Teachers’ Commitment and Leadership Behavior as Correlates of Academic Performance
Massuline Antonio D. Ligaya, Joung-Hyun Ham, and Nanje Bakoma Daniel
Journal of Education and Learning (EduLearn), Vol. 18, No. 2, May 2024, pp. 598–608
DOI: 10.11591/edulearn.v18i2.21083

Research Summary

Students’ academic performance is influenced by factors operating at different levels of the educational environment. Teachers directly shape classroom learning, while school administrators create organizational conditions that may influence how teachers perform their work. Guided by social exchange theory, this study examined the relationships among three elements of this educational chain: teachers’ commitment, the leadership behavior of school administrators, and students’ academic performance.

Teacher commitment was examined through two dimensions: commitment to job (CTJ) and commitment to organization (CTO). School administrators’ leadership behavior was assessed using the two dimensions of the Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire (LBDQ): initiating structure, representing task-oriented leadership, and consideration, representing people-oriented leadership. Student achievement was measured through performance in Mathematics, Science, and English.

The study employed a descriptive-correlational survey design and involved 81 teachers, 11 school heads, and 470 students from 11 schools. All Mathematics, Science, and English teachers and all school heads in the participating schools were included, while ten students were randomly selected from each of 47 graduating classes. Teachers assessed their commitment to their jobs and organizations and described their school heads’ leadership behavior. Students’ academic performance was measured using achievement-test results. Data were analyzed using frequency, mean, standard deviation, and correlation coefficients.

Teachers reported being committed both to their jobs and their organizations, although commitment to job (M = 4.05) was slightly higher than commitment to organization (M = 3.99). School administrators scored above average on both leadership dimensions. Their mean score for initiating structure (4.23) was higher than that for consideration (3.89), indicating that although the administrators demonstrated characteristics of both task- and people-oriented leadership, they were perceived as somewhat more task-oriented. Using the LBDQ framework, their combined characteristics generally placed them within the dynamic-leader category.

The correlation analysis revealed a strong positive relationship between commitment to job and commitment to organization. Initiating structure was positively correlated with both forms of teacher commitment, whereas consideration was negatively correlated with them. These findings indicate that, within the schools studied, teachers tended to report greater commitment where administrators demonstrated stronger task-oriented leadership.

A different pattern emerged when teacher commitment was related to student achievement. Both commitment to job (r = −.126, p < .01) and commitment to organization (r = −.189, p < .01) were negatively correlated with students’ Mathematics performance, although the relationships were small. Neither form of commitment was significantly related to performance in Science or English.

Leadership behavior showed another noteworthy pattern. Initiating structure was negatively correlated with student performance in all three subjects—Mathematics (r = −.209, p < .01), Science (r = −.094, p < .05), and English (r = −.126, p < .01). These relationships were small or negligible in magnitude. Consideration, meanwhile, showed no significant relationship with students’ performance in any of the three subject areas.

Taken together, the findings reveal a potentially important tension. Stronger task-oriented leadership was associated with greater teacher commitment, yet at the same time it was associated with slightly lower student achievement. The study proposed possible explanations—including academic pressure, highly structured expectations, and reduced attention to non-academic activities—but these interpretations require further investigation. The results therefore point toward the need for school leaders to consider how organizational structure, expectations, teacher commitment, and student well-being may interact rather than assuming that practices associated with greater employee commitment will necessarily translate directly into higher student achievement.

Research Contribution

The study contributes to educational leadership research by examining school leadership, teacher commitment, and student achievement within a single relational framework. Rather than assuming that stronger teacher commitment or more structured leadership automatically improves academic performance, the findings reveal more complex and, in some instances, counterintuitive relationships. Particularly noteworthy is the contrasting association of initiating-structure leadership with higher teacher commitment but lower student performance. This finding provides a useful basis for further research into whether leadership practices that strengthen organizational performance among teachers may have different consequences for students and highlights the importance of balancing task-oriented leadership, teacher commitment, student well-being, and academic expectations.

Keywords: academic performance, teacher commitment, commitment to job, commitment to organization, leadership behavior, initiating structure, consideration, school leadership

Full Text

The full text of this publication is available upon request. Researchers, educators, students, and other interested readers who wish to obtain a copy may contact the author through this website or by email at madligaya@gmail.com.