitation of the Study ................................................................................................ 21
1.8. Assumptions of the Study .............................................................................................. 21
1.9 Definition of Terms .................................................................................................... 22
1.10 Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 22
CHAPTER TWO .................................................................................................................. 24
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ............................................................................ 24
2. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 24
2.1. Definition of Leadership ................................................................................................ 25
2.2. Importance of Leadership .............................................................................................. 28
2.3. Historical Development of Leadership Theory.............................................................. 30
2.4. Leadership Styles ........................................................................................................... 48
2.5. School Leadership Practice ............................................................................................ 65
2.6. School Performance ....................................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER THREE .............................................................................................................. 73
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................ 73
3.1 Research Design.............................................................................................................. 73
3.2 The Study Population...................................................................................................... 74
III
3.3. The Study Sample and Sampling Technique .............................................................. 74
3.4. Sources of Data .............................................................................................................. 75
3.5. Data collection Instruments ........................................................................................... 76
Table 3.2. Transactional leadership Scale............................................................................. 78
Table 3.3. MLQ-5X means, standard deviations, and reliabilities ...................................... 79
3.6. Data collection Procedure .............................................................................................. 80
3.7. Data Analysis Technique ............................................................................................... 80
3.8. Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................... 81
CHAPTER FOUR ................................................................................................................. 82
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .............................................. 82
4.1. Background Characteristics of Respondents .............................................................. 82
Table 4.1. : Background Characteristics of Sample Secondary School Principals ............... 83
Table 4.2: Background Characteristics of Sample Secondary School Teachers .................. 84
4.2 Principals Leadership Practice as Perceived by Teachers .............................................. 85
4.2.1. Transformational Leadership ...................................................................................... 85
Table 4.4: The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
idealized influence /behavior/ ............................................................................................... 90
Inspirational Motivation........................................................................................................ 94
Table4.6 : The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
Intellectual Stimulation ......................................................................................................... 98
Individualized Consideration .............................................................................................. 101
Table 4.8. The perception of teachers from Level 3 and Level 2 secondary schools on
transformational leadership ................................................................................................. 105
4.2.2 Transactional Leadership ........................................................................................... 111
Table 4.9. The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
Contingent Reward ............................................................................................................. 112
Management by Exception- Active .................................................................................... 116
Management by Exception - Passive .................................................................................. 119
Table 4.12:. The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
transactional Leadership ..................................................................................................... 122
4.3. Principals Self-rating of Leadership Practice .............................................................. 125
4.3.1: Transformational Leadership Style ........................................................................... 125
IV
Table 4.14: The perception of principals from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
idealized influence /attributed ............................................................................................. 125
idealized influence /behavior .............................................................................................. 128
Inspirational Motivation...................................................................................................... 130
Intellectual Stimulation ....................................................................................................... 132
Individualized Consideration .............................................................................................. 135
4.3.2 Transactional Leadership Style .................................................................................. 141
Contingent Reward ............................................................................................................. 141
Management by Exception- Active .................................................................................... 144
Management by Exception - Passive .................................................................................. 146
4.3.3 Laissez fair Leadership Style ..................................................................................... 151
Laissez fair .......................................................................................................................... 151
Laissez fair .......................................................................................................................... 153
4.4. Leadership Styles of Principals as Rated by Principals and Teachers ......................... 154
4.4.1. Transformational Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals and
Teachers .............................................................................................................................. 154
Table 4.26: The perception of principals and teachers from Grade 3 secondary schools on
4.4.2 Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals and Teachers
............................................................................................................................................. 156
4.4.3 Laissez fair leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals and Teachers.. 158
Table 4.28: The perception of principals and teachers from Grade 3 secondary schools about
Laissez fair .......................................................................................................................... 158
V
Teachers .............................................................................................................................. 160
4.4.5 Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade2 School Principals and Teachers
............................................................................................................................................. 162
4.4.6. Laissez fair Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals and Teachers .................. 164
Table 4.31: The perception of principals and teachers from Grade 2 secondary schools about
Laissez fair .......................................................................................................................... 164
CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................ 167
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................... 167
5.1. Summary ...................................................................................................................... 167
5.1.1 Major Findings ........................................................................................................... 168
5.1.1.1 Descriptive Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Respondents ................ 169
5.1.1. 2. Teachers‘ Perception of Leadership Styles Practiced by Principals ..................... 169
Teachers of Grade 3 ............................................................................................................ 169
5.1.1. 3. Principals‘ Self-rating of Leadership Styles Practiced ......................................... 172
5.2 Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 177
5.3. Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 177
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 179
Standards of School Inspection ............................................................................................. IX
VI
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study………………………………………………16
VII
ABBREVIATIONS AND/OR ACRONYMS
ESDP Education Sector Development Program
ETP Ethiopian Education and Training Policy
GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program
GTPE Growth and Transformation Plan of Ethiopia
MoE Ministry of Education
NLA National Learning Assessment
REB Regional Education Bureau
SNNPRS Southern Nations, Nationalities and People‘s Regional State
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
VIII
CHAPTER ONE
1. INTRODUCTION
Human capital is a key determinant of economic growth. Investment in human capital is one of
the strategies to promote economic prosperity, fuller employment and social cohesion.
Access to and completion of education is a key determinant in the accumulation of human capital
and economic growth. Education is a force that develops well-rounded and engaged citizens and
builds more cohesive and participatory societies. (UNESCO 2003)
Education is seen almost as a universal cure to some of the most severe economic problems such
as unemployment and poverty. Human capital is also regarded as key factor in generating higher
productivity and economic growth (Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1995).
Education as a way of increasing human capital is considered to be a basic factor in the growth
process of the aggregate economy. The returns to investment into human capital are thus an
important issue to analyze. Many studies on human capital development concur that it is the
human resources of a nation and not its capital or natural resources that ultimately determine the
pace of its economic and social development. The principal institutional mechanism for
developing human capital is the formal education system of primary, secondary, and tertiary
training (Nsubuga, 2003).
In Ethiopia, formal education is based on Primary education of eight years duration, offering
basic and general primary education to prepare students for further general education and
training. Secondary education is of four years duration, consisting of two years of general
secondary education which will enable students to identify their interests for further education,
for specific training and for the world of work. General education will be completed at the first
cycle of secondary education (grade 10). The second cycle of secondary education and training
1
will enable students to choose subjects or areas of training which will prepare them adequately
for higher education, first degree and graduate levels, enabling students become problem-solving
professional leaders in their fields of study and in overall societal needs.
In Ethiopia there has been rapid expansion of the education system at all levels beginning from
primary to tertiary education, so as to provide access to education to citizens. This has a great
implication on provision of quality education and management of the education system.
This however, may require new leadership approaches in order to enhance efficiency and
effectiveness. Improved efficiency is needed and can be achieved through management reforms;
raising the learner - teacher ratio, increasing teachers‘ time on task, reducing repetition and
improving accountability.
Effective leadership is vital to the success of a school. Research and practice confirm that there is
slim chance of creating and sustaining high-quality learning environments without a skilled and
committed leader to help shape teaching and learning. That‘s especially true in the most
challenging schools (Wallace Foundation: 2009).
School leaders, particularly principals, have a key role to play in setting direction and creating a
positive school culture including the proactive school mindset, and supporting and enhancing
staff motivation and commitment needed to foster improvement and promote success for schools
in challenging circumstances.
Effective education leadership makes a difference in improving learning.
There‘s nothing new or especially controversial about that idea. What‘s far less clear, even after
several decades of school renewal efforts, is just how leadership matters, how important those
effects are in promoting the learning of all children, and what the essential ingredients of
successful leadership are.( Kenneth et.al 2004)
2
School leaders or principals are the main sources of leadership. Their values, strategies and
leadership practices shape the internal processes of the school and the academic activities of
teachers, which in turn can contribute to students‘ academic performance. Principals‘ leadership
practice has an impact on teachers‘ expectations and standards. Principals improve teaching and
learning indirectly and most powerfully through their influence on staff motivation, commitment
and working conditions.
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

The history of school leadership in Ethiopia goes back to the introduction of modern education in
1908 with the opening of Minilik II School. Until the 1940s, the history of school leadership in
Ethiopia depended on foreign principals from countries such as France, Britain, Sweden, Canada,
and Egypt. According to Ministry of Education (MoE, 2002:38), prior to 1962, expatriates filled
most of the leadership posts in both elementary and secondary schools across the provinces of
Ethiopia. Based on their experience and academic level, Indians used to get ample opportunities
to lead schools as principals.
It was after 1964 that Ethiopia started replacing foreign principals with Ethiopians. Besides
school leadership, these new Ethiopian principals were also responsible for managing education-
related issues in their district. At that time school principals were appointed by the Ministry of
Education primarily on the basis of their educational credentials and work experience (MoE,
2002:42). Until recent years, though for a few years, principals were selected by their school
staff and the placement of a school principal was by open competition.
Beginning from 1994, the government of Ethiopia decentralized the educational system by
devolving the decision-making and the service functions from the Federal Government to
Regional States and then down to school level. This reform affected management practices in the
3
education sector. Programs like Education Sector Development Program (ESDPs, I-V) gave
strong emphasis to strengthening the capacity of the system. In addition, improving the school
effectiveness and management is one of the goals of these programs. The main aim of ESDP is to
improve the educational quality and expand access to education in rural and underserved areas,
and to promote girls‘ education (MoE, 2005:4).
Different directives and regulatory frameworks on how to govern a school system are produced
by the federal and regional states. To mention some of them, Education and Training Policy
(ETP, 1994), Strengthening of the Management and Administration of Schools (amendment)
Proclamation 217/2000, Directive for Educational Management, Organization, Public improved
pre-service teacher education; strengthened continuing professional development (in-service) for
incumbent teachers; capacity development for head teachers to improve school leadership and
management; training for stakeholders in school improvement planning; training for regional and
federal ministry officials to improve their planning and budgeting skills and development of
national assessment programs, in particular at post-primary levels (MOE, 2008: 11 ).
The increased public demand for effective schools has helped to improve not only the content of
the educational processes but also the leadership of school systems (MoE, 1994: 29-30; 2008:
51-58; 2010: 48-50). Policy directions and guidelines prepared at each level show that the role of
school principals is critical for successful implementation of educational reforms.
To improve quality Ethiopian Ministry of Education has developed general education quality
improvement program (GEQIP) that comprises six programs of which management and
leadership program is among others. For instance, the Ethiopian Ministry of Education stated
that the quality of education depends on the presence of competent and committed school
principals. (MoE 2012). In the same vein, different researchers (e.g., Pont, B., Nusha, D. and
4
Morman, H. (2008) and Yunas, M. and Iqbal, M. (2013) asserted that principal‘s leadership role
is critical to the effectiveness of the school toward educating its students. As UNESCO (2005)
elaborates, the major tasks of the school principal as instructional leader include: determining
objectives, programme coordination, being didactic leader, organizing enrichment programs,
undertaking evaluation and examinations, taking remedial steps, and creating conducive school
climate. Similarly, Taole, M. (2013) has stated instructional leaders‘ role as setting clear goals,
allocating resources to instruction, managing the curriculum, monitoring lesson plans and
evaluating teachers.
The Growth and Transformation Plan of Ethiopian (GTPE) has also forwarded that improving
and ensuring the quality and efficiency of education at all levels will be an important priority. In
this regard, GTPE clearly underlines that GEQIP will be fully implemented and its subsequent
impact in improving student achievement will be verified through regular monitoring and
evaluation and National Learning Assessment (NLA) to be conducted every three years. The
quality of education depends on, among others, the presence of competent and committed school
principals. This can be ensured by developing appropriate and relevant standard for the
principals and letting them pass through the assessment processes to meet the set standard.
Cognizant of these facts, the Ministry of Education prepared standard for school principals that
ensure their continuous endeavors to meet the set standard.
The set off professional standards for teachers and educational leaders is part of the
government‘s plan for developing and maintaining the quality of teaching and leadership, and
improving learning outcomes for students. The implementation of teachers and education leaders
licensing and re-licensing system on the basis of meeting appropriate professional standard is a
policy matter described in the MoE‘s policy documents. For instance, The Ethiopian Teachers‘
5
Development Guideline/Blue Print/ addresses licensing and re-licensing of teachers and
educational leaders will be introduced in the system and implemented by ensuring that the
professionals meet the set standard that will serve as a guarantee for them to continue in the
profession. The set off standard is closely tied with maintaining the quality of education.
The National Professional Standard for Principals has been developed to define the role of the
principals and unify the profession in the country, to describe the professional practice of
principals in a common language and to make explicit the role of quality school leadership in
improving learning outcomes. Professional standard describe the important knowledge, skills and
attitudes that all principals, are expected to demonstrate.
This standard will mainly serve the following purposes:
Serves as a guide for school principals as they are continually reflect upon and improve their
effectiveness as leaders throughout all of the stages of their careers, assists in attracting,
developing and supporting aspiring and practicing principals, leads learning by providing a
framework for professional learning, guiding self-reflection, self-improvement and development,
guiding the management of self and others, assists higher education programs in developing the
content and requirements of leadership training programs, focuses the goals and objectives of
the Woreda as they support their schools educational leaders, serves as a tool in developing
coaching and mentoring programs for principals and serves for certification and approval of
professional development./MoE 2013/
In school evaluation system schools are expected to register more results, bring about
institutional change and discharge their responsibility of laying the foundation and serving as a
bridge to the next level of education. To do this a nationwide system has been developed to
6
identify the status of schools which reflects the performance of schools based on different
criteria.
This system strongly helps to evaluate and classify all schools in the country by giving value to
the three criteria; namely, input, process and output./MoE 2012/
As indicated in the Ethiopian National Standards Framework for School Supervision 2012, the
main focus of school evaluation is to improve the effectiveness of schools through developing
consistent standards and classifying them into levels based on the following objectives.
 classify schools into levels by evaluating them using consistent criteria/standards;
 help schools reach the required performance level by identifying their shortcomings;
 classify schools into levels and identify model schools so that they can serve as cluster
resource centres;
 encourage those that record better results by creating a healthy competitive atmosphere
among schools;
 Increase the effectiveness level of schools integrating the power of government and the
community.
The process of school classification is based on the standards and indicators stipulated in the
National School Classification Frameworkn/ MoE 2012/. Accordingly the inspection process
will be held based on the following procedure.
1. Allocate value to each indicator based on the detailed information given in Data Collection
Instrument/ Checklist and Descriptors.
2. Give grade to the standard taking the average weight of each indicator.
7
3. The average value of the standards under the three criteria will be the value of each of the
criteria; namely:-
 INPUT 25%, PROCESS, 35% and OUTPUT 40%.
The total sum of the result of INPUT, PROCESS and OUTPUT is calculated and the result
indicates the category of the school as follows.
1. If a school scores below 50% , it will be classified as GRADE 1
2. If a school scores 50 – 69.99%, it will be classified as GRADE 2
3. If a school scores 70 – 89.99%, it will be classified as GRADE 3
4. If a school scores 90 – 100%, it will be classified as GRADE 4
Based on these criteria school in Wolaita zone have been evaluated by supervisors based on the
criteria mentioned above for the last five years and classified as Grade 1, 2, 3 and 4. The criteria
is attached as appendix to the main document
The following table shows the performance of sample schools selected for this study
Table 1: Grade of schools /Wolaita Zone Education Department/

Grade 3 Grade 2
School Score School Score
A 87.11 F 60.54
B 83.49 G 60.18
C 74.6 H 54.2
D 72.1 I 51.69
E 70.62 J 50.69
8
Maicibi (2005) contends that, without a proper leadership style, effective performance cannot be
realized in schools. Even if the school has all the required instructional materials and financial
resources, it will not be able to use them effectively, if the students are not directed in their use, or if
the teachers who guide in their usage are not properly trained to implement them effectively.
Armstrong (2001) defines leadership as influence, power and the legitimate authority acquired by a
leader to be able to effectively transform the organization through the direction of the human
resources that are the most important organizational asset, leading to the achievement of desired
purpose. This can be done through the articulation of the vision and mission of the organization at
every moment, and influence the staff to define their power to share this vision.
One of the most important challenges of the Ethiopian education system is how well schools
integrate the various demands of the education system and align them to performance indicators
namely, inputs, processes and outcomes. It is
Thus it is of paramount importance to explore the influence of principal‘s leadership style on
performance of schools and to know if there is difference between the leadership style practice by
those schools which are leveled as high and low as to inspection evaluation result.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
Countries, including Ethiopia, increasingly use a range of approaches for the evaluation and
assessment of students, teachers, school leaders, schools and education systems. These are used
as tools for understanding better how well students are learning, for providing information to
parents and society at large about educational performance and for improving school, school
leadership and teaching practices.
9
In an effort to achieve these functions school principals need to have the theoretical knowledge,
skill and adequate experiences and various trainings on school leadership and management
(ESDP IV) 2010/2011-2014/2015)
Beginning from 1993, access at all levels of education system increased at a rapid rate in line
with a sharp increase in the number of teachers, schools and institutions. There are important
improvement in the availability of trained teachers and some other inputs.
In SNNPR secondary schools have been expanding continuously in the past seven years. The
number of schools has been growing by about 16.2% and reached 415 in 2006 E.C from which
373 were under government ownership. There are 246 general secondary schools in the region of
which 60 schools are located in Wolaita Zone. These schools in the Zone are classified as: level
1, 2. 3 and 4 as to inspection evaluation of schools.
As to ESDP IV, it is necessary therefore to shift attention to quality concerns in general and to
those inputs and processes which translate more directly into improved student learning and
which help change the school into a genuine learning environment such as quality focused
supervision, internal school leadership, increased students participation, school-community
participation which could be achieved through effective leadership from principals of schools.
Such condition needs highly qualified and committed school leaders who could bring change in
student‘s academic achievement.
School leaders must have the ability and skills in taking different actions to perform their jobs
effectively. In a school where the principal is risk taker, change oriented and instruction focused
by prioritizing team leadership, it is not surprise to witness improvement.
10
It is no doubt that the leadership role of a school principal has impact on the improvement of any
school directly or indirectly. One of the major causes of variations among schools could be the
type of leadership school principal‘s exercise.
Thus school principals can play a vital role in delivering improved learning outcomes and can
influence the capacity of teachers and the quality of the teaching learning process through their
leadership style.
The principal is the leading professional in the school. The major role of the principal is
providing professional leadership and management for a school. This will promote a secure
foundation from which to achieve high standards in all areas of the school‘s work. Principal must
establish a culture that promotes excellence, equality and high expectations of all pupils.
Principal provides vision, leadership and direction for the school and ensures that it is managed
and organized to meet its aims and targets.
The principal is responsible for evaluating the school‘s performance to identify the priorities for
continuous improvement and raising standards; ensuring equality of opportunity for all;
developing school rules and regulation and practices; ensuring that resources are efficiently and
effectively used to achieve the school‘s aims and objectives and for the day-to-day management,
organization and administration of the school.
The principal working with and through others secures the commitment of the wider community
to the school by developing and maintaining effective partnerships with different stakeholders.
Principal is responsible and accountable for the development of children and young people so
that they can become successful learners, confident, creative individuals and active informed
citizens. Principal networks and collaborates with a wide range of people to secure the best
possible learning outcomes and wellbeing of all students. S/he is skilled at establishing and
11
maintaining professional relationships and structures. Principal is able to embrace uncertain,
complex and challenging contexts and work with others to seek creative and innovative solutions
that support quality outcomes for all.
Principal is supposed to believe in the power of education to make a difference to the lives of
individuals and to society. As long as s/he is the leading educational professional in school, s/he
is required to inspire students, staff and members of the community to continuously enhance the
learning of all.
As to SNNPR Education Bureau, despite all major investment in improving the numbers and the
qualification of teachers and the availability of equipment and efforts, the performance of
schools as to inspection result shows that more than 86% of schools in the zone performed below
average for the last five years.
Federal and Regional reports also reveal that secondary schools are not meeting expectations placed
by government and the public. For instance, the annual statistical abstracts of the MoE (2009: 48-49;
2010: 48-50; 2011: 49-51) as well as Education Bureau of SNNPRS (REB, 2009: 45; 2010: 38-51;
2011: 40-48) showed that the student learning outcomes of secondary school students is declining
continuously. As a result, dropout and retention rates are also getting higher. According to the MoE
(2010b: 92), secondary schools are performing below expected efficiency levels targeted in ESDP
IV. The dropout rate in Grade 9 and10 was 10.4% respectively and 10.1% in Grade11 and12 in
2009/10. Similarly, the repetition rate goes 9.2 % in Grade 9 and 10, and 8.75 % in Grade 11 and 12.
In any given organization the successful performance largely depends on the vision of and will
of leadership. Therefore having effective leadership style leads to effective performance of
schools.
Various researches have been conducted in the country to look into school principals‘ leadership
performance in primary and secondary schools of Ethiopia. Researches in topics such as
12
Practices and challenges Instructional Leadership (AddisuChonde: 2013), The Practice of
Educational Leadership in Government Secondary Schools (Indris Seid: 2014, Practice and
problems of Principals‘ Leadership Style and Teachers‘ Job Performance (Sushentu: 2012),
Practice and Challenges of Enhancing School leadership (Abebe Hunde, etal 2010), etc., have
been conducted at various levels and capacities.
As to my knowledge all these studies did not focus on the leadership Styles exercised by
principals in schools with different performance in secondary schools in Ethiopia and
particularly in Wolaita Zone.
Therefore it is logical to assume that leadership style/behavior would have a significant
relationship with school performance. Thus this study will help to investigate the relationship
between leadership style and school performance.
1.3 Objective of the Study
Therefore, the objective of this study is
1. to investigate the type of leadership style practiced by secondary school principals
based on the perception of teachers in Wolaita Zone
2. to identify how principals in Wolaita Zone secondary schools perceive their leadership
style
3. to investigate the difference between principals perception of their leadership practice
and the perception of teachers about their principals leadership practice
13
1.4 Basic Questions
Based on the above objectives the following basic questions are formulated.
1. Based on teachers ratings, what are the leadership styles practiced by secondary school
principals in Wolaita Zone /of SNNPR /?
1.1 How do teachers of Grade 3 schools rate the leadership style practiced by their
principals?
principals?
1.3 Are there any differences between Grade 3 and Grade 2 school teachers‘ ratings of
their principal‘s leadership style?
Answering these questions will enable this researcher to investigate the leadership style
practiced by principals which has direct and/or indirect effect on school performance.
The success of schools basically depends on school leaders or principals. School leaders
or principals being held accountable for how well teachers teach and how much students
learn are the key actors on school performance
2. How do Wolaita Zone Secondary School principals view their leadership style?
2.1 How do principals of Grade 3 schools view/rate their leadership styles?
2.2. How do principals of Grade 2 schools view/rate their leadership styles?
2.3. Are there any differences between Grade 3 and Grade 2 school principals‘ self-rating
of their leadership styles?
This question will investigate how principals view their leadership style in those schools
categorized as performing above average and performing below average as to evaluation
of school supervisors.
14
3. Is there any significant difference between principals self-rating and rating made by
teachers of their respective schools?
3.1.Is there any significant difference between principals self-rating and rating made by teachers
of Grade 3 schools?
3.2. Is there any significant difference between principals self-rating and rating made by teachers
of Grade 2 schools?
This question will enable to examine if there is a difference how school principals view
their leadership style and the view of teachers on their principals leadership style
15
1.5 Conceptual Frame
The Conceptual Framework on Leadership and School Performance in Secondary Schools
The ideal conceptualization of leadership and performance in secondary schools is built on the
idea that leadership is power and influence that directs people to effectively perform.
Background Variables Independent Variables

- Decentralization of Decision Leadership styles
Making - Transformational
- Trends in Mass Education Leadership
and quality education - Transactional
- National Education Policy Leadership
- National Professional - Laissez-fair leadership
standards for Principals
Extraneous Variables
- Availability of Instructional
materials
- Funding/Resources Base
- Quality of Teaching materials
- Discipline of staff & students
- Community/External involvement
Dependent Variables
School performance based on Inspection Evaluation
- Grade 4
- Grade 3
- Grade 2
- Grade 1
Conceptual framework on leadership and performance in secondary schools modified from Mullins (2002)
and Armstrong (2001).
16
Background variables: The conceptual framework on leadership and performance is comprised
of background variables, which denote the changes in the environmental conditions that affect
leadership. These environmental conditions are decentralization of decision-making, trends in
mass education and quality education, National Education policy and National professional
standard for principals
In addition, the amount of school resources available and disciplinary problems may also
influence the leadership styles of school principals. School discipline influences changes in
leadership strategies, because a school where learners are undisciplined requires stricter
leadership compared to a school where discipline is good. The evolution of leadership
throughout history has led to the advancement of a series of leadership styles. The characteristics
of the school and its environment influence the kind of styles adopted. Parental participation,
community involvement, partnership with other sectors like business, and accountability to the
public are a necessity in educational management and leadership. In the new millennium there
are potentially many types of stakeholders involved in the education management and leadership
process, externally and internally, locally and globally. (Cheng, 2002). The involvement of
different constituencies or partners may not only be at the individual or institutional and
community levels, but also at the society and international levels as Cheng (2002:33) postulates:
―Particularly we are making efforts to globalize our classrooms and institutions through different
types of worldwide networking and information technology in order to allow our students and
teachers to achieve world class-learning and teaching in the new millennium‖. The effective
school principal of today will have to keep abreast of what takes place locally regionally and
internationally.
17
The involvement of international constituencies for collaboration and partnership inevitably
becomes a necessity. Cheng (2002) cites an example of more and more international education
exchange programs and immersion programs organized at the tertiary and secondary levels in
Australia, Hong Kong, Japan, United States of America and European countries. The direction of
leadership extending influence on external constituencies has been repeatedly reflected in terms
of environmental leadership or strategic leadership in some recent literature (Cheng, 2000).
Extraneous variables
These extraneous variables are inter-alia: the availability of instructional materials, funding,
teaching methods, legislation and the students‘ entry scores. External influence in Ethiopian
education system is reflected through different aid programs from different countries and through
experience sharing with this aid providing countries.
Dependent variables
The dependent variable in this study is school performance in secondary schools measured
according to the school input, process and output delivered. For example, the input is measured
in terms of classrooms, facilities, pedagogical resources, having sufficient qualified teachers and
support staff, etc., the process can be measured in terms of students learning and participation,
students‘ progress, attitudes, knowledge and skills gained and the outcome can be measured in
terms of student academic performance in the form of passing examinations, tests and exercises.
Measurement of school performance
Performance is often defined in output terms, that is, the achievement of objectives. Performance
refers to the standard to which someone does something such as a job or an examination. The
Oxford English Dictionary (2006) The Oxford English Dictionary confirms this by including the
phrase ‗carrying out‘ in its definition of performance: ‗The accomplishment, execution, carrying
18
out, working out of anything ordered or undertaken.‘ High performance results from appropriate
behavior, especially discretionary behavior, and the effective use of the required knowledge,
skills and competencies.
The accomplishment of tasks, in the context of the academic function of schools, refers to
academic excellence or efficiency, which is measured in terms of student performance in class
work, and national examinations. Teachers and students or even principals of schools with the
intention of transforming the academic culture of the schools positively should aim to execute
their tasks effectively. Effective school performance is further conceived as the ability to produce
desired education outcomes in relation to the school‘s goals. In the context of teaching,
performance refers to the teacher‘s ability to teach consistently with diligence, honesty, and
regularity. To the student, performance would mean excelling regularly in the examinations and
inter-class tasks. However, the school‘s performance should not only be viewed in terms of the
academic rigor, but should also focus on other domains of education such as the affective and the
psychomotor domains A school that has all three domains should by all means be regarded as an
effective school with a very good standard of performance.
All this is only possible if the school‘s principal focuses on the achievement of good results in all
domains. Therefore, from this definition, one can deduce that the school‘s performance is the
response of the school to the needs of the stakeholders in terms of the education outcomes. The
focus of leadership on academic standards in the school will depend on the school‘s dedication
and commitment to effect academic changes in respect of the demands on the learners and the
community at large
In order to achieve this performance, the focus should be on the teaching process, examinations,
tests and exercises, the availability of instructional materials, discipline and respect for the
19
school‘s culture. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler &Weick (1990) believes that performance is
something the person regards as an outcome of work, because they provide the strongest link to
the strategic goals of the organization, customer satisfaction, economic and social contributions.
To sum up, effective performance is concerned with results that impact on societal and
organizational needs. The school principal‘s leadership efforts are the cause of increased
academic performance outcomes punctuated by the strongest regard for the schools‘ goals. It is
thus apparent that effective school performance cannot be realized without authentic
contributions from the school‘s principals because they are the backbone of the school system.
They have the powers to influence the outcome of events.
1.6. Significance of the Study
The significance of this study occurs in many ways. Firstly it studies the association between
leadership styles and school performance because this particular type of study had not been
previously conducted on these organizations. Therefore, its result is important to create
awareness to school principals about the most determinant variables that can influence the
commitment level of teachers to bring about high level of performance in schools.
Secondly, the findings of this study will enable those concerned bodies to clearly understand the
elements and processes of adequate leadership styles that could bring desired change and
improvement in school.
Inevitably, this study will contribute to the growing body of research on antecedents to
leadership styles by examining the three important leadership styles and its impact on school
performance. It is believed that this study would have added value to the literatures on
principals‘ leadership styles, especially in the Ethiopian settings since there were limited
literatures done on similar setting.
20
1.7 Delimitation of the Study
Delimitation describes the scope of the study or limits of the study. To make the study
manageable for the researcher, this study was delimited as to the following
The purpose of the study was to investigate Leadership Practices and School Performance in
secondary schools of Wolaita zone. In the zone there are government and private schools, but
this study is delimited to the government secondary schools only, because management system,
provision of materials, students‘ admission criteria, promotion criteria and teachers and
principals‘ recruitment criteria are different.
The respondent population included principals and teachers. Students, parents, vice principals
and administrative staff were not included in the study, because teachers are the only bodies that
make immediate contact with teaching learning process and with the principal than other
members of the school.
1.8. Assumptions of the Study
This study was based on the following assumptions
1. The administration of the study area would permit the study to be conducted
2. All respondents would answer or respond to all survey questions honestly and to the best
of their knowledge
3. The samples considered in this study represent the entire population
4. The data collection instruments have validity and are measuring the desired variables
21
1.9 Definition of Terms
The definition provided here are operational as well as constitutive definitions. It should be noted
that all the definitions not accompanied by a citation are defined operationally by the researcher.
The terms defined for purposes of clarity are presented as follows:
Leadership – is the process of influencing others to attain the agreed upon objective of an
organization or in this case the school.
Leadership Practice – is the manner and approach or style of providing directions and
implementing plans with stakeholders to achieve organizational objectives or goals.
School performance – is the classification of schools based on the standard and indicators
stipulated in the National School Classification
Secondary schools – is of four years duration consisting of two years of general education and
second cycle of secondary education and training that is from grade 9 – 12
1.10 Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters
Chapter one provides the basis for the study, which is the introductory part of the study. It
includes issues such as introduction, background of the study, statement of the problem,
objective of the research, the research questions, conceptual framework, significance of the
study, assumptions of the study, definitions of terms and organization of the study
Chapter two provides review of the related literature regarding leadership styles. Chapter three,
deals with the design and methodology used for conducting the study. It contains issues such as
22
the population, sample and sampling techniques, research design, research instrument and
procedure of data collection
Chapter four deals with presentation, analysis and interpretation of the data collected from
primary and secondary sources.
Chapter five presents summary of the findings of the study as well as the conclusions and
recommendations made.
23
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2. INTRODUCTION
Education is one of the most important factors that contribute to development of a nation.
Education has always been the corner stone of freedom and democracy and key to economic
prosperity. Educational attainment is vital to the economic well-being of individuals and for the
nation as a whole. Human capital is a key determinant of economic growth. Investment in human
capital is one of the strategies to promote economic prosperity, fuller employment and social
cohesion.
In Ethiopia, formal education is based on Primary education of eight years duration, offering
basic and general primary education to prepare students for further general education and
training, secondary education is of four years duration, consisting of two years of general
secondary education which will enable students identify their interests for further education, for
specific training and for the world of work. General education will be completed at the first cycle
(grade 10). The second cycle of secondary education and training will enable students to choose
subjects or areas of training which will prepare them adequately for higher education and for the
world of work and Higher education at diploma, first degree and graduate levels, enabling
students become problem-solving professional leaders in their fields of study and in overall
societal needs.
This chapter focuses on a review of the literature related to a study of leadership styles and
school performance. The review aims to focus on the definition, nature, evolution and
conceptualization of leadership. It will also focus on leadership theories and styles with special
24
reference to styles that relate to educational institutions. Leadership practices and leadership
styles of principals in the area of secondary education in Ethiopia will be presented.
2.1. Definition of Leadership
There is no one clear definition of leadership that is provided by different scholars. Different
practitioners define in the way that suits their understanding and the approaches they employ in
conducting research in the field. Controversy about the definition of leadership involves not only
who exercises influence, but also what type of influence is exercised and the outcome. Some
theorists would limit the definition of leadership to the exercise of influence resulting in
enthusiastic commitment by followers, as opposed to indifferent compliance or reluctant
obedience.
These theorists argue that the use of control over rewards and punishments to manipulate or
coerce followers is not really ―leading‖ and may involve the unethical use of power. An
opposing view is that this definition is too restrictive because it excludes some influence
processes that are important for understanding why a manager is effective or ineffective in a
given situation. How leadership is defined should not predetermine the answer to the research
question of what makes a leader effective. The same outcome can be accomplished with different
influence methods, and the same type of influence attempt can result in different outcomes,
depending on the nature of the situation. Even people who are forced or manipulated into doing
something may become committed to it if they subsequently discover that it really is the best
option for them and for the organization.
The ethical use of power is a legitimate concern for leadership scholars, but it should not limit
the definition of leadership or the type of influence processes that are studied.
25
It is neither feasible nor desirable at this point in the development of the discipline to attempt to
resolve the controversies over the appropriate definition of leadership. Like all constructs in
social science, the definition of leadership is arbitrary and subjective. Some definitions are more
useful than others, but there is no single ―correct‖ definition that captures the essence of
leadership. For the time being, it is better to use the various conceptions of leadership as a source
of different perspectives on a complex, multifaceted phenomenon.
In research, the operational definition of leadership depends to a great extent on the purpose of
the researcher (Campbell, 1977). The purpose may be to identify leaders, to determine how they
are selected, to discover what they do, to discover why they are effective, or to determine
whether they are necessary.
A study in leadership is enticing and has been a preoccupation of human beings since the
beginning of life (Bass, 1990). It provides a springboard for aspiring leaders to be able to rate
themselves against great individuals who have worn the title of being great leaders. According to
Burns (1978:3) leadership ―is one of the most observed phenomenon on earth and one of the
least understood‖. He further asserts that the different scholars, who have attempted to define,
categorize and to attribute the study of leadership to particular situations, have only added to its
confusion and incomprehensibility. According to Adlam (2003), leadership is a rather complex
concept. This is due to the fact that several approaches have been employed to provide meaning
to the term leadership and its effectiveness.
The following are some of the definitions that have been rendered; leadership is the process of
influencing the activities of an organized group towards goal setting and goal achievement
(Stogdill, 1986). Lipman and Blumen (1994) defines leadership as the initiation of a new
structure or procedure for accomplishing an organization‘s goals and objectives and according to
26
Kenzevich (1975), leadership is a force that can initiate action among people, guide activities in
a given direction, maintain such activities and unify efforts towards common goals. Jagues and
Clement (1991:4-5) define leadership as a process in which an individual provides direction for
other people and carries them along in that direction with competence and full commitment.
By leadership, I mean influencing others‘ actions in achieving desirable ends. Leaders are people
who shape the goals, motivations, and actions of others. Frequently they initiate change to reach
existing and new goals ... Leadership ... takes ... much ingenuity, energy and skill. Cuban
(1988:xx)
According to Oyetunyi (2006), this perception of leadership signals a shift from bureaucracy (in
which the leader tends to direct others and make decisions for them to implement) to non-
bureaucracy where the emphasis is on motivation, inclusion and empowerment of the followers.
Basing his definition on the contemporary context, Dubrin (in Oyetunyi, 2006) defines
leadership as the ability to inspire confidence and support among followers who are expected to
achieve organizational goals. For the purposes of this study, this definition will be applied more
than others, for it has a lot to do with change, inspiration and motivation, the ingredients of
which are critical for school performance. Further to that, Oyetunyi (2006) infers that the
leader‘s task is to build the followers confidence in their jobs so as to be effective and that it is a
leader‘s responsibility to communicate the picture of what the organization should be, to
convince followers and to channel all activities towards accomplishing it. Along the lines of the
contemporary approach, but from a more recent perspective, Sashkin and Sashkin (2003:39)
define leadership as the art of transforming people and organizations with the aim of improving
the organization.
27
As to Yukl (2010) Leadership is the process of influencing others to understand and agree about
what needs to be done and how to do it, and the process of facilitating individual and collective
efforts to accomplish shared objectives.
The definition includes efforts not only to influence and facilitate the current work of the group
or organization, but also to ensure that it is prepared to meet future challenges.
Both direct and indirect forms of influence are included. The influence process may involve only
a single leader or it may involve many leaders. Therefore for the purpose of this research activity
this would be a working definition that helps to investigate what is intended in this research.
2.2. Importance of Leadership
Given the continuous and increasing pace of change today; changes in markets; changes in
technologies; customers and competition; and each change provoking a need to create a new
tomorrow, never have leaders been more relevant and more needed. In order to make the best
use of capital, human and material resources, they require sound systems, policies and
procedures. In essence they need to be not only managed but importantly, led. Organizations
today are constantly evolving and changing. They interact with the environment as external and
internal changes happen. Peck (1994) suggests ―all organizations are in process but the healthier
they are the more they will be in process. The more vibrant, the more-lively they are, the more
they will be changing and the closer to perfection they are, the more rapidly they will be
changing‖. In such demanding times, organizations, if they are to succeed or even survive, need
strong competent leaders to lead the way. Handy (1995) argues that leadership has to be
―endemic in organizations, the fashion not the exception‖ and that anyone who wants to succeed
must ―begin to think and act like a leader‖.
28
Educational practitioners have recognized leadership as vitally important for education
institutions, since it is the engine of survival for the institutions. This recognition has come at a
time when the challenges of education development worldwide are more demanding than ever
before (Nkata, 2005). The rapid growth of educational institutions and the ever-increasing
enrollment will require improved management. Mass education at different levels will also
require new leadership approaches in order to enhance efficiency and effectiveness.
Schermerhorn, Hunt and Osborn (2000:287) maintain that leadership is the heart of any
organization, because it determines the success or failure of the organization. Oyetunyi (2006)
posits that in an organization such as a school, the importance of leadership is reflected in every
aspect of the school like instructional practices, academic achievement, students‘ discipline, and
school climate, to mention but a few. Building a sense of educational development in school
structures leads to the realization that a shared vision focusing on the relationship between school
leadership and performance of schools is the only prerequisite for effective standards.
School leadership can be situated within the larger framework of institutional leadership where
leadership skills are necessary for effective management and performance. Linda (1999:17) has
this to say on the influence of school leadership and management on teachers‘ attitudes to their
jobs: ―Research findings indicated that there is a positive relationship between teacher morale,
job satisfaction and motivation on the type of leadership in schools‖. Indeed, head teachers have
the capacity to make teachers‘ working lives so unpleasant, unfulfilling, problematic and
frustrating that they become the overriding reason why some teachers do not perform as expected
and some have to exit the profession.
It therefore goes without saying that if the secret of effective staff management lies in the
leadership style that is adopted, then it is clearly important to identify the features of such a style.
29
This study will therefore seek to analyze the different leadership styles of principals with a view
to determining the most effective ones in terms of enhancing school performance. Some heads of
schools that employ the task-oriented philosophy of management confer it upon themselves that
teachers and students are naturally lazy in achievement. They need to be punished in order to stir
up their enthusiasm, commitment and support. The task-oriented style explores styles such as the
autocratic and the bureaucratic leadership styles. The autocratic head teacher is concerned with
despotic principles of management which concentrate leadership on the top rather than from the
bottom, whilst the bureaucratic head teacher, on the other hand, is concerned with the rules of the
game, procedures, and regulations as a way of transforming productivity.
The employee oriented school head focuses upon putting the subordinate at the center of
progress, with a view to tying the organization‘s success on the shoulders of the subordinates.
Hence, the subordinate is treated with compassion, care, trust and consideration that place him in
the realm of school governance. Consequently, subordinates‘ inputs in school functions are often
high as a result of high morale and motivation. The behavioral leader explores styles such as the
democratic, participative and laissez faire leadership styles. According to Muyingo (2004), the
democratic style of management regards people as the main decision makers. The subordinates
have a greater say in decision-making, the determination of academic policy, the implementation
of systems and procedures of handling teaching, which leads to school discipline and hence
academic excellence and overall school performance in the fields of sport and cultural affair
2.3. Historical Development of Leadership Theory
A review of the leadership literature reveals an evolving series of 'schools of thought' from
―Great Man‖ and ―Trait‖ theories to ―Transformational‖ leadership. Whilst early theories tend to
focus upon the characteristics and behaviors of successful leaders, later theories begin to
30
consider the role of followers and the contextual nature of leadership. Each of these theories
takes a rather individualistic perspective of the leader, although a school of thought gaining
increasing recognition is that of ―dispersed‖ leadership. This approach, with its foundations in
sociology, psychology and politics rather than management science, views leadership as a
process that is diffuse throughout an organization rather than lying solely with the formally
designated ‗leader‘.
Great Man Theory
Those who believed in the Great Man theory believed that people were born to leadership. Great
men would include members of royalty, high-ranking military officers, and industry heads.
Research suggested that some people have personality traits, behaviors, and knowledge that
lended themselves to leadership (Yaverbaum& Sherman, 2008).
Trait Approach
One of the earliest approaches for studying leadership was the trait approach.
The Trait Approach arose from the ―Great Man‖ theory as a way of identifying the key
characteristics of successful leaders. It was believed that through this approach critical leadership
traits could be isolated and that people with such traits could then be recruited, selected, and
installed into leadership positions. This approach was common in the military and is still used as
a set of criteria to select candidates for commissions.
The problem with the trait approach lies in the fact that almost as many traits as studies
undertaken were identified. After several years of such research, it became apparent that no
consistent traits could be identified. Although some traits were found in a considerable number
of studies, the results were generally inconclusive. Some leaders might have possessed certain
traits but the absence of them did not necessarily mean that the person was not a leader.
31
Although there was little consistency in the results of the various trait studies, however, some
traits did appear more frequently than others, including: technical skill, friendliness, task
motivation, application to task, group task supportiveness, social skill, emotional control,
administrative skill, general charisma, and intelligence. Of these, the most widely explored has
tended to be ―charisma‖.
This approach emphasizes attributes of leaders such as personality, motives, values, and skills.
Underlying this approach was the assumption that some people are natural leaders, endowed with
certain traits not possessed by other people. Early leadership theories attributed managerial
success to extraordinary abilities such as tireless energy, penetrating intuition, uncanny foresight,
and irresistible persuasive powers. Hundreds of trait studies conducted during the 1930s and
1940s sought to discover these elusive qualities, but this massive research effort failed to find
any traits that would guarantee leadership success. One reason for the failure was a lack of
attention to intervening variables in the causal chain that could explain how traits could affect a
delayed outcome such as group performance or leader advancement. The predominant research
method was to look for a significant correlation between individual leader attributes and a
criterion of leader success, without examining any explanatory processes. However, as evidence
from better designed research slowly accumulated over the years, researchers made progress in
discovering how leader attributes are related to leadership behavior and effectiveness. A more
recent trait approach examines leader values that are relevant for explaining ethical leadership.
Behavior Approach
The results of the trait studies were inconclusive. Traits, amongst other things, were hard to
measure.
32
How, for example, do we measure traits such as honesty, integrity, loyalty, or diligence? Another
approach in the study of leadership had to be found.
After the publication of the late Douglas McGregor's classic book The Human Side of Enterprise
in 1960, attention shifted to ‗behavioral theories‘. McGregor was a teacher, researcher, and
consultant whose work was considered to be "on the cutting edge" of managing people. He
influenced all the behavioral theories, which emphasize focusing on human relationships, along
with output and performance.
Path-Goal Theory
The path-goal theory was originated by Evans (1970), advanced by House (1971), and refined by
House and Mitchell (1974). This theory was based on the idea that different leadership styles
complemented the characteristics of the followers and the demands of their tasks. The leadership
behavior styles were classified into four categories: directive, supportive, achievement-oriented,
and participative. The path-goal theory integrated key elements of behavioral theory, such as
leader consideration and initiating structure and expectancy theory, to qualify the contextual
circumstances by which to examine effective leadership (Stoner & Freeman, 1992). The path-
goal theory of leadership contended that leaders should clarify for their subordinates which path
best led to the desired goal in question. Generally, this goal should be associated with certain
payoffs consistent with the wants and/or needs of the subordinate (House, 1971; House and
Mitchell, 1974; Stoner and Freeman, 1992).
McGregor’s Theory X & Theory Y Managers
Although not strictly speaking a theory of leadership, the leadership strategy of effectively-used
participative management proposed in Douglas McGregor's book has had a tremendous impact
on managers. The most publicized concept is McGregor's thesis that leadership strategies are
33
influenced by a leader's assumptions about human nature. As a result of his experience as a
consultant, McGregor summarized two contrasting sets of assumptions made by managers in
industry.
Theories X managers believe that:
 The average human being has an inherent dislike of work and will avoid it if possible.
 Because of this human characteristic, most people must be coerced, controlled, directed,
or threatened with punishment to get them to put forth adequate effort to achieve
organizational objectives.
 The average human being prefers to be directed, wishes to avoid responsibility, has
relatively little ambition, and wants security above all else.
Theory Y managers believe that:
 The expenditure of physical and mental effort in work is as natural as play or rest, and
the average human being, under proper conditions, learns not only to accept but to seek
responsibility.
 People will exercise self-direction and self-control to achieve objectives to which they
are committed.
 The capacity to exercise a relatively high level of imagination, ingenuity, and creativity
in the solution of organizational problems is widely, not narrowly, distributed in the
population, and the intellectual potentialities of the average human being are only
partially utilized under the conditions of modern industrial life.
It can therefore be seen that a leader holding Theory X assumptions would prefer an autocratic
style, whereas one holding Theory Y assumptions would prefer a more participative style.
34
Blake and Mouton's Managerial Grid
The Managerial Grid developed by Robert Blake and Jane Mouton focuses on task (production)
and employee (people) orientations of managers, as well as combinations of concerns between
the two extremes. A grid with concern for production on the horizontal axis and concern for
people on the vertical axis and plots five basic leadership styles. The first number refers to a
leader's production or task orientation; the second, to people or employee orientation.
Blake and Mouton propose that ―Team Management‖ - a high concern for both employees and
production - is the most effective type of leadership behavior.
The behavior approach began in the early 1950s after many researchers became discouraged with
the trait approach and began to pay closer attention to what managers actually do on the job. The
behavior research falls into two general subcategories.
One line of research examines how managers spend their time and the typical pattern of
activities, responsibilities, and functions for managerial jobs. Some of the research also
investigates how managers cope with demands, constraints, and role conflicts in their jobs. Most
research on managerial work uses descriptive methods of data collection such as direct
observation, diaries, job description questionnaires, and anecdotes obtained from interviews.
Although this research was not designed to directly assess effective leadership, it provides useful
insights into this subject.
Leadership effectiveness depends in part on how well a manager resolves role conflicts, copes
with demands, recognizes opportunities, and overcomes constraints.
Another subcategory of the behavior approach focuses on identifying effective leadership
behavior. The preferred research method involves a survey field study with a behavior
description questionnaire. In the past 50 years, hundreds of survey studies examined the
35
correlation between leadership behavior and various indicators of leadership effectiveness. A
much smaller number of studies used laboratory experiments, field experiments, or critical
incidents to determine how effective leaders differ in behavior from ineffective leaders.
Power-Influence Approach
Power-influence research examines influence processes between leaders and other people. Like
most research on traits and behavior, some of the power-influence research takes a leader-
centered perspective with an implicit assumption that causality is unidirectional (leaders act and
followers react). This research seeks to explain leadership effectiveness in terms of the amount
and type of power possessed by a leader and how power is exercised. Power is viewed as
important not only for influencing subordinates, but also for influencing peers, superiors, and
people outside the organization, such as clients and suppliers. The favorite methodology has
been the use of survey questionnaires to relate leader power to various measures of leadership
effectiveness.
Other power-influence research used questionnaires and descriptive incidents to determine how
leaders influence the attitudes and behavior of followers. The study of influence tactics can be
viewed as a bridge linking the power-influence approach and the behavior approach. The use of
different influence tactics is compared in terms of their relative effectiveness for getting people
to do what the leader wants.
Participative leadership is concerned with power sharing and empowerment of followers, but it is
firmly rooted in the tradition of behavior research as well. Many studies used questionnaires to
correlate subordinate perceptions of participative leadership with criteria of leadership
effectiveness such as subordinate satisfaction, effort, and performance. Laboratory and field
experiments compared autocratic and participative leadership styles. Finally, descriptive case
36
studies of effective managers examined how they use consultation and delegation to give people
a sense of ownership for decisions.
Situational Approach
The Contingency or Situational School
Whilst behavioral theories may help managers develop particular leadership behaviors they give
little guidance as to what constitutes effective leadership in different situations. Indeed, most
researchers today conclude that no one leadership style is right for every manager under all
circumstances. Instead, contingency-situational theories were developed to indicate that the style
to be used is contingent upon such factors as the situation, the people, the task, the organization,
and other environmental variables. The major theories contributing towards this school of
thought are described below.
Fiedler's Contingency Model
Fiedler's contingency theory postulates that there is no single best way for managers to lead.
Situations will create different leadership style requirements for a manager. The solution to a
managerial situation is contingent on the factors that impinge on the situation. For example, in a
highly routine (mechanistic) environment where repetitive tasks are the norm, a relatively
directive leadership style may result in the best performance, however, in a dynamic
environment a more flexible, participative style may be required.
Fiedler looked at three situations that could define the condition of a managerial task:
1. Leader member relations: How well do the manager and the employees get along?
2. Task structure: Is the job highly structured, fairly unstructured, or somewhere in between?
3. Position power: How much authority does the manager possess?
37
Managers were rated as to whether they were relationship oriented or task oriented. Task
oriented managers tend to do better in situations that have good leader-member relationships,
structured tasks, and either weak or strong position power. They do well when the task is
unstructured but positions were moderate to poor and the task was unstructured. Relationship
oriented managers do better in all other situations. Thus, a given situation might call for a
manager with a different style or a manager who could take on a different style for a different
situation.
These environmental variables are combined in a weighted sum that is termed "favorable" at one
end and "unfavorable" at the other. Task oriented style is preferable at the clearly defined
extremes of "favorable" and "unfavorable" environments, but relationship orientation excels in
the middle ground. Managers could attempt to reshape the environment variables to match their
style.
Another aspect of the contingency model theory is that the leader-member relations, task
structure, and position power dictate a leader's situational control. Leader-member relations are
the amount of loyalty, dependability, and support that the leader receives from employees. It is a
measure of how the manager perceives him or her and the group of employees is getting along
together. In a favorable relationship the manager has a high task structure and is able to reward
and or punish employees without any problems. In an unfavorable relationship the task is usually
unstructured and the leader possesses limited authority. The spelling out in detail (favorable) of
what is required of subordinates affects task structure.
Positioning power measures the amount of power or authority the manager perceives the
organization has given him or her for the purpose of directing, rewarding, and punishing
38
subordinates. Positioning power of managers depends on the taking away (favorable) or
increasing (unfavorable) the decision-making power of employees.
The task-motivated style leader experiences pride and satisfaction in the task accomplishment for
the organization, while the relationship-motivated style seeks to build interpersonal relations and
extend extra help for the team development in the organization. There is no good or bad
leadership style.
Each person has his or her own preferences for leadership. Task-motivated leaders are at their
best when the group performs successfully such as achieving a new sales record or
outperforming the major competitor. Relationship-oriented leaders are at their best when greater
customer satisfaction is gained and a positive company image is established.
The Hersey-Blanchard Model of Leadership
The Hersey-Blanchard Leadership Model also takes a situational perspective of leadership. This
model posits that the developmental levels of a leader's subordinates play the greatest role in
determining which leadership styles (leader behaviors) are most appropriate. Their theory is
based on the amount of direction (task behavior) and socio-emotional support (relationship
behavior) a leader must provide given the situation and the "level of maturity" of the followers.
• Task behavior is the extent to which the leader engages in spelling out the duties and
responsibilities to an individual or group. This behavior includes telling people what to do, how
to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and who's to do it. In task behavior the leader engages in
one-way communication.
• Relationship behavior is the extent to which the leader engages in two-way or multi-way
communications. This includes listening, facilitating, and supportive behaviors. In relationship
behavior the leader engages in two-way communication by providing socio-emotional support.
39
• Maturity is the willingness and ability of a person to take responsibility for directing his or her
own behavior. People tend to have varying degrees of maturity, depending on the specific task,
function, or objective that a leader is attempting to accomplish through their efforts.
For Blanchard the key situational variable, when determining the appropriate leadership style, is
the readiness or developmental level of the subordinate(s). As a result, four leadership styles
result:
• Directing: The leader provides clear instructions and specific direction. This style is best
matched with a low follower readiness level.
• Coaching: The leader encourages two-way communication and helps build confidence and
motivation on the part of the employee, although the leader still has responsibility and controls
decision making. Selling style is best matched with a moderate follower readiness level.
• Supporting: With this style, the leader and followers share decision making and no longer
need or expect the relationship to be directive. Participating style is best matched with a
moderate follower readiness level.
• Delegating: This style is appropriate for leaders whose followers are ready to accomplish a
particular task and are both competent and motivated to take full responsibility. Delegating style
is best matched with a high follower readiness level.
To determine the appropriate leadership style to use in a given situation, the leader must first
determine the maturity level of the followers in relation to the specific task that the leader is
attempting to accomplish through the effort of the followers. As the level of followers' maturity
increases, the leader should begin to reduce his or her task behavior and increase relationship
behavior until the followers reach a moderate level of maturity. As the followers begin to move
40
into an above average level of maturity, the leader should decrease not only task behavior but
also relationship behavior.
Once the maturity level is identified, the appropriate leadership style can be determined.
Tannenbaum& Schmidt’s Leadership Continuum
One criticism of early work on leadership styles is that they looked at styles too much in black
and white terms. The autocratic and democratic styles or task-oriented and relationship-oriented
styles which they described are extremes, whereas in practice the behavior of many, perhaps
most, leaders in business will be somewhere between the two. Contingency theorists
Tannenbaum and Schmidt suggested the idea that leadership behavior varies along a continuum
and that as one moves away from the autocratic extreme the amount of subordinate participation
and involvement in decision taking increases. They also suggested that the kind of leadership
represented by the democratic extreme of the continuum will be rarely encountered in formal
organizations.
Four main leadership styles can be located at points along such a continuum:
• Autocratic: The leader takes the decisions and announces them; expecting subordinates to
carry them out without question (the Telling style).
• Persuasive: At this point on the scale the leader also takes all the decisions for the group
without discussion or consultation but believes that people will be better motivated if they are
persuaded that the decisions are good ones. He or she does a lot of explaining and 'selling' in
order to overcome any possible resistance to what he or she wants to do. The leader also puts a
lot of energy into creating enthusiasm for the goals he or she has set for the group (the Selling
style).
41
• Consultative: In this style the leader confers with the group members before taking decisions
and, in fact, considers their advice and their feelings when framing decisions. He or she may, of
course, not always accept the subordinates' advice but they are likely to feel that they can have
some influence. Under this leadership style the decision and the full responsibility for it remain
with the leader but the degree of involvement by subordinates in decision taking is very much
greater than telling or selling styles (the Consulting style).
• Democratic: Using this style the leader would characteristically lay the problem before his or
her subordinates and invite discussion. The leader's role is that of conference leader, or chair,
rather than that of decision taker. He or she will allow the decision to emerge out of the process
of group discussion, instead of imposing it on the group as its boss (the Joining style).
What distinguishes this approach from previous discussions of leadership style is that there will
be some situations in which each of the above styles is likely to be more appropriate than the
others.
• Telling: In an emergency, a telling style may be most appropriate and would normally be
considered justified by the group (as long as the general climate of that group is supportive and
mature).
• Selling: The selling style would tend to fit situations in which the group leader, and he or she
alone, possesses all the information on which the decision must be based and which at the same
time calls for a very high level of commitment and enthusiasm on the part of group members if
the task is to be carried through successfully.
• Consulting: The consulting style is likely to be most appropriate when there is time in which to
reach a considered decision and when the information on which the decision needs to be based
lies among the members of the group.
42
• Joining: The joining style is appropriate under similar conditions, with the important exception
that this is likely to be appropriate only in those instances where the nature of the responsibility
associated with the decision is such that group members are willing to share it with their leader,
or alternatively the leader is willing to accept responsibility for decisions which he or she has not
made personally.
Adair’s Action-Centered Leadership Model
John Adair has a long pedigree in the world of leadership. The Adair model is that the action
centered leader gets the job done through the work team and relationships with fellow managers
and staff.
According to Adair's explanation an action-centered leader must:
• direct the job to be done (task structuring), that is define the task,make the plan, allocate work
and resources, control quality and rate of work,check performance against plan and adjust the
plan
• support and review the individual people doing it, that is maintain discipline, build team spirit,
encourage, motivate, give a sense of purpose, appoint sub-leaders, ensure communication within
group and develop the group
• co-ordinate and foster the work team as a whole, that is attend to personal problems, praise
individuals, give status, recognize and use individual abilities and develop the individual
His famous three circle diagram is a simplification of the variability of human interaction, but is
a useful tool for thinking about what constitutes an effective leader/manager in relation to the job
he/she has to do. The effective leader/manager carries out the functions and exhibits the
behaviors depicted by the three circles. Situational and contingent elements call for different
responses by the leader. Hence imagine that the various circles may be bigger or smaller as the
43
situation varies i.e. the leader will give more or less emphasis to the functionally-oriented
behaviors according to what the actual situation involves. The challenge for the leader is to
manage all sectors of the diagram.
Leaders and Followers
The models discussed so far have dwelt on the leader as some frontal figure who stands out from
the rest as being somehow different and ―leading‖ the rest of the people. The discussion now
moves to recognition of the importance of the leaders‘ relationship with his/her followers and an
interdependency of roles. No longer the hero or solo leader but the team leader. Not the leader
always out in front but the leader who has the capacity to follow. Not the master, but the servant.
Servant Leadership
The notion of ―Servant Leadership‖ emphasises the leaders‘ duty to serve his/her followers -
leadership thus arises out of a desire to serve rather than a desire to lead
Robert Greenleaf, founder of the Center for Servant Leadership describes it as follows:
―The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to
serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead. He or she is sharply different from
the person who is leader first, perhaps because of the need to assuage an unusual power drive or
to acquire material possessions. For such it will be a later choice to serve – after leadership is
established. The leader-first and the servant-first are two extreme types. Between them there are
shadings and blends that are part of the infinite variety of human nature.
The difference manifest itself in the care taken by the servant-first to make sure that other
people‘s highest priority needs are being served. The best test, and difficult to administer , is: do
those served grow as persons; do they, while being served, become healthier, wiser, freer, more
44
autonomous, more likely themselves to become servants? And, what is the effect on the least
privileged in society; will they benefit, or, at least, will they not be further deprived?‖
Characteristics of Servant Leaders are as follows:
―Servant-Leadership is a practical philosophy which supports people who choose to serve first,
and then lead as a way of expanding service to individuals and institutions. Servant leaders may
or may not hold formal leadership positions. Servant-leadership encourages collaboration, trust,
foresight, listening, and the ethical use of power and empowerment.‖
The emphasis on serving a higher purpose has made this model popular within the Church and
other religious institutions.
Team Leadership
In the late 1970‘s Meredith Belbin conducted a study of teams focusing on the factors separating
successful and unsuccessful teams via a college business game at Henley a feature of which was
shared leadership.
Through the game Belbin found that the composition of the team was important and that
individual differences in style, role and contribution far from underlining personal weaknesses,
were a source of potential team strength. Balanced teams comprised of such individuals who
engaged in complementary role behavior performed better than unbalanced teams.
Nine distinctive roles were identified in the study, with most people being found to embrace a
mix of two or three roles whilst also avoiding others with which they were uncomfortable.
Where there was an individual with clear, useful and appreciated attributes they would fit into a
team on the basis of the strengths they brought. These people would also have weaknesses that
belonged to the same cluster of characteristics as the strength itself. These potential deficiencies
were considered the price that has to be paid for a particular strength, a price that is worth
45
paying, and were referred to as ‗allowable weaknesses. Belbin found no ‗ideal‘ team member,
individual who could perform all of the roles.
From this work, Belbin drew the distinction between the ―Solo‖ and the ―Team‖ leader. He
suggests that ―leaders are not notable for admitting their weaknesses, whether allowable or not.
They act as though they have no weaknesses‖. To many people the image of the leader - a person
heading up a team of followers, ever ready to take on any role and assuming any responsibility -
is very familiar to us for it is the one based upon our past experiences and beliefs. Belbin
classified such leaders as ‗Solo leaders‘ and in the workplace this type of behavior may have
great advantages, for internal barriers can be overcome and decisions, especially those of an
urgent nature, can be made and put into effect with little or no delay.
The increasing complexity and the discontinuous nature of modern work however, poses greater
problems where Solo leadership is less appropriate and ‗Team leadership‘ more suited. The key
difference between the ‗Solo leader‘ and ‗Team leadership‘ revolves around the behavior and
participation of the two as illustrated below:
Solo Leader:
Plays unlimited role – interferes in everything, Strives for conformity – tries to mould people to
particular standards;
Collects acolytes –collects admirers and sycophants;
Directs Subordinates – subordinates take their leads and cues from the Solo Leader and
Projects objectives –makes it plain what everyone is expected to do, chooses to limit role to
preferred team roles and delegates roles to others
46
Team Leader:
Chooses to limit role to preferred team roles – delegates roles to others; Builds on diversity – the
Team Leader values differences between people; Seeks talent – The Team Leader is not
threatened by people with special abilities; Develops colleagues – the Team Leader encourages
the growth of personal strengths and Creates mission – the Team Leader projects the vision
which others can act on as they see fit.
In today‘s organization the alternative approach, the Team Leader, is more appropriate. Whilst
Team leadership may not be as natural as Solo leadership, Belbin suggests it can be learned
through understanding the nature of leadership and the qualities required. In the rapidly changing
and uncertain work environment of today no one person has all the answers to leadership. A
Team leadership style based upon the development of the strengths and the allowable
weaknesses of all of the roles will permit a more holistic, or participative, style of leadership
where teamwork, problem solving, decision making and innovation can flourish with heightened
teamwork and work performance.
Dispersed Leadership
The importance of social relations in the leadership contract, the need for a leader to be accepted
by their followers and a realization that no one individual is the ideal leader in all circumstances
have given rise to a new school of leadership thought. Referred to as ‗informal‘, ‗emergent‘ or
‗dispersed‘ leadership, this approach argues a less formalized model of leadership where the
leaders‘ role is dissociated from the organizational hierarchy. It is proposed that individuals at all
levels in the organization and in all roles (not simply those with an overt management
dimension) can exert leadership influence over their colleagues and thus influence the overall
leadership of the organization.
47
Heifetz (1994) distinguishes between the exercise of ―leadership‖ and the exercise of ―authority‖
– thus dissociating leadership from formal organizational power roles whilst Raelin (2003) talks
of developing ―leaderful‖ organizations through concurrent, collective and compassionate
leadership.
The key to this is a distinction between the notions of ―leader‖ and ―leadership‖. ―Leadership‖ is
regarded as a process of sense-making and direction-giving within a group and the ―leader‖ can
only be identified on the basis of his/her relationship with others in the social group who are
behaving as followers. In this manner, it is quite possible to conceive of the leader as emergent
rather than predefined and that their role can only be understood through examining the
relationships within the group (rather than by focusing on his/her personal characteristics or
traits).
The origins of such an approach have their foundations more in the fields of sociology and
politics than the more traditional management literature and draw on concepts such as
organizational culture and climate to highlight the contextual nature of leadership. It is a more
collective concept, and would argue for a move from an analysis and development of individual
leader qualities to an identification of what constitutes an effective (or more appropriate)
leadership process within an organization.
2.4. Leadership Styles
Leadership style is the patterns of behaviors which a leader adopts to influence the behaviors of
his/her followers. Strengthening this idea, Kinard, (1988: 326) wrote that ―leadership style is a
behavior pattern, which a leader exhibits in directing the behavior of the employees toward the
attainment of personal or organizational goals.‖
48
There are a number of different approaches, or 'styles' to leadership and management that are
based on different assumptions and theories. The style that individuals use will be based on a
combination of their beliefs, values and preferences, as well as the organizational culture and
norms which will encourage some styles and discourage others.
Leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans, and
motivating people (Lewin, Lippet&White, 1939). In 1939, a group of researchers led by
psychologist Kurt Lewin set out to identify different styles of leadership. While further research
has identified more specific types of leadership, this early study was very influential and
established three major leadership styles. This early study has been very influential and
established three major leadership styles, authoritarian, participative, and delegating.
Authoritarian Leadership (Autocratic)
Authoritarian leaders, also known as autocratic leaders, provide clear expectations for what
needs to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. This style of leadership is
strongly focused on both commands by the leader and control of the followers. There is also a
clear division between the leader and the members. Authoritarian leaders make decisions
independently with little or no input from the rest of the group. Researchers found that decision-
making was less creative under authoritarian leadership. Lewin also concluded that it is harder to
move from an authoritarian style to a democratic style than vice versa. Abuse of this method is
usually viewed as controlling, bossy, and dictatorial. Authoritarian leadership is best applied to
situations where there is little time for group decision-making or where the leader is the most
knowledgeable member of the group. The autocratic approach can be a good thing when the
situation calls for rapid decisions and decisive actions. However, it tends to create dysfunctional
and even hostile environments, often pitting followers against the domineering leader.
49
Participative Leadership (Democratic)
Lewin‘s study found that participative leadership, also known as democratic leadership, is
typically the most effective leadership style. Democratic leaders offer guidance to group
members, but they also participate in the group and allow input from other group members. In
Lewin‘s study, children in this group were less productive than the members of the authoritarian
group, but their contributions were of a much higher quality.
Participative leaders encourage group members to participate but retain the final say in the
decision-making process. Group members feel engaged in the process and are more motivated
and creative. Democratic leaders tend to make followers feel like they are an important part of
the team, which helps foster commitment to the goals of the group.
Delegative (Laissez-Faire) Leadership
Researchers found that children under delegative leadership, also known as laissez-fair
leadership, were the least productive of all three groups. The children in this group also made
more demands on the leader, showed little cooperation and were unable to work independently.
Delegative leaders offer little or no guidance to group members and leave decision-making up to
group members. While this style can be useful in situations involving highly qualified experts, it
often leads to poorly defined roles and a lack of motivation.
Lewin noted that laissez-faire leadership tended to result in groups that lacked direction where
members blamed each other for mistakes, refused to accept personality responsibility, and
produced a lack of progress and work.
These styles of leadership have broadened over the years. The following studies have
incorporated some aspect of these foundational leadership styles in an effort to aid principals in
the development of leadership styles conducive to current educational systems. The literature on
50
leadership styles (Hershey &Blanchard, 1977; Sergiovanni, 1995) provides some important clues
on principal leadership styles. These leadership theorists argue that leadership style is a relatively
fixed construct for an individual and that while some individuals may have the capacity to lead
using more than one style, leadership style flexibility is not characteristic of all leaders Waters
(2004). While Fiedler (1974) and Hershey & Blanchard (1977) believe less in leader‗s capacity
to vary their styles, Sergiovanni (1991) proposes that under certain conditions individuals could
adapt their leadership style to differing situations.
Blake & Mouton developed the Managerial Leadership Grid (1964) which was designed to
explain how leaders help organizations to reach their purposes through two factors: concern for
production and concern for people.
Even though concern for production primarily refers to how a leader is concerned with achieving
organizational tasks, it can refer to whatever the organization is seeking to accomplish (Blake &
Mouton, 1964). The second factor, concern for people refers to how a leader attends to the
people in an organization who are trying to achieve its goals.
Although many research studies can be categorized under the heading of the leadership style
approach, the Ohio State and Michigan studies of the late 1940s, and the studies by Blake
& Mouton (1964, 1978, and 1985) are strongly representative of this approach. In the Ohio
study, subordinates completed questionnaires that identified how many times their leaders
engaged in certain types of behaviors by using the Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire,
and a new form of the questionnaire by Stodgill (1974) called the LBDQ-XII.
The researchers found that subordinates clustered around two general types of leadership
behaviors: initiating, which were task behaviors, and consideration Stodgill (1974), which were
relationship behaviors.
51
The University of Michigan studies, while focusing on the impact of leaders‘ behaviors on the
performance of small groups, identified two types of leadership behaviors. One, employee
orientation, is the behavior of leaders who approach subordinates with a strong human relations
emphasis. The second, production-orientation, consists of leadership that stresses the technical
and production aspects of the job. From this orientation, workers are viewed as a means for
getting work accomplished Bowers &Seashore (1966).
Huffman & Jacobson (2003) conducted a study to determine the relationship between teachers‘
perceptions of their schools as professional learning communities and the leadership style of
their principals Williams, (2006). The subjects of the study were eighty-three prospective
principals enrolled in an education administration course at a Texas university. Each subject
identified his/her principal as having one of three possible leadership styles: directive,
collaborative and non-directive.
Participants in the research rated collaborative-style principals as more supportive of two key
measures of professional learning communities: Contribution –providing a safe environment for
diverse ideas, beliefs and strategies, and Conscience– being an organization guided by positive
principles, ethics, and values.
Huffman &Jacobsons (2003) draw on research on principals in New Brunswick and use decision
making as a measure of leadership style Williams (2006). The collaborative style is only one of
several possible leadership approaches. In this research the collaborative style was labeled as the
conceptual style. The directive style described by Huffman & Jacobson (2003) was expanded to
include a directive and an analytical style.
It should be noted however, that leadership styles are as many and diverse as there are definitions
and concepts of leadership. Different researchers and academicians alike have come up with
52
different leadership styles. Every leader in every organization performs certain roles/tasks for the
smooth operation of the organization and improvement of organizational performance. The
manner in which the leader performs these roles and directs the affairs of the organization is
referred to as his/her leadership style (Oyetunyi, 2006). According to Oyetunyi (2006:31),
leadership style therefore is the way a leader leads. Some leaders are more interested in the work
to be done than in the people they work with, whilst others pay more attention to their
relationship with subordinates than the job. The leader‘s emphasis on either the task or human
relations approach is usually considered central to leadership style. Leadership style refers to a
distinctive behavior adopted by persons in formal positions of leadership
Ball (1987) as reported in Linda (1999) identified the following leadership styles that emerged in
the course of his research in British secondary schools: the interpersonal, managerial style,
adversarial and the political style or authoritarian style. He describes interpersonal head teachers
as being typically mobile and visible with a preference for consulting with individuals rather than
holding meetings. They like to ―sound out ideas‖ and gather opinions. Such head teachers will
frequently reiterate to teachers the importance of bringing complaints and grievances to them
first of all. Ball (1987) pointed out that this type of leadership style is particularly effective at
satisfying teacher‘s individual needs, and that grievances and staff turnover tends to remain low.
On the other hand, he continues, head teachers with managerial styles adopt a leadership style
that parallels that of a manager in industry: The use of management techniques involves the
importation into the school structures, types of relationships and processes of organizational
control from the factory. The managerial head is chief executive of the school, normally
surrounded by a Senior Management Team (SMT). The head teacher relates to the staff through
this team and through a formal structure of meetings and committees. Both these responsibilities
53
and structures will be supported and outlined by written documentation, which specifies terms of
reference and job descriptions (MoES, 2003).
Ball‘s (1987) research revealed several deficiencies of a managerial leadership style, including a
sense of exclusion from decision-making on the part of those teachers who are not part of the
SMT, the creation of a ―them and us‖ hierarchically-based division, and teachers‘ derision for the
management structure and its processes. The adversarial leadership style is typified by
confrontational dialogue between the head teacher and the teachers. Here headship emphasizes
persuasion and commitment. Ball (1987:109) quotes teachers response to this style of leadership
during a focus group discussion as follows. Some staff will be unable or unwilling to participate
in this form of organizational discourse. Some find it unhelpful; others are unwilling to devote
the time and energy necessary to get their points of view across. Ball (1987) depicted
authoritarian leadership as being distinct from adversarial leadership by its focus on asserting
rather than persuading as quoted here under. Such a head takes no chances by recognizing the
possibility of competing views and interests. Opposition is avoided, disabled or simply ignored.
No opportunities are provided for the articulation of alternative views or the assertion of
alternative interests, other than those defined by the head as legitimate. Indeed the authoritarian
may rely, as a matter of course, on conscious deception as a matter of organizational control
(Ball, 1987:109).
Linda (in Halpin, 1996) revealed two extremes of six organizational climates, which he referred
to as ―open‖ and ―closed‖ climate. The open climate head teacher is described as typically very
enthusiastic, conscientious and hardworking, well balanced in temperament, not aloof, and very
much in control. This sort of climate is reported to be conducive to good performance, because
teachers therein are described as manifesting high morale, working collaboratively with little to
54
complain about. On the other hand, schools with closed climates are the ones led by head
teachers who are highly aloof and impersonal, who emphasize the need for hard work, but who
themselves fail to work hard and who say one thing and do another. Teachers working in closed
climates, according to Halpin, do not work well together, derive little satisfaction from their
work, and dislike their head teachers. Such head teachers are similar to what Kouzes and Posner
(2002) describe as leaders. Linda (1999) also reported a good study in respect of teachers‘ job
satisfaction in which Nias (1980) in Linda (1999) identified three dimensions of leadership
styles: initiating structure, consideration and decision-centralization. She defined these to refer
respectively to the extent to which leaders define and structure their own and their subordinates‘
roles towards attaining goals, the extent to which leaders manifest concern, support for their
staff, and the extent to which leaders influence group decisions. Nias (1980) found that the
individual school leaders in her study could be positioned differently along each of these three
dimensions, and that the resulting spread revealed what she categorized as three leadership
styles: the passive, positive, and Bourbon types, which she describes as thus: One leadership
type, the ‗passive‘, gave teachers more freedom than they desired. They perceived themselves as
totally free to set their own goals, under heads whose professional standards did not match their
own, and who offered neither coherent to the school as a whole nor support and guidance to
individuals. The second, the ‗Bourbon‘, was characterized by social distance, authoritarian
professional relationships, and administrative efficiency. The third described as ‗positive‘; set
high professional standards for the teachers, adopted a dynamic, but consultative policy towards
decision-making, and actively supported the professional development of individuals‖ (Nias,
1980:261). Subsequently, in relation to teachers‘ job satisfaction, Nias found ‗passive‘ and
‗Bourbon‘ heads to have the most negative, and ‗positive‘ heads the most positive, influence. A
55
positive style provided the context in which a keen teacher could get on with her chosen work
and therefore contributed considerably to his/her job satisfaction (Nias, 1980:270). But these
foregoing leadership types leaves one wondering; which of the said leadership styles seems most
likely to foster positive attitudes in teachers and hence enhance academic and overall school
performance? Which, in particular, seems to have the greatest motivating potential?
RensisLikert assumed that there were four styles of leadership, developed on the basis of a three-
decade research on management styles. They are referred to as systemsand defined as follows:
System 1 (exploitative - authoritative style of leadership): the leader is highly authoritative
and does not trust the subordinates. Decisions are made exclusively at the top of the
organization. Communication takes the form of top-down commands. Managers require harsh
discipline and are not interested in initiative and opinions of subordinates.
Motivation is encouraged through fear and punishment, while rewards are rarely given.
System 2 (benevolent-authoritative style of leadership): the authoritative element still
dominates, although some decision-making is delegated. It allows downward communication,
because the leader is interested in some ideas and opinions of subordinates, thus partially
tolerates them. Although some responsibility is delegated, there is still a strict control.
Motivation is based on rewards, but also on fear and punishment.
System 3 (consultative style of leadership): the leader trusts the subordinates to a great extent,
but not completely. He or she usually tries to use their thoughts and ideas. The top management
has control over general policies and decisions, while specific decisions are delegated to lower
organizational levels. Information flows both top down, as well as bottom-up. Rewards and
sometimes punishments are used to motivate subordinates.
56
System 4 (participative - group style of leadership): the leader fully or almost fully trusts the
subordinates. This is reflected in a more significant level participation in the decision-making
processes. Lower organizational levels are given a more extensive autonomy. The two way
communication is promoted and is often used for the joint preparation of important decisions.
Participation in joint activities, e.g. setting goals and fulfilling them, is also motivated by
financial remuneration.
During his research, Likert concluded that managers, who are using the system 4, are the most
successful ones, while organizations applying this system were most effective and achieved high
productivity. Its success is based on maintaining a high level of employee‘s participation in
management (Antošová, 2011)
Hershey and Blanchard's Leadership Styles
Hershey and Blanchard's model is one of the best-known situational theories. First published in
1969, this model describes four primary styles of leadership.
The telling style is characterized by telling people what to do.
The selling style involves leaders convincing followers to buy into their ideas and messages.
The participating style is marked by allowing group members to take a more active role in the
decision-making process.
Finally, the delegating style involves taking a hands-off approach to leadership and allowing
group members to make the majority of decisions.
Blanchard's SLII Leadership Styles
Later, Blanchard expanded upon the original Hershey and Blanchard model to emphasize how
the developmental and skill level of the learners influences the style that should be used by
leaders. Blanchard also described four different learning styles.
57
1. The Directing style involves giving orders and expecting obedience, but offers little in
the way of guidance and assistance.
2. The Coaching style means giving lots of orders, but leaders also lots of supportive
behaviors.
3. The Supporting style, on the other hand, is an approach that offers plenty of help, but
very little direction.
4. Finally, the Delegating style is low in both direction and support.
Transformational Leadership and Transactional Leadership Styles
Several styles of leadership have and are being put forward to explain leadership effectiveness.
Two of the most prominent leadership styles are Transformational and Transactional leadership
styles. Since the late 1980s, theories of transformational and charismatic leadership have been
ascendant.
Transactional Leadership Style
Transactional Leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of
supervision, organization, and group performance; transactional leadership is a style of
leadership in which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and
punishments. Unlike Transformational leadership, leaders using the transactional approach are
not looking to change the future; they are looking to merely keep things the same. These leaders
pay attention to followers' work in order to find faults and deviations. This type of leadership is
effective in crisis and emergency situations, as well as when projects need to be carried out in a
specific fashion (Odumeru, James A 2013).
Bass (1985) argues that leadership in research has generally been conceptualized as a
transactional or cost-benefit exchange process. Transactional leadership theories are founded on
58
the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains
between leaders and followers. Transactional leadership is characterized by behavior and
attitudes that emphasize the quality of exchange between superiors and followers. The leader
clarifies the performance criteria, what is expected from subordinates, and what they receive in
return (Den Hartog et al., 1997).
According to Bass &Avolio (1994), ―Transactional leadership emphasizes the transaction or
exchange that takes place among leaders, colleagues and followers. This exchange is based on
the leader discussing with others what is required and specifying the conditions and rewards
these others will receive if they fulfill those requirements‖.
Odumeru, James(2013) explains that transactional leaders are concerned with processes rather
than forward-thinking ideas. These types of leaders focus on contingent reward (also known as
contingent positive reinforcement) or contingent penalization (also known as contingent negative
reinforcement). Contingent rewards (such as praise) are given when the set goals are
accomplished on-time, ahead of time, or to keep subordinates working at a good pace at different
times throughout completion. Contingent punishments (such as suspensions) are given when
performance quality or quantity falls below production standards or goals and tasks are not met
at all. Often, contingent punishments are handed down on a management-by-exception basis, in
which the exception is something going wrong. Within management-by-exception, there are
active and passive routes. Active management-by-exception means that the leader continually
looks at each subordinate's performance and makes changes to the subordinate's work to make
corrections throughout the process. Passive management-by-exception leaders wait for issues to
come up before fixing the problems. With transactional leadership being applied to the lower-
59
level needs and being more managerial in style, it is a foundation for transformational leadership
which applies to higher-level needs.
Leaders who behave accordingly can compensate deficits of motivation, direction and
satisfaction of the workers or organization if demands and rewards are based on a mutual
agreement. That is to say, the leader and followers discuss what is a requisite and what resources
are necessary to reach given the aims. The model of transactional leadership implies a process of
social exchange where leaders and followers influence each other. In this sense, executives and
subordinates are business partners in a deal in which the followers accept obedience, give
support and recognition to the executives as a counterpart for their productive dispense of
coordination, respect for the norms and necessities of the group, as well as their competition for
the achievement of the followers´ tasks. In this ―give and take‖, the executive gains the power to
impose, if necessary, unpopular decisions, on the strength of his/her performance (Felfe, 2002).
In general, transactional executives emphasize goal setting and give instructions that clarify
structures, conditions and control. In this area, their strategy is, positive or negative contingent
reinforcement depending on performance which executives achieve through the components of
transactional leadership: contingent reward (CR) and management by exception (MBE-A or
MBE-P).
Bass, 1998 explains, ―Contingent reward has been found to be reasonably effective to achieve
higher levels of development and performance. With this method, the leader assigns or gets
agreement on what needs to be done and promises rewards or actually rewards others in
exchange for satisfactorily carrying out the assignment‖.
Management-by-Exception (MBE) tends to be less effective than contingent reward.
The corrective transaction may be active (MBE-A) or passive (MBE-P). In active
60
MBE-A, the leader arranges to actively monitor deviances, mistakes, and errors in the followers‘
assignments and to take corrective action as necessary.
MBE-P implies waiting passively for deviances, mistakes, and errors to occur and then taking
corrective action. Active MBE-P may be required and effective in some situations such as when
safety is paramount in importance. Leaders sometimes must practice passive MBE-P when it is
necessary to supervise a large number of subordinates who report directly to the leaders.
Several transactional theories have been tested extensively and some of them have received
considerable empirical support. Examples are path-goal theory from House and Mitchell, 1974
and vertical dyad theory form Graen&Scandura, 1987 (Felfe,
2002).
In summary, we can say that the concepts of leadership centered on the quality of the
relationship of exchange between executives and subordinates can be taken to be transactional.
Here are included the objects of exchange, from concrete tasks and material rewards to the
guarantee of having room for action and resources, and even non-material rewards like
confidence and loyalty.
Laissez-Faire Leadership (LF)
This is the avoidance or absence of leadership and is most inactive, as well as most ineffective
according to almost all research on the style. Laissez-faire represents a non-transaction.
Necessary decisions are not made. Actions are delayed. Responsibilities of leadership are
ignored. Authority remains unused (Bass, 1998).
Transformational Leadership Style
While the notion of transactional leadership refers to situations of balance or equilibrium
directing special attention to stable exchange, transformational leadership is based on the idea
61
that it is preferable and promising in an environment of great and transformational changes.
From this we can conclude that in the absence of stability and balance in situations of insecurity
transformational leadership is better armed to lead out of a crisis. It is more important to be able
to develop visions and motivate the subordinates. In Burns´ theory (1978), and in Bass´ (1985)
conception, transformational leadership usually leads to a change of goals and needs. In contrast
with transactional leadership, transformational leadership moves beyond transactions increasing
the level of followers‘ awareness of valued outcomes, by expanding and elevating their needs
and encouraging them to transcend their self-interests (Bass, 1985). Leaders motivate the
personnel to achieve higher performance and cope with their self-interest by modifying their
interests and self-esteem. Usual values will transform into superior ones. From this point of
view, transformations occur only when the personal standards and the value system of the leader
have turned into organizing processes for subordinates. (Bycio& Hackett, 1995), Quoting
Yammamrino& Bass (1990): ―The transformational leader articulates a realistic vision of the
future that can be shared, stimulates subordinates intellectually, and pays attention to the
differences among the subordinates‖. Leaders can achieve transformations in organizations and
in individuals. By defining the need for change, creating new visions, and mobilizing
commitment to these visions, leaders are capable of achieving changes in the whole organization
(Den Hartog, 1997).
A transformational leader is a person who stimulates and inspires (transform) followers to
achieve extraordinary outcomes (Robbins and Coulter, 2007). He/she pay attention to the
concern and developmental needs of individual followers; they change followers‘ awareness of
issues by helping them to look at old problems in a new way ; and they are able to arouse, excite
and inspire followers to put out extra effort to achieve group goals. Transformational leadership
62
theory is all about leadership that creates positive change in the followers whereby they take care
of each other's interests and act in the interests of the group as a whole (Warrilow, 2012). The
concept of transformational leadership was introduced by James Macgregor Burns in 1978 in his
descriptive research on political leaders, but its usage has spread into organizational psychology
and management with further modifications by B.M Bass and J.B Avalio (Jung &Sosik, 2002).
Transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers
through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and
self to the project and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers
that inspires them and makes them interested; challenging followers to take greater ownership
for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can
align followers with tasks that enhance their performance.
According to Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leaders do more with colleagues and
followers than set up simple exchanges and agreements. They endeavor to achieve superior
results by employing one or more of the ―Four I‘s:
Idealized Influence (II)
In the past it was called charismatic leadership. Transformational leaders behave in ways that
result embodying role models for their followers. The leaders are admired, respected and trusted.
Followers feel identification with the leaders and want to emulate them. The leaders are willing
to take risks and are consistent rather than arbitrary.
They can be relied on to do the right thing, demonstrating high standards of ethical and moral
conduct.
63
Inspirational Motivation (IM)
Transformational leaders motivate and inspire their followers by providing meaning and
challenge to them and their work. Team spirit is aroused. Enthusiasm and optimism are
displayed. Leaders get followers involved in envisioning attractive future states; they create
clearly communicated expectations that followers want to meet and also demonstrate
commitment to goals and the shared vision. Charismatic leadership and inspirational motivation
usually form a combined single factor of charismatic- inspirational leadership, Bass (1998).
Intellectual Stimulation (IS)
Transformational leaders stimulate their followers‘ efforts to be innovative and creative by
questioning assumptions, reframing problems, and approaching old situations in new ways.
Creativity is encouraged. There is no public criticism of individual members‘ mistakes.
New ideas and creative problem solutions are solicited from followers, who are included in the
process of addressing problems and finding solutions. Followers are encouraged to try new
approaches, and their ideas are not criticized simply because they differ from the leaders‘ ideas.
Individualized Consideration (IC)
Transformational leaders pay special attention to each individual follower‘s needs for
achievement and growth by acting as coaches or mentors. Followers and colleagues develop
successively higher levels of potential. Individualized consideration is practiced when new
learning opportunities are created along with a supportive climate.
Individual differences in terms of needs and desires are recognized. The leader‘s behavior
demonstrates acceptance of individual differences (e.g., some employees receive more
encouragement, some more autonomy, others firmer standards, and still others more task
structure). A two-way exchange in communication is encouraged, and ―management by walking
64
around‖ workspace is practiced. Interactions with followers are personalized (e.g., the leader
remembers previous conversations, is aware of individual concerns, and sees the individual as a
whole person rather than as just an employee). The considerate leader listens to the individual in
an effective manner. The leader delegates tasks as a means of developing followers.
Each of these components can be measured with the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire
(MLQ).
2.5. School Leadership Practice
School leadership has become a priority in education policy agendas internationally. It plays a
key role in improving school outcomes by influencing the motivations and capacities of teachers,
as well as the school climate and environment. Effective school leadership is essential to
improve the efficiency and equity of schooling.
In today‘s climate of heightened expectations, principals are in the hot seat to improve teaching
and learning. They need to be educational visionaries; instructional and curriculum leaders;
assessment experts; disciplinarians; community builders; public relations experts; budget
analysts; facility managers; special program administrators; and expert overseers of legal,
contractual, and policy mandates and initiatives. They are expected to broker the often-
conflicting interests of parents, teachers, students, district officials, unions, and state and federal
agencies, and they need to be sensitive to the widening range of student needs. Although that job
description sounds overwhelming, at least it signals that the field has begun to give overdue
recognition to the indispensable role of and mounting demands on principals (DeVita, as cited in
Davis, Darling-Hammond, LaPointe, &Meyerson, 2005, p. i).
As countries are seeking to adapt their education systems to the needs of contemporary society,
expectations for schools and school leaders are changing. Many countries have moved towards
65
decentralization, making schools more autonomous in their decision making and holding them
more accountable for results. At the same time, the requirement to improve overall student
performance while serving more diverse student populations is putting schools under pressure to
use more evidence-based teaching practices.
There are concerns across countries that the role of principal as conceived for needs of the past is
no longer appropriate. In many countries, principals have heavy workloads; many are reaching
retirement and it is getting harder to replace them. Potential candidates often hesitate to apply,
because of overburdened roles, insufficient preparation and training, limited career prospects and
inadequate support and rewards.
In the executive summary of that report, the researchers said that ―leadership effects on student
learning occur largely because leadership strengthens professional community; teachers‘
engagement in professional community, in turn, fosters the use of instructional practices that are
associated with student achievement‖ (Wahlstrom, Louis, Leithwood, & Anderson, 2010, p. 10).
Other researchers conducted a meta-analysis that focused on the relationship between school
leadership and student achievement. They also found that principal leadership is correlated with
student achievement and that there were especially strong links between specific principal
behaviors and student learning. One such behavior was the extent to which the principal ―is
aware of the details and undercurrents in the running of the school and uses this information to
address current and potential problems‖ (Waters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2003, p. 4). In the view
of those researchers, ―effective leadership means more than knowing what to do—it‘s knowing
when, how, and why to do it‖ (Waters et al., 2003).
In a recent report, the Wallace Foundation (2011) identified five key functions of principal
leadership: Shaping a vision of academic success for all students, one based on high standards,
66
creating a climate hospitable to educationin order that safety, a cooperative spirit and other
foundations of fruitful interaction prevail, cultivating leadership in othersso that teachers and
other adults assume their part in realizing the school vision, improving instruction to enable
teachers to teach at their best and students to learn at their utmost and managing people, data and
processes to foster school improvement
Leadership practices seem to have quite positive effects on teacher‘s lifelong professional
development in the school context (Flores 2007) because they have the potential to empower
teachers towards a commitment to change and enhance their learning in school organization
(Bogler, 2001; Fullan, 2002; Day et al, 2001). Effective leadership has a key role in motivating
teachers towards individual and shared learning, a factor which is considered to be quite
important for school effectiveness to be achieved (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). Consequently, it
becomes clear that leadership is the mediator which has the authority to develop and empower
teachers in the quest of school effectiveness (Huber, 2004). Over the past 25 years there are
several different theoretical models concerning the educational leadership. However, two basic
models have dominated: the instructional leadership and the transformational leadership
(Hallinger, 2003). Each one of these models considers the school principal‘s role and its
characteristics from a different perspective.
Leadership, in whichever model it embraces, has as central goal to ensure and maintain the
school improvement which has to do with the quality of teaching; the most influential factor of
students‘ achievement. It is obvious though that the quality and the effectiveness of leadership is
understood and evaluated in correspondence with regards to teachers‘ motivation and
effectiveness (Fullan, 2001). According to recent research, one of the main leadership practices
has to do with the teacher‘s empowerment which is strongly related to the central goal of the
67
school; students‘ learning. The improvement of the employees‘ performance is a significantly
important aim which the leader tries to achieve through several actions taking into consideration
individuals‘ beliefs, values, motivations and skills (Leithwood, 2006). Structuring a specific
vision and giving directions, they provide teachers with a strong motivation to improve their
performance. In particular, setting a shared purpose that clarifies the roles, the objectives and the
desired expectations from the teachers‘ performance they enhance teachers‘ effectiveness in the
classroom.
Leadership activities have an overall purpose which is to directly or indirectly reduce educational
disparities through improving student outcomes, in effect leaders need to demonstrate a social
justice agenda. Fullan (2003) terms this as leaders having a moral purpose, which at the school
level means: …that all students and teachers benefit in terms of identified desirable goals, that
the gap between the high and low performers becomes less as the bar for all is raised, that ever-
deeper educational goals are pursued, and that the culture of the school becomes so transformed
that continuous improvement relative to the previous three components become built in.
Elmore (2004) supports this purpose and argues that the primary purpose of educational
leadership is the ‗guidance and direction of instructional [pedagogical] improvement‘.
The school of the 21st century requires a principal who will embrace a multidimensional
approach to leadership so as to bring about school improvement and effectiveness.
Scholars point out that principals play a pivotal role in the school settings (Leithwood & Jantzi
2008, Waters et al. 2003). In fact, some low-performing schools have been successfully turned
around under strong principal leadership (e.g. Duke et al. 2005). Therefore, it is logical to
anticipate that the leadership of school administrators may be an important factor for school
68
effectiveness. The lack of effective ways to select and build the capacity of promising school
leaders may eventually undermine the performance of schools.
School leaders, particularly principals, have a key role to play in setting direction and creating a
positive school culture including the proactive school mindset, and supporting and enhancing
staff motivation and commitment needed to foster improvement and promote success for schools
in challenging circumstances.(Wallace Foundation:2009)
Effective education leadership makes a difference in improving learning.
There‘s nothing new or especially controversial about that idea. What‘s far less clear, even after
several decades of school renewal efforts, is just how leadership matters, how important those
effects are in promoting the learning of all children, and what the essential ingredients of
successful leadership are.( Kenneth et.al 2004)
Effective leadership is vital to the success of a school. Research and practice confirm that there is
slim chance of creating and sustaining high-quality learning environments without a skilled and
committed leader to help shape teaching and learning. That‘s especially true in the most
challenging schools (Wallace Foundation: 2009).
Conclusion on Leadership Styles
According to the researcher, the type of a leader depends on his/her overall disposition. A leader
will inherently have one or more of these leadership qualities. Hence, it‘s essential that while
looking for someone who will occupy the post of the leader, one should check the type of leader
the organization really needs; otherwise it would be a futile exercise. In the above description of
leadership styles, I have tried to set out some of the elements of a ‗classical‘ view of leadership. I
have seen how commentators have searched for special traits and behaviors and looked at
different situations where leaders work and emerge. Running through much of this is a set of
69
beliefs that I can describe as a classical view of leadership where leaders: Tend to be identified
by position, are parts of the hierarchy, become the focus for answers and solutions. We look to
them when we do not know what to do, or when we cannot be bothered to work things out for
ourselves, give direction and have vision, have special qualities setting them apart. These help to
create the gap between leaders and followers.
This view of leadership sits quite comfortably with the forms of organization such as a school,
where the desire is to get something done, to achieve a narrow range of objectives in a short
period of time, and then it may make sense to think in this way. However, this has its
weaknesses. Whilst some ‗classical‘ leaders may have a more participative style, it is still just a
style. A great deal of power remains in their hands and the opportunity for all to take
responsibility and face larger questions is curtailed. As our awareness of our own place in the
making of leadership grows, we may be less ready to hand our responsibilities to others.
2.6. School Performance
School performance reflects ‗the effectiveness and efficiency of the schooling processes.
Effectiveness, in a general sense, refers to the accomplishment of the school‘s objectives, while
efficiency indicates whether these objectives were accomplished in a timely and costly manner.
These definitions show, effectiveness and efficiency are judged according to the school‘s
‗objectives‘. Although these are school specific to some degree, school performance research
focuses solely on objectives that schools, or a distinct type of schools, have in common. Despite
this specific focus, a number of foundational studies –to use Scheins‘ (1992) phrase– have
indicated that in several aspects measuring performance is multidimensional. School
effectiveness research has had a strong focus on student outcomes; a more effective school is
70
generally defined as one that promotes better student outcomes than would be predicted on the
basis of student intake characteristics.
Teacher quality is the most important school-level determinant of student performance, and
school leadership focused on improving the motivation, capacities and working environment of
teachers is most likely to improve student learning.
School leaders influence teacher quality through:
• Teacher monitoring and evaluation– School leader involvement in classroom observation
and feedback is associated with better student performance. However, school leaders do not
always have sufficient time and capacity to focus on this important responsibility. Policy makers
need to address constraints limiting the capacity of school leaders to engage in meaningful
teacher evaluation activities, including providing appropriate training.
• Teacher professional development– Providing, promoting and participating in teacher
development that is relevant to the local school context and aligned both with overall school
improvement goals and teachers‘ needs is a key responsibility for school leaders which policy
makers need to emphasis. Devolving discretion over training and development budgets to the
school level enables school leaders to offer and coordinate meaningful professional learning
opportunities for all their teachers.
• Collaborative work cultures– Effective teaching in modern schools is collegial and
transparent, cooperative and collaborative, and conducted in teams and larger professional
learning communities. School leaders need support and encouragement in promoting teamwork
among teachers. OCED (2009)
Research on school performance shows that leaders of successful schools define success not only
in terms of test and examination results, but also in terms of personal and social outcomes, pupil
71
and staff motivation, engagement and wellbeing, the quality of teaching and learning and the
school‘s contribution to the community. Also, successful heads improve pupil outcomes through
who they are – their values, virtues, dispositions, attributes and competences – as well as what
they do in terms of the strategies they select and the ways in which they adapt their leadership
practices to their unique context.( Christopher Day,et al:2010).
72
CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
Research methodology involves the systematic procedures by which the researcher starts from
the initial identification of the problem to its final conclusions. The role of the methodology is to
carry on the research work in a scientific and valid manner. The method of research provides the
tools and techniques by which the research problem is attacked.
This chapter contains the research design; population; sample size, sampling techniques and
procedure; data collection instruments; the research procedure that is followed and the data
analysis methods that is employed
3.1 Research Design
In this study quantitative and qualitative methods were used. Although the study is largely
quantitative in nature, still both qualitative and quantitative approaches to data collection and
analysis were employed because a study of this magnitude requires different methods that help in
triangulation in order to support reliability of the findings.
The quantitative approach is employed in order to manage data from the closed questionnaires.
Further still, quantitative approaches are aimed at examining the relationship between leadership
styles and school performance in secondary schools because ascertaining the relationship
requires strict mathematical techniques of analysis. More so, Punch (1998) argues that
quantitative methods are used because they tend to be relatively low in cost and time
requirements to enable a large quantity of relevant data to be amassed and subjected to statistical
analysis techniques for greater representation.
A survey research design was applied that helps in assessing if there is a difference in leadership
styles perceived by principals against the perception of teachers regarding principal‘s leadership
73
practiced. In this regard, data for this study was collected on the independent variable, which is
leadership styles, and that of the dependent variable, which is school performance.
3.2 The Study Population
The purpose of this study was to investigate leadership style practiced by secondary school
principals of Wolaita zone. Therefore the population of the study is all secondary schools in
Wolaita zone, including their principals and teachers.
3.3. The Study Sample and Sampling Technique
When conducting research, it is difficult if not, impossible to study the entire population because
it would be extremely costly in terms of time and finance. As a result, researchers use samples as
a way to gather data. A sample is part of a population which can be involved in the study to
represent the whole population. This means sample is selected in such a way that the samples
represent the larger population from which they are obtained.
The quality of the research outcome depends, among other factors, on the size and
representativeness of the sample and the sampling strategy used (Taplin, 2005). Sample size
determination is an important issue in research. When determining a sample size, it is essential to
make sure that: (1) the sample is representative of the population; this is because an
unrepresentative sample results in biased conclusions and (2) the sample is precise enough.
Sample size is a function of the population of interest, the desired confidence level, and level of
precision. Sampling precision is related to the size and variability of the samplesused. The larger
the sample, the smaller the margin of uncertainty (confidence interval) related to the results. The
more something varies from person to person the bigger the sample needs to be to achieve the
74
same degree of certainty about results. When sample size increases precision also increases as a
result of decreasing variability (Creswell, 2003).
A question may arise here: ‗How is sample size determined?‘ There are several approaches to
determining the sample size. These include using a census for small populations, imitating a
sample size of similar studies, using published tables, and applying formulas to calculate a
sample size.
The approach used to determine the number of teacher samples in this study was a simplified
formula provided by Yamane (1973) as presented hereunder:
n = N/1+ N(e)2
Where, n is the required sample size, N = the population size and e = the level of precision set at
± 0.05. When this formula is applied to the above sample, it would be: 84 teachers from Grade 3
schools and 23 teachers from Grade 2 schools. There are 628 teachers in the sample schools
selected for this study and of this 189 (35%) are selected by using simple random sampling
technique. In addition to this all principals (100%) were selected for the purpose of this study
Of these all principals included in this study and 2 teachers from each school totally 20 teachers
were selected purposefully for interview. The teachers were selected for interview were those
who served for long period of time and are expected to give adequate information on principals
leadership style practiced.
3.4. Sources of Data
The quantitative data is collected from both primary and secondary data sources. Quantitative
data is numerical data. The primary data consisted of the survey data. Document analysis is also
used to find out how schools are classified, classification of schools, the number of teachers and
students and results of schools as to evaluation of inspection was also collected through
75
document analysis from zonal educational department and from each school that were under
investigation.
3.5. Data collection Instruments

Standardized and modified Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ 5x Short) is used to
identify the type of leadership style exercised by principals in relationship to school
performance.
1 Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X)
The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was first developed by Bass in 1985 and
was revised several times through subsequent research. The Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire (MLQ-5X) was revised by Bass and Avolio (1995) to measure the
transformational and transactional leadership styles. According to the Multifactor Leadership
Questionnaire Manual and Sampler Set (Avolio and Bass, 2004), The MLQ-5X Short is
―available in a validated form of 45 items for organizational survey and research purposes and
for preparation of individual leader reports‖. Furthermore, the MLQ-5X Long is ―available in a
validated form of 63 items for training, development and feedback purposes‖. The researcher
utilized the MLQ-5X short form in this study. A copy of the questionnaire is provided in the
Appendix. The MLQ-5X incorporated a leader form and a rater form. Rater form of this
questionnaire was used in this research and completed by teachers and leader form was
completed by principals. Each questionnaire included 45 items with a specific variable selected
for each leadership factor (five subscales for transformational leadership and four subscales for
transactional leadership and one for non-leadership factor). The Transformational subscales were
the following: ‗Idealized Influence-Attributed‘ (IIA), ‗Idealized Influence- Behavior‘ (IIB),
‗Inspirational Motivation‘ (IM), ‗Intellectual Stimulation‘ (IS), and ‗Individual Consideration‘
(IC). The Transactional subscales were
76
‗Contingent Reward‘ (CR), ‗Management-by-Exception-Active‘ (MBEA), and
‗Management-by-Exception-Passive‘ (MBEP). The non-leadership subscale was ‗Laissez-faire‘.
There were three outcomes of leadership, ‗Extra Effort‘ (EE), ‗Effectiveness‘ (EFF), and
‗Satisfaction‘ with the Leadership‘ (SAT)
Transformational leadership constructs and individual statements related to the specific construct
in the MLQ-5X-Short Form.
Table 3.1. Transformational leadership Scales

Leadership Item Item statement
construct No
Idealized 6 Talks about his/her most important values and beliefs.
Influence/behavior/ 14 Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
23 Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decision.
34 Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of
mission.
Idealized 10 Instills pride in others for being associated with him/her.
Influence 18 Goes beyond self-interest for the good of the group.
(Attributed) 21 Acts in ways that builds my respect.
25 Displays a sense of power and confidences of decisions.
Inspirational 9 Talks optimistically about the future.
Motivation 13 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accounted.
26 Articulates a compelling vision of the future.
36 Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved.
Intellectual 2 Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are
Stimulation appropriate.
8 Seeks differing perspectives when solving problems.
30 Gets me to look at problems from many different
32 Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
Individual 15 Spends time teaching and coaching.
Consideration 19 Treats me as an individual rather than just as amember of a
group.
29 Considers me as having different needs, abilities,and aspirations
from others.
31 Helps me to develop my strengths.
77
Table 3.2. Transactional leadership Scale
Leadership construct Item No Item statement
Contingent 1 Provides me with assistance in exchange for my
Reward efforts.
11 Discusses in specific terms who is responsible for
achieving performance targets.
16 Makes clear what one can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved.
35 Expresses satisfaction when I meet expectations.
Management by- 4 Focuses attention on irregularities, mistakes,
Exception exceptions and deviations from standards.
(Active)
22 Concentrates his/her full attention on dealing with
mistakes, complaints, and failures.
24 Keeps track of all mistakes.
27 Directs my attention to failures to meet standards.
Management by- 3 Fails to interfere until problems become serious.
Exception 12 Waits for things to go wrong before taking action.
(Passive) 17 Shows that he/she is a firm believer in ―If it isn‘t
broke don‘t fix it.‖
20 Demonstrates that problems must become chronic
before I take action.
Laissez-faire 5 Avoids getting involved when important issues arise.

7 Is absent when needed.
28 Avoids making decisions
33 Delays responding to urgent questions.
Validity and Reliability of MLQ-5X
MLQ has been used in nearly 200 research programs, doctoral dissertations and master‘s theses
around the world. Since this instrument fits well into the description of head teachers‘ leadership
styles, the researcher posited that the MLIQ-5X was a valid research instrument to be used in this
study. The reliabilities within each data set generally indicated that the MLQ-5X was reliably
measuring each leadership factor across the initial nine data sets used by Bass and Avolio (1995).
78
Table 3.3. MLQ-5X means, standard deviations, and reliabilities
MLQ5X Factors Means Standard Deviation Reliabilities

Idealized Influence 2.56 .84 .86
(IIA)
Idealized Influence 2.64 .85 .87
(IIB)
Inspirational 2.64 .87 .91
Motivation (IM)
Intellectual 2.51 .86 .91
Stimulation (IS)
Individual 2.66 .93 .90
Consideration (IC)
Contingent Reward 2.20 .89 .87
(CR)
Management-By- 1.75 .75 .74
Exception
Active (MBEA)
Management-By- 1.11 .82 .82
Exception
Passive (MBEP)
Laissez Faire (LF) .89 .74 .83
Extra Effort (EE) 2.60 1.16 .91

Effectiveness (EFF) 2.62 .72 .91
Satisfaction (SAT) 2.57 1.28 .94
N=2080 (Avolio, Bass and Jung, 1995)
Rowold (2005), furthermore, validated the instrument. He stated ―…The MLQ has been
developed and validated (Avolio and Bass, 2004). It is now the standard instrument for assessing
a range of transformational, transactional and non-leadership scales‖. According to Avolio and
Bass (2004), the MLQ-5X is a full range leadership model. ―This full range includes leadership
dimensions which are highly transformational at one end to those which are avoidant at the other
end.‖
Document Analysis
According to Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.N. (2007) the term document in qualitative research
refers to ―materials such as photographs, video films, memos, letters, diaries, clinical case
79
records and memorabilia of all sorts that can be used as supplemental information‖. In this study
primary and secondary sources such as, information on teacher‘s profile, school performance
result, available resources of the school and other relevant documents from Zonal Education
department were analyzed.
3.6. Data collection Procedure
The zonal education department wrote a collaboration letter to each of the ten sample schools
and the researcher went to each school and discussed with principals of each school about the
purpose of the study and made appointment with each school. Following the date of the
appointment the researcher distributed the questionnaire on the second day for each school.
Three hundred twenty questionnaires for teachers and 10 questionnaires for principals were
distributed and of these 189 teachers which is, 85.9% return rate, and all principals (100%)
completed the questionnaire and returned it on time.
3.7. Data Analysis Technique
After the data collected, it was necessary to utilize statistical techniques to analyze the
information as this study is mainly quantitative in nature. Therefore, the survey data was
processed using an SPSS (version 20). First the relevant data was coded, summarized and then
transferred to SPSS to be analyzed and presented.
Frequency tables were used to summarize the respondents profile in the form of frequency and
percentages whereas the descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviations of teachers‘
answers to leadership styles and principals self-rating of their leadership practice were calculated
in order to determine teacher‘ perceptions of leadership styles and principals self-rating.
80
Descriptive statistics was also used to calculate mean and standard deviations of principals‘
answers to leadership styles in order to determine their perceptions.
T-test was used to compare the MLQ of principals and teachers responses (independent
samples). This is followed with presentation of the detail discussions on variables along with
interpretations.
3.8. Ethical Considerations
Since educational research does not occur in a vacuum, educational researchers are constantly
interacting with a complex and demanding socio-political environment that influences their
research decisions both formally and informally. To cope with such influences, the researcher
followed a number of guidelines in research, which included, amongst others, seeking informed
consent of the respondents and making it known to them that their participation was indeed
voluntary. The integrity of the researcher will be safeguarded by protecting the respondents from
harm, either emotional or physical and by the manner in which the researcher posed questions
and reported the findings.
81
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
In this chapter, the quantitative and qualitative data collected from primary and secondary
sources using different instruments were presented, analyzed, and interpreted. This means, the
quantitative as well as qualitative analysis of data was incorporated into this chapter. The
qualitative part was supposed to be supplementary to the quantitative analysis. Hence, the
qualitative data included the data gathered through interviews. The presentation is guided by the
research objectives and the statistics are reflections of the responses from respondents who
answered the questionnaire and provided interviews.
4.1. Background Characteristics of Respondents
As part of the questionnaire, demographic characteristics of the respondents were collected. The
demographic data were gathered to facilitate description of the sample and to allow for
determination of its representativeness of the total population. The demographic questions were
designed to get information about participants‘ sex, age, academic status attained, and work
experience. The results in the table below highlight the demographic characteristics of the
respondents who participated in the study.
82
Table 4.1. : Background Characteristics of Sample Secondary School Principals
Principals from selected schools

Variables Categories Grade 3 schools Grade 2 schools
n % n %
Sex Male 5 100 5 100
Female - - - -
Total 5 100 5 100
Age 20-30 - - 2 40.0
31-40 5 100 1 20.0
Above 40 - - 2 40.0
Total 5 100 5 100
Academic status Bachelor degree 4 80.0 5 100
Master‘s degree 1 20.0 - -
Total 5 100 5 100
Year of Service 1-10 5 100 3 60.0
11-20 - - - -
21-30 - - 1 20.0
31-40 - - 1 20.0
Total 5 100 5 100
As shown in the above table all principals included in the study were male and this indicates that
the management position was full occupied by male principals. With regard to age all level 3
school principals are aged between 31 – 40, which indicates that they are in active age
Concerning academic status 80% of level 3 and all (100%) of level 2 school principals have got
bachelor‘s degree and have served up to 10 years.
83
Table 4.2: Background Characteristics of Sample Secondary School Teachers
Teachers from selected schools

Variables Categories Grade 3 schools Grade 2 school
n % n %
Sex Male 94 90.4 70 82.4
Female 10 9.6 15 17.6
Total 104 100 85 100
Age 20-30 43 41.3 44 51.8
31-40 36 34.6 26 30.6
Above 40 25 24.0 15 17.6
Total 104 100 85 100
Academic status Bachelor degree 86 82.7 76 89.4
Master‘s degree 18 17.3 9 10.6
Total 104 100 85 100
Year of Service 1-10 41 39.4 41 48.2
11-20 46 44.2 34 40.0
21-30 9 8.7 6 7.1
31-40 8 7.7 4 4.7
Total 104 100.0 85 100
The above table indicates that 90.4% of Grade 3 school teachers and 82.4% of Grade 2 school
teachers are male, whereas 9.65 of Grade 3 school teachers and 17.6% of Grade 2 school
teachers are females. This shows that the teaching position or profession is dominated by
teachers.
The age of respondents also shows that 41.3% of Grade 3 schools and 51.8% of Grade 2 school
teachers are at their active age. 82.7% of Grade 3 school teachers and 76% of Grade 2 school
teachers are Bachelor degree holders which indicates, that they fit to teach in the grade levels
they are assigned. 83.6% of teachers from Grade 3 schools and 88.2% of Grade 2 schools have a
service year ranging from 1 – 20 years which implies that they are at an active age to serve in the
position.
84
4.2 Principals Leadership Practice as Perceived by Teachers
Under this category of the analysis, the different leadership styles are presented with the
corresponding results from the study. As discussed previously leadership style is classified into
three, namely, transformational, transactional and laissez fair leadership style. In order to
answer the above basic question, teachers were requested to rate their principals based on the
questionnaire presented to them. This part deals with the principals‘ leadership style as to the
perception of teachers towards their principals.
Basic questions 1. How do teachers of Grade 3 schools rate the leadership style practiced
by their principals?
principals?
principals?
1.3 Are there any differences between Grade 3 and Grade 2 school teachers‘ in rating
of their principal‘s leadership style?
The first part deals with the perception of teachers of Grade 3 and Grade 2 schools on all the
three categories of leadership style.
4.2.1. Transformational Leadership
In order to see the level at which transformational leadership style the principals follow,
responses of teachers were considered. At this sub-topic, the data were analyzed and discussed
for each of the dimensions of transformational leadership.
85
The first category under transformational leadership is idealized influence, where the
transformational principal becomes a role model for the followers, facilitates the acceptance of
group goals, and encourages them to upgrade their school goals. Idealized influence is the degree
to which leaders behave in charismatic ways, causing followers to identify with them. The
followers transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization and develop a collective
sense of mission and purpose. This category of transformational leadership is classified into five,
namely idealized influence /attributed/, idealized influence /behavior/, inspirational motivation,
intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.
Mean Score Range for Five Scale Likert‘s Response
Mean Response
From 0.00 to less than 0.80 Not at all
From 0.80 to less than 1.60 Once in a while
From 1.60 to less than 2.40 Sometimes
From 2.40 to less than 3.20 Fairly often
From 3.20 to less than 4.00 Frequently, if not always
Source: Al-Sayaad et al. (2006)
86
Transformational leadership
Table4.3: The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on idealized
influence /attributed/
Rating Scale Tota

Mean t-test
Variables Respondents 0 1 2 3 4 l (SD) (p-value)
Instill pride in 1 7 37 42 17 104 2.64
Grade 3 1.683
others for being (1.0) (6.7) (35.6) (40.4) (16.3) (100) (.869)
associated with 3 5 33 40 4 85 2.44 (0.094)
Grade 2
them (3.5) (5.9) (38.8) (47.1) (4.7) (100) (.823)
Goes beyond 5 3 29 50 17 104 2.68
Grade 3 .692
self-interest for (4.8) (2.9) (27.9) (48.1) (16.3) (100) (.948)
the good of the 1 9 27 35 13 85 2.59 (.490)
Grade 2
group (1.2) (10.6) (31.8) (41.2) (15.3) (100) (.917)
Acts in ways 5 1 19 49 30 104 2.94
Grade 3 1.89
that builds (4.8) (1.0) (18.3) (47.1) (28.8) (100) (.974)
others ‘to give 3 6 24 35 17 85 2.67 (.060)
Grade 2
respect for him (3.5) (7.1) (28.2) (41.2) (20.0) (100) (.993)
1 5 27 39 32 104 2.92
Displays a sense Grade 3 1.51
(1.0) (4.8) (26.0) (37.5) (30.8) (100) (.921)
of power and (.134)
confidence 3 2 29 33 18 85 2.72
Grade 2 (3.5) (2.4) (34.1) (38.8) (21.2) (100) (.946)
Note: Numbers in bracket under rating scale refers to percentage
Idealized Influence /Attributed / B y Grade 3 School Teachers

As shown in the above table, about 56.7% of teachers viewed that principals instill pride in
others for being associated with them, while 7.7% of them disagreed for the principals‘ action
towards instilling pride in others for being associated with them. In addition, the average
perception of teachers (Mean= 2.64) also showed that principals fairly often instill pride in other
for being associated with them.
Concerning the principals‘ self-interest, about 64.4% of teachers agreed that principals often go
beyond self-interest for the good of the group, while 7.7% of teachers replied that principals
occasionally go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. Furthermore, the average
87
response of teacher (Mean= 2.6) showed that principals fairly often go beyond self-interest for
the good of the group. This revealed that principals at Grade 3 secondary schools go beyond self-
interest to act on behalf of the school and teachers.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principal act in ways that builds others‘ to give
respect for him or not. In connection to this idea, the majority (75.9%) of them show their
agreement, while 5.8% of them disagree. Besides, the mean score of teachers (Mean = 2.94)
indicated that principals fairly often act in ways that builds others to give respect for him.
Regarding principals‘ sense of power and confidence, the majority (68.3%) of teachers showed
that leaders often display a sense of power and confidence, while 5.8% of teachers indicated that
principals rarely displays a sense of power and confidence. Additionally, their average
perception (Mean=2.92) also approved that principals fairly often displays a sense of power and
confidence. This indicates that principals at Grade 3 secondary schools are able to and have
capacity to overcome obstacles.
Idealized Influence /Attributed / B y Grade 2School Teachers
As shown in the above table about 51.8% of teachers viewed that principals instill pride in
others for being associated with them, while 9.4% of them disagreed for the principals‘ action
towards instill pride in others for being associated with them. In addition, the average perception
of teachers (Mean= 2.44) also showed that principals fairly often instill pride in other for being
associated with them.
Concerning the principals‘ going beyond self-interest for the good of the group, about 56.5% of
teachers agreed that principals often go beyond self-interest for the good of the group, while
11.8% of teachers replied that principals occasionally go beyond self-interest for the good of the
group. Furthermore, the average response of teacher (Mean= 2.59) showed that principals fairly
88
often go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. This revealed that principals of Grade 2
secondary schools go beyond self-interest to act on behalf of the school and teachers.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principal act in ways that builds others‘ to give
respect for him or not. In connection to this idea, the majority (61.2%) of them show their
agreement, while 10.6% of them disagree. Besides, the mean score of teachers (Mean = 2.67)
indicated that principals fairly often act in ways that builds others to give respect for him.
Regarding principals‘ sense of power and confidence, the majority (60.0%) of teachers showed
that leaders often display a sense of power and confidence, while 5.9% of teachers indicated that
principals rarely displays a sense of power and confidence . Additionally, their average
perception (Mean=2.72) also approved that principals fairly often displays a sense of power and
confidence. This indicates that principals at Grade 2 secondary schools able to show power and
confidence in their capacity to overcome obstacles.
Idealized Influence /Attributed / By Grade 3 and Grade 2 School Teachers

The idealized influence attributed scale identifies leaders who are able to build trust in their
followers. They inspire power and pride in their followers by going beyond their own individual
interests and focusing on the interests of the group and of its members. Thus they become
reference models for their followers. High scores on this scale identify leaders whom their
followers attribute these special qualities.
As to the above table, the rating of teachers in the behavior of principals in instilling pride for
being associated with them shows that, teachers of Grade 3 schools rated (Mean = 2.14) and of
Grade 2 teachers rated (Mean = 2.44). In addition to this t-test result (t-value = 1.68, p > 0.01)
indicates that there is no significant statistical difference in their ratings.
89
In the second category teachers of Grade 3 schools rated that (Mean = 2.68), whereas teachers of
Grade 2 rated (Mean = 2.59). The t-test result (t-value = .69, p> 0.01) shows that there is no
significant difference in their rating of principals behavior.
The third category which asks about the ability of principals to act in ways that builds others to
give respect for him, teachers of Grade 3 rated (Mean = 2.94) and of Grade 2 rated (Mean =
2.67). The t-test result (t-value = 1.89, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no statistically significant
difference in their rating. In the last category teachersof Grade 3 schools rated (Mean = 2.92) and
of Grade 2 schools rated (Mean = 2.72). The t-test result (t-value = 1.51, p > 0.01) shows that
there is no difference in their rating.
idealized influence /behavior/
Rating Scale Tota

Mean t-test
Variables 0 1 2 3 4 l (SD) (p-value)
Talks about his 3 5 35 34 27 104 2.7
Grade 3
most important (2.9) (4.8) (33.7 (32.7 (26.0 (100) (.995) -.09
values and 1 8 25 28 23 85 2.75 (.931)
Grade 2
beliefs (1.2) (9.4) (29.4) (32.9) (27.1) (100) (.999)
Specifies the 2 4 19 49 30 104 2.97
Grade 3
importance of (1.9) (3.8) (18.3) (47.1) (28.8) (100) (.897) 2.88
having a strong 9 28 36 12 85 2.60 (.004)
Grade 2 -
sense of purpose (10.6) (32.9) (42.4) (14.1) (100) (.862)
Considers the 2 13 45 44 104 3.26
Grade 3 -
moral and (1.9) (12.5) (43.3) (42.3) (100) (.750)
5.12
ethical
1 11 25 31 17 85 2.61 (.000)
consequences of Grade 2
(1.2) (12.9) (29.4) (36.5) (20.0) (100) (.989)
decisions
Emphasizes the 2 27 45 30 104 2.99
Grade 3 -
importance of (1.9) (26.0) (43.3) (28.8) (100) (.794)
3.41
having a
3 8 30 28 16 85 2.54 (.001)
collective sense Grade 2
(3.5) (9.4) (35.3) (32.9) (18.8) (100) (1.02)
of mission
Note:Numbers in bracket under rating scale refers to percentage
90
Idealized Influence /Behavior / B y Grade 3 School Teachers
As summarized in the above table about 58.7% of teachers responded that principals‘ talk about
their most important values and beliefs, in contrarily 7.7% of them disagreed for the principals‘
discourse towards their most important values and beliefs. Moreover, the average perception of
teachers of Grade 3 schools (Mean= 2.7) showed that principals often talk about their most
important values and beliefs. In line with the principals‘ action in specifying the importance of
having a strong sense of purpose, the majority (75.9%) of teachers responded that principals
often specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose, whereas 5.7% of teachers
replied that principals rarely specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
Furthermore, the average response of teacher (Mean= 2.97) showed that principals at their school
specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. This revealed that principals at
Grade 3 secondary schools specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
On the subject of principals‘ consideration on moral and ethical consequences of decisions, the
majority (85.6%) of teachers perceived that principals often consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions, while 1.9% of teachers show their disagreement. Additionally, their
average perception (Mean=3.26) also showed that principals consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions. This indicates that principals at Grade 3 secondary schools consider
the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principals emphasize the importance of having a
collective sense of mission or not. Depending on this idea, the majority (72.1%) of them showed
their agreement, whereas 1.9% of them disagreed. Furthermore, the mean score of teachers
(Mean = 2.99) indicated that the majority of respondents agreed on the given idea. This implies
that principals Grade 3 secondary schools emphasize the importance of having a collective sense
of mission.
91
Idealized Influence /Behavior / By Grade 2 School Teachers
As summarized in the above table, about 60% of teachers responded that principals‘ talks about
their most important values and beliefs, in contrarily 10.6% of them disagreed for the principals‘
discourse towards their most important values and beliefs. Moreover, the average perception of
teachers (Mean= 2.75) showed that principals often talk about their most important values and
beliefs.
In line with the principals‘ action in specifying the importance of having a strong sense of
purpose, the majority (56.5%) of teachers responded that principals often specify the importance
of having a strong sense of purpose, whereas 10.6% of teachers replied that principals rarely
specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. Furthermore, the average response
of teacher (Mean= 2.6) showed that principals at their school specify the importance of having a
strong sense of purpose. This revealed that principals at Grade 2 secondary schools specify the
importance of having a strong sense of purpose.
On the subject of principals‘ consideration on moral and ethical consequences of decisions, the
majority (56.5%) of teachers perceived that principals often consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions, while 14.1% of teachers show their disagreement. Additionally, their
average perception (Mean=2.61) also showed that principals consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions. This indicates that principals at Grade 2 secondary schools consider
the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principals emphasize the importance of having a
collective sense of mission or not. Depending on this idea, (51.7%) of them showed their
agreement, whereas 12.9% of them disagreed. Furthermore, the mean score of teachers (Mean =
2.54) indicated that half of respondents agreed on the given idea. This implies that principals
Grade 2 secondary schools emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of mission.
92
Idealized Influence /Behavior / as rated By Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
As to the above table regarding principals talking about their most important values and beliefs,
58.7% teachers of Grade 3 school and 51 % of Grade 2 school teachers rated their principals as
talking about their most important values and belief, with average showing (Mean = 2.7) for
Grade 3 and (Mean = 2.75) for Grade 2 school teachers. In addition to this t-test result (t-value =
-.09, p > 0.01) which indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in the rating of
both groups.
Concerning the principals‘ ability to specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
79% of Grade 3 school teachers and 48% of Grade 2 teachers indicated that they agree that their
school principals specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. The average
response of Grade 3 school teachers is (Mean = 2.97) and that of Grade 2 school teachers is
(Mean = 2.60). However, the t-test result (t-value = 2.88, p < 0.01) indicates that there is
statistically significant difference in their rating of their respective school principals.
With regard to the third category under idealized influence behavior teacher were requested to
rate their and the result shows that 89% of teachers from Grade 3 schools and 48% of teachers
from Grade 2 schools agreed that their principals consider the moral and ethical consequences of
decisions, average indicating that Grade 3 school teachers (Mean = 3.26) and that of Grade 2
(Mean = 2.61) principals fairly often consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions.
When looking in to t-test result (t-value = 5.12, p < 0.01) indicates that there is statistically
significant difference in their rating of principals.
Concerning having a collective sense of mission, teachers were requested to rate the position of
their principals and 75% of Grade 3 school teachers and 44% of Grade 2 school teachers
93
indicated that the principals emphasize importance of having a collective sense of mission, the
average indicating that Grade 3 school teachers (Mean = 2.99) and Grade 2 school teachers
(Mean = 2.54). However, t-test result (t-value = 3.41, p <0.01) indicates that there is statistically
significant difference in their ratings.
Inspirational Motivation
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
Talks 7 21 42 34 104 2.99
Grade 3 -
optimistically 6.7 20.2 40.4 32.7 (100) (.898) 3.21
about the future 2 6 32 32 13 85 2.56 (.002)
Grade 2
2.4 7.1 37.6 37.6 15.3 (100) (.919)
Talks 2 5 25 49 23 104 2.83
Grade 3
enthusiastically 1.9 4.8 24.0 47.1 22.1 (100) (.897)
0.20
about what
2 4 27 28 24 85 2.80 (.845)
needs to be Grade 2 2.4 4.7 31.8 32.9 28.2 (100) (.986)
accomplished
Articulates a 1 1 31 45 26 104 2.90
Grade 3
compelling 1.0 1.0 29.8 43.3 25.0 (100) (.819) 1.11
vision of the 7 25 34 19 85 2.76 (.267)
Grade 2 -
future 8.2 29.4 40.0 22.4 (100) (.895)
Expresses 1 6 16 53 28 104 2.97
Grade 3
confidence that 1.0 5.8 15.4 51.0 26.9 (100) (.864) 1.31
goals will be 6 29 26 24 85 2.80 (.194)
Grade 2 -
achieved 7.1 34.1 30.6 28.2 (100) (.936)
Inspirational motivation By Grade 3 School Teachers

As presented in the above table, majority of teachers (73.1%) viewed that principals often talk
optimistically about the future. In contrary, 6.7% of them responded that principals rarely talk
optimistically about the future. Besides, the average response of teachers (Mean= 2.99) also
revealed that principals often talk optimistically about the future. This indicated that principals of
Grade 3 secondary schools talk optimistically about the future.
94
Concerning principals‘ enthusiastic talk about what needs to be accomplished, about 69.2% of
respondents reported that principals often talk enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished whereas, 6.7% of respondents replied that principals rarely talk enthusiastically
about what needs to be accomplished. Furthermore, the average opinion of the teacher (Mean=
2.83) showed that principals often talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
This revealed that principals at Grade 3 secondary schools talk enthusiastically about what needs
to be accomplished.
With respect to principals‘ ability in articulating a vision of the future, the majority (68.3%) of
teachers agreed that principals articulate a compelling vision of the future, while 2% of them
disagree. Besides, the average response of teachers (Mean = 2.90) indicated that principals often
articulate a compelling vision of the future. This implies that principals at Grade 3 secondary
schools articulate a compelling vision of the future.
Regarding principals‘ confidence in expression, the majority (77.9%) of teachers approved that
principals express confidence that goals will be achieved, while 6.8% teachers disagreed.
Additionally, their average perception (Mean=2.97) also showed that the principals express
confidence to achieve the goal of the school. This indicates that principals Grade 3 secondary
schools express confidence that goals will be achieved.
Inspirational motivation By Grade 2 School Teachers

As presented in the above table, the average (52.9%) of teachers viewed that principals often talk
optimistically about the future. In contrarily, 9.5% of them responded that principals rarely talk
optimistically about the future. Besides, the average response of teachers (Mean= 2.56) also
revealed that principals often talk optimistically about the future. This indicated that principals of
Grade 2 secondary schools talk optimistically about the future.
95
Concerning principals‘ enthusiastic talk about what needs to be accomplished, about 61.1% of
respondents reported that principals often talk enthusiastically about what needs to be
accomplished whereas, 7.1% of respondents replied that principals rarely talk enthusiastically
about what needs to be accomplished. Furthermore, the average opinion of the teacher (Mean=
2.80) showed that principals often talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
This revealed that principals at talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished.
With respect to principals‘ ability in articulating a vision of the future, the majority (62.4%) of
teachers agreed that principals articulate a compelling vision of the future, while 8.2% of them
disagree. Besides, the average response of teachers (Mean = 2.76) indicated that principals often
articulate a compelling vision of the future. This implies that principals at Grade 2 secondary
schools articulate a compelling vision of the future.
Regarding principals‘ confidence expression, the majority (58.8%) of teachers approved that
principals express confidence that goals will be achieved, while 6% teachers disagreed.
Additionally, their average perception (Mean=2.80) also showed that the principals express
confidence to achieve the goal of the school. This indicates that principals of secondary schools
express confidence that goals will be achieved.
Inspirational motivation as rated By Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
The above table deals with inspirational leadership practice and in the first category 76% of
Grade 3 teachers and 45 % of Grade 2 teachers with average (Mean = 2.99) for Grade 3 school
teachers and (Mean = 2.56) for Grade 2 teachers claim that the principals talk optimistically
about the future. Nevertheless, t-test result (t-value = 3.21, p<0.01) indicates that there is
statistically significant difference in their ratings.
96
Regarding talking enthusiastically about the future, 72% of teachers of Grade 3 and 52% of
Grade 2 school teachers agreed that their principals do talk enthusiastically about the future,
average score also indicates that Grade 3 school teachers (Mean = 2.83) and that of Grade 2
schools being (M = 2.80). In addition to this t-test result (t-value = 0.20, p > 0.01) indicates that
there is statistically no significant difference in the rating of both groups.
Concerning principals ability to articulate compelling vision of the future, 71% of Grade 3
school teachers and 53% of Grade 2 schools teachers agree that their principals do articulate
compelling vision of the future and the average result of Grade 3 schools (Mean 2.90) and that of
Grade 2 schools (M = 2.76) reveals the same idea. Furthermore, t-test result (t-value = 1.11, p >
0.01) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in the rating of both groups.
With regard to the last point under this category 71% of Grade 3 school teachers and 50% of
Grade 2 schools pointed out that their school principals do express confidence that goals will be
achieved, average point indicating that Grade 3 school teachers (Mean = 2.97) and that of Grade
2 school teachers (Mean = 2.80). The t-test result (t-value = 1.31, p > 0.01) indicates that there is
no statistically significant difference in their rating of principals leadership style.
97
Table4.4: The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
Intellectual Stimulation
Rating Scale Tota Mean t-test

Re-examines 2 2 39 42 19 104 2.71
Grade 3
critical 1.9 1.9 37.5 40.4 18.3 (100) .855
assumptions to 1.57
question 13 30 28 14 85 2.51 (.119)
Grade 2 -
whether they are 15.3 35.3 32.9 16.5 (100) .946
appropriate
He seeks 4 2 26 40 32 104 2.90
Grade 3
differing 3.8 1.9 25.0 38.5 30.8 (100) .990
2.37
perspectives
3 7 27 35 13 85 2.56 (.019)
when solving Grade 2
3.5 8.2 31.8 41.2 15.3 (100) .969
problems
Gets others to 4 3 31 43 23 104 2.75
Grade 3
look at 3.8 2.9 29.8 41.3 22.1 (100) .963
1.09
problems from
1 9 26 36 13 85 2.60 (.277)
many different Grade 2
1.2 10.6 30.6 42.4 15.3 (100) .915
angles
Helps others to 2 6 21 46 29 104 2.90
Grade 3
develop their 1.9 5.8 20.2 44.2 27.9 (100) .940 0.36
strengths 3 5 21 36 20 85 2.76 (.326)
Grade 2
3.5 5.9 24.7 42.4 23.5 (100) .996
Intellectual Stimulation by Grade 3 School Teachers

As indicated above in all variables under inspirational motivation teachers rated principals
reaction to be very high in talking optimistically, enthusiastically, articulating vision of the future
and expressing confidence that goals will be achieved, that is the average being (M = 2.71), (M =
2.90), (M = 2.75) and (M = 2.90) respectively.
98
Intellectual Stimulation as Rated by Grade 2 School Teachers
Respondents were asked to answer whether principals re-examine critical assumptions to
question or not. In corresponding to this idea, about 49.4% of teachers revealed that principals
often re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate, while 15.3% of
teachers replied that principals rarely re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they
are appropriate. In addition, the average response of teacher (Mean= 2.51) indicated that
principals often re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are appropriate. This
revealed that principals at schools re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are
appropriate.
As depicted in the above table (56.5%) of teachers agreed that principals seek different
perspectives when solving problems. In contrarily, 11.7% of them responded disagree. Besides,
the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.56) also revealed that principals seek different
perspectives when solving problems. This indicated that principals of secondary schools seek
different perspectives when solving problems.
Concerning the principals‘ problem investigation ability, about 57.7% of teachers responded that
principals often get others to look at problems from many different angles, while 11.8% of them
perceived occasionally. Furthermore, the mean response of teachers (Mean = 2.60) indicated that
principals often get others to look at problems from many different angles. This implies that
principals of Grade 2 secondary schools get others to look at problems from many different
angles.
Regarding principals‘ willingness to help others to develop their strengths, the majority (65.9%)
of teachers replied that principals often help others to develop their strengths, while 9.4%
teachers indicated that principals rarely help others to develop their strengths. Additionally,
teachers average perception (Mean=2.76) also approved that principals help others to develop
99
their strengths. This indicates that principals Grade 2 secondary schools help others to develop
their strengths.
Intellectual Stimulation as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
The perception of teachers regarding principals‘ intellectual stimulation has been rated by using
the following variables. As to the above table 61% of Grade 3 school teachers and 42% of Grade
2 School teachers agreed that their principals re-examine critical assumptions to question
whether they are appropriate. The average result of Grade 3 school teachers (M = 2.71) and that
of Grade 2 school teachers (M = 2.51) shows that they rated their principals as re-examining
critical assumptions to questions whether they are appropriate or not. The t-test result (t-value =
1.57, p > 0.01) which indicates that there is no significant difference in their ratings
In the second category of intellectual stimulation, 72% of Grade 3 school teachers and 48% of
Grade 2 school teachers rated their principals as seeking differing perspectives when solving
problems. Similarly, the average of level 3 school teachers (Mean = 2.90) and that of level 2
school teachers (Mean = 2.56) indicated the same response. But t-test result (t-value 2.37, p >
0.01) indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in their ratings.
With regard to the other question 66% of teachers from Grade 3 school and 49% of teachers
from Grade 2 schools claimed that their principals get others to look at problems from many
different angles, the average of level 3 schools rating (Mean = 2.75) and that of level 2 school
teachers being (Mean = 2.60). The t-test result (t-value = 1.09, p> 0.01) showing that there is
statisticallyno significant difference in the rating of both groups of teachers.
In the last category of intellectual stimulation, 75% of teachers from Grade 3 schools and 56% of
teachers from Grade 2 schools agree that their principals fairly often help others to develop their
100
strengths, with average of (Mean = 2.90) for Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.76) for
Grade 2 school teachers ratings. Similarly the t-test result (t-value = 0.36, p>0.01) indicates that
there is no significant difference in their rating of principals behavior.
Individualized Consideration
Spends time 104
5 6 25 46 22 2.71
teaching and Grade 3 (4.8) (5.8) (24.0) (44.2) (21.2) 1.02
coaching (100) 1.17
85 2.54 (.245)
2 10 26 34 13
Grade 2
(2.4) (11.8) (30.6) (40.0) (15.3)
(100) .970
Treats others as 104 2.55
7 9 28 40 20
individuals Grade 3 (6.7) (8.70) (26.9) (38.5) (19.2)
rather than just (100) 1.10 0.75
a member of a 85 2.44 (.455)
2 8 38 25 12
group Grade 2
(2.4) (9.4) (44.7) (29.4) (14.1)
(100) .932
Considers an 104 2.80
6 5 21 44 28
individual as Grade 3 (5.8) (4.8) (20.2) (42.3) (26.9) (100)
having different 1.07 1.41
needs, abilities, 85 2.58 (.160)
5 7 23 34 16
and aspirations Grade 2 (5.9) (8.2) (27.1) (40.0) (18.8)
from others (100) 1.07
Suggests new 104 2.86
1 11 19 44 29
ways of looking Grade 3 (1.0) (10.6) (18.3) (42.3) (27.9)
at how to (100) .978 1.91
complete 85 2.58 (.058)
3 8 28 29 17
assignments Grade 2
(3.5) (9.4) (32.9) (34.1) (20.0)
(100) 1.03
In Individualized considerations principals provide their followers with helpful advice relevant to
each individual. It is the degree to which principals attend to followers‘ needs, act as mentors or
coaches, enabling them to develop and listen to follower concerns.
101
Individualized Consideration by Grade 3 School Teachers
As shown in the above table, about 65.4% of teachers viewed that principals often spend their
time by teaching and coaching, while 10.6% of them indicated that the principals rarely spend
time by teaching and coaching. In addition, the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.71) also
revealed that principals often spend their time by teaching and coaching. This indicated that
principals at Grade 3 secondary schools spend their time by teaching and coaching.
Regarding the principals‘ way of treating others, about 57.7% of teachers answered that
principals often treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group, while 15.4% of
teachers replied that principals occasionally treat others as individuals rather than just a member
of a group. Furthermore, the average response of teachers (Mean= 2.55) disclosed that principals
at their school treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group. This implied that
principals at Grade 3 secondary schools treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a
group.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principals consider an individual as having different
needs, abilities, and aspirations from others or not. Depending on this idea, the majority (69.2%)
of them show their agreement, while 10.6% of them disagree. Besides, the mean score of
teachers (Mean = 2.80) indicated that principals often consider an individual as having different
needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. This implies that principals at Grade 3 secondary
schools consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.
Regarding principals‘ suggestion, the majority (70.2%) of teachers indicated that principals
suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments, whereas 11.6% of teachers replied
that principals rarely suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. Additionally,
their average perception (Mean=2.86) also approved that principals often suggest new ways of
102
looking at how to complete assignments. This indicates that principals at Grade 3 secondary
schools suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
Individualized Consideration by Grade 2 School Teachers
As shown in the table about 55.3% of teachers viewed that principals often spend their time by
teaching and coaching, while 14.2% of them indicated that the principals rarely spend time by
teaching and coaching. In addition, the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.54) also
revealed that principals often spend their time by teaching and coaching. This indicated that
principals at Grade 2 secondary schools spend their time by teaching and coaching.
Regarding the principals‘ way of treating others, about 43.5% of teachers answered that
principals often treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group, while 11.8% of
teachers replied that principals occasionally treat others as individuals rather than just a member
of a group. Furthermore, the average response of teachers (Mean= 2.44) disclosed that principals
at their school treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group. This implied that
principals at secondary schools treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a group.
Teachers were asked to answer whether the principals consider an individual as having different
needs, abilities, and aspirations from others or not. Depending on this idea, the majority (58.8%)
of them show their agreement, while 14.1% of them disagree. Besides, the mean score of
teachers (Mean = 2.58) indicated that principals often consider an individual as having different
needs, abilities, and aspirations from others. This implies that principals at Grade 2 secondary
schools consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others.
Regarding principals‘ suggestion, the majority (54.1%) of teachers indicated that principals
suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments, whereas 12.9% of teachers replied
that principals rarely suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. Additionally,
103
their average perception (Mean=2.58) also approved that principals often suggest new ways of
looking at how to complete assignments. This indicates that principals at Grade 2 secondary
schools suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments.
Individualized Consideration by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
The above table deals with individualized consideration of principal‘s behavior in dealing with
others. As to the result of the above table 68% of Grade 3 school teachers and 47% of Grade 2
teachers perception of their principals indicate they spend much time teaching coaching their
followers averagely (Mean = 2.71) for Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.54) for Grade 2
school teachers. Furthermore the t-test result (t-value = 1.17, p > 0.01) indicating that there is no
significant difference their rating of principals.
Regarding the principals ability to treat followers as individuals 60% of Grade 3 school teachers
and 37 % of Grade 2 school teachers rated principals of their school as if they are fairly often
treating teachers as individuals rather than as members of the group and average (Mean = 2.55)
for Grade 3 schools and (Mean = 2.44) for Grade 2 schools. Furthermore, t-test result (t-value
=0.75, p>0.01) which shows that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating of
their school principals.
Teachers were also requested to rate their principals on their ability to consider an individual as
having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others and the result indicates that 72% of
Grade 3 school teachers and 50% of Grade 2 school teachers rated that principals fairly often
practicing average revealing that for Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 2.80) and for Grade 2
principals (Mean = 2.50). The t-test result (t-value = 1.41, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no
significant difference in their rating of their principals.
104
Concerning principals‘ ability to suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments,
73% of Grade 3 school teachers and 46% of Grade 2 school teachers agreed that their principals
do suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. The average rating of Grade 3
school teachers (Mean = 2.86) and that of Grade 2 school teachers is (Mean = 2.58). However
the t-test result (t-value = 1.91, p >0.01) which indicates that there is no significant difference in
their rating their respective school principals.
Transformational Leadership
Table 4.8. The perception of teachers from Level 3 and Level 2 secondary schools on
transformational leadership
t-test
Variables Respondents n Mean SD (p-value)
104 2.7981 .61640
Grade 3 2.163
Idealized influence
/attribute/ 85 2.6029 .61757 (0.032)
Grade 2
104 2.9904 .58181
Grade 3 3.968
Idealized influence
/Behavior/ 85 2.6265 .67879 (0.000)
Grade 2
104 2.9231 .59435
Grade 3 2.038
Inspirational Motivation (0.043)
85 2.7324 .69199
Grade 2
Grade 3 104 2.8173 .66394

Intellectual Stimulation 2.083
Grade 2 85 2.6088 .70863 (0.039)
Grade 3 104 2.7284 .81410
Individualized 1.705
Consideration Grade 2 85 2.5324 .75078 (0.090)
104 2.8514 .53383
Grade 3 2.925
Overall 85 2.6206 .54681 (0.004)
Grade 2
105
Overall Transformational Leadership as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers
The perception of teachers on the use of transformational leadership by secondary school
principals in the first two categories which indicated whether teachers trusted, respected,
showed dedication and considered the principals as a role model, indicated that principals
exercise idealized attribute (Mean=2.8) and idealized behavior (Mean= 3.0). This indicated that
teachers from Grade 3 secondary school perceived that principals exercise idealized attribute and
idealized behavior. Similarly, the average perception of teachers on inspirational leadership
which measured the degree to which the principals provided a vision and made teachers feel their
work is significant (Mean= 2.9), intellectual simulation (Mean = 2.8) and individualized
consideration (Mean= 2.7) showed that Level 3 secondary school principals do make use of
inspirational leadership, intellectual simulation and idealized consideration. Furthermore, the
overall average perceptions of teachers (Mean= 2.9) on the use of transformational leadership
revealed that Grade 3 secondary school principals often used transformational leadership style.
Overall Transformational Leadership as Rated By Grade 2 School Teachers

The perception of teachers on the use of transformational leadership by secondary school
principals in the first two categories which indicated whether teachers trusted, respected,
exercise idealized attribute (Mean=2.60) and idealized behavior (Mean= 2.62). This indicated
that teachers from Grade 3 secondary school perceived that principals exercise idealized attribute
and idealized behavior. Similarly, the average perception of teachers on inspirational leadership
consideration (Mean= 2.63) showed that Grade 2 secondary school principals do make use of
inspirational leadership, intellectual simulation and individualized consideration. Furthermore,

106
the overall average perceptions of teachers (Mean= 2.62) on the use of transformational
leadership revealed that secondary school principals often used transformational leadership style
though they are weaker than principals of Grade 3 school principals.
Overall Transformational Leadership as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers

The idealized influence behaviors scale identifies leaders who act with integrity. High scores on
this scale are typically for leaders who manifest positive and highly valuated behaviors, like
dominance, consciousness, self-control, a high moral judgment, optimism and self-efficiency.
They focus on a desirable vision and almost always consider the moral and ethical consequences
of their actions. Under this category teachers of Grade 3 schools rated (Mean = 2.79) and that of
Grade 2 schools rated (Mean = 2.60). The t-test result is (t-value = 2.16, p > 0.01) indicating that
there is statistically no significant difference in teachers rating of their principals leadership
behavior.
Regarding idealized influence /behavior/ teachers of Grade 3 schools average rating is (Mean =
2.99) and that of Grade 2 schools teachers is (Mean = 2.60) and the t-test result is (t-value = 3.96,
p < 0.01) indicating that there is statistically significant difference in teachers rating of their
principals leadership behavior.
The inspirational motivation scale identifies leaders who inspire others. Inspirational leaders
articulate, in simple ways, shared goals and mutual understanding of what is right and important.
They provide visions of what is possible and how to attain them. They enhance meaning and
promote positive expectations about what needs to be done.
Concerning this category teachers average rating shows that (Mean = 2.92) for Grade 3 school
principals and (Mean = 2.73) for Grade 2 school principals. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value
= 2.03, p > 0.01) which implies that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating
107
of principals behavior. Principals of Grade 3 schools apply inspirational motivation better than
that of Grade 2 schools.
The intellectual stimulation scale identifies leaders who are able to encourage innovative
thinking. Through intellectual stimulation, leaders help others to think about old problems in new
ways. Followers are encouraged to question their own beliefs, assumptions, and values when
appropriate, those of leader, which be outdated or inappropriate for solving current problems. As
a consequence, associates develop the capacity to solve future problems unforeseen by the
leader. They learn to tackle and solve problems on their own by being creative and innovative.
Under this category teachers rating of principals behavior averagely indicates that (Mean = 2.81)
for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.60) for Grade 2 school principals and the t-test
result (t-value = 2.08, p >0.01) indicating that there is statistically no significant difference in
rating of both groups.
The individual consideration scale identifies leaders who are able to coach people. It means
understanding and sharing in others‘ concern and developmental needs and treating each
individual uniquely. It represents an attempt on the part of leaders to not only recognize and
satisfy their followers‘ current needs, but also to expand and elevate those needs in an attempt to
maximize and develop their full potential.
Regarding individualized consideration the average (Mean = 2.72) for Grade 3 school principals
and (Mean = 2.53) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result (t-value = 1.75, p> 0.01),
implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the rating of both groups.
Transformational leaders have associates who view them in an idealized way and these leaders
have much power and influence over their followers. The followers also develop strong feelings
108
about their leaders. Transformational leaders arouse and inspire others with whom they work
with a vision of what can be accomplished.
The overall evaluation of transformational leadership exercise practiced by school principals
shows that the average (Mean = 2.85) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.62) for Grade
2 school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 2.92, p < 0.01) shows that there
is statistically significant difference in their use of transformational leadership style. Grade 3
school principals are rated to be more transformational leaders than that of Grade 2 school
principals.
Transformational leadership is a form of leadership in which leaders set a common goal and
shared vision of the future, inspires followers mentally and show individual consideration to
followers (Chi & Huang,2004)
Transformational leadership focuses on stimulating and inspiring followers to achieve both
extraordinary outcomes and develop their own leadership capacity (Bass &Riggio, 2006). The
teachers included in this study in both groups have rated their principals that they fairly often
show the behaviors included under transformational leadership style.
This is also clearly explained by teachers who participated in interview under this study. One of
the teachers from Grade 3 schools stated that:
Our school principal is an effective principal because he talks about vision statement and its
implication for teaching – learning process and deals with teachers how to improve the result
of students and to minimize absenteeism and drop out.
Similarly, another teacher explained how the principal of his school undertakes his job and
explained in the following manner:
109
The principal of our school develops a strategic plan which indicates vision, mission and
values and discusses it with all concerned stakeholders at the beginning of the academic year
so that everyone in the school perceives the plan as his own.
Transformational leadership is a type of shared or distributed leadership. Principals who
exercise transformational leadership model focus on bottom up approaches to incite change in
the schools (Hallinger, 2003). By defining the need for change, creating new visions, and
mobilizing commitment to these visions, leaders are capable of achieving changes in the whole
organization (Den Hartog, 1997).
This idea has been supported by one of the teachers in the interview by stating that:
The principal of our school always discusses different issues with teachers, parents and
community of the school at large and encourages everyone to elicit new ideas for developing
plan and for the solution of a problem; he makes others to be part of the solution.
To transform a school system, the leader needs to set out a vision, properly plan and put
activities in a sequential order. The practice of reforming the organization may include shaping
and properly matching the organization and the vision ( Kiper, 2007).
One of the teachers in the interview has put the above practice of principals of his school by
explaining in a very interesting way and said that:
The principal of our school focuses on distributing the responsibility and power for leadership
widely throughout the school, he shares decision making power to the staff, takes staff opinion
when making decision and provides autonomy for teachers, makes the staff collaborate in
making plan gives opportunity to the staff development through teachers’ continuous
professional development program that is practiced in the school.
Similarly one of the teachers from grade 2 schools explained that:
110
The principal of my school talks to teachers what has to be done and explains the vision of the
school at the beginning of the academic year.
In contrast to this another teacher stated that:
Our principal does not have confidence on teacher’s performance and does not involve
teachers in solving problems that needs immediate solution in the school.
However principals in both groups have been rated to practice fairly often transformational
leadership style.
4.2.2 Transactional Leadership

In order to see the level at which transactional leadership style the principals follow, responses of
teachers were considered. At this sub-topic, the data were analyzed and discussed for each of the
dimensions of transactional leadership. The following tables show the results of teachers rating
of their principals‘ transactional leadership style.
Contingent Reward is the type of leadership style which focuses contingent reward or contingent
penalization. Contingent reward is given when the set goals are accomplished on time, ahead of
time or to keep followers working at good pace, whereas, contingent punishment is applied when
performance quality falls below standards.
111
Contingent Reward
Table 4.9. The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
Contingent Reward
Rating Scale t-test
Mean
Total (p-
Variables Respondents 0 1 2 3 4 (SD)
value)
Provides others 5 42 37 20 104 2.69
Grade 3
with assistance in (4.8) (40.4) (35.6) (19.2) (100) (.834) 1.73
exchange for their 4 10 25 35 11 85 2.46 (.085)
Grade 2
efforts (4.7) (11.8) (29.4) (41.2) (12.9) (100) (1.02)
Discuss in specific 2 5 22 46 29 104 2.91
Grade 3
terms who is (1.9) (4.8) (21.2) (44.2) (27.9) (100) (.923) 2.07
responsible for 2 11 27 23 22 85 2.61 (.040)
achieving Grade 2 (2.4) (12.9) (31.8) (27.1) (25.9) (100) (1.08)
performance targets
Makes clear what 9 19 51 25 104 2.88
Grade 3
one can expect to (8.7) (18.3) (49.0) (24.0) (100) (.874) 2.57
receive when 4 10 26 28 17 85 2.52 (.011)
performance goals Grade 2 (4.7) (11.8) (30.6) (32.9) (20.0) (100) (1.09)
are achieved
Expresses 2 7 26 47 22 104 2.77
Grade 3
satisfaction when (1.9) (6.7) (25.0) (45.2) (21.2) (100) (.927) 1.80
others meet 1 13 27 29 15 85 2.52 (.074)
Grade 2
expectations (1.2) (15.3) (31.8) (34.1) (17.6) (100) (.995)
Contingent Reward as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers

The above table depicts that, about 54.8% of teachers strongly agree that principals provide
teachers with assistance in exchange for their efforts, whereas 40.4% agree that principals
sometimes exhibit such behavior to their subordinates. However the average perception of
teachers (Mean= 2.69) indicates that principals fairly often provide assistance to teachers in
exchange for their efforts.
Regarding principals ability to discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving
performance targets, teachers rated their principals as 44. 2% fairly often and 27.9% agreed that
they frequently show such behavior. The average perception teachers (Mean = 2.91) which
reveals that principals fairly often openly discuss who is responsible for each activity in their
working environment.
112
Concerning the expectation of teachers when performance goals are achieved 49% of teachers
rated fairly often where as 24% of them rated frequently which shows that principals make clear
what teachers should expect at the end of the game. Generally the average perception of teachers
(Mean = 2.88) indicates that principals fairly often explain their followers what to expect from
the achievement of the school goal.
On the other hand 45.2% and 21.2% of teachers also rated their principals fairly often and
frequently expressing satisfaction when their subordinates meet expectation respectively.
Contingent Reward as Rated by Grade 2 School Teachers

The above table depicts that, about 54.1% of teachers strongly agree that principals provide
teachers with assistance in exchange for their efforts, whereas 40.4% agree that principals
sometimes exhibit such behavior to their subordinates. However the average perception of
teachers (Mean= 2.69) indicates that principals fairly often provide assistance to teachers in
exchange for their efforts.
Regarding principals‘ ability to discuss in specific terms that who is responsible for achieving
performance targets, teachers rated their principals as 23% fairly often and 22% agreed that they
frequently show such behavior. The average perception of teachers is (Mean = 2.61) which
reveals that principals fairly often openly discuss who is responsible for each activity in their
working environment.
Concerning the expectation of teachers when performance goals are achieved 28% of teachers
rated fairly often where as 17% of them rated frequently which shows that principals make clear
what teachers should expect at the end of the game. Generally the average perception of teachers
(Mean = 2.52) indicates that principals fairly often explain their followers what to expect from
the achievement of the school goal.
113
On the other hand 34.1% and 17.1% of teachers also rated their principals fairly often and
frequently expressing satisfaction when their subordinates meet expectation respectively. This
indicates that average (mean = 2.52) principals fairly often express satisfaction when teachers
meet what is expected of them in their responsibility.
Contingent Reward as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
Contingent Reward is the of leadership style which focuses contingent reward or contingent
As indicated in the table teachers were requested to rate their principals in the first category of
contingent reward to identify whether principals Provides others with assistance in exchange for
their efforts. The rating of teacher shows that 57% of Grade 3 school teachers and 46% of Grade
2 teachers responded that principals fairly often provide assistance in exchange for their effort.
The average rating (Mean = 2.69) of Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.46) of Grade 2
school teachers. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 1.73, p > 0.01) indicating that there
is no statistically significant difference in both groups of principals
Concerning discussing in specific terms about who is responsible for achieving performance
targets 75% of Grade 3 school teachers 45% of Grade 2 school principals agreed that principals
fairly often practice it. The average response also shows that (Mean = 2.91) for Grade 3 school
principals and (Mean= 2.61) for Grade 2 school principals. However the t-test result (t-value =
2.07, p > 0.01) implies that there is statistically no significant difference in the behavior of
principals as teachers perception.
114
Regarding the behavior of principals in making clear what one can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved, 76% 0f Grade 3 school teachers and 45 % of Grade 2 school
teachers agreed that their principals fairly often do it. The average result also shows that (Mean =
2.88) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.52). In support of this the t-test result (t-value
= 2.57, p > 0.01) shows that there is statistically no significant difference in the rating of teachers
of both groups.
The other point in this category is whether principals express satisfaction when others meet
expectations or not. 69% of Grade 3 school teachers and 44% of Grade 2 school principals agree
that their principals do express fairly often. The average (Mean = 2.88) for Grade 3 principals
and (Mean = 2.52) for Grade 2 school principals shows that the fairly often express satisfaction
when their followers meet expectations. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 1.80, p > 0.01)
indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in their rating of principals behavior.
115
Management by Exception- Active
Focus attentions 7 12 27 33 25 104 2.55
Grade 3 (6.7) (11.5) (26.0) (31.7) (24.0) (100) 0.04
on irregularities, (1.17)
mistakes, 3 11 23 33 15 85 2.54 (.966)
exceptions, and (3.5) (12.9) (27.1) (38.8) (17.6) (100) (1.04)
Grade 2
deviations from
standards
Concentrate his 8 13 34 29 20 104 2.38
Grade 3 (7.7) (12.5) (32.7) (27.9) (19.2) (100) (1.16) -0.24
full attention on
dealing with 2 14 28 28 13 85 2.42 (.809)
mistakes, (2.4) (16.5) (32.9) (32.9) (15.3) (100) (1.02)
Grade 2
complaints and
failures
Keeps track of 8 8 51 23 14 104 2.26
Grade 3 (7.7) (7.7) (49.0) (100) (1.04) 0.01
all mistakes (22.1) (13.5)
5 9 42 17 12 85 2.26 (.996)
Grade 2 (5.9) (10.6) (49.4) (20.0) (14.1) (100) (1.03)
Directs his 5 13 47 26 13 104 2.28
Grade 3
attention toward (4.8) (12.5) (45.2) (25.0) (12.5) (100) (.999) -1.33
failures to meet 3 5 41 21 15 85 2.47 (.186)
Grade 2 (3.5) (5.9) (48.2) (24.7) (17.6) (100) (.971)
standards
Management by Exception- Active- Within management by exception, there are active and
passive directions. Active management by exception indicates that the principal continually
looks at each followers‘ performance and makes changes to the to the followers‘ work to make
correction throughout the process.
Management by Exception- Active as rated by Grade 3 School Teachers

The table above indicates that 55.7% of teachers rated their principals as focusing attention on
irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviation from standard. Generally the average rating of
teachers (Mean = 2.55) which indicate that principals focus on finding faults of teachers. When
we look into the other variables in this category It shows that teachers rated their principals as
116
sometimes focusing their attention on dealing with mistakes and directing attention toward
failure to meet standards.
Regarding principals concentration on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures 47.1% feel
that most of the time they concentrate on failures and mistakes, where as 20.2% disagree with
this idea. On the average (Mean = 2.38) teachers rated their principals sometimes concentrate on
mistakes and failures.
32.5% of teachers also rated their principals as directing their attention toward failure and 21.3%
disagree that they do not concentrate their attention towards failure to meet standards. However
average teachers (Mean = 2.28) rated their principals sometimes show attention toward failures
to meet standard.
Management by Exception- Active as rated by Grade 2 School Teachers

Table above indicates that 56.4% of teachers rated their principals as focusing attention on
irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviation from standard, whereas 16.4% of teachers
disagree with this idea. Generally the average rating of teachers (Mean = 2.55) which indicate
that principals focus on finding faults of teachers
Regarding principals concentration on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures 48.9% feel
that most of the time they concentrate on failures and mistakes, where as 18.9% disagree with
this idea. On the average (Mean = 2.54) teachers rated their principals sometimes concentrate on
mistakes and failures.
42.3% of teachers also rated their principals as directing their attention toward failure and 9.4%
disagree that they do not concentrate their attention towards failure to meet standards. However
average teachers (Mean = 2.47) rated that principals behave or show attention toward failure to
meet standards.
117
Management by Exception- Active as rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
Within management by exception, there are active and passive directions. Active management by
exception indicates that the principal continually looks at each followers‘ performance and
makes changes to the to the followers‘ work to make correction throughout the process.
Regarding principals behavior on focusing attentions on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards 58% of Grade 3 school teachers and 48% of Grade 2 school teachers
believe that principals do focus on the above mentioned activities. The average (Mean = 2.55)
response of Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.54) of Grade 2 school principals indicate the
same result. Furthermore the t-test result (t-value = 0.04, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no
significant difference in their rating of principals behavior.
Regarding principals‘ concentration on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures 49% of
Grade 3 school teachers and 41% of Grade 2 school teachers feel that most of the time they
concentrate on failures and mistakes. On the average (Mean = 2.38) Grade 3 school teachers and
(Mean = 2.42) Grade 2 school teachers rated their principals fairly often concentrate on mistakes
and failures. Furthermore t-test result (t-value = -0.24, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no
statistically significant difference in their rating of both groups.
37% of Grade 3 school teachers and 29% of Grade 2 school teachers rated that their principals
Keep track of all mistakes. The average shows that (Mean = 2.26) for Grade 3 school teachers
and (Mean = 2.26) for Grade 2 school teachers rating of their respective school principals. The t-
test result (t-value = 0.01, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in
their rating.
47% of Grade 3 school teachers and 41% of Grade 2 school teachers claim that their principals
sometimes concentrate their attention towards failure to meet standards. However averagely
118
(Mean = 2.28) Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.47) believe that principals concentrate
their attention towards failure to meet standards. The t-test result (t-value = -1.33, p > 0.01)
indicates that there is no significant difference in the rating of both groups about their principals
behavior.
Management by Exception - Passive
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
Fail to interfere 22 13 33 25 11 104 1.90
Grade 3 21.2 (12.5) (31.7) (24.0) (10.6) (100) (1.28) -2.83
until problems
become serious 14 4 17 30 20 85 2.45 (.005)
Grade 2 (16.5) (4.7) (20.0) (23.5) (100) (1.35)
(35.3)
Waits for 26 9 26 26 17 104 1.99
Grade 3 (25.0) (8.7) (25.0) (25.0) (16.3) (100) (1.42) -2.66
things to go
wrong before 14 7 15 16 33 85 2.55 (.009)
Grade 2 (16.5) (8.2) (17.6) (18.8) (38.8) (100) (1.48)
taking action
Shows that he 12 15 34 29 14 104 2.17
Grade 3 (11.5) (14.4) (32.7) (100) (1.19) -3.37
is a firm (27.9) (13.5)
believer ―if it is 5 1 33 18 28 85 2.74 (.001)
not broken, Grade 2 (5.9) (1.2) (38.8) (21.2) (32.9) (100) (1.11)
don‘t fix it‖
Demonstrates 24 12 26 22 20 104 2.02
Grade 3
that problems (23.1) (11.5) (25.0) (21.2) (19.2) (100) (1.43) -3.05
must become 6 7 20 34 18 85 2.60 (.003)
chronic before Grade 2 (7.1) (8.2) (23.5) (40.0) (21.2) (100) (1.13)
he takes action
Management by Exception- Passive as rated by Grade 3 School Teachers

The above table indicates that 34.6% rated their principals as failing to interfere until problems
become serious and 33.7% of teachers rated their principals that they never fail to interfere until
problem becomes serious, with average (Mean = 1.90) which indicates that principals sometimes
fail to interfere until problems become serious.
119
Concerning principals‘ reaction on when things go wrong 41.3% of teachers believe that their
principals wait for things go wrong before taking action and 33.7% rated that they do not wait to
take action until things go wrong. Averagely (Mean =1.99) teachers rated that their principals
sometimes wait for things to go wrong before taking action.
Regarding in taking action to problems 40.4% replied that they do not take action until problems
become chronic and 34.6% disagree with this idea and averagely (Mean = 2.02) rated that they
sometimes fail to take action before problems become chronic.
Management by Exception- Passive as rated by Grade 2 School Teachers

The above table indicates that 58.8% rated their principals as failing to interfere until problems
become serious and 21.2% of teachers rated their principals that they never fail to interfere until
problem becomes serious, with average (Mean = 2.45) which indicates that principals fairly often
fail to interfere until problems become serious.
Concerning principals‘ reaction on when things go wrong 57.6% of teachers believe that their
principals wait for things go wrong before taking action and 24.7% rated that they do not wait to
take action until things go wrong. Averagely (Mean =2.55) teachers rated that their principals
fairly often wait for things to go wrong before taking action.
Regarding in taking action to problems 61.2% replied that they do not take action until problems
become chronic and 15.3% disagree with this idea and averagely (Mean = 2.60) rated that they
fairly often fail to take action before problems become chronic.
Management by Exception- Passive as rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
In the above table 36% of Grade 3 school teachers and 50% of Grade 2 school teachers claim
that their principals fail to interfere until problems become serious. The average rating (Mean =
1.90) of Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.45) of Grade 2 school teachers indicates that
120
principals fairly often fail to interfere until problems become serious. In addition to this t-test
result (t-value = -2.83, p < 0.01) indicates that there is statistically significant difference in their
rating
Regarding principal‘s reaction in taking action 43% of Grade 3 school teachers and 49% of
Grade 2 school teachers, claim that their principals fairly often wait for things to go wrong
before taking action. The average (Mean = 1.99) of Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.55)
of Grade 2 school teachers indicate that principals Wait for things go wrong. The t-test result (t-
value = -2.66, p < 0.01) which refers to that there is statistically significant difference in the
rating of groups about their principals behavior.
Concerning principals firm belief on the principle that ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix it‖ 43% of
Grade 3 school teachers with average (Mean = 2.17) and 46% of Grade 2 school teachers with
average (Mean = 2.74) rated their principals that they fairly show the behavior that they are firm
believers in the principle of firm believer of ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix it‖ The t-test result (t-
value = -3.37, p < 0.01) shows that there is significant difference in the rating of both groups of
teachers.
The other point under this category that was rated by teachers was to identify how principals
react when problem arises in their school. 42% of Grade 3 school teachers and 52% of Grade 2
school teachers responded that their principals fairly often demonstrate that problems must
become chronic before he takes action. The average rating (Mean = 2.02) of Grade 3 school
teachers and (Mean = 2.60) shows that teachers rated their principals take action when problems
become chronic. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = -3.05, p<0.01) indicates that there is
statistically significant difference in the ratings of teachers of the two groups.
121
Overall Transactional Leadership Practice as Rated by Teachers
Table 4.12:. The perception of teachers from Grade 3 and Grade 2 secondary schools on
transactional Leadership
t-test
Contingent Reward 104 2.81 .666
Grade 3 2.63
85 2.53 .839 (0.009)
Grade 2
Management by 104 2.37 .876
Grade 3 -0.46
Exception- Active
85 2.42 .765 (0.646)
Grade 2
Management by Grade 3 104 2.02 1.036
Exception - Passive -3.77
Grade 2 85 2.59 1.006 (0.000)
Transactional 104 2.40 .714
Grade 3 -1.19
Leadership
85 2.51 .516 (0.235)
Grade 2
Overall Transactional Leadership Practice as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers
The perception of teachers on the use of transactional leadership style by principals in the first
category which deals with provision of assistance, discussing in specific terms what to expect,
making clear what one has to expect and expression of satisfaction reveals that principals fairly
often provide contingent reward (Mean = 2.81). On the other hand in the second category which
deals with management by exception-active indicates (Mean = 2.37) that principals sometimes
focus on weakness and mistakes of teachers and the third category which is management by
exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 2.02) In general this indicates that
principals do not implement transactional leadership style in their schools.
122
Overall Transactional Leadership Practice as Rated by Grade 2 School Teachers
exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 2.59) In general this indicates that
principals averagely practice transactional leadership style in their schools.
Overall Transactional Leadership Practice as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers and
Grade 2 School Teachers
often provide contingent reward (Mean = 2.81) for Grade 3 schools and (Mean = 2.53) for Grade
2 school teachers. The t-test result (t-value = 2.63, p < 0.01) shows that there is statistically
significant difference in their ratings.
On the other hand in the second category which deals with management by exception-active
indicates (Mean = 2.37) for Grade 3 schools (Mean = 2.42) for Grade 2 school teachers that
principals sometimes focus on weakness and mistakes of teachers and the t-test result (t-value = -
0.46, p > 0.01) indicating that there is no significant difference in their ratings
The third category which is management by exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean =
2.02) by Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 2.59) for Grade 2 school teachers. The t-test result
123
(t-value = -3.77, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no significant difference in the rating of the two
groups.
The overall evaluation of transactional leadership exercise practiced by school principals shows
that the average (Mean = 2.40) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.51) for Grade 2
school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = -1.19 p > 0.01) shows that there is
statistically no significant difference in their use of transactional leadership style.
Transactional Leadership, also known as managerial leadership, focuses on the role of
supervision, organization, and group performance; transactional leadership is a style of
leadership in which the leader promotes compliance of his followers through both rewards and
punishments. These leaders pay attention to followers' work in order to find faults and
deviations. This type of leadership is effective in crisis and emergency situations, as well as
when projects need to be carried out in a specific fashion (Odumeru, James A 2013).
One of the teachers in an interview clearly stated the practice his school principal by stating that:
Our school principal focuses his attention on mistakes; he also seeks for wrong doing of
others and blames others when there are any critical problems in the school. He does not take
risk in accomplishing a task.
Bass (1985) argues that leadership in research has generally been conceptualized as a
transactional or cost-benefit exchange process. Transactional leadership theories are founded on
the idea that leader-follower relations are based on a series of exchanges or implicit bargains
between leaders and followers.
Another teacher also explained the behavior of his school principal by stating that:
He (the principal) presents the staff and parents about the school plan and expecting each to
accomplish as stated in planning document, but does not include the idea as part of planning,
124
that is elicited from others and staff members. teachers are evaluated based on the
performance achieved as per scheduled.
Laissez fair Leadership style
Table 4.12
t-test
Variables Respondents Mean
n SD (p-value)
Laissez fair 104 1.85 1.177
Grade 3 -1.74
Grade 2 85 2.14 1.111 (0.083)
The rating of teachers of the two groups on Laissez fair Leadership style shows that Grade 3
school teachers (Mean = 1.85) and that of Grade 2 (Mean = 2.14). However the t-test result (t-
value = -1.74, p > 0.01) shows that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating.
4.3. Principals Self-rating of Leadership Practice

4.3.1: Transformational Leadership Style
idealized influence /attributed
I instill pride in 1 2 2 5 3.00
Grade 3 - - -0.30
others for being (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (1.22)
associated with 1 2 2 5 3.20 (.771)
Grade 2 - -
them (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
I go beyond 2 2 1 5 2.80
Grade 3 - - -0.94
self-interest for (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (.837)
the good of the 4 1 5 3.20 (.373)
Grade 2 - - -
group (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.447)
I act in ways 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3 - - 0.95
that builds (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
others to give 1 1 2 1 5 2.60 (.371)
Grade 2 -
respect for me (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.14)
2 3 5 3.60
I display a sense Grade 3 - - - 1.79
(40.0) (60.0) (100) (.548)
of power and (.111)
2 2 1 5 2.80
confidence Grade 2 - -
(40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (.837)
125
Idealized Influence /attributed as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals
Principals were requested to rate how they perceive their leadership style. As to the above table
they rated their ability to strongly influence a feeling of pleasure for being associated with them
80% rated as they strongly instill pride for being associated with them and only 20% disagree
with idea. On the other hand 60% of principals mentioned that they go beyond self-interest for
the good of others while none of them disagree with this concept.
Regarding they act others to give them respect, 80% responded that they act in the way that
builds others to give them respect and none of them disagree with this idea the average being
(Mean = 3.20). All principal (100%) indicated that they display a sense of power and confidence.
Idealized Influence /attributed as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals

As indicated in the above table principals in this group have rated their behavior on the
questionnaire under idealized influence /attributed/ 80% of principals rated that they always
instill pride for being associated with them, 60% mentioned that they frequently act in ways that
builds others to give respect for them display a sense of power and confidence
Idealized Influence /attributed as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 school Principals
As the above table indicate, the principals from Grade 3 schools (80%) and (80%) of principals
from Grade 2 schools indicated that they instill pride for being associated with them. In addition,
the average perception of principals from Grade 3 schools (Mean = 3.00) and from Grade 2
schools (Mean = 3.20) showed that both groups agreed for that they are instilling pride in others
for being associated with them. However, the t-test result (t-value = -0.30, p > 0.01) showed that
there is statistically no significant difference in the rating of both groups.
Regarding principals self-perception on going beyond self-interest for the good of the group,
60% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2 principals indicated that they fairly often
126
go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. Additionally the average perception of
principals from Grade 3 schools (Mean = 2.80) and from Grade 2 schools (Mean = 3.20)
indicated that principals go beyond self-interest. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = -.95, p >
0.01) shows that there is no significant difference in their self-rating.
Concerning their action in building others to respect them, 80% of Principals from Grade 3 and
80% of principals from Grade 2 revealed that their principals act in a way that builds others to
give him respect. The average (Mean = 3.20) for Grade 3 principals and (Mean = 2.60) for Grade
2 showing that principals of both group agree on their reaction. In addition to this, the t-test
result (t-value = 0.95, p> 0.01) which indicates that there is no statistically significant difference
in their self-rating under this category.
With regard to displaying a sense of pride and confidence 100% of level 3 and 60% of level 2
school principals agree that their display a sense of pride and confidence, the average perception
of Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.60) and that of Grade 2 school principals (Mean = 2.80)
shows that they agree with this idea. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 1.79, p > 0.01)
indicates there is no statistically significant difference in their perception.
127
Idealized Influence/ Behavior
idealized influence /behavior
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I talks about my 1 3 1 5 2.60
Grade 3 - -
most important (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (1.52) -.492
values and 2 1 2 5 3.00 (.636)
Grade 2 - -
beliefs (40.0) (20.0) (40.0) (100) (1.00)
I specify the 4 1 5 3.20
Grade 3 - - -
importance of (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.837) .000
having a strong 4 1 5 3.20 (1.000)
Grade 2 - - -
sense of purpose (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.447)
I consider the 1 3 1 5 3.00
Grade 3 - -
moral and (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707)
-2.14
ethical
1 4 5 3.80 (.065)
consequences of Grade 2 - - -
(20.0 (80.0) (100) (.447)
decisions
I emphasize the 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3 - -
importance of (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
-.365
having a
1 1 3 5 3.40 (.724)
collective sense Grade 2 - - (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (.894)
of mission
Idealized Influence /Behavior as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals

As to the above table majority of the principals described or rated that they talk about their most
important values and beliefs, specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose,
consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions and emphasize the importance of
having a collective sense of mission.
Idealized Influence /Behavior as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals

Concerning questions under idealized influence /behavior/ principals have rated above average.
Regarding how often they talk about important values and beliefs 60% of them replayed that
they do it most of the time average being (Mean = 3.00), whereas all of them rated above average
128
for considering the moral and ethical consequences of decisions and specifying the importance of
having a strong sense of purpose.
Idealized Influence /Behavior as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 school Principals
As to the above table regarding principals talking about their most important values and beliefs,
80% of principals of Grade 3 schools and 60 % of Grade 2 school principals rated their behavior
as talking about their most important values and belief, with average showing (Mean = 2.60) for
level 3 and (Mean = 3.00) for Grade 2 school principals. In addition to this t-test result (t-value =
-4.92, p > 0.01) which indicates that there is no statistically significance difference in the rating
of both groups.
Concerning the principals‘ ability to specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose
60% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2 principals indicated that they agree do
specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose. The average response of Grade 3
school principals is (Mean = 3.20) and that of Grade 2 school principals is (Mean = 3.20).
However, the t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01) indicates that there is statistically no
significant difference in their rating.
With regard to the third category under idealized influence behavior principals were requested to
self-rate their behavior and the result shows that 80% of principals from Grade 3 schools and
80% of principals from Grade 2 schools agreed that they consider the moral and ethical
consequences of decisions, average indicating that Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.00) and
that of Grade 2 (Mean = 3.80) principals fairly often consider the moral and ethical consequences
of decisions. When looking in to t-test result (t-value = -2.14, p > 0.01) indicates that there is
statistically no significant difference in their self-rating of their behavior.
129
Concerning having a collective sense of mission, principals were requested to rate themselves
and 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 44% of Grade 2 school principals indicated that the
they emphasize importance of having a collective sense of mission, the average indicating that
Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.20) and Grade 2 school principals (Mean = 3.410).
However, t-test result (t-value = -3.65, p>0.01) indicates that there is statistically no significant
difference in their self-ratings.
I talk 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3 - -
optimistically (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837) 0.41
about the future 1 3 1 5 3.00 (.694)
Grade 2 - - (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707)
I talk 4 1 5 3.20
Grade 3 - - -
enthusiastically (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.447)
-1.27
about what
2 3 5 3.60 (.242)
needs to be Grade 2 - - - (40.0) (60.0) (100) (.548)
accomplished
I articulate a 1 3 1 5 3.00
Grade 3 - -
compelling (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707) 0.41
vision of the 2 2 1 5 2.80 (.694)
Grade 2 - -
future (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (.837)
I express 2 3 5 3.60
Grade 3 - - -
confidence that (40.0) (60.0) (100) (.548) 1.27
goals will be 4 1 5 3.20 (.242)
Grade 2 - - -
achieved (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.447)
Inspirational Motivation as Rated by Grade 3 school Principals

As indicated above in all variables under inspirational motivation principals rated their reaction
to be very high in talking optimistically, enthusiastically, articulating vision of the future and
expressing confidence that goals will be achieved, that is the average being (M = 3.20), (M =
3.20), (M = 3.00) and (M = 3.60) respectively.
130
Inspirational Motivation as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals
Regarding inspirational motivation, in which a leader has a sense of team spirit, enthusiasm,
passion and optimism, talking optimistically about the future, articulating a compelling vision,
expressing confidence that goals will be achieved and talking enthusiastically about what has to
be accomplished, they have rated averagely as (Mean = 3.00), (Mean = 2.80), (Mean = 3.20)
and (Mean = 3.60) respectively.
Inspirational Motivation as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals
The above table deals with inspirational motivation of leadership practice and in the first
category 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 80 % of Grade 2 school principals with average
(Mean = 3.20) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.00) for Grade 2 principals claim that
the they talk optimistically about the future. Furthermore, t-test result (t-value = -0.41, p>0.01)
indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in their ratings.
Regarding talking enthusiastically about the future, 100% of principals of Grade 3 and 100% of
Grade 2 school principals agreed that they do talk enthusiastically about the future, average score
also indicates that Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.20) and that of Grade 2 schools being (M
= 3.60). In addition to this t-test result (t-value = -1.72, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no
statistical difference in the rating of both groups.
Concerning their ability to articulate compelling vision of the future, 80% of Grade 3 school
principals and 60% of Grade 2 schools principals agree that they do articulate compelling vision
of the future and the average result of Grade 3 schools (Mean 3.00) and that of Grade 2 schools
(M = 2080) reveals the same idea. Furthermore, t-test result (t-value = 0.41, p > 0.01) indicates
that there is no statistically significant difference in the rating of both groups.
131
With regard to the last point under this category 100% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of
Grade 2 schools principals pointed out that they do express confidence that goals will be
achieved, average point indicating that level 3 school principals (Mean = 3.60) and that of level 2
school principals (Mean = 3.60). The t-test result (t-value = 1.27, p> 0.01) indicates that there is
no statistically significant difference in their rating of their leadership style.
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I re-examine 1 3 1 5 3.00
Grade 3 - -
critical (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707)
assumptions to 0.54
question 1 3 1 5 2.60 (.608)
Grade 2 - -
whether they are (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (1.52)
appropriate
I he seek 3 2 5 3.40
Grade 3 - - -
differing (60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548)
1.00
perspectives
1 3 1 5 3.00 (.347)
when solving Grade 2 - -
(20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707)
problems
I get others to 3 2 5 3.40
Grade 3 - - -
look at (60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548)
1.00
problems from
1 3 1 5 3.00 (.347)
many different Grade 2 - -
(20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (.707)
angles
I help others to 1 4 5 3.80
Grade 3 - - -
develop their (20.0) (80.0) (100) (.447) 0.63
strengths 3 2 5 3.60 (.545)
Grade 2 - - -
(60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548)
Intellectual Stimulation as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals
Regarding intellectual stimulation principals rated that 80% of them believe that they reexamine
critically the appropriateness of questions raised and all principals rated that they seek different
132
perspectives when solving problems, getting others to look at problems from different angles and
help others to develop their strength.
Intellectual Stimulation as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals

In this leadership style, a leader solicits ideas, and nurtures and develops people who think
independently and who value learning. Regarding this, 80% of teachers believed that they
reexamine critical assumptions to appropriateness of questions, but 20% did not agree with this
idea the average rate being (Mean = 2.60).
Concerning seeking of differing perspectives 80% responded that they fairly often practice it,
averagely they rated themselves to be (Mean = 3.00). 80% of principals rated that they get others
to look at problems from many different angles to reach to solutions and 100% of principals
claimed that they help others to develop their strengths.
Intellectual Stimulation as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals
The perception of teachers regarding principals‘ intellectual stimulation has been rated by using
the following variables. As to the above table 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of
Grade 2 school principals agreed that they re-examine critical assumptions to question whether
they are appropriate. The average result of Grade 3 school principals (M = 3.00) and that of
Grade 2 school principals (M = 2.60) shows that they rated themselves as re-examining critical
assumptions to questions whether they are appropriate or not. The t-test result (t-value = 0.54, p
> 0.01) which indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in their ratings
In the second category of intellectual stimulation, 100% of Grade 3 school principals and 80% of
Grade 2 school principals rated their behavior as seeking differing perspectives when solving
problems. Similarly, the average of Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.40) and that of Grade 2
133
school principals (Mean = 3.00) indicated the same response. But t-test result (t-value 1.00, p >
0.01) indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in their ratings.
With regard to the other question 100% 0f of principals from Grade 3 school and 80% of
principals from Grade 2 schools claimed that they get others to look at problems from many
different angles, the average of Grade 3 schools rating (Mean = 3.40) and that of Grade 2 school
principals being (Mean = 3.00). The t-test result (t-value = 1.00, p > 0.01) showing that there is
no statistically significant difference in the rating of both groups of teachers.
In the last category of intellectual stimulation, 100% of principals from Grade 3 schools and
100% of principals from Grade 2 schools agree that they fairly often help others to develop their
strengths, with average of (Mean = 2.80) for Grade 3 school teachers and (Mean = 3.60) for
Grade l 2 school principals ratings. Similarly the t-test result (t-value = 0.63, p > 0.01) indicates
that there is no significant difference in their rating of their behavior.
134
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I spends time 1 3 1 5 3.00
Grade 3 - -
teaching and (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) .707 -0.54
coaching 4 1 5 3.20 (.608)
Grade 2 - - -
(80.0) (20.0) (100) .447
I treats others as 2 3 5 2.60
Grade 3 - - -
individuals (40.0) (60.0) (100) .548
-0.78
rather than just
2 1 2 5 3.00 (.455)
a member of a Grade 2 - -
(40.0) (20.0) (40.0) (100) 1.00
group
I considers an 4 1 5 3.20
Grade 3 - - -
individual as (80.0) (20.0) (100) .447
having different -0.63
needs, abilities, 3 2 5 3.40 (.545)
Grade 2 - - -
and aspirations (60.0) (40.0) (100) .548
from others
I suggests new 1 4 5 2.80
Grade 3 - - -
ways of looking (20.0) (80.0) (100) .447
-0.54
at how to
1 3 1 5 3.00 (.608)
complete Grade 2 - -
(20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) .707
assignments
Individualized Consideration as Rated by Grade 3 school Principals

Concerning individualized consideration, 80% of principals‘ rate that they spend time in teaching
and coaching teachers, whereas all principals agreed that they treat others as individuals,
consider individuals as having different needs, abilities and suggest new ways of looking at how
to complete assignments
Individualized Consideration as Rated by Grade 2 school Principals

Under Individualized Consideration -- A transformational leader pays attention to the needs of
individuals, and seeks to develop followers by supporting, mentoring, and coaching employees
135
to reach their full potential. In this category they have rated their behavior to be above average in
all of the sub scales.
Individualized Consideration as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 school Principals
The above table deals with individualized consideration of principal‘s behavior in dealing with
others. As to the result of the above table 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2
school principals perception indicates that they spend much time teaching and coaching their
followers averagely (Mean = 3.00) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.20) for Grade 2
school principals. Furthermore the t-test result (t-value = -0.54, p >0.01) indicates that there is no
statistically significant difference their rating.
Regarding the principals ability to treat followers as individuals 100% of Grade 3 school
principals and 60% of Grade 2 school principals rated their behavior as if they are fairly often
treating teachers as individuals rather than as members of the group and average (Mean = 2.60)
for Grade 3 schools and (Mean = 3.00) for Grade 2 schools. Furthermore, t-test result (t-value = -
0.78, p > 0.01) which shows that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating.
Principals were also requested to rate themselves on their ability to consider an individual as
having different needs, abilities, and aspirations from others and the result indicates that 100% of
Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2 school principals rated that they fairly often
practicing, and average revealing that for Grade 3 school principals (Mean = 3.20) and for Grade
2 principals (Mean = 3.40). The t-test result (t-value = -0.63, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no
significant difference in their rating of their practice.
Concerning principal‘s ability to suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments,
100% of Grade 3 school principals and 80% of Grade 2 school principals agreed that they do
136
suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments. The average rating of Grade 3
school principals (Mean = 2.80) and that of Grade 2 school principals is (Mean = 3.00). However
the t-test result (t-value = -0.54, p < 0.01) which indicates that there is no significant difference
in their rating.
Overall Transformational Leadership style as Rated by school Principals
t-test
Grade 3 5 3.15 .675

Idealized influence 0.580
/attributed/ 5 2.95 .371 (0.578)
Grade 2
Grade 3 5 3.00 .586

Idealized influence/ -1.000
Behavior 5 3.35 .518 (0.347)
Grade 2
Grade 3 5 3.25 .354

0.431
Inspirational motivation
Grade 2 5 3.15 .379 (0.678)
Grade 3 5 3.40 .487 1.476

Grade 2 5 3.05 .209 (0.178)
Individualized Grade 3 5 2.90 .418 -1.104

Consideration Grade 2 5 3.15 .285 (0.302)
Grade 3 5 3.14 .393

0.045
Overall
Grade 2 5 3.13 .301 (0.965)
Overall Transformational Leadership style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals

As to the rating of principals regarding their leadership style, all of the principals have rated that
they frequently practice transformational leadership style in their day to day activities
137
Overall Transformational Leadership style as Rated by Grade 2 school Principals
Under transformational leadership style category, principals have rated their behavior that they
frequently practice and implement transformational leadership style.
Overall Transformational Leadership style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 school Principals

The idealized influence attributed scale identifies leaders who are able to build trust in their
followers. They inspire power and pride in their followers by going beyond their own individual
interests and focusing on the interests of the group and of its members. Thus they become
reference models for their followers. High scores on this scale identify leaders whom their
followers attribute these special qualities.
As the above table indicates the overall behavior principals on idealized influence /behavior/
shows that the rating of principals averagely is (Mean = 3.15) for Grade 3 school principals and
(Mean = 2.95) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result (t-value 0.58, p > 0.01) indicates
that there is statistically no significant difference in the use of idealized influence.
The idealized influence behaviors scale identifies leaders who act with integrity. High scores on
this scale are typically for leaders who manifest positive and highly valuated behaviors, like
dominance, consciousness, self-control, a high moral judgment, optimism and self-efficiency.
They focus on a desirable vision and almost always consider the moral and ethical consequences
of their actions.
Regarding this category principals of Grade 3 schools average rating is (Mean = 3.00) and that of
Grade 2 schools principals is (Mean = 3.35) and the t-test result is (t-value = -1.00, p > 0.01)
indicating that there is statistically no significant difference in teachers rating of their principals
leadership behavior.
The inspirational motivation scale identifies leaders who inspire others. Inspirational leaders
articulate, in simple ways, shared goals and mutual understanding of what is right and important.
138
They provide visions of what is possible and how to attain them. They enhance meaning and
promote positive expectations about what needs to be done.
Concerning this category principals average rating shows that (Mean = 3.25) for Grade 3 school
principals and (Mean = 3.15) for Grade 2 school principals. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value
= 0.431, p > 0.01) which implies that there is statistically no significant difference in rating of
theirs behavior.
The intellectual stimulation scale identifies leaders who are able to encourage innovative
thinking. Through intellectual stimulation, leaders help others to think about old problems in new
ways. Followers are encouraged to question their own beliefs, assumptions, and values when
appropriate, those of leader, which be outdated or inappropriate for solving current problems. As
a consequence, associates develop the capacity to solve future problems unforeseen by the
leader. They learn to tackle and solve problems on their own by being creative and innovative.
Under this category principals rating of theirs behavior averagely indicates that (Mean = 3.40)
for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.05) for Grade 2 school principals and the t-test
result (t-value = 1.476, p > 0.01) indicating that there is statistically no significant difference in
rating of both groups.
The individualized consideration scale identifies leaders who are able to coach people. It means
understanding and sharing in others‘ concern and developmental needs and treating each
individual uniquely. It represents an attempt on the part of leaders to not only recognize and
satisfy their followers‘ current needs, but also to expand and elevate those needs in an attempt to
maximize and develop their full potential.
139
Regarding individualized consideration the average (Mean = 2.90) for Grade 3 school principals
and (Mean = 3.15) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result (t-value = -1.104, p > 0.01),
implies that there is no statistically significant difference in the rating of both groups.
Transformational leaders have associates who view them in an idealized way and these leaders
have much power and influence over their followers. The followers also develop strong feelings
about their leaders. Transformational leaders arouse and inspire others with whom they work
with a vision of what can be accomplished.
2 school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 0.045, p > 0.01) shows that there
is statistically no significant difference in their use of transformational leadership style
140
4.3.2 Transactional Leadership Style
Contingent Reward
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I provide others 1 4 5 3.80
Grade 3 3.54
with assistance (20.0) (80.0) (100) (.447)
in exchange for 1 4 5 2.80 (.008)
Grade 2
their efforts (20.0) (80.0) (100) (.447)
I discuss in 4 1 5 3.20
Grade 3 -1.27
specific terms (80.0) (20.0) (100) (.447)
who is (.242)
responsible for
2 3 5 3.60
achieving Grade 2
(40.0) (60.0) (100) (.548)
performance
targets
I make clear 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3
what one can (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
expect to 0.00
receive when (1.00)
1 2 2 5 3.20
performance Grade 2
(20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
goals are
achieved
I express 3 2 5 3.40
Grade 3
satisfaction (60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548) 0.00
when others (1.00)
3 2 5 3.40
meet Grade 2
(60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548)
expectations
Contingent Reward as rated by Grade 3 School Principals

Concerning contingent reward all principals rated their behavior as discussing in specific terms
who is responsible for achieving performance targets, make clear what one can expect to receive
for performance achievement and express satisfaction when followers meet expectations the
average being (Mean = 3.80), (Mean =3.20), (Mean = 3.20) and (Mean = 3.40) respectively.
141
Contingent Reward as rated by Grade 2 School Principals
Contingent reward is based on the leader discussing with others what is required and specifying
the conditions and rewards these others will receive if they fulfill those requirements‖.
Contingent punishments (such as suspensions) are given when performance quality or quantity
falls below production standards or goals and tasks are not met at all.
With regard to contingent reward averagely (Mean = 2.80) rated that they provide assistance in
an exchange for followers effort, (Mean = 3.60) discuss in specific terms responsibility of each
individual, (Mean = 3.20) make clear what one has to expect to receive and (Mean = 3.40)
express when followers meet expectations
Contingent Reward as rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals

Contingent Reward is the of leadership style which focuses contingent reward or contingent
As indicated in the table principals were requested to rate their perception in the first category of
contingent reward to identify whether they provide others with assistance in exchange for their
efforts. The rating of principals shows that 100% of level 3 school principals and 100% of level 2
principals responded that they fairly often provide assistance in exchange for teachers/followers
effort. The average rating (Mean = 3.80) of Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.80) of
Grade 2 school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 3.54, p< 0.01) indicating
that there is statistically significant difference in both groups of principals
Concerning discussing in specific terms who is responsible for achieving performance targets
80% of Grade 3 school principals 20% of Grade 2 school principals agreed that they frequently,
if not always practice it. The average response also shows that (Mean = 3.20) for Grade 3 school
142
principals and (Mean= 3.60) for Grade 2 school principals. However the t-test result (t-value = -
1.27, p > 0.01) implies that there is statistically no significant difference in the behavior of
principals their rating.
Regarding the behavior of principals in making clear what one can expect to receive when
performance goals are achieved, 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 80 % of Grade 2 school
principals agreed that they fairly often do it. The average result also shows that (Mean = 3.20)
for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.20) for Grade 2 school principals. In support of this
the t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01) shows that there is statistically no significant difference
in the rating of principals of both groups.
The other point in this category is whether principals express satisfaction when others meet
expectations or not. 100% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2 school principals
agree that they do express fairly often. The average (Mean = 3.40) for Grade 3 principals and
(Mean = 3.40) for Grade 2 school principals shows that the fairly often express satisfaction when
their followers meet expectations. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01)
indicates that there is no statistically significant difference in their rating.
143
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I focus 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3 (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837) -0.37
attentions on
irregularities, 1 1 3 5 3.40 (.724)
mistakes, (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (.894)
exceptions, and Grade 2
deviations from
standards
I concentrate his 1 2 2 5 3.20
Grade 3 (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837) 0.00
full attention on
dealing with 1 2 2 5 3.20 (1.00)
mistakes, (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
Grade 2
complaints and
failures
I keep track of 1 4 5 3.60
Grade 3 (20.0) (80.0) (100) (.894) 1.81
all mistakes
1 2 1 1 5 2.20 (.108)
Grade 2 (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.48)
I direct my 3 2 5 3.40
Grade 3
attention toward (60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548) 0.00
failures to meet 3 2 5 3.40 (1.00)
Grade 2 (60.0) (40.0) (100) (.548)
standards
Management by Exception – Active as rated by Grade 3 School Principals

With regard to management by exception-active, 80% of principals rated their reaction towards
dealing with mistakes, irregularities, complaints, concentrating full attention dealing with
mistakes complaints and failures 100% of them rated that they direct attention toward failure to
meet standards.
Management by Exception – Active as rated by Grade 2 School Principals

In MBE-A, the leader arranges to actively monitor deviances, mistakes, and errors in the
followers‘ assignments and to take corrective action as necessary. Under this category principals
indicated that they focus their attention on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions and deviations
144
from standards. However, 40% of them indicated, they keep track of all mistakes and others
disagreed with this idea and average shows that (Mean = 2.20) this is not always true but
practiced sometimes.
Management by Exception – Active as rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals
Within management by exception, there are active and passive directions. Active management by
exception indicates that the principal continually looks at each follower‘s performance and
makes changes to the followers‘ work to make correction throughout the process.
Regarding principals behavior on focusing attentions on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and
deviations from standards 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 80% of Grade 2 school
principals believe that they do focus on the above mentioned activities. The average (Mean =
3.20) response of Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.40) of Grade 2 school principals
indicate the same result. Furthermore the t-test result (t-value = -0.37, p > 0.01) indicates that
there is no significant difference in their rating of principals behavior.
Regarding principals‘ concentration on dealing with mistakes, complaints and failures 80% of
Grade 3 school principals and 80% of Grade 2 school principals feel that most of the time they
concentrate on failures and mistakes. On the average (Mean = 3.20) Grade 3 school principals
and (Mean = 3.20) Grade 2 school principals rated their behavior to be fairly often concentrate
on mistakes and failures. Furthermore t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01) indicates that there is
no statistically significant difference in their rating of both groups.
100% of Grade 3 school principals and 40% of Grade 2 school principals rated that they keep
track of all mistakes. The average shows that (Mean = 3.60) for Grade 3 school principals and
(Mean = 2.20) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result (t-value = -1.81, p> 0.01) indicates
that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating.
145
100% of Grade 3 school principals and 100% of Grade 2 school principals claim that fairly often
concentrate their attention towards failure to meet standards. However averagely (Mean = 3.40)
Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 3.40) Grade 2 principals believe that they concentrate
their attention towards failure to meet standards. The t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01)
indicates that there is no significant difference in the rating of both group.
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I fail to 4 1 5 3.20
Grade 3 - - - (80.0) (20.0) (100) 2.85
interfere until (.447)
problems 2 2 1 5 1.40 (.022)
Grade 2 - - (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.34)
become serious
I wait for 1 1 1 2 5 2.60
Grade 3 (20.0) - (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (100) (1.67) 1.13
things to go
wrong before 2 1 1 1 5 1.40 (.290)
Grade 2 (40.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.67)
taking action
I show that I 1 1 2 1 5 2.40
Grade 3 (20.0) - (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.52) 0.00
am a firm
believer ―if it is 2 2 1 5 2.40 (1.00)
not broken, Grade 2 - (40.0) - (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.34)
don‘t fix it‖
I demonstrate 1 3 1 5 2.60
Grade 3 - -
that problems (20.0) (60.0) (20.0) (100) (1.52) 0.00
must become 1 3 1 5 2.60 (1.00)
chronic before Grade 2 (20.0) - - (60.0) (20.0) (100) (1.52)
he takes action
146
Management by Exception – Passive as rated by Grade 3 School Principals
As to the above table 100% of principals rated their reaction above average (Mean = 3.20) that
they fail to interfere until problem becomes serious. 60% of principals believed that they Waite
for things to go wrong before taking action.
Management by Exception – Passive as rated by Grade 2 School Principals

corrective action. Under this category whether they fail to interfere until problems become
serious is rated to be (Mean = 1.40) that is below average and the same is true for waiting until
things go wrong before taking action. They also mentioned that they are believers of the saying
that ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix it‖. With average being (Mean = 2.40), while the belief that
they demonstrate that problems must become chronic is rated to be averagely (Mean = 2.60)
which is above average.
Management by Exception – Passive as rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals
In the above table 100% of Grade 3 school principals and 60% of Grade 2 school principals
claim that they fail to interfere until problems become serious. The average rating (Mean = 3.20)
of Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.40) of Grade 2 school principals indicates that
principals fairly often fail to interfere until problems become serious. In addition to this t-test
result (t-value = -2.85, p> 0.01) indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in
their rating
Regarding principal‘s reaction in taking action 40% of Grade 3 school principals and 20% of
Grade 2 School principal‘s claim that they fairly often wait for things to go wrong before taking
action. The average (Mean = 2.60) of Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.40) of Grade 2
147
school principals indicate that they Waite for things go wrong. The t-test result (t-value = 1.13, p
> 0.01) which refers to that there is statistically no significant difference in the rating of groups
about their principals behavior.
Concerning principals firm belief on the principle that ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix it‖ 60% of
Grade 3 school principals with average (Mean = 2.40) and 60% of Grade 2 school principals
with average (Mean = 2.40) rated that they fairly show the behavior that they are firm believers
in the principle of firm believer of ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix it‖ The t-test result (t-value =
0.00, p > 0.01) shows that there is a no significant difference in the rating of both groups..
The other point under this category that was rated by teachers was to identify how principals
react when problem arises in their school. 80% of Grade 3 school principals and 80% of Grade 2
school principals responded that they fairly often demonstrate that problems must become
chronic before he takes action. The average rating (Mean = 2.60) of Grade 3 school principals
and (Mean = 2.60) of Grade 2 school principals shows that rated that they take action when
problems become chronic. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 0.00, p > 0.01) indicates that
there is statistically no significant difference in the ratings of the two groups
148
Overall Transactional Leadership Style
t-test
Grade 3
0.583
Grade 2 5 3.25 .395 (0.576)

Grade 3
Exception- Active 0.76
Grade 2 5 3.05 .597 (0.470)
Management by 5 2.70 1.178

Grade 3
Exception - Passive 1.001
Grade 2 5 1.95 1.191 (0.346)

Grade 3
Leadership 1.17
Grade 2 5 2.75 .543 (0.276)
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as rated by Grade 3 School Teachers

In general principals who work in these school are averagely (Mean = 3.15) rated they are fairly
often apply practicing transaction leadership style in their school management practice.
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as rated by Grade 2 School Principals

Transactional leadership focuses on the role of supervision, organization and group performance.
It assumes that people are motivated primarily by reward and punishment. These leaders, pay
attention to follower‘ work in order to find faults and deviations from their followers. As to the
above table principals in this group rated their behavior above average (Mean = 2.75) indicating
that they follow transactional leadership style.
149
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals
The perception of principals on the use of transactional leadership style in the first category
which deals with provision of assistance, discussing in specific terms what to expect, making
clear what one has to expect and expression of satisfaction reveals that principals fairly often
provide contingent reward (Mean = 3.40) for Grade 3 schools and (Mean = 3.25) for Grade 2
schools The t-test result (t-value = 0.583, p > 0.05) shows that there is statistically no significant
difference in their ratings.
On the other hand in the second category which deals with management by exception-active
(Mean = 3.35) for Grade 3 schools (Mean = 3.05) for Grade 2 schools indicates that principals
fairly often focus on weakness and mistakes of teachers and the t-test result (t-value = 0.76, p >
0.01) indicating that there is no significant difference in their ratings
The third category which is management by exception passive is rated by principals to be (Mean
= 2.70) by Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.95) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test
result (t-value = 1.001, p > 0.01) indicates that there is no significant difference in the rating of
the two groups.
The overall rating of transactional leadership exercise practiced by school principals shows that
the average (Mean = 3.15) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.75) for Grade 2 school
principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 1.17, p > 0.01) shows that there is
150
4.3.3 Laissez fair Leadership Style
Laissez fair
Rating Scale Tota
Mean t-test
I avoid getting 1 - 1 - 3 5 2.80 0.55
Grade 3 (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (1.79) (.596)
involved when
important 1 1 - 2 1 5 2.20
Grade 2 (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.64)
issues arises
I am absent 1 - 1 - 3 5 2.80 1.86
Grade 3 (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (1.79) (.100)
when needed
2 2 - 1 - 5 1.00
Grade 2 (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.22)
I avoid making 1 - 1 1 2 5 2.60 1.48
Grade 3 (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (100) (1.67) (.178)
decisions
2 1 1 1 5 1.20
Grade 2 (40.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.30)
I delay - - 1 2 2 5 3.20 2.99
Grade 3
responding to (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837) (.017)
urgent 3 - 1 1 - 5 1.00
Grade 2 (60.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.41)
questions
Laissez fair Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals

60% of principals in Grade 3 schools in self-rating indicated that they avoid getting involved
when important issues arise average being (Mean = 2.80), regarding the second point which
requests about the presence of principals when they are needed 60% rated that they are absent
when needed (Mean = 2.80), 60% rated that they avoid making decision and 80% of them
reported that they delay responding to urgent questions (Mean = 3.20)
Laissez fair Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals

As mentioned in the above table, principals were asked whether they are getting involved when
important issues arise 60% of the responded that they avoid it, where as 40% replayed that they
do not do so with average (Mean = 2.20) implying that most often they avoid being involved.
151
Regarding their availability when they are needed 20% responded that they are absent and 80%
replayed that they are always available with average (Mean = 1.00) indicating that they are
absent once in a while.
Principals also responded to rate themselves on decision making capacity, 60% responded that
they make decisions where as 20% replayed they avoid making decisions. On the other hand
60% of principals in this category rated that they do not delay responding to urgent questions
and 20% of them responded that they do delay responding to urgent questions.
Laissez fair Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals

The above table deals with laissez fair leadership style practiced by principals. The first category
deals with weather principals are avoiding getting involved when important issues arise is rated
by Grade 3 school principals 60 % and by Grade 2 school principals also 60% as they avoid
getting involved. The t-test result (t-value = 0.55, p > 0.01) which indicates that there is
statistically no significant difference in their self-rating
In the second category 60% of Grade 3 school principals and 20% of Grade 2 school principals
believed that they are absent when they are needed. The average (Mean = 2.80) for Grade 3
school principals and (Mean = 1.00) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result (t-value =
1.86, p >1.00) indicates that there is no significant difference in their ratings
Principals were also requested to rate if they are avoiding making decisions, 60% of Grade 3
school principals and 20% of Grade 2 school principals rated that they are avoiding making
decisions and the average (Mean = 2.60) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.20) for
Grade 2 school principals. The t=test result (t-value = 1.48, p > 0.01) reveals that there is no
statistically significant difference in the two groups.
The last category is about whether principals delay responding to urgent questions or not and
40% of Grade 3 school principals and 0% of Grade 2 school principals rated that they
152
frequently, if not always delay to respond to urgent questions. The average (Mean = 3.20) for
Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.00). The t-test result (t-value = 2.99, p > 0.01) indicates
that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating.
Laissez fair
t-test
Grade 3
1.87
Grade 2 5 1.35 1.084 (0.099)
The overall rating of the practice of laissez fair leadership style is averagely rated (Mean = 2.85)
for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.35) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result
(t-value 1.87, p > 0.01) indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in the use of
laissez fair leadership by both groups of principals.
Is there any significant difference between principals self-rating and rating made by teachers of
Grade 3 Schools?
153
4.4. Leadership Styles of Principals as Rated by Principals and Teachers
Teachers
t-test
104 2.80 .616
Teachers 1.24
Idealized influence
/attributed/ (.217)
Principals 5 3.15 .675
104 2.99 .582

Teachers 0.04
Idealized influence
/Behavior/ 3.00 .586 (.971)
Principals 5
104 2.92 .594

Teachers 1.22
Inspirational Leadership (.227)
5 3.25 .354
Principals
Teachers 104 2.82 .664

Intellectual Stimulation 1.93
Principals 5 3.40 .487 (.056)
Teachers 104 2.73 .814
Individualized 0.47
Consideration Principals 5 2.90 .418 (.641)
104 2.85 .534
Teachers 1.19
Overall 3.14 .393 (.236)
Principals 5
Concerning idealized attribute dimension of transformational leadership, the average perception
of teachers (Mean = 2.80) and principals (Mean = 3.15) indicated that principals fairly often use
idealized attribute at school. Moreover, the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.24, p >
0.01) revealed that there is no statistically significant difference between teachers and principals
in their level of agreement. This shows that both teachers and principals perceived principals do
make use of the idealized attribute.
154
The result of the table above shows that the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.99) and
principals (Mean= 3.00) showed that principals fairly often and frequently use idealized behavior
respectively. However, the t-test result (t-value = 0.04, p > 0.01) revealed that there is no
statistically significant difference between teachers and principals in their level of agreement
about the use of idealized behavior. This indicated that both leaders and principals agreed to
principals‘ usage of idealized behavior.
For the inspirational leadership dimension of transformational leadership style, the average
perception of teachers (Mean= 2.99) and principals (Mean= 3.25) showed that both teachers and
principals agreed that principals fairly often use inspirational leadership. Furthermore, the t-test
result (t-value = 1.22, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference
between teachers and principals in their level of agreement about the use of inspirational
leadership. This indicated that both leaders and principals perceived that the leaders to make use
of inspirational leadership.
Intellectual simulation is another dimension of transformational leadership. Thus, the average
perception of teachers (Mean = 2.82) and principals (Mean = 3.40) indicated that principals
fairly often use intellectual simulation at school. Moreover, the independent sample t-test result
(t-value = 1.93, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between
teachers and principals in their level of agreement. This shows that both teachers and principals
perceived principals used intellectual stimulation.
The result from the above table showed that the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.73) and
principals (Mean= 2.90) showed that both teachers and principals agreed that principals fairly
often use individualized consideration. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 0.47, p > 0.01)
revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals in
155
their level of agreement about the use of individualized consideration. This indicated that
principals from below average secondary schools used intellectual stimulation.
Regarding the overall transformational leadership style of principals, the average perception of
teachers (Mean= 2.85) and principals (Mean= 3.14) showed that both teachers and principals
agreed that principals fairly often exercise transformational leadership style. Nevertheless, the t-
test result (t-value = 1.19, p > 0.01) revealed that there is a statistically no significant difference
between teachers and principals rating about the use of transformational leadership style.
4.4.2 Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals and

Teachers
t-test
Teachers 1.94
3.40 .418 (.55)
Principals 5

Teachers 2.47
Exception- Active
3.35 .652 (.015)
Principals 5

Teachers 1.42
Exception - Passive
2.70 1.178 (.158)
Principals 5

Teachers 2.31
Leadership
3.15 .538 (.023)
Principals 5
Regarding contingent teachers averagely rated principals (M = 2.81) in which they perceived as
they fairly often practice it, whereas principals averaged rated they behavior (Mean = 3.40)
which indicates that they frequently practice it. However the independent sample t-test result (t-
156
value = 1.93, p > 0.01) revealed that there is no statistically significant difference between
perceived principals using contingent reward as a means of motivating teachers to accomplish
their duties effectively.
Concerning the use of management by exception-active teachers perceived their principals
(Mean = 2.37) which indicates that they fairly often implement whereas principals rated (Mean =
3.35 which is explained as they use it frequently. The independent sample t-test result (t-value =
2.47, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and
principals in their level of agreement.
safety is paramount in importance. Teachers averagely rate their principals (Mean = 2.02) and
principals rate to be (M = 2.70). The independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.42, p > 0.01)
their level of agreement.
Generally teachers revealed that principals sometimes show such behavior average being (M =
2.40) and principals claim that they fairly often exhibit transactional leadership style average
showing that (Mean = 3.15). However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 2.31, p>
0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals
rating in their level of agreement
157
4.4.3 Laissez fair leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Principals and
Teachers
Table 4.28: The perception of principals and teachers from Grade 3 secondary schools
about Laissez fair
Variables Respondents l (SD) (p-value)
0 1 2 3 4
Avoids getting 22 8 30 30 14 104 2.06
Teachers (100) -1.20
involved when (21.2) (7.7) (28.8) (28.8) (13.5) (1.33)
important 1 - 1 - 3 5 2.80 (.232)
Principals (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (1.79)
issues arises
He is absent 36 11 28 16 13 104 1.61
Teachers (34.6) (10.6) (26.9) (15.4) (12.5) (100) (1.42) -1.82
when needed
1 - 1 - 3 5 2.80 (.071)
Principals (20.0) (20.0) (60.0) (100) (1.79)
Avoids making 35 19 12 23 15 104 1.65
Teachers (33.7) (18.3) (11.5) (100) (1.49) -1.38
decisions (22.1) (14.4)
1 - 1 1 2 5 2.60 (.171)
Principals (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (100) (1.67)
Delays 20 18 23 20 23 104 2.08
Teachers
responding to (19.2) (17.3) (22.1) (19.2) (22.1) (100) (1.43) -1.74
urgent - - 1 2 2 5 3.20 (.084)
Principals (20.0) (40.0) (40.0) (100) (.837)
questions
t-test
Teachers 1.84
2.85 1.432 (.068)
Principals 5
Regarding Laissez fair leadership style principals were rated by using four categories. Regarding
getting involved when important issues arise 42.3% of teacher rated principals fairly often avoid
being involved average showing (Mean = 2.06)and 60% of principals agree with this rating
ave3rage being (Mean = 2.80), while 28.9% of teachers disagree with this rating. However the
independent sample t-test result (t-value = -1.20, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no
significant difference between teachers and principals rating in their level of agreement.
158
In the second category they were requested to rate the availability of principals when they are
needed 27.9% of teachers and 60% of principals‘ claim that they are absent the average
indicating that (Mean = 1.61) and (mean = 2.80) respectively. However the independent sample
t-test result (t-value = -1.80, p >0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference
between teachers and principals rating in their level of agreement.
In the third category which deals with making decisions 52.5% of teachers and 60% of principals
claim that they avoid making decisions and 36.5% of teachers argue that principals do not avoid
making decisions. However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = -1.38, p >0.01)
revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals rating
in their level of agreement.
The last category deals with whether principals delay responding to urgent questions or not 41%
of teachers and 80% of principals agreed that they do delay responding to urgent questions the
average showing that teachers averagely rated that (Mean = 2.08) indicating that they sometimes
do delay and of principals average (Mean = 3.20) implying that they fairly often delay. However
the independent sample t-test result (t-value = -1.74, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically
no significant difference between teachers and principals rating in their level of agreement.
The overall rating by both groups indicate that teachers averagely rated (Mean = 1.85) and
principals rated averagely (Mean = 2.85). The t-test result (t-value = 1.84, p > 0.01) indicated
that there is statistically no significant difference in their ratings.
159
4.4.4. Transformational Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals
and Teachers
t-test
Teachers 85 2.60 .618

Idealized /influence/ 1.24
attributed 5 2.95 .371 (.219)
Principals
Teachers 85 2.63 .679

Idealized influence/ 2.34
Behavior/ 5 3.35 .518 (.022)
Principals
Teachers 85 2.73 .692

1.33
Inspirational Leadership
5 3.15 .379 (.186)
Principals
Teachers 85 2.61 .709 1.38
Principals 5 3.05 .209 (.171)
Individualized Teachers 85 2.53 .751 1.82

Consideration Principals 5 3.15 .285 (.072)
Teachers 85 2.62 .547

2.06
Overall
(.043)
Principals 5 3.13 .301
Concerning idealized attribute dimension of transformational leadership, the average perception
of teachers (Mean = 2.6) and principals (Mean = 2.95) indicated that principals fairly often use
idealized attribute at school. Moreover, the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.24, p >
in their level of agreement. This shows that both teachers and principals from below average
secondary schools perceived principals do make use of the idealized attribute.
The result of Table 4.7 shows that the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.63) and
principals (Mean= 3.35) showed that principals fairly often and frequently use idealized
160
behavior respectively. However, the t-test result (t-value = 2.34, p > 0.01) revealed that there is
a statistically no significant difference between teachers rating and principals self-rating in level
of agreement about the use of idealized behavior. This indicated that both leaders and principals
agreed to principals‘ usage of idealized behavior.
For the inspirational leadership dimension of transformational leadership style, the average
perception of teachers (Mean= 2.73) and principals (Mean= 3.15) showed that both teachers and
principals agreed that principals fairly often use inspirational leadership. Furthermore, the t-test
result (t-value = 1.33, p > 0.01) revealed that there is no statistically significant difference
between teachers and principals in their level of agreement about the use of inspirational
leadership. This indicated that both leaders and principals perceived that the leaders do make
use of inspirational leadership.
Intellectual simulation is another dimension of transformational leadership. Thus, the average
perception of teachers (Mean = 2.61) and principals (Mean = 3.05) indicated that principals
fairly often use intellectual simulation at school. Moreover, the independent sample t-test result
(t-value = 1.38, p > 0.01) revealed that there is no statistically significant difference between
from below average secondary schools perceived principals used intellectual stimulation.
The result from the above table showed that the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.53)
and principals (Mean= 3.15) showed that both teachers and principals agreed that principals
fairly often use individualized consideration. Furthermore, the t-test result (t-value = 1.82, p >
in their level of agreement about the use of individualized consideration. This indicated that
principals from below average secondary schools used intellectual stimulation.
161
Regarding the overall transformational leadership style of Grade 2 secondary school principals,
the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.62) and principals (Mean= 3.13) showed that both
teachers and principals agreed that principals fairly often exercise transformational leadership
style. Nevertheless, the t-test result (t-value = 2.06, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically
no significant difference between teachers and principals in their level of agreement about the
use of transformational leadership style. This indicated that both leaders and principals agreed
to principals‘ usage of transformational leadership style.
4.4.5 Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade2 School Principals and

Teachers
t-test
Teachers 1.91
5 3.25 .395 (.060)
Principals
Teachers 1.80
Exception- Active
5 3.05 .597 (.076)
Principals
Teachers -1.36
Exception - Passive
5 1.95 1.191 (.177)
Principals
Teachers 1.00
Leadership
5 2.75 .543 (.320)
Principals
Regarding contingent teachers averagely rated principals (M = 2.53) in which they perceived as
they fairly often practice it, whereas principals averaged rated they behavior (Mean = 3.25)
which indicates that they frequently practice it. However the independent sample t-test result (t-
162
value = 1.91, p > 0.01) revealed that there is no statistically significant difference between
perceived principals using contingent reward as a means of motivating teachers to accomplish
their duties effectively.
Concerning the use of management by exception-active teachers perceived their principals
(Mean = 2.42) which indicates that they fairly often implement whereas principals rated (Mean =
3.05 which is explained as they use it frequently. The independent sample t-test result (t-value =
1.80, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and
principals in their level of agreement.
safety is paramount in importance. Teachers averagely rated their principals (Mean = 2.59) and
principals rate to be (M = 1.95). The independent sample t-test result (t-value = -1.36, p > 0.01)
their level of agreement.
2.51) and principals claim that they often exhibit transactional leadership style average showing
that (Mean = 2.75). However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.00, p >0.01)
revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals rating
in their level of agreement.
163
4.4.6. Laissez fair Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Principals and Teachers
Table 4.31: The perception of principals and teachers from Grade 2 secondary schools
about Laissez fair
Variables Respondents l (SD) (p-value)
0 1 2 3 4
Avoids getting 12 3 26 26 18 85 2.41
Teachers (14.1) (3.5) (30.6)
involved when (30.6) (21.2) (100) (1.27) 0.36
important 1 1 - 2 1 5 2.20 (.721)
Principals (20.0) (20.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.64)
issues arises
He is absent 22 9 16 25 13 85 1.98
Teachers (25.9) (10.6) (18.8) (29.4) (15.3) (100) (1.44) 1.48
when needed
2 2 - 1 - 5 1.00 (.141)
Principals (40.0) (40.0) (20.0) (100) (1.22)
Avoids making 20 11 21 16 17 85 1.99
Teachers (23.5) (12.9) (24.7) (18.8) (20.0) (100) (1.44) 1.19
decisions
2 1 1 1 5 1.20 (.237)
Principals (40.0) (20.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.30)
Delays 14 9 24 23 15 85 2.19
Teachers
responding to (16.5) (10.6) (28.2) (27.1) (17.6) (100) (1.31) 1.96
urgent 3 - 1 1 - 5 1.00 (.053)
Principals (60.0) (20.0) (20.0) (100) (1.41)
questions
t-test
Teachers -1.55
5 1.35 1.084 (.125)
Principals
Regarding Laissez fair leadership style principals were rated by using four categories.
Regarding getting involved when important issues arise 51.8% of teacher rated principals fairly
often avoid being involved average showing (Mean = 2.41) and 60% of principals agree with
this rating average being (Mean = 2.20), while 17.6% of teachers disagree with this rating.
However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 0.36, p > 0.01) revealed that there is
statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals rating in their level of
agreement.
164
In the second category they were requested to rate the availability of principals when they are
needed 44.7% of teachers and 2% of principals‘ claim that they are absent when needed the
average indicating that (Mean = 1.98) and (mean = 1.00) respectively. However the independent
sample t-test result (t-value = -1.48, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant
difference between teachers and principals rating in their level of agreement.
In the third category which deals with making decisions 38.8% of teachers and 20% of
principals claim that they avoid making decisions and 36.4% of teachers argue that principals
do not avoid making decisions. However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.19, p
> 0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and
principals rating in their level of agreement.
The last category deals with whether principals delay responding to urgent questions or not
44.7% of teachers and 20% of principals agreed that they do delay responding to urgent
questions the average showing that teachers averagely rated that (Mean = 2.19) indicating that
they sometimes do delay and of principals average (Mean = 1.00) implying that they once in a
while delay. However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 1.96, p > 0.01) revealed
that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals rating in their
level of agreement.
In the interview one of the teachers indicated that
Principals are in most cases are involved in other social, political and economic affairs of
kebele and are absent when they are urgently needed.
A principal in one of the selected sample schools mentioned that: We are responsible not only
for school activities, but also for youth affairs, female affairs and other social activities in the
kebele and woreda, therefore we are absent to observe and respond to activities in the school.
165
This indicates that principals in most cases are involved in other activities than academic affair
of their schools which leads them to avoid being involved in school important issues, avoid
making decisions and delay responding to urgent questions of their respective schools
166
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Summary
The primary objective of this study was to investigate the leadership by principals of secondary
schools in Wolaita zone based on the performance of school as leveled by zonal educational
department.
To achieve the objective mentioned above the following basic questions were raised
1. Based on teachers ratings, what are the leadership styles practiced by secondary school
principals in Wolaita Zone /of SNNPR /?
principals?
principals?
1.3 Are there any difference between Grade 3 and Grade 2 school teachers‘ in rating of
their principals
2. How do Wolaita Zone Secondary School principals view their leadership style?
2.1 How do principals of Grade 3 schools view/rate their leadership styles?
2.2. How do principals of Grade 2 schools view/rate their leadership styles?
2.3. Are there any differences between Grade 3 and Grade 2 school principals‘self-ratings
of their leadership styles?
3. Is there any significant difference between principals self-rating and rating made by
teachers of Wolaita zone secondary schools?
167
3.1.Is there any significant difference between self-rating of principals and rating of
teachers of Grade 3 secondary schools of Wolaita Zone?
3.2.Is there any significant difference between self-rating of principals and rating of
teachers of Grade 2 secondary schools of Wolaita Zone?
The study used a descriptive research design to investigate the leadership style practiced by
principals of different categories of schools of Wolaita zone in Southern Nations, Nationalities
and Peoples‘ Regional State. In the study quantitative data were acquired from 10 principals (5
from Grade 3 and 5 from Grade 2 secondary schools) and 189 teachers (104 from Grade 3and 85
from Grade 2 schools). The primary data were collected from principals and teachers by using
standardized questionnaire known as Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire Form (5x-short). The
secondary data were collected from documents of zonal educational department and from
schools under the study. The collected data were presented, analyzed and interpreted in chapter
four in detail. This chapter deals with summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations of
the study. The findings are based on quantitative data collected by using MLQ-5x questionnaires
from primary sources and qualitative data collected through interview.
In order to present it clearly, the chapter is classified into three parts which will be presented as
to the following order: summary of findings and discussion, conclusion and recommendations.
5.1.1 Major Findings
This section of the chapter discusses the findings of the study and is subdivided into the
following subsections: a demographic characteristic of respondents, principal‘s leadership style
as perceived by teachers, principals‘ perception of their leadership practice and, and the
relationship between the perception of teachers and principals regarding leadership practice of
168
principals. Based on the data gathered, analyzed, and interpreted, the discussions, and findings
are summarized as follows:
5.1.1.1 Descriptive Summary of Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This subsection summarizes respondents‘ demographic characteristics, which includes gender,
age, educational background, and work experiences. The demographic analysis regarding gender
shows that all principals (100%) in schools that have been selected for the study are males.
Regarding teachers 86.7% are males and the remaining 18.3% are females. This shows that
females are underrepresented in teaching and management positions.
As to the finding of this research the majority of principals, that 100%of Grade 3 schools and
20% of Grade 2 schools are between the age of 31 -40, whereas 40% of Grade 2 schools are
above 40 years of age .Regarding teachers 46% are between the age of 20 – 30, 33% of them are
between 31- 40 and 21% of them are aged above 40.
Regarding academic status /rank 85% of teachers and 90% of principals are BAdegree holders
and the remaining hold MA degree which is as to the requirement of the Ministry of Education.
The years of services of teachers indicates that 43% of teachers have served 1 – 10 years and
42% of them have served 11 – 20 years, whereas 80% of principals have served 1 – 10 years as
principals in their respective schools.
5.1.1. 2. Teachers’ Perception of Leadership Styles Practiced by Principals

Teachers of Grade 3
The perception of teachers on the use of transformational leadership by Grade 3 secondary
school principals in the first two categories which indicated whether teachers trusted, respected,
exercise idealized attribute (Mean=2.8) and idealized behavior (Mean= 3.0). This indicated that
169
teachers from Grade 3 secondary school perceived that principals exercise idealized attribute and
idealized behavior. Similarly, the average perception of teachers on inspirational leadership
revealed that Grade 3 secondary school principals fairly often use transformational leadership
style.
The perception of teachers of Grade 3 on the use of transactional leadership style by principals in
the first category which deals with provision of assistance, discussing in specific terms what to
expect, making clear what one has to expect and expression of satisfaction reveals that principals
fairly often provide contingent reward (Mean = 2.81). On the other hand in the second category
which deals with management by exception-active indicates (Mean = 2.37) that principals
sometimes focus on weakness and mistakes of teachers and the third category which is
management by exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 2.02) In general this
indicates that principals sometimes use transactional leadership style in their schools.
Teachers of Grade 2
The perception of teachers of Grade 2 secondary schools on the use of transformational
leadership, in the first two categories which indicated whether principals trusted, respected,
exercise idealized attribute (Mean=2.60) and idealized behavior (Mean= 2.62). This indicated
that teachers from Grade 2 secondary school perceived that principals exercise idealized attribute
170
and idealized behavior. Similarly, the average perception of teachers on inspirational leadership
revealed that Grade 2 secondary school principals sometimes make use of transformational
leadership style
The perception of teachers of Grade 2 on the use of transactional leadership style by principals in
the first category which deals with provision of assistance, discussing in specific terms what to
expect, making clear what one has to expect and expression of satisfaction reveals that principals
fairly often provide contingent reward (Mean = 2.81). On the other hand in the second category
which deals with management by exception-active indicates (Mean = 2.37) that principals
sometimes focus on weakness and mistakes of teachers and the third category which is
management by exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 2.02) In general this
indicates that principals rarely use transactional leadership style in their schools.
Overall Transformational Leadership as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers

2 school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 2.92, p < 0.01) shows that there
is statistically significant difference in their use of transformational leadership style. Grade 3
school principals are rated to be more transformational leaders than that of Grade 2 school
principals.
171
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
The overall evaluation of transactional leadership exercise practiced by school principals shows
that the average (Mean = 2.40) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.51) for Grade 2
school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = -1.19 p > 0.01) shows that there is
Overall Laissez fair leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers
The rating of teachers of the two groups on Laissez fair Leadership style shows that Grade 3
school teachers (Mean = 1.85) and that of Grade 2 (Mean = 2.14). However the t-test result (t-
value = -1.74, p > 0.01) shows that there is statistically no significant difference in their rating.
5.1.1. 3. Principals’ Self-rating of Leadership Styles Practiced
The perception of principals of Grade 3 secondary schools on the use of transformational
leadership, in the first two categories which indicated whether they trusted, respected, showed
dedication and considered themselves to be a role model, indicated that they exercise idealized
attribute (Mean=3.15) and idealized behavior (Mean= 3.00). This indicated that principals of
Grade 3 secondary school rated that they exercise idealized attribute and idealized behavior.
Similarly, the average rating of principals on inspirational leadership which measured the degree
to which the principals provided a vision and made teachers feel their work is significant (Mean=
3.25), intellectual simulation (Mean = 3.40) and individualized consideration (Mean= 2.90)
showed Grade 3 secondary school principals do make use of inspirational leadership, intellectual
simulation and idealized consideration. Furthermore, the overall average rating of principals
(Mean= 3.14) on the use of transformational leadership revealed that Grade 3 secondary school
principals frequently make use of transformational leadership style.
172
The rating of principals of Grade 3 on the use of transactional leadership style, in the first
exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 2.70). The overall indicates that average
(Mean = 3.15). In general this indicates that principals frequently make use transactional
leadership style in their schools.
Rating of Grade 2 Principals
The perception of principals of Grade 2 secondary schools on the use of transformational
leadership, in the first two categories which indicated whether they trusted, respected, showed
dedication and considered themselves to be a role model, indicated that they exercise idealized
attribute (Mean=2.95) and idealized behavior (Mean= 3.35). This indicated that principals of
Grade 3 secondary school rated that they exercise idealized attribute and idealized behavior.
Similarly, the average rating of principals on inspirational leadership which measured the degree
to which the principals provided a vision and made teachers feel their work is significant (Mean=
3.15), intellectual simulation (Mean = 3.05) and individualized consideration (Mean= 3.15)
showed Grade 3 secondary school principals do make use of inspirational leadership, intellectual
simulation and idealized consideration. Furthermore, the overall average rating of principals
(Mean= 3.13) on the use of transformational leadership revealed that Grade 2 secondary school
principals frequently make use of transformational leadership style.
173
The rating of principals of Grade 2 on the use of transactional leadership style, in the first
exception passive is rated by teachers to be (Mean = 1.95). The overall indicates that average to
be (Mean = 2.75). In general this indicates that principals fairly often make use transactional
leadership style in their schools.
Overall Transformational Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Principals

2 school principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 0.045, p > 0.01) shows that there
is statistically no significant difference in their use of transformational leadership style
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 and 2 School Teachers

The overall rating of transactional leadership exercise practiced by school principals shows that
the average (Mean = 3.15) for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 2.75) for Grade 2 school
principals. In addition to this the t-test result (t-value = 1.17, p > 0.01) shows that there is
The overall rating of the practice of laissez fair leadership style is averagely rated (Mean = 2.85)
for Grade 3 school principals and (Mean = 1.35) for Grade 2 school principals. The t-test result
174
(t-value 1.87, p > 0.01) indicates that there is statistically no significant difference in the use of
laissez fair leadership by both groups of principals.
Overall Transformational Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers and

Principals
Regarding the overall transformational leadership style of principals, the average perception of
teachers (Mean= 2.85) and principals (Mean= 3.14) showed that both teachers and principals
agreed that principals fairly often exercise transformational leadership style. Nevertheless, the t-
test result (t-value = 1.19, p > 0.01) revealed that there is a statistically no significant difference
between teachers and principals rating about the use of transformational leadership style.
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers and

Principals
2.40) and principals claim that they fairly often exhibit transactional leadership style average
showing that (Mean = 3.15). However the independent sample t-test result (t-value = 2.31, p>
0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and principals
rating in their level of agreement
Overall Laissez fair Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 3 School Teachers and Principals
principals rated averagely (Mean = 2.85). The t-test result (t-value = 1.84, p > 0.01) indicated
175
Overall Transformational Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Teachers and
Principals
Regarding the overall transformational leadership style of Grade 2 secondary school principals,
the average perception of teachers (Mean= 2.62) and principals (Mean= 3.13) showed that both
teachers and principals agreed that principals fairly often exercise transformational leadership
style. Nevertheless, the t-test result (t-value = 2.06, p > 0.01) revealed that there is statistically
no significant difference between teachers and principals in their level of agreement about the
use of transformational leadership style. This indicated that both leaders and principals agreed
to principals‘ usage of transformational leadership style.
Overall Transactional Leadership Style as Rated by Grade 2 School Teachers and

Principals
Generally teachers revealed that principals sometimes apply transactional leadership style
average being (M = 2.51) and principals claim that they often exhibit transactional leadership
style average showing that (Mean = 2.75). However the independent sample t-test result (t-value
= 1.00, p >0.01) revealed that there is statistically no significant difference between teachers and
principals rating in their level of agreement.
Overall Laissez fair Leadership Style as Rated by Grade2 School Teachers and Principals
principals rated averagely (Mean = 1.35). The t-test result (t-value = -1.35, p > 0.01) indicated
176
5.2 Conclusion
This study sought to analyze if there is any difference in the leadership styles practiced by
principals of secondary schools who work in schools with different categories as to the
evaluation of school inspectors in Wolaita zone. Based on this analysis was made to see the
leadership styles practiced by principals in different categories of schools.
The study found that there is s no significant difference in the leadership style practiced by Grade
3 and Grade 2 school principals as to the rating of teachers and self-rating of principals.
5.3. Recommendations
In Ethiopia, the education system is undergoing transformation. Federal as well as Regional
governments are striving to provide quality education. To ensure this, several school-based
reforms have been launched (SIP, CPD, Teachers‘ and Leaders‘ development, ICT, Curriculum,
Teaching and Learning Materials, Quality assurance), and the results are encouraging (MoE,
ESDP-V report, 2015). The government as well as the society believe that behind all successes
and failures of the reforms, the principals‘ leadership role is there. From the very onset of its
policy, the government of Ethiopia gave high emphasis to the decentralization of school
leadership ―promote effective leadership, management and governance at all levels in order to
achieve educational goals by mobilizing and using resources efficiently‖. The principals hand
book (Blue Book) prepared by MoE and adopted by regional education bureaus clearly describes
how the school and its community should be governed. Roles of the principals defined in this
book correspond with transformational leadership behaviors called by Bass and Riggio, 2006:
and particularly by Leithwood and Jantiz (2006:212-216) and Leithwood and Jantiz (2010).
This section presents the recommendations in accordance with the main research aim
177
The concluding objective of this study states that: to make recommendations that may serve as
strategy for secondary schools leadership based on the findings of the study. Thus, on the basis
of the study results, the following recommendations are forwarded:
1. Schools in Wolaita zone have been evaluated for the last five years and they have never
showed improvement in their performance. Therefore in order to transform schools from
where they are to the next grade level principals must clearly understand the elements and
processes of transformational leadership and transactional leadership style. Among other
things, this involves an appreciation for the core dimensions studied in this study.
2. The regional education bureaus are encouraged to prepare in-service and pre-service training
that will enhance the principals‘ skills on leadership style.
3. The performance evaluation system in the region should include the leadership behaviors that
could enables them to act as to the direction that helps schools to perform better than the
current practice.
4. Selecting, assigning and training of school leaders must consider state of the art practices that
meet school effectiveness demands.
178
REFERENCES
Adlam, R. 2003. This complex thing, leadership, in police leadership in the twenty-first century.
Winchester: Waterside Press.
Al-Sayaad, J., Rabea, A., and Samrah, A. (2006). Statistics for Economics and Administration
Studies. Dar Hafez, Jeddah: Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Armstrong, M. 2004. Human resource management theory and practice.London: Bath Press
Ltd.
Balunywa, W.S. 2000.A hand book of business management.Kampala: Makerere University
School.
Barro, R. and X. Sala-i-Martin (1995) ‖Economic Growth‖, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Bass, B. M. (1990). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. New York: Free
Press.
Beatriz Pont, Deborah Nusche and Hunter Moorman OCED (2008) Improving School
Leadership Volume 1: Policy and Practice
Bogdan, R.C. and Biklen, S.N. (2007) Qualitative Research for Education an Introduction to
Theories and Methods. 5th Edition, Pearson, Boston.
Borg, M. D,.Gall, W. R & Borg, J. P 1983.Education research. White plains. New York.
Longman.
Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.
Campbell, J. P. (1977). The cutting edge of leadership: An overview. In J. G. Hunt &
L. L. Larson (Eds.), Leadership: The cutting edge. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois
University Press.
179
Chrisstopher Day, et.al (2010). Ten Strong Claims about Successful School Leadership. National
College for School Leadership and Children‘s Services. UK
Cole, G.A. 2002. The administrative theory and workers’ motivation.ABU Zaria, Nigeria Zante
Institute of administration Press Ltd.
Cuban L 1988. The Managerial Imp erative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany,
NY: State University of New Y ork Press.
Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., &Meyerson, D. (2005).School leadership study:
Developing successful principals review of research).
DeVita, C. (2010). Four big lessons from a decade of work. In Wallace Foundation (Ed.),
Education leadership: An agenda forschool improvement (pp. 2–5).
Doran, H. C. 2003.Adding value to accountability.EducationalLeadership, 61(3), pp. 55–59.
Dornyei, Z. 2007, Research Methods in Applied Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press
Duke, D. L., Tucker, P. D., Belcher, M., Crews, D., Harrison-Coleman, J., Higgins, J., Lanphear,
L. et al. (2005) Lift-off: Launching the School Turnaround Process in Ten Virginia Schools
(Charlottesville, VA: Partnership for Leaders in Education).
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education (1994) Education and Training
Policy. S. George Printing Press, Addis Ababa.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education (2008) General Education
Quality Improvement Package (GEQIP).
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education (2012) National Professional
Standard for School Principals. MoE, Addis Ababa.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Education (2010) Education Sector
Development Program IV (ESDP IV) 2010/2011-2014/2015 Action Plan.
180
Flores, M. A. (2007). The impact of school culture and leadership on new teachers’ learning in
the workplace, International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice,
7(4), 297-318
Fullan, M. (2001).Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco: Jossey Bass
Fullan, M. (2002).The change leader, Educational Leadership‖, 59(8), 16–20
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational Change: reflections on the practice of instructional
and transformational leadership, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(3), 329-351
Huber, S., H. (2004).School Leadership and Leadership development: Adjusting theories and
development programs to values and the core purpose of school, Journal of Education
Administration, 42(6), 669-684
Jagues,E& Clement, S.D 1991 Executive leadership: A practical guide to managing complexity
Virginia: caso hall
Jung, D.D., and Sosik, J.J. (2002).Transformational Leadership in Work Groups: The Role of
Empowerment, Cohesiveness, and Collective-Efficacy on Perceived Group Performance.
Small Group Research. 33, 313 – 336
Kenneth, et.al (2004) How Leadership Influences Students Learning. The Wallace Foundation
New York
Kinard, J. 1988. Management.Lexington: D.C. Health and company.
Knezevich 1975. School management and Organization. New York: Harper and Row.
Lipman& Blumen.J.1964.The connecting edge: Leading in an independent world. San
Francisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
181
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2006).Transformational School Leadership for Large-Scale
Reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices, School Effectiveness
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000). Principal and teacher leader effects: a replication, School
Leadership and Management, 20(4), 415–434
Leithwood, K. &Jantzi, D. (2008) Linking leadership to student learning: the contributions of
leader efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496–528.
Lunenburg, F.C. & Ornstein, A.C. 2000.Educational Administration:Concepts and Practices.
Stamford: Wadsworth.
MoE (1994) The Education and Training Policy: Addis Ababa
______(2002) Education Sector Development Program (ESDPII) : Addis Ababa
______(2005) Education Sector Development Program (ESDPIII): Addis Ababa
_____(2008) General Education Quality Improvement package: Addis Ababa
_____(2010) School Improvement Program Guideline. Improving the Quality of Education and
Students Result for all Children at Primary and secondary Schools: Addis A
_____(2010) Education Statistics Annual Abstract 2004E.C (2011/2012)
_____(2013) National School Classification Framework. Addis Ababa Unpublished
Nconco.F. 2006.A comparative study of leadership and management approaches in further
education and training colleges. Unpublished PhD Thesis.Nelson Mandela
Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa.
Nkata, J.L. 2006.A road map to participation in management of schools, Kampala Masah
Publishers Ltd.
Nsubuga, Y.K.K.2003, Development and examination of secondary in Uganda: Experience and
challenges Kampala; Uganda.
182
Nsubuga, Y. K. K. 2003(b). Development and expansion of secondary education in Uganda:
Experiences and challenges. A seminar paper presented at the annual head teachers
workshop in Kampala.
Odumeru, James(2013 ) A Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership Theories: Evidence in
Literature International Review of Management and Business Research Vol. 2 Issue.2
OCED (2009) Improving School Leadership
Okumbe, J. A. 1998. Educational Management: Theory and practice. Nairobi: Nairobi
University Press.
Oyetunyi.C.O. 2006.The relationship between leadership style and school climate: Botswana
secondary schools. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of South Africa
Robbins, S. P. and Coulter, M. (2007) Management (9th ed.). London: Prentice- Hall
Warrilow. S (2012) Transformational Leadership Theory - The 4 Key Components in Leading
Change & Managing Change.
Pont, B., Nusha, D. and Morman, H. (2008) Improving School Leadership Vol. 1: Policy and
Practice OECD. Source
Punch, K. F. 1998. Introduction to social research, Buckingham: Open University Press
Russell Bishop (2008)Effective Leadership for Educational Reform: Report to NgāPae o te
MāramatangaThe University of Waikato
Sashkin, M. &Sashkin, M. (2003).Leadership that matters. San Francisco: Berrettkoehler
Publishers Inc.
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership, 2nd ed. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bas
183
Schermerhorn, J. R,. Hunt, J. G & Osborn, R. N 2000. Organisation behaviour. New York.
Wiley and sons inc.
SNNPR Education Bureau 2009. Education Statistics Annual Abstract
Stogdill, R. M 1986. Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research, revised and
expanded. New York: Mackmillan.
Taole, M. (2013) Exploring Principals Role in Providing Instructional Leadership in Rural High
Schools in South Africa Studies of Tribes and Tribals, 11, 75-82.
Taplin, S. (2005).Methodological design issues in longitudinal studies of children and young
people in out-of-home care. Available @ www.community.nsw.gov.au.
Tedla, B.A. (2012) Instructional Leadership and School Climate: A Case Study of Secondary
School in Eriteria. Literacy Information and Computer Education Journal Special
Issues, 1, 755- 764.
The Wallace Foundation (2009). Assessing the Effectiveness of School Leaders:
New Direction and New Processes. New York
UNESCO (2005) School Management a Training Manual for Educational Management.
UNESCO International Institute for Capacity Building in Africa.
Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J. and McNulty, B. A. (2003) Balanced Leadership: What 30 Years of
Research Tells Us about the Effect of Leadership on Student Achievement (Aurora, CO:
Midcontinent Research for Education and Learning).
Yunas, M. and Iqbal, M. (2013) Dimensions of Instructional Leadership Roles of Principals.
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4, 629-637.
184
Appendix 1
Addis Ababa University

Department of Educational Planning and Management
Questionnaire for Teachers
This questionnaire is designed to investigate out leadership styles practiced by school principals
as perceived by teachers of general secondary and preparatory schools. It is designed for the
partial fulfillment of PhD degree on Education Policy and Leadership. Therefore your responses
will be used strictly confidential and only for PhD dissertation work
Part I Personal data
Academic Status: BA/BSc/Bed _______MA/MSc________
If other please specify it ________
Subject you are teaching ______________
Grade level your teaching __________________
Years of service: in this school ___________ in other school ________
Sex M ____ F__________ Age: 20 – 30_____ 31 – 40 _______ Above 40 _______
Part Two
Please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant or if you are not sure or do
not know the answer leave the answer blank.
Forty five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each
statement fits your school principal and circle the number of your judgment.
Use the following rating scale
0. Not at all
1. Once in a while
2. Sometimes
3. Fairly often
4. Frequently, if not always
I
1 Provides others with assistance in exchange for their efforts 0 1 2 3 4
2 Re-examines critical assumptions to question whether they are 0 1 2 3 4
appropriate
3 Fail to interfere until problems become serious 0 1 2 3 4
4 Focus attentions on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and 0 1 2 3 4
deviations from standards
5 Avoids getting involved when important issues arises 0 1 2 3 4
6 Talks about his most important values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4
7 He is absent when needed 0 1 2 3 4
8 He seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 0 1 2 3 4
9 Talks optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4
10 Instill pride in others for being associated with them 0 1 2 3 4
11 Discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving 0 1 2 3 4
performance targets-
12 Waits for things to go wrong before taking action 0 1 2 3 4
13 Talks enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0 1 2 3 4
14 Specifies the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0 1 2 3 4
15 Spends time teaching and coaching 0 1 2 3 4
16 Makes clear what one can expect to receive when performance 0 1 2 3 4
goals are achieved
17 Shows that he is a firm believer ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix 0 1 2 3 4
it‖
18 Goes beyond self interest for the good of the group. 0 1 2 3 4
19 Treats others as individuals rather than just a member of a 0 1 2 3 4
group-
20 Demonstrates that problems must become chronic before he 0 1 2 3 4
takes action
21 Acts in ways that builds others ‘to give respect for him 0 1 2 3 4
22 Concentrate his full attention on dealing with mistakes, 0 1 2 3 4
II
complaints and failures
23 Considers the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 0 1 2 3 4
24 Keeps track of all mistakes 0 1 2 3 4
25 Displays a sense of power and confidence 0 1 2 3 4
26 Articulates a compelling vision of the future 0 1 2 3 4
27 Directs his attention toward failures to meet standards 0 1 2 3 4
28 Avoids making decisions 0 1 2 3 4
29 Considers an individual as having different needs, abilities, 0 1 2 3 4
and aspirations from others
30 Gets others to look at problems from many different angles 0 1 2 3 4
31 Suggests new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0 1 2 3 4
32 Helps others to develop their strengths 0 1 2 3 4
33 Delays responding to urgent questions 0 1 2 3 4
34 Emphasizes the importance of having a collective sense of 0 1 2 3 4
mission
35 Expresses satisfaction when others meet expectations 0 1 2 3 4
36 Expresses confidence that goals will be achieved 0 1 2 3 4
37 Effective in meeting others‘ job related needs 0 1 2 3 4
38 Uses methods of leadership that are satisfying 0 1 2 3 4
39 Get others to more than they expected to do 0 1 2 3 4
40 Effective in representing others to higher authority 0 1 2 3 4
41 Works with others in a satisfactory way 0 1 2 3 4
42 Heighten others desire to succeed 0 1 2 3 4
43 Effective in meeting organizational requirements 0 1 2 3 4
44 Increases others willingness to try harder 0 1 2 3 4
45 Leads a group that is effective 0 1 2 3 4
Thank you for your heart full cooperation
III
Appendix 2

Questionnaire for Principals
This questionnaire is designed to investigate out leadership styles practiced by school principals
as perceived by teachers of general secondary and preparatory schools. It is designed for the
partial fulfillment of PhD degree on Education Policy and Leadership. Therefore your responses
will be used strictly confidential and only for PhD dissertation work
Part I Personal data
Academic Status: BA/BSc/Bed _______MA/MSc________
If other please specify it ________
Years of service: ___________ years
Sex M ____ F__________ Age: 20 – 30_____ 31 – 40 _______ Above 40 _______
Part Two
Please answer all items on this answer sheet. If an item is irrelevant or if you are not sure or do
not know the answer leave the answer blank.
Forty five descriptive statements are listed on the following pages. Judge how frequently each
statement fits your school principal and circle the number of your judgment.
Use the following rating scale
0. Not at all
1. Once in a while
2. Sometimes
3. Fairly often
4. Frequently, if not always
IV
1 I provide others with assistance in exchange for their efforts 0 1 2 3 4
2 I re-examine critical assumptions to question whether they are 0 1 2 3 4
appropriate
3 I fail to interfere until problems become serious 0 1 2 3 4
4 I focus attentions on irregularities, mistakes, exceptions, and 0 1 2 3 4
deviations from standards
5 I avoid getting involved when important issues arises 0 1 2 3 4
6 I talk about his most important values and beliefs 0 1 2 3 4
7 I am absent when needed 0 1 2 3 4
8 I seeks differing perspectives when solving problems 0 1 2 3 4
9 I talk optimistically about the future 0 1 2 3 4
10 I instill pride in others for being associated with me 0 1 2 3 4
11 I discuss in specific terms who is responsible for achieving 0 1 2 3 4
performance targets
12 I wait for things to go wrong before taking action 0 1 2 3 4
13 I talk enthusiastically about what needs to be accomplished 0 1 2 3 4
14 I specify the importance of having a strong sense of purpose 0 1 2 3 4
15 I spend time teaching and coaching 0 1 2 3 4
16 I make clear what one can expect to receive when performance 0 1 2 3 4
goals are achieved
17 I show that he is a firm believer ―if it is not broken, don‘t fix 0 1 2 3 4
it‖
18 I go beyond self-interest for the good of the group. 0 1 2 3 4
19 I treat others as individuals rather than just a member of a 0 1 2 3 4
group
20 I demonstrate that problems must become chronic before he 0 1 2 3 4
takes action
21 I act in ways that builds others ‘to give respect for me 0 1 2 3 4
22 I concentrate his full attention on dealing with mistakes, 0 1 2 3 4
complaints and failures
V
23 I consider the moral and ethical consequences of decisions 0 1 2 3 4
24 I keep track of all mistakes 0 1 2 3 4
25 I display a sense of power and confidence 0 1 2 3 4
26 I articulate a compelling vision of the future 0 1 2 3 4
27 I directs my attention toward failures to meet standards 0 1 2 3 4
28 I avoid making decisions 0 1 2 3 4
29 I consider an individual as having different needs, abilities, 0 1 2 3 4
and aspirations from others
30 I gets others to look at problems from many different angles 0 1 2 3 4
31 I suggest new ways of looking at how to complete assignments 0 1 2 3 4
32 I help others to develop their strengths 0 1 2 3 4
33 I delay responding to urgent questions 0 1 2 3 4
34 I emphasize the importance of having a collective sense of 0 1 2 3 4
mission
35 I express satisfaction when others meet expectations 0 1 2 3 4
36 I express confidence that goals will be achieved 0 1 2 3 4
37 I am Effective in meeting others‘ job related needs 0 1 2 3 4
38 I use methods of leadership that are satisfying 0 1 2 3 4
39 I get others to more than they expected to do 0 1 2 3 4
40 I am Effective in representing others to higher authority 0 1 2 3 4
41 I work with others in a satisfactory way 0 1 2 3 4
42 I heighten others desire to succeed 0 1 2 3 4
43 I am Effective in meeting organizational requirements 0 1 2 3 4
44 I increase others willingness to try harder 0 1 2 3 4
45 I lead a group that is effective 0 1 2 3 4
Thank you for your heart full cooperation
VI
Appendix 3
School of Graduate Studies
College of Education and Behavioral Studies
Interview questions for principals
1. In your opinion, do you think the type of leadership styles employed influence
performance in your school?
2. What kind of leadership style do you apply in your school and how?
3. Have you ever taken any specialized course or short term training on educational
leadership or management?
4. Are there any other extra activities that interfere with your regular work?
5. How often do you discuss with school community regarding school planning and school
performance?
VII
Appendix 4
School of Graduate Studies
College of Education and Behavioral Studies
Interview questions for teachers
1. How do you view the leadership style practiced by your school principal?
2. How do principals, teachers other stakeholders collaborate in planning, implementing
and monitoring school activities?
3. Do teachers participate in decision making with the principals in this school?
4. Do you think your principals leadership style is effective to bring the desired change
in your school?
5. Is your principal always available in his office to provide when needed?
6. How do you describe the role of your principal in achieving high performance in
school activities?
VIII
Appendix 5
Standards of School Inspection

The process of school classification is based on the standards and indicators stipulated in the
National School Inspection Framework. In light with this, there are 26 standards that broadly
classified as input, process and output. They are illustrated below.
1. INPUT
 Fulfilled standards for classroom and other buildings, facilities and pedagogical resources.
 Fulfilled financial resources and executes for its priority areas.
 Having sufficient qualified directors, teachers and support staff.
 conducive learning and teaching environment for the school community has been
established
 well-organized Education Development Army has been established
 There is a shared vision, mission and values.
 Well prepared participatory school improvement plan.
2. PROCESS
 Students‘ learning and participation has increased.
 Students have made progress in their learning.
 Students show positive attitudes towards their schools.
 Teaching is well planned, is supported by suitable educational resources.
 Teachers have adequate knowledge of the subject they teach.
 Using appropriate teaching methods that help all students‘ participation.
 Records data regarding females and students with special needs; provides support.
 Undertaking continuous professional development (CPD) programme.
 School community is working as a team and organized in Development Army.
IX
 Teachers evaluate the curriculum and give feedback
 There is an accurate assessment and students are given appropriate feedback.
 School leadership bodies monitor school plans and the implementation.
 The school has good system for proper utilization of an overall resource.
 The school has strong partnership with parents and the local community.
3. OUT-PUT
 The school met the education access, internal efficiency and education development goals.
 The students‘ classroom, regional and national examination results met the expectations.
 Students have shown responsible behaviour, ethical values and cultural understanding.
 There is good interaction among teachers, leaders and support staff
 The school has secured support from parents, local community and partner organizations.

Fransua Dalachew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fransua Dalachew

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fransua Dalachew

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Leadership Practices and School performance in

Secondary Schools of Wolaita Zone (Southern

Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WOLAITA ZONE (SOUTHERN

NATION, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES’ REGIONAL

By: Fransua Dalachew

A Dissertation submitted to Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa

University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Educational Policy and

SECONDARY SCHOOLS OF WOLAITA ZONE (SOUTHERN

NATION, NATIONALITIES AND PEOPLES’ REGIONAL

By: Fransua Dalachew

Approved by the Board of Examiners

Dr. Kenenisa Dabi ____________________________

support in providing me with necessary information and encouragement.

understanding and encouragement throughout my graduate studies. I wish also to appreciate my

patient when this study took considerable time.

CHAPTER ONE ..................................................................................................................... 1

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of the Study………………………………………………16

ESDP Education Sector Development Program

ETP Ethiopian Education and Training Policy

GEQIP General Education Quality Improvement Program

GTPE Growth and Transformation Plan of Ethiopia

MoE Ministry of Education

NLA National Learning Assessment

REB Regional Education Bureau

SNNPRS Southern Nations, Nationalities and People‘s Regional State

UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

builds more cohesive and participatory societies. (UNESCO 2003)

productivity and economic growth (Barro and Sala-i-Martin, 1995).

training (Nsubuga, 2003).

professional leaders in their fields of study and in overall societal needs.

implication on provision of quality education and management of the education system.

challenging schools (Wallace Foundation: 2009).

Effective education leadership makes a difference in improving learning.

successful leadership are.( Kenneth et.al 2004)

and working conditions.

1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

to lead schools as principals.

staff and the placement of a school principal was by open competition.

and to promote girls‘ education (MoE, 2005:4).

(ETP, 1994), Strengthening of the Management and Administration of Schools (amendment)

Proclamation 217/2000, Directive for Educational Management, Organization, Public improved

pre-service teacher education; strengthened continuing professional development (in-service) for

national assessment programs, in particular at post-primary levels (MOE, 2008: 11 ).

school principals is critical for successful implementation of educational reforms.

objectives, programme coordination, being didactic leader, organizing enrichment programs,

ensure their continuous endeavors to meet the set standard.

attitudes that all principals, are expected to demonstrate.

This standard will mainly serve the following purposes:

framework for professional learning, guiding self-reflection, self-improvement and development,

professional development./MoE 2013/

the three criteria; namely, input, process and output./MoE 2012/

 classify schools into levels by evaluating them using consistent criteria/standards;

will be held based on the following procedure.

Instrument/ Checklist and Descriptors.

 INPUT 25%, PROCESS, 35% and OUTPUT 40%.

indicates the category of the school as follows.

1. If a school scores below 50% , it will be classified as GRADE 1

2. If a school scores 50 – 69.99%, it will be classified as GRADE 2