Category Archives: Leadership Styles
How Teachers’ Commitment and Leadership Behavior Influence Students’ Academic Performance
The intersection where teachers’ commitment, school administrators’ leadership behavior, and student academic performance converge is frequently explored and investigated in academic studies. Doing so is necessary in order to improve the quality of education. We must find ways to make teaching and learning more effective and efficient.
In my paper published recently, I revisited that intersection. I examined the relationships between the said variables. In the said study, I hypothesized that a correlation exists between teachers’ commitment and leadership behavior, teachers’ commitment and academic performance of students, and leadership behavior and academic performance of students.
Studies conducted on students’ performance in the classroom examined or evaluated how certain factors or variables related to school, teachers, school administrators, or students and their environment affect academic achievement. Some studies focus only on one variable, and some combine two or more. While numerous variables could potentially affect students’ academic performance as presented in various studies, mine focused only on constructs that are perceived to affect students’ academic performance directly, namely, teachers’ commitment (to their work and organization) and the leadership behavior of school administrators.
In the investigation I conducted, the aforementioned constructs were defined or referred to as follows: academic performance as the results of standardized tests students took in the following subject areas: math, science, and English; teachers’ commitment as their dedication and attachment to their profession and their loyalty to their school as an organization; leadership as a process in which an individual influences a group to achieve and commit to a common goal. Teachers’ commitment is categorized into commitment to job and commitment to organization and leadership behavior into consideration (people-oriented) and initiating structure (task-oriented).
We say that teachers play the most crucial role in student achievement, and it is unfortunate that teachers usually take the blame when students fail to meet academic expectations. It is almost impossible for teachers to escape from the notion that “when students did not learn, the teacher did not teach.” But if teachers are held responsible when students are not performing well, should somebody take responsibility when teachers are not teaching the way they should, thus resulting in poor academic performance on the part of the students? This is where leadership behavior comes into focus. School leaders’ primary duty is to inspire and motivate teachers to work towards improving students’ academic performance.
Academic performance is the result of learning produced by the student and prompted by the activities of teachers. How well the students perform academically depends on how committed the teachers are to their chosen profession. On the other hand, whatever activities teachers do in a school are supposedly imposed and overseen by the school administrator. Thus, the level of commitment to job and organization the teachers manifest hinges on their supervisors’ leadership behavior. Student learning is affected by teaching and teaching by management and supervision performed by school leaders.
My study yielded some surprising results.
The overall computed mean for teachers’ commitment indicates that the teachers who participated in my study are committed to both their jobs and organization, although their commitment to their jobs is higher than their commitment to their organizations. As regards leadership behavior, most of the school administrators, as perceived by the teacher-respondents, exhibit behaviors attributed to structured leadership. This implies that the leaders supervising them are high in initiating structure but low in consideration. The results divulge that the correlation between both aspects of teachers’ commitment and the initiating structure dimension of leadership behavior is positive. With the consideration dimension, the correlation is negative. This inverse relationship implies that the less committed teachers to their job and organization become when the heads of their schools manifest a more people-oriented behavior than task-oriented.
We expect that teachers will be more committed to their job and organization if they are supervised by people-oriented leaders and less inspired when they are led by task-oriented school administrators. One probable reason for teachers becoming more committed to their job and organization when the school leader is task-oriented is clarity. Leaders who are strong in initiating structure are arguably more precise and specific with their expectations and goals than their people-oriented counterparts. In this study, the teacher-respondents may happen to prefer leaders who are task-oriented more than those who are people-oriented. The teachers respond more positively to a structured style of leadership.
However, as previously articulated, being task-oriented does not necessarily mean that the leaders are not concerned about the well-being of those they lead. As the findings of this study have shown, the teachers perceive the school managers as “dynamic,” which means that they scored above average in both dimensions of leadership behavior only that they manifest more strongly in the leadership behavior initiating structure. Scoring above average in both dimensions indicates flexibility for the school leaders. They were able to adapt their strategies and approaches based on the needs and circumstances, which is crucial in helping maintain or enhance teacher commitment. Thus, in this study, teachers were found to be committed to both their job and organization.
The correlation analysis for the students’ academic performance was also unexpected. It is only with the student’s performance in math, not in science and in English, that teachers’ commitment is correlated. And the correlation is negative. Most similar studies’ findings show a positive correlation between students’ academic performance and teachers’ commitment. Rarely was in studies that a negative correlation between teachers’ commitment and student performance was shown. That negative relationship was established in this study. However, the size of the (negative) correlation coefficient between the abovementioned variables is considered negligible.
Despite the rarity of seeing a negative correlation between teacher commitment and students’ academic performance, its occurrence is still disconcerting. It is counterintuitive to find that when teachers show commitment to their job, students’ academic performance suffers. What could be the reason?
Certain circumstances or strategies committed teachers apply could negatively impact students’ academic performance. Teachers could overly commit to academic undertakings and high standards that inadvertently create excessive pressure and stress for students, possibly leading to burnout and anxiety. Such could result in reduced performance on the part of the students. Additionally, when teachers become overly committed, they may fail to strike a balance between work and life. Such may lead to them experiencing burnout, consequently diminishing their ability to deliver quality instruction and engage students more productively.
The next set of findings may also be considered surprising.
Students’ performance in all subject areas is negatively correlated with leadership behavior-initiating structure and has no significant relationship with leadership behavior consideration. A negative correlation exists between students’ academic performance in math, science, and English and school administrators’ initiating structure leadership behavior. Although the size of the (negative) correlation coefficient is considered negligible also, it is interesting to note that while the initiating structure dimension of leadership behavior is positively correlated to teacher commitment, it is the other way around with the academic performance of students and not only in one subject area but all. One possible reason for such an inverse relationship is that the task-oriented approach of school leaders can indirectly put too much burden on students, thus negatively impacting their performance. They can overly emphasize strict academic goals that could create high-stress environments in the schools they supervise. It may have positively impacted teacher commitment but negatively affected the students’ performance. The academic pressure created when students are forced to adhere to the strict standards that task-oriented heads of schools set could negatively impact their well-being. They may experience burnout, which could affect their academic performance.
Additionally, when school heads are task-oriented, they tend to focus more on curricular activities and less on non-academic ones. Extracurricular activities are known to benefit students. They can positively impact the students’ academic performance, mental health, and well-being. The “all work and no (or less) play” that task-oriented heads of schools tend to implement may not be helping students perform better academically.
Teachers, Leadership Styles, and McGregor’s Theories X and Y Assumptions
Managing people, either in academia or industry, is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.
Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders, they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.
Leadership theories abound, and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position of head of the organization, they might already have a style that is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.
As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leaders (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.
Which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory” claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action depends on the internal and external situation. This principle guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.
In my experience as a school administrator (1994-2012), I figured there was no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership. I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint for leading when they take the reins of leadership in their organization, but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.
Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y, presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities, and seek formal direction and should be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory, Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.
When leaders have already determined under which set of perceptions the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.
Experts in human behavior say that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.
The best leaders are those who can devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That, of course, is easier said than done, especially if they are overseeing a big group, company, or association.
What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?
It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence, which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons; construct exams, mark tests, quizzes, and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations, including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to research and get involved in community extension programs.
That’s a lot of things to do for teachers, and with their plates that full, the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embrace the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours. Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.
The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – embodying the theory Y assumptions.
Teachers are responsible and independent. They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative, and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told what to do because they have a strong sense of self-direction and self-control.
Are these assumptions about teachers true?
I have been in academia for more than 30 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and administrator (for 18 of those years). Based on my experiences (particularly here in South Korea, where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that the prevailing perception about teachers is untrue.
Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.
Most of the teachers I worked with (as a teacher) and supervised (as a school administrator before) were committed to professionalism. Yes, that’s MOST at the beginning of the previous sentence. I would be lying if, instead of MOST, I used ALL. The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is that “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” Teachers are very much similar to other individuals in any profession. They vary in their behavior and adherence to professional standards. Even in the academe, there is always a possibility of unprofessional behavior and misconduct occurring. It is naive to think otherwise. Thus, the code of ethics for teachers exists to serve as a reminder to me and my fellow teachers that there professional standards we ought to adhere to.
It is imperative on the part of school administrators to see to it that they strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines. This should not be construed as a lack of trust but rather as enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.
The ones leading schools need to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregarding professional ethics.
Teachers, Leadership Styles and McGregor’s Theories X and Y Assumptions
Managing people in both the corporate world and the academia industry is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.
Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.
Leadership theories abound and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position as head of the organization they might already have a style which is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.
As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leader (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.
As to which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory” claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action is contingent upon the internal and external situation. This is the principle that guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.
In my experience as school administrator (1994-2012), I figured that there is no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership. I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint on how to lead when they take the reins of leadership in their organization but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free-rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.
Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y, presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction and should therefore be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.
When leaders have already determined under which set of those perception the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.
Experts in human behavior are saying though that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.
The best leaders are those who could devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That of course is easier said than done especially if they are overseeing a big group, company or association.
What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?
It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in-charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons; construct exams, mark tests, quizzes and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to do research and get involved in community extension programs.
That’s a lot of things to do for teachers and with their plates that full the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embraced the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours. Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.
The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – the embodiment of the theory Y assumptions.
Teachers are responsible and independent. They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told as to what to do because they have strong sense of self-direction and self-control.
Are these assumptions about teachers true?
I have been in the academia for almost 31 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and as administrator (for 18 of those 31 years). Based on my experiences (most particularly here in South Korea where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that that prevailing perception about teachers is not true.
Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.
The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” They ought to check carefully the background of the teachers they hire. They need to strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines. This should not be construed as lack of trust but rather enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.
The ones leading schools ought to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregards professional ethics.
Teachers, Leadership Styles and McGregor’s Theories X and Y Assumptions
Managing people either in the academia or industry is difficult and complicated. It requires not only mental and emotional competence but also toughness. It is an enterprise not meant for the fainthearted and weak-kneed.
Managers need both smarts and grit. They need to be astute and their patience boundless. Perhaps the trickiest part of the job of those in supervisory positions is as leaders they have to determine which leadership style is most applicable given the kind of people they are leading and the nature of the business they have.
Leadership theories abound and before managers, supervisors, or administrators are catapulted into the position as head of the organization they might already have a style which is inherent in them and framed by their education and personal experiences.
As leaders, they could be any of what Koontz and Weilhrich in “Behavioral Theories” describe as autocratic, democratic, or free-rein leader (laissez-faire). Those in the position of leadership (according to the said authors) have the following options: maintain strong control over their subordinates and lead using their ability to withhold or give rewards and punishment; consult with the people they are leading on proposed actions and decisions and encourage participation from them; or use their power very little, if at all, giving subordinates a high degree of independence in their operations.
As to which of the aforementioned styles is most effective is hard to determine. Those espousing the “Contingency Theory” claim that there is no best way to organize a corporation, to lead a company, or to make decisions. They add that the optimal course of action is contingent upon the internal and external situation. This is the principle that guided me when I was given the opportunity to lead.
In my experience as school administrator (1994-2012), I figured that there is no one-size-fits-all kind of leadership. I realized that the way to supervise people is a decision that designated leaders could arrive at only when they assume office. They may have a blueprint on how to lead when they take the reins of leadership in their organization but such is not set in stone. Whether as leaders they become autocratic, democratic, or free-rein depends largely on the kind of people being led.
Douglas McGregor, in his Theory X and Theory Y, presented two opposing perceptions about employees. Theory X assumes that employees inherently dislike work, avoid responsibilities and seek formal direction and should therefore be coerced, controlled, or threatened with punishment. Conversely, in theory Y, they (employees) are viewed quite the opposite. They need not be controlled and closely supervised because they love work, exercise self-direction and self-control, accept and even seek responsibility, and make innovative decisions.
When leaders have already determined under which set of those perception the people they are supervising belong, they begin to devise what they think is the best way to lead them.
Experts in human behavior are saying though that people working in organizations are not necessarily either one type or the other. They said that between the two extremes, there could be a combination of behaviors. Thus, leaders need to be careful not to implement policies and operate in response only to either (or both) of those two assumptions about employees. They need to be flexible.
The best leaders are those who could devise a way to have a complete inventory of the different personalities of people in the organization they are running and calibrate their approaches to leadership to the categories of personalities that would emerge from the inventory. That of course is easier said than done especially if they are overseeing a big group, company or association.
What about teachers? Generally speaking, where should teachers be classified – under theory X or theory Y?
It is hard to imagine teachers disliking their work and avoiding responsibilities. To be in-charge of the teaching-learning process is not a walk in the park. It demands the highest form of professional competence which means doing a lot of work and accepting a lot of responsibilities as well. The list of the things that teachers are expected to perform is long – prepare lessons; construct exams, mark tests, quizzes and assignments; prepare reports; attend seminars and trainings; and keep abreast with the current innovations including using technology in instruction. The teachers’ primary function, of course, is instruction. If they are in universities, they are also expected to do research and get involved in community extension programs.
That’s a lot of things to do for teachers and with their plates that full the teachers cannot possibly be theory X type. When they embraced the profession, they know the kind of work they are doing. They know that they don’t stop working after class hours. Teachers always walk an extra mile or two.
The prevailing perception about teachers is that they are consummate professionals – the embodiment of the theory Y assumptions.
Teachers are responsible and independent. They don’t need to be micromanaged because they are happy to work on their own initiative and their strong sense of professionalism and self-motivation always lead to the successful completion of their tasks and responsibilities and strict adherence to policies and guidelines. They also need not be told as to what to do because they have strong sense of self-direction and self-control.
Are these assumptions about teachers true?
I have been in the academia for almost 30 years as a teacher. I worked with different kinds of teachers across demographics – age, gender, race, education, religion, and philosophical persuasion – as a colleague and as administrator (for 18 of those 30 years). Based on my experiences (most particularly here in South Korea where I have been teaching since 2013 and was briefly a head professor for 3 semesters), I can say that that prevailing perception about teachers is not true.
Some teachers are theory X type, some theory Y, and some are in-between.
The worst assumption that school owners and administrators could make is “all teachers conduct themselves within the bounds of professionalism.” They ought to check carefully the background of the teachers they hire. They need to strictly monitor the performance of the teachers and ensure they are following school policies and guidelines. This should not be construed as lack of trust but rather enforcing excellence and ensuring that the students get what they deserve, what they pay for.
The ones leading schools ought to make sure that their teachers are not engaged in what I call “mercenary teaching” – interested only in the money and disregards professional ethics.
M.A.D. LIGAYA
M.A.D. L I G A Y A 