Material and Method
This study was adopted correlation research design. The research object
was containing on 106 106 secondary schools in private sector in the
district Lahore. All the principals of 106 schools and teachers of 543
of secondary schools, making 649 respondents as a total, participated in
the study. The instrument of research of Imhangbe et al. (2018) was
adapted for the collection of the data. The instrument was in two tools
titled Principal Leadership Style Questionnaire (PLSQ) and Teacher Job
Performance Questionnaire (TJPQ). They were used to measure the
principal leadership styles named democratic, autocratic and
laissez-faire leadership style and the job performance of the teachers
respectively. The PLSQ was contained on further three sub parts; the
part A was containing on school name, total duration in that specific
school, total experience and other demographics; the part B was
containing 15 items, the items from one to five for democratic
leadership style, the items from six to ten for autocratic leadership
style and the items from eleven to fifteen for laissez-faire leadership
style, to determine the most commonly employed leadership style by the
school principal. These fifteen items were rated on the scale of
“always = 3”, “sometimes = 2” and “never = 1”.
In the regard of adapting Part B of original instrument of Imhangbe et
al. (2018), the item number 8 and 9 which dealt with the autocratic
style of a leader and the item number 13 which dealt with the
laissez-faire style of a leader, were slightly modified. These changes
were made to cover other aspects of leadership style according to the
role of leadership in the studied job framework and context. For
instance, item number 9 which read “my principal does not accept
ideas from teachers” was slightly changed to “My principal sets
his/her expectations and performance standards which teachers have to
finish”.
The next C part was containing 30 items of questions to check the
relationship of “democratic from 1 to 10 items”, “autocratic from 11
to 20 items” and “laissez-faire leadership style from 21 to 30 items”
with the job performance of the teachers. The item number 9, 11 and 13
were slightly modified to address the other distinct features of the job
description of the principal except liaison, supervision and
disseminator. For example, item number 9, which read “The use of
teachers’ meeting and students’ representative council for information
is functional” was slightly changed to “my principal provides
support to teachers to overcome the problems that create hurdles in
their tasks and responsibilities”. All the items of part C of the
instrument were appraised on the scale of Likert point four (4) having
the value of “strongly agree = 4, agree = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly
disagree = 1”.
The instrument’s second tool named TJPQ also had 2 sub categories. The
1st portion of the categories was related to
demographics same as the first tool. The second part of the tool was
incorporated on 5 sub categories to rate the job performance of the
teachers related to lesson planning, teaching lesson, lesson evaluation
and about to student discipline for the management of classroom. Each
category had three questions making a total of 15 questions. For the
tool integrity, it was cross checked with the Annual Confidential Report
(ACR) of two schools. ACR was a highly confidential report, thus in the
response of our request, the governing bodies of school A and B (pseud,
school names cannot be disclosed due to confidential and secrecy matters
and research ethics are also under the consideration by the researchers)
agreed to cross check and align the tool TJPQ of the instrument by their
managers who were responsible for teacher evaluation. The managers made
necessary changes in item number 5, 6, 9 and 13. For instance the item
number 5 which read “Makes the lessons engaging, relevant, and
challenging” was in some extent altered to “Uses relevant
visual/a/v aids and activities of explained material to make the lesson
interesting”. Each item of the tool was rated on 4-point Likert scale
of “strongly agree = 4, agree = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly disagree =
1”.
The instrument’s content and face validity were ensured by the
educational experts and governing bodies of the two schools (due to
confidential and secrecy matters name cannot be disclosed and research
ethics are also under consideration). The Cronbach alpha was used to
ascertain the reliability of the tools of the instrument. PLSQ tool of
the instrument had cronbach alphas of autocratic leadership of .834,
democratic leadership of .764 and laissez-faire leadership of 861.
While, TJPQ had Cronbach alpha of .816.
In intent to administer the instrument, the approval for data collection
was taken from the head office and the principal of each school
respectively. A total 649 copies of the instrument were administered to
the respondents. Among the respondents, 543 copies were handed over to
teachers to take their consent for the study about the leadership styles
of their principals and its impact on or connection to their job
performance. The copies of 106 of the tools of the instrument for all
the principals were further supplied in intent to rate the job
performance of their teachers. In this way, a of period 6 weeks was
spent to administered the instrument.
Howbeit, the 16 improper, incomplete especially incorrect filled copies
of the instruments for the teachers were taken away from the statistical
analysis to have a consistent and fair results for the study findings.
The percentage was used to determine the most frequently used leadership
style of the principal. The 1st hypothesis was
finished by multiple regression analysis. Pearson correlation was used
for the hypotheses 2, 3 and 4. The level of significance of alpha
p<.05 was used to test all the hypotheses.