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.