Leadership Behaviour of School Administrators in Public Schools: The Basic Dimensions of Initiating Structure and
Consideration
Martin L. Nobis, Jr1*
1 University of Eastern Philippines Laoang Campus, Philippines
*Corresponding Author: [email protected] Accepted: 15 August 2022 | Published: 1 September 2022
DOI:https://doi.org/10.55057/ajbs.2022.4.3.3
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract: Leadership behaviour plays a great role for educational organizations to reach the success of their vision, mission and goals. The desired change in schools is almost always dependent on the leadership of school administrators whose leadership styles and behaviours like initiating structure and consideration. This study aimed to know the profile of the respondents; and the level of leadership behavior; the significant relationship between the profile of the school administrators and the level of leadership behavior; the significant difference among the assessment of the three groups of respondents on the level of leadership behavior. Descriptive-correlational survey methods and a questionnaire were utilized to gather the data. Findings revealed that the level of leadership behaviour was high. Moreover, the relationship between the profile and the differences in the assessment of community relations practices and the level of leadership behaviour were all found not significant.
Keywords: Education; leadership behaviour; school administrators; initiating structure;
consideration; public schools; descriptive-correlational; Philippines
_________________________________________________________________________
1. Introduction
Leadership can be characterized as the capacity of the leader to form sound choices and motivate others to perform well with a given task. It is the method of coordinating the behavior of others toward accomplishing a common objective. Leadership is getting things done through others. Leadership is exceptionally critical (Doyle, 2021) in an organization because it leads to higher execution by the team individuals, moves forward inspiration and resolve among the members, and makes a difference to respond to change. Leadership encourages organizational victory by making obligations and accountability among the members of the organization.
Morton et al. (2011) stated that school administrators were able to realize the transformation in their institutions thanks to their personality traits and abilities and that the arrangements of leadership and administrative activities exhibited by the school administrator were necessary for institutional success. It was found that having a vision for a leader is important for reform, innovation, and change (Fasola et al., 2013), which affects proactive behaviors by affecting intrinsic motivation (Yi et al., 2019).
Moreover, innovative and motivating school principals tend to exhibit more transformational leadership characteristics (Mi et al., 2019), and a visionary leader who structures a change-
based leadership understanding is a reliable, respected social architect who constantly communicates with his or her followers. In addition, studies focused on areas such as the structure of leadership (Smith & Piele, 2006), teacher behaviors and student achievement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006), work, quality of life, and organizational commitment (Yalçın &
Akan, 2016).
There are 18 million students, more than 1 million teachers, and almost 81,000 school principals in the public and private schools (MEB, 2018a). School administrators working in educational institutions try to fulfill their administrative duties while simultaneously trying to adapt to the expectations of change and renewal. However, the lack of training directed at developing the professional and administrative capacities of school administrators can cause administrative problems in educational institutes. In addition to these, there is a basic expectation for school administrators to create an institutional identity that could respond to the necessities of the age, being a team, being productive and increasing the consciousness of humanity, and also managing unforeseen conditions, in addition to their administrative duties according to the education vision document 2023 of Turkey’s Ministry of National Education (MoNE; MEB, 2018b). However, there is a problem with policies related to the formation and assignment of school administrators: managerial arrangements are based on a technically oriented approach rather than a goal-oriented one. In recent years, positive developments have been observed in quantitative indicators such as enrolment rate, the number of classrooms, participation in education, and graduation rates in the Turkish National Education System (TMES; MEB, 2018b). On the contrary (OECD, 2015), the negative results in national and international reports and data from the Building the Future Report (United Nations Children’s Fund, 2017), Social Progress Index (2018), and Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM, 2018) manifest the problems directed at the quality of the education (Atasoy &
Cemaloğlu, 2018). Thus, to achieve a sustainable structure in the school ecosystem, overcoming the administrative and instructional problems in the schools can only be realized with a strong school leadership (F. Altınay & Altınay, 2018; Cassano et al., 2019)
Self-efficacy of administrators is essential for school management (Fisher, 2014) and the principal beliefs affect their behaviors and teacher commitment (Hallinger, Hosseingholizadeh, Hashemi and Kouhsari, 2017). School administrators, who have a high level of self-efficacy beliefs, are determined to pursue their goals. They are more open to adopting new strategies in different situations. The schools with these kinds of administrators are expected to be more effective and successful because they might directly affect teachers, students, and the staff. As Kelleher (2016) indicates, variables such as school effectiveness, teaching and learning quality, and effective leadership are all related to administrators' self-efficacy. Similarly, in a study by Isik and Gumus (2017), self-efficacy perceptions of administrators are closely related to school effectiveness.
Likewise, the desired change in schools is almost always dependent on the leadership of school administrators whose leadership styles and behaviours are important to the success of schools (Rhoden, 2012; Rapaido, 2011; Mendiola, 2012; Jamon, 2017; and Andal, 2020). There are 4 the gained understanding that leadership behaviour may create a better training process to prepare school administrators for a stressful job. Research revealed leadership behaviours of school heads affect their performance along with their adversity quotient and resilience to face emergent changes that arise in schools (Aquino, 2013; Bakare, 2015; Baroa, 2015; and Bautista et al., 2016).
However, the greatest challenges faced by the current generation of new leaders are different from those of before, one of these is that increased accountability with reduced resources (Montecinosa et al., 2018; Alvarado et al., 2019; San Antonio, 2019; Rivera et al., 2020).
The challenges seen, experienced, and faced by school administrators as their worst constant companion daily are almost always coupled with heavy responsibilities and accountabilities underlying their position. Without an iota of doubt, any mismanagement and failure to handle every challenge may eventually and greatly affect the performance of learners, the trust of parents, and even the entire school community (Baroa, 2015).
Considering the countless duties associated with school heads, their job is fully covered by conflict, adversity, and crisis. There is a great need to make them able and capable to guide the schools through constant and emergent change by equipping them well with not only knowledge but with the right leadership behaviours towards the adversities they may experience. These adversities are indeed obstacles to the fulfillment of their dream of achieving quality education -- their goals and aspirations for the institution they dedicatedly and cordially serve. Adversities may be positively looked up to as opportunities as they strengthen the thoughts of school leaders and establish their achievements because surpassing any adverse event in life prepares and readies them for a better way of understanding problems.
Corollary, Leadership issues continue to be at the forefront of realizing quality education;
therefore, investigations must be put in place focusing on the emotional intelligence, adversity quotient, and leadership behaviours of school administrators since these are highly related factors to how school administrators lead their schools. Examining this three-factor relationship might prove useful in the recruitment, identification, development, and retention of effective school leaders and administrators. Premised on this, the present study was conceptualized to examine the leadership behaviour of public elementary school administrators and measure their adversary quotient to develop a management plan to enhance leadership capabilities. 6 Premised on the foregoing, this study was conducted with the hope-laden intent of helping public elementary school administrators become better capable of guiding their schools through constant and emergent change. The researcher finds this a very interesting area to study because of the nature of her job which requires her to work closely with public school administrators.
Truly indeed, she smiles in their laughter and feels their aches and pains as they face almost always courageously varied challenges and with all the challenges and adversities in leading their respective schools. The researcher herself is an eyewitness to the myriad situations not only in her workplace, but also in the smallest corner of the educational arena where the resilience of school leaders is challenged or heavily provoked by adversities of all sorts, types, and degrees. As a staunch advocate that quality education must not be compromised, the researcher believes that even if school administrators face a very different setup of schools under today’s so-called new normal, they are great thinkers, and through their creativity, they can fill in the needed resources on the goal for quality education among the learners and professional growth of teachers. They are good motivators to lead and encourage teachers to grow professionally with their craft as educators. They know how to listen to the voices of subordinates and recognize their accomplishments through the school administrators’
increased understanding of their commitments to the DepEd’s vision and mission. Therefore, they must be the leaders who look after the welfare of their people and subordinates because only then that they can eventually transform the culture of the organization towards realizing quality education. With the desire to make education transformative, school heads should be able to learn and adapt to ways their leadership more effectively. This is only possible through
subjecting oneself to the process of learning and relearning the different approaches and strategies to run an institution.
2. Methods
This study was conducted in the province of Northern Samar, particularly the municipality of Palapag a 4th class municipality of the 24 municipalities in the province of Northern Samar, Philippines. The respondents that were involved in this study were (5) secondary school administrators, (50) secondary school teachers and (40) elected barangay officials. There was a complete enumeration of these groups of respondents.
This study employed the descriptive-correlational research design. Descriptive design because it identified and analyzed the profile of school administrators in terms of sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years in the service as an administrator, position and training/seminars attended relative to school administration, and the level of leadership behavior of school administrators. This study also used correlational design because it identified and analyzed the significant relationship between the profile of school administrators in terms of sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years in the service as an administrator, position and training/seminars attended relative to school administration and the level of leadership behavior.
3. Results and discussion
Sex. Figure 1 presents the distribution of respondents according to sex. As reflected in Table 1, 3 or 60 percent were male and 2 or 40 percent were female. This shows that most of the secondary school administrators in Palapag, Northern Samar were male. This implies that male dominates in the administrative positions of secondary schools in Palapag Northern Samar.
Figure 1: Sex of school administrator
Age. Figure 2 shows that out of 5 respondents 3 or 60 percent belonged to the 41-45 age bracket, while 1 or 20 percent fell within the 36-40 age bracket and 1 or 20 percent belonged to the 46-50 age bracket. The finding shows that most of the respondents are in the age bracket of 46-50 years old which implies that they are in their middle adulthood stage.
3, 60%
2, 40%
Sex
Male Female
Figure 2: Age of school administrators
Civil Status. As shown in figure 3, 3 or 60 percent of the respondents were married while only 1 or 20 percent were single and likewise 1 or 20 percent were a widow. It implies that married person have more chances to get top management positions in the secondary schools of Palapag, Northern Samar.
Figure 3: Civil Status
Highest Educational Attainment. The table reveals that 3 or 60 percent of the respondents earned M.A. units, only 1 or 20 percent Ph. D. units and 1 or 20 percent was Ph. D. holder.
This indicates that secondary school administrators are qualified educational leaders. They are equipped with leadership behaviour and community relations necessary to educational institutions.
1
3
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
36-40 years old 41-45 years old 46-50 years old
Age
Single 1, 20%
Married 3, 60%
Widow/widow er 1, 20%
Civil Status
Single Married Widow/widower
Figure 4: Highest educational Attainment
Number of Years in Service as Administrator. As gathered from the data, 4 or 80 percent belonged with 6-10 years of experience while 1 or 20 percent, with, 11-15 years of experience as school administrators. This implies that most of them have experienced managerial functions.
Figure 5: Number of years as school administrators
Position. The figure shows that out of 5 respondents 3 0r 60 percent are Head Teacher II while 2 or 40 percent, are School Principal II. This implies that most of the respondents have the appropriate position as school administrators. They meet only the required qualifications as head teachers.
3 1
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
M.A. units Ph. D. units Ph. D. Graduate
Highest Educational Attainment
4
1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5
6-10 years 11-15 years
Number of Years as School
Administrator
Figure 6: Position/Designation
Training/Seminar Attended Related to School Management. As shown in the table, 3 or 60 percent attend 7-9 or more seminars, and only 2 or 40 percent have 4-6 seminars attended. This means that the secondary school administrators are highly trained. They are prepared to lead the students, teachers and people in the school and the community, implying further that those trainings is conducted to enable the school administrators to perform effectively their duties and functions as administrators. Indeed, one of the most important problems educational systems is the training, selection and appointment of the school administrators (Kosterelioglu
& Bayar, 2014).
Figure 7: Number of training and Seminars
Leadership Behaviour of School Administrators Initiating Structure
The findings revealed that the level of leadership behavior of secondary school administrators as perceived by the administrators themselves was 4.07 interpreted as high. This implies that the school administrators believed that they define the roles of each school personnel; initiate action, and organize group activities toward accomplishing the goals.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Principal II Head Teacher II 2
3
Position/Designation
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
4-6 seminars 7-9 seminars/more
Number of Trainings/Seminar
In addition, teachers’ perception of initiating structure of school administrators was 4.08 interpreted as high. It can be implied that teachers believe that their school administrators delineate the relationship between them.
Finally, the overall mean for initiating structure as rated by community officials was 3.98 interpreted as high. It can be implied that community officials perceived school administrators to be very good leaders who delineate relationships with the workgroups.
This finding is a corollary to the study of Dirain (2005) wherein it gleaned that the administrators are more concerned with contingent rewards most especially appreciating the work well done by teachers.
Table 2.1: Level of Leadership Behaviour of School Administrators as Perceived by Themselves, their Teachers and Community Officials
INITIATING STRUCTURES
Administrators Teachers Community Officials
WM
Interpretatio
n WM
Interpretatio
n WM
Interpretatio n
1. I make my attitude clear to the community. 4.60
Very High 4.30
High 4.30
High 2. I try out my ideas with the community. 4.40 High 4.20 High 4.30 High 3. I act as the real leader of the community. 4.40
High 4.40
High 4.23
High
4. My rule is with an iron hand. 2.00 Low 3.05 Moderately
High 2.53 Moderately
High
5. I criticize poor work. 2.60 Moderately
High 2.80 Moderately
High 2.35 Low
6. I give advance notice and changes. 4.60 Very High 3.84 High 3.90 High 7. I speak in a manner not to be questioned. 4.60
Very High 3.86
High 3.33 Moderately
High 8. I assign members to particular tasks. 4.60
Very High 4.46
High 4.08
High 9. I maintain a definite standard of
performance. 4.40
High 4.31
High 4.28
High 10. I emphasize the meeting of the deadline. 5.00
Very high 4.36
High 4.20
High 11. I encourage the use of uniform procedures. 4.80
Very High 4.23
High 4.18
High 12. I make sure that my part in the community
is understood by the members. 4.40
High 4.20 High 4.20 High
13. I ask my members to follow standard rules
& regulations. 4.20 High 4.46 High 4.28 High
14. I don’t fail to make necessary actions. 3.20
High 4.19
High 3.90
High 15. I set with my members to know what is
expected. 4.00
High 4.23
High 4.00 High
16. I put suggestions made by the community
into operation. 3.40 High 4.10 High 3.90 High
17. I ask for the approval of the community on
important matters before going ahead. 3.60 High 4.12 High 3.98 High
18. I accept new ideas. 4.20 High 4.32 High 3.95 High
19. I work with a plan. 4.60 Very High 4.50 High 4.15 High
20. I don’t let other people take away my
leadership in the group. 3.80 High 3.64 High 3.70 High
MEAN 4.07 High 4.08 High 3.98 High
Consideration
As appears in table 2.2, the school administrator’s self-assessment was 3.80 interpreted as high.
It implies that the school administrators perceived that they have a high level of leadership behavior; demonstrating an interpersonal relationship with teachers.
Supported by the findings on the perception of the teachers the mean of 4.06 was interpreted as high. This implies that teachers perceived that their administrators have a leader-behavior indicative of friendship with their staff.
Tipones (2004) had similar findings to the present study. He claimed that in the Division of Naga City, teachers perceived their administrators to be transformational leaders who manifested intellectual stimulation, inspiration, individualized consideration, and charisma.
The total mean of perceived leadership behavior of school administrators by community officials was 3.88 interpreted as high. It could be inferred that administrators establish a high level of leadership behavior and community relation practices (Nobis, 2022) to carry out activities
Table 2.2: Level of Leadership Behaviour of School Administrators as Perceived by Themselves, their Teachers, and Community Officials
B. CONSIDERATION
Administrators Teachers Community
Officials WM
Interpreta
tion WM
Interpreta
tion WM
Interpreta tion 1. I do a personal favor for the community. 1.20
Very low 3.66
High 3.80
High 2. I do little things to make it pleasant to be
a member of the community. 2.80 Moderatel
y High 3.67 High 3.88 High
3. I am easy to understand. 4.00 High 4.07 High 4.10 High
4. I find time to listen to my members. 4.20 High 4.04 High 3.80 High 5. I keep my eyes on my members. 5.00 Very High 3.76 High 3.70 High 6. I look out for the personal welfare of the
individual members 4.40 High 4.23 High 3.98 High
7. I explain my actions. 1.80 Low 4.13 High 3.78 High
8. I keep the community informed. 4.40 High 4.19 High 4.33 High
9. I act with the community. 4.20 High 3.96 High 4.15 High
10. I back my members in their actions. 1.00 Very
Low 3.68 High 3.50 Moderatel
y High 11. I treat my members as my equals. 3.40 Moderatel
y High 4.00 High 3.80 High
12. I get what I ask for from my head. 2.20 Low 3.94 High 3.43 High 13. I am willing to make changes. 4.40 High 4.10 High 3.65 High 14. I am friendly and approachable. 4.60 Very High 4.33 High 4.18 High 15. I make my members at ease when
talking with them. 4.40 High 4.16 High 3.88 High
16. I speak as the representative of the
community. 3.40 Moderatel
y High 3.98 High 3.93 High
17. I see to it that my members are working
up to capacity 3.80 High 4.14 High 4.08 High
18. I see to it that the work of the members
is coordinated. 4.00 High 4.32 High 4.13 High
19. I keep the community working together
as a team. 3.80 High 4.26 High 4.00 High
Test of Relationship Between the Profile of the School Administrators and their Level of Leadership Behavior
Reflected in table 3, is the summary result on the relationship between the profile of the respondents and the level of leadership behavior.
As to sex, its computed value of 2.72 was lesser than the value of 9.488 at 4 degrees of freedom is interpreted as not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no relationship between a profile in terms of sex was accepted. This implies that the gender of the administrator has no connection to his leadership behavior. In terms of age, its computed value of 5.5 was lesser than the value of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant.
Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship between a profile in terms of age and the leadership behavior of the administrators was accepted. This implies that the leadership behavior is manifested differently regardless of the age of administrators.
In terms of civil status, its computed value of 5.5 was lesser than the value of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. So, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of civil status was accepted.
This implies that the civil status does not affect the leadership behavior of the administrators.
In terms of highest educational attainment, its computed value of 5.56 was lesser than the value of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. Therefore, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of highest educational attainment and the leadership behavior of the administrators was accepted. This implies that leadership behavior is not influenced by the highest educational attainment of the administrators.
As regards the number of years in service as an administrator, its computed value of 5.56 was lesser than the tabular value of 15.50 at 8 degrees of freedom interpreted as not significant.
Thus, the null hypothesis that states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of the number of years in the service as an administrator and the leadership behavior was accepted. This implies that the number of years in service as an administrator has nothing to do with their leadership behavior. As regards position, its computed value of 5.56 was lesser than the value of 15.507 at 8 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant relationship between the profile in terms of position and leadership behavior was accepted. This implies that leadership behavior is not influenced by the position of administrators. In terms of training and seminars attended related to school management, its computed value of 4.76 was lesser than the value of 9.488 at 4 degrees of freedom, interpreted as not significant. This implies that the training attended related to school management has nothing to do with the leadership behavior of the administrators.
Therefore, the profile in terms of sex, age, civil status, highest educational attainment, number of years in service as an administrator, position and training attended related to school management of the administrators is not related to their leadership behavior. Therefore, the null hypothesis that states that there is no significant relationship between the profile and the leadership behavior of the administrators was accepted. This implies that the pattern of actions that represent a consistent combination of philosophy, skills, traits, and attitudes that are exhibited in the administrator’s behavior is not affected by the status of their profile.
20. I get my superiors to act for the welfare
of the members. 3.60 High 4.10 High 3.60 High
MEAN 3.53 High 4.04 High 3.88 High
GRAND MEAN 3.80 High 4.06 High 3.88 High
Similar findings were revealed by Dirain (2005) in her study. It showed that the profile of the administrators in the Division of Batangas has no significant relationship to their leadership behavior.
Table 3: Test of Relationship Between the Profile of the School Administrators and their Level of Leadership Behavior
d.f. x2c x2t
Level of Significanc e
Decision Interpretation
Sex 4 2.72 9.488 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant
Age 8 5.56 15.507 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant
Civil Status 8 5.56 15.507 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant Highest educational attainment 8 5.56 15.507 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant Number of years in service as
administrators 8 5.56 15.507 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant
Position 4 4.76 9.488 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant Training and seminars attended
related to school management 4 4.76 9.488 .05 Accept
Ho Not Significant
Test of Difference Among the Perceptions of the School Administrators, their Teachers, and Community Officials in the Level of Leadership Behavior of School Administrators Table 4 represents the test of significant differences in the perceptions of school administrators, their teachers, and community officials on the level of leadership behavior. As to the respondents, the computed F-value of 1.582 was lesser than the t-value of 3.07at 0.05 level of significance with 3 degrees of freedom. Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the perceptions of school administrators, their teachers, and community officials on the level of leadership behaviour was accepted. This means that there are no variations in perceptions of school administrators, their teachers, and community officials on the level of leadership behaviour. It implies that the three groups of respondents have similar views on the level of leadership behavior of school administrators, implying further that the respondents believe that the administrators highly demonstrate a pattern of leadership action that represents a consistent combination of philosophy, skills, traits, and attitudes.
Similarly, Fuentes showed in his study that leadership behavior, the administrators of the Division of Naga City always practice three managerial skills such as technical, human relation, and conceptual.
In contrast to this finding, Macalor (2002) showed in his study that the principals in the Division of Puerto Prinsesa were perceived by teachers to have outstanding leadership behavior, particularly in an organizational environment.
Table 7: Test of Difference Among the Perceptions of the School Administrators, their Teachers, and Community Officials in the Level of Leadership Behavior of School Administrators
4. Conclusion
Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions and implications were drawn:
The majority of the respondents were male, which implies that male dominates the administrative positions of secondary schools in Palapag Northern Samar. The majority were 41-45 years old, which implies that they belong to middle adulthood. Most of the school administrators were married which implies that they have married persons have more chances to get top management positions in Palapag, N. Samar. Most of the school administrators had M.A. units and had 6-10 years of experience as school administrators. This implies that most of the respondents are educationally qualified and have experienced managerial tasks. The majority had 7-9 or more training attended related to school management, this implies that seminars/training enables them to perform effectively their duties.
As regards the level of leadership behavior of school administrators, they perceived themselves as at a high level. It implies that school administrators practiced a high level of behavior demonstrating interpersonal relationships with teachers. The teachers showed the same high level of perception of the leadership behavior of their administrators, implying that administrators demonstrate leaders’ behavior indicative of friendship with staff.
The findings showed that there was no significant relationship between the profile of school administrators and their level of leadership behavior. This implies that the patterns of actions that represent a consistent combination of philosophy, skills, traits, and attitudes that are exhibited in the administrators’ behavior are not affected by the status of their profile.
The findings showed that there was no significant difference in perceptions of administrators, teachers, and community officials on the level of leadership behavior of the administrators.
This implies that there are similar views among the three sets of respondents on how the administrators demonstrate their philosophy, skills, traits, and attitudes that are manifested in their behavior.
Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the following recommendations are suggested:
1) There should be continuing leadership training/seminars among school administrators for them to be more responsive to changes in attitudes, values and behaviors. This can help them more effective school administrators.
2) The school administrator should know their strength and weaknesses in their leadership behavior for them to know what practices to develop and change.
3) School and community should develop good working relations for the success of implementation of projects and programs of both school and community.
4) Further studies involving other variables on leadership behavior and community relations must be conducted to enhance their level of leadership behavior and level of community relations.
Sources of variation
Sum of Squares
Degrees of Freedom
Mean
Squares Computed F Tabular
F(.05) Decision Interpretation Between
Column 1.37 2 .685
1.582 3.07 Accept Ho Not Significant Within
Column 50.68 117 .433
References
Altınay, F. A. (2015). Are headmasters digital leaders in school culture? Education & Science, 40(182), 77–86. http://dx.doi. org/10.15390/EB.2015.4534
Alvarado, E. S., Sy, F. A. R. & Adriatico, A. (2019). Constraints on School-Based Management Compliance of Public Schools Principals. Open Access Library Journal, Vol.6 No.7.
Retrieved on July 01, 2020, from DOI: 10.4236/oalib.1105454.
Andal, G. A. M. (2020). Leading from the Margins: The Educational Leadership Experiences of Jesuit Directors of Mission High Schools in the Philippines and the Implications for the Leadership Formation of Filipino Jesuits. Dissertation. Loyola Marymount University, Dr, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States.
Aquino, J. B. (2013). Adversity quotient, leadership style and performance of secondary school heads and commitment to organizational values of teachers in the Province of Tarlac.
Dissertation. University of St. La Salle, Bacolod City, Philippines.
Atasoy, R., & Cemaloğlu, N. (2018). Evaluation of quality policies on education in Turkish education system. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(7), 1504–1518.
http://doi:10.13189/ ujer.2018.060711
Baroa, E. D. (March 2015). Adversity Quotient® and leadership skills of school administrators:
basis for leadership enhancement program. Masters’ Thesis. Philippine Normal University Visayas. Boy Albert, St, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental. Bautista, R. L. et al. (March 2016). Adversity quotient® and leadership styles among student leaders in Bulacan State University. Bachelor’s Thesis. Bulacan State University, City of Malolos, Bulacan, Philippines.
Baroa, E. D. (March 2015). Adversity Quotient® and leadership skills of school administrators:
basis for leadership enhancement program. Masters’ Thesis. Philippine Normal University Visayas. Boy Albert, St, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental.
Cassano, R., Costa, V., & Fornasari, T. (2019). An effective national evaluation system of schools for sustainable development: A comparative European analysis.
Sustainability, 11(1), 195. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11010195
Dirain, Agrifina A. Transactional and Transformational Leadership Behavior of Elementary School Heads as Perceived by Themselves and their Teachers: Basis for Enhancement Programs, 2005.
Doyle, A., 2021. Important Leadership Skills for Workplace Success.
https://www.thebalancecareers.com/alison-doyle-2058389
Fasola, O. S., Adeyemi, M., & Olowe, F. T. (2013). Exploring the relationship between transformational, transactional leadership style and organizational commitment among Nigerian banks employees. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics & Management Sciences, 2(6), 96–107
Fisher, Y. (2014). The timeline of self-efficacy: changes during the professional life cycle of school principals. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(1), 58-83. doi:
10.1108/JEA-09-2012-0103.
Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh, R., Hashemi, N., & Kouhsari M. (2017). Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, April, 1-20. doi: 10.1177/1741143217700283
Jamon, B. E. V. (2017). School administrators’ leadership styles, attributes and functions towards education progression-driven era. Dissertation. Cebu Technological University, Main Campus, R. Palma Street Cebu City, Philippines.
Kelleher J. (2016). You're OK, I'm OK: a lesser-known branch of research is beginning to focus on using self-efficacy to help principals navigate the increasingly difficult demands placed on them, Phi Delta Kappan, 97(8), 70-74
Kosterelioglu, I., & Bayar, A. (2014), Turk egitim sistemi’nin sorunl arina iliskin guncel bir degerl endirme [An assessment on recent issues of Turkish education system].
International Journal of Social Science, 25(1), 177-187.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform:
Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227.
Macolor, Ariel H. Principals’ Leadership Behavior and School Performance in the Division of City Schools, (2002).
Measurement, Selection and Placement Center (ÖSYM). (2018). 2018 YKS ön değerlendirme
raporu. https://dokuman.osym.
gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2018/YKS/ondeg_yks_rapor_31072018. Pdf
MEB. (2018a). Milli eğitim istatistikleri örgün eğitim 2017/2018.
https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_09/06123056_meb_istatistikleri_org un_egitim_2017_2018.pdf
MEB. (2018b). 2023 Eğitim vizyonu. Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı.
https://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_VIZYON_ENG.pdf
Mendiola, F. N. M. (2012). Public leadership: a study of the leadership practices of elected public officials in Guam and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
Dissertation. Pepperdine University, 24255 Pacific Coast Hwy, Malibu, CA 90263, United States.
Mi, L., Gan, X., Xu, T., Long, R., Qiao, L., & Zhu, H. (2019). A new perspective to promote organizational citizenship behavior for the environment: The role of transformational leadership. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2019.118002
Montecinosa, C., Bushb, T. and Aravena, F. (2018). Moving the school forward: problems reported by novice and experienced principals during a succession process in Chile.
Retrieved on July 01, 2020, from https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com.
Morton, K. L., Barling, J., Rhodes, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R.
(2011). The application of transformational leadership theory to parenting:
Questionnaire development and implications for adolescent self-regulatory efficacy and life satisfaction.
Nobis, M. (2022). Community Relation Practices of School Administrators in Public Schools in Palapag, Northern Samar. International Journal Of Advanced Research In
Education And Society, 4(2), 85-99. Retrieved
from https://myjms.mohe.gov.my/index.php/ijares/article/view/18863 Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 688–709.
OECD. (2015). PISA 2015 results in focus. https://www.oecd.org/ pisa/pisa-2015-results-in- focus.pdf
Rapaido, C. M. (2011). Filipino American Educational Leaders in Northern California K-12 Public Schools: Challenges and Opportunities. Dissertation. University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton St, San Francisco, CA 94117, United States.
Rhoden, V. (2012). The examination of the relationships among secondary principals’
leadership behaviors, school climate, and student achievement in an urban context.
Dissertation, Florida International University, Miami, Florida.
Rivera, P. A. P. & Ibarra, F. P. (2020). The Extent of Principals’ Empowerment and Their Functions towards Management of Public Elementary Schools. Indonesian Research
Journal in Education, Vol. 4 (1). Retrieved on July 2, 2020, from
|https://onlinejournal.unja.ac.id/index.php/irje/index.
San Antonio, D. M. (2019). Issues and Concerns on School Governance and School Improvement in DepEd CALABARZON. Center for Integrative and Development Studies Public Policy Monographs, University of the Philippines. Retrieved on July 2, 2020, from https://www.researchgate.net.
Smith, C., & Piele, P. K. (2006). School leadership. Corwin Press
Tipones, Nilo A. “Transactional and Transformational Behaviors of School Heads in Relation to Teachers’ Instructional Competence and Pupils’ Academic Achievement’, (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Naga College Foundation, Naga City, 2004).
United Nations Children’s Fund. (2017). Building the future: Children and the sustainable development goals in rich countries (Innocenti Report Card No. 14). UNICEF Office of Research. https://www.unicef.org/supply/files/Unicef_ Annual_report_2017.pdf Yalçın, S., & Akan, D. (2016). Okul yöneticilerinin liderlik stilleri ile öğretmenlerin iş yaşam
kalitesi ve örgütsel bağlılıkları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. Electronic Journal of Social Sciences, 15(59), 1138–1156. https://doi.org/10.17755/esosder.93688
Yi, L., Uddin Md, A., Das, A. K., Mahmood, M., & Do, S. M. S. (2019). Transformational leaders engage employees in sustainable innovative work behavior. Perspective from a developing country. Sustainability, 11, 2485. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11092485