Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of administrators’ leadership styles in the provision of quality in Punjab, Pakistan. In this study, a self-designed questionnaire was used as a tool. This study was used simple random sampling technique. A total of 573 teachers from 288 secondary schools were involved. Data were analyzed by using frequency, percentage, average value, standard deviation, correlation Pearson product-moment, and numerous regression step-by-step method. The findings show that there are two types of leadership, autocratic and democratic leadership styles that have a significant impact on the provision of quality education. In addition, both leadership styles are projected to provide quality education at a level of 56.80 percent, with an important level of 0.01. As a result, in order to increase the effectiveness of teachers' work, leadership must constantly promote, apply and develop these two leadership styles, namely, autocratic and democratic styles      

Key Words

Leadership Styles, Administration, Autocratic, Democratic, Quality Education.

Introduction

Leadership has been the subject of extensive research by researchers and practitioners (Velez, Lorenzo, & Garrido, 2017). Today, there is a somewhat different definition of leadership as influencing group activities to achieve goals or guiding direction, course action, or thought. Alt?nay, (2015) leadership is to use force to influence other people's thoughts and actions. Yukl (2008), influential leaders do not make many decisions but focus on important decisions that affect broader aspects of the organization. Instead of solving everyday problems, they try to think in general and strategic terms (Bass, Avolio, Jung, & Berson, 2003). Effective leaders have a commitment or vision and influence people around their commitment or vision. A good leader can generally succeed in most organizations (Alt?nay, 2015; Ayd?n, 2010).

Education leadership has become the focus of attention in both developed and developing countries as they consider improving education (Zaim, Demir, & Budur, 2021). This is because Kirchsteiger and Sebald (2009) believe that human capital is one of the essential conditions for economic progress and prosperity. In this regard, attention was paid to school leadership and its impact on quality education. When leaders interact with their followers, the leadership style uses a combination of traits, skills, and behaviors called Lussier and Achua (2014), a generally accepted style by combining a leader's beliefs, opinions, norms, and values. On the other hand, McCarley, Peters, and Decman (2016) emphasized the need to take into account the school climate and school culture for better school performance. Fullan (2000) emphasizes that school leaders focus on the development of a professional learning community in which students work in collaboration for successful student learning, develop action plans to increase student success, and monitor their progress. Leithwood, Patten, and Jantzi, (2010) point out that leadership is concerned with students learning indirectly through their influence on other people.

Two administrator leadership styles are also identified by researchers (Limberman et al., 1994). They are the autocratic and democratic styles of leadership (Chukwusa, 2018). Decision-making power and authority exist in an autocratic leader. He or she directs group members on the mode things should be carried out. The autocratic leader does not keep up comprehensible control of communication linking between him or her and the subordinates. The autocratic leader keeps authority in his/her charge and does not authorize subordinates to take part in policy-making (Smylie & Jack, 2019; Hoy & Miskel, 2018; John, 2017; Heenan & Bennis, 1999; Mba, 2004). A democratic leader is one who, by virtue of the benefits of the experience and wisdom of other professionals, both inside and outside the constitution, leads by agreement by consulting informed decisions with staff, parents, and leaders. The democratic leader can also be known as an advisory leader who reserves the right to make the final decision Slezak (1984b). 

The administrator who is actively engaged with teachers, providing them with instructional Subordinate that guides teaching and learning to enhance every teacher’s practices become a successful administrator (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). In his study, The Motivation to Work, Herzberg (Herzberg, Mausner, & Snyderman, 1967) reported that the administrator would be often made to be the villain in stories about times when morale will be low, but almost never appeared as the reason for high morale (Faulkner, 2015). The administrator will frequently be the source for the recognition of successful work; it is likely that a successful administrator will often be instrumental in structuring the work so that his subordinates could realize their abilities for creative achievement (Zahran, 2012). A successful leader will have to learn to recognize good work and to reward this good work appropriately. In addition, he will have to acquire skills in the organization and distribution of work so that the possibility for successful achievement on the part of his subordinates is possible (Herzberg et al., 1967; Hulpia & Devos, 2009). In this way, the principal shares administration and increases self-efficacy of teachers, which gives them the freedom to succeed? Although lack of administrative Subordinate has been cited as the top reason teachers, especially new teachers, leave the profession, administrators can offset the negative effects of other aspects of a teacher’s workload (Cancio, Albrecht, & Johns, 2013). 

Teacher participation can be used as a tool to decolonize governance in education and increase a sense of ownership and consensus. Participation refers to the decentralization of control over the management process and activities, increasing individual autonomy in management decision-making, and increasing the sense of responsibility if the individual - Increase joint control over educational planning and implementation and evaluation (Kalkan, Altinay, Altinay, Atasoy, & Dagli, 2020). Participation reduces them, and so does the perception of the role of teachers and administrators in the hierarchy of authority. This increases the effectiveness of participation; better understanding of accuracy skills and an increasing goal-oriented management system, goals, procedures and policies. Participation is the most effective way to strengthen the role of teachers in school administrators (Yucesoy, Demir, Baglama, Bastas, & Oznacar, 2020). 

Quality education is a modern issue. Thus, much of the literature on the subject has emerged in recent years and examines the factors that contribute to the improvement of quality education and suggests ways to promote better teaching and learning in schools. This is a quality issue that has been critical in many countries due to the rapid expansion of admissions to reach the deadline of the Education for All Program by 2015, which has inspired literature research (Adepoju, 1998; Leu & Price-Rom, 2005). However, fast notes can degrade quality. In addition, Leu and Price-Rom argue that efforts to increase access to basic education in resource-constrained countries have reduced the quality of education. A study of quality-promoting factors in Namibia highlighted teachers, schools and communities as quality engines, with teacher quality as the primary focus (Leu & Price-Rom, 2005; Salami, 2009; Obanya, 2004).




Problem Statement 

Currently, the education business unit faces various challenges, especially in leadership practices. This may be due to the management work model and the different stages of the work that arise from the management technique, which creates confusion in commanding or giving orders between work experience, management and a high-level unit of work (Somjit, 2009). As a result, the Road-Target Theory was an important theory for explaining the different types of leadership styles needed to solve the problems that subordinates expect. For example, mandatory management has been found to be effective when organizational goals are expected to be uncertain or unclear after considering job characteristics. Meanwhile, the democratic leadership style would be appropriate when the task was repeated, when the task was unclear, when subordinates preferred freedom, and when it was difficult for the task to succeed. The current study was designed to investigate the impact of leadership styles of administration in the provision of quality education in Punjab, Pakistan. 




Objective of the Study 

1. To study the administrators’ leadership styles in the provision of quality education in secondary schools.  

2. To study the relationship of administrators’ leadership styles in provision quality of education.

3. To study the impact of administrator’ leadership styles in provision quality of education.  

Research Methodology

The main focus of the present study was to find out the impact of leadership styles of administration in the provision of quality education in Punjab, Pakistan. As the study was survey-based, so, the quantitative research design was used to collect the data. All teachers from public secondary schools of Punjab Province, Pakistan were treated as the population of the study, whereas 573 teachers from 288 public secondary schools of Punjab, Pakistan were selected as the sample of the study through a simple random sampling technique. A self-made questionnaire by researcher comprised of two key areas of leadership style was used as an instrument for data collection. The questionnaire was comprised of 31 statements with the categorization of two factors. Respondents were asked to rate the priority of their institutions on a five-point scale ranging from least to highest priority. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, average, and standard deviation, were used in this study. In addition, outcome statistics such as Pearson's coefficients correlation are used to explain the relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles and provision quality of education. Finally, a number of regression step-by-step methods were used to identify school administrator leadership styles that ensure teacher effectiveness in secondary schools in Pakistan's Punjab province.

Data Analysis

The main focus of the present study was to find out the impact of leadership styles of administration in the provision of quality education in Punjab, Pakistan. Descriptive statistics, including frequency, percentage, average, and standard deviation, were used in this study. Moreover, outcome statistics, such as Pearson's coefficients correlation, are used for explaining the relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles in the provision of quality education.

 

Table 1. Autocratic Leadership Style  

Item No.	Statement		SA	A	N	DA	SDA	Mean
1	Aggressive attitude of the headteacher has bad effects on the quality of education.	f	174	245	56	53	45	3.79
		%	30.4	42.8	9.8	9.2	7.9
2	Strict rules and regulations of the school affect the quality of education.	f	107	263	61	99	43	3.51
		%	18.7	45.9	10.6	17.3	7.5
3	Headteacher humiliates you in the classroom.	f	58	135	130	166	84	2.86
		%	10.1	23.6	22.7	29	14.7
4	Headteacher misbehaves with you before the students.	f	35	81	77	231	149	2.34
		%	6.1	14.1	13.4	40.3	26
5	Headteacher tends to criticize most about your performance.	f	107	321	65	63	17	3.76
		%	18.7	56	11.3	11	3
6	Headteacher acts without counseling the staff.	f	36	178	115	189	55	2.91
		%	6.3	31.1	20.1	33	9.6
7	Headteacher imposes punishment to gain educational objectives.	f	41	145	78	227	82	2.71
		%	7.2	25.3	13.6	39.6	14.3
8	Headteacher allows the teacher to keep a mobile phone in the classroom.	f	32	148	115	222	56	2.79
		%	5.6	25.8	20.1	38.7	9.8
9	Headteacher always uses an autocratic style in the school, which effects on quality of education.	f	24	122	79	227	121	2.48
		%	4.2	21.3	13.8	39.6	21.1
10	Headteacher forces you to cover the syllabus in time for improving the quality of education.	f	32	196	162	153	30	3.08
		%	5.6	34.2	28.3	26.7	5.2
11	Headteacher assigns duties against your consent.	f	102	318	73	69	11	3.75
		%	17.8	55.5	12.7	12	1.9
12	You are satisfied with the attitude of your headteacher.	f	42	196	105	178	52	3.00
		%	7.3	34.2	18.3	31.1	9.1
13	The attitude of the headteacher is polite with you.	f	89	337	91	43	13	3.78
		%	15.5	58.8	15.9	7.5	2.3
	Autocratic Leadership Style		11.8	36.0	16.2	25.8	10.2	3.13

 

Table 1 explores the results of teachers’ responses regarding their autocratic style. Results of this table indicate that 73.2% of teachers are agreed that aggressive attitude of the headteacher has bad effects on quality of education (mean = 3.79). 64.6% of teachers are response agreed that strict rules and regulations of the school effects on the quality of education (mean = 3.51). Forty-four percent of teachers are not agreed that the head teacher humiliates them in the classroom (mean = 2.86). Majority of teacher disagree about the statement that headteacher misbehaves with them before the students (66.3%, mean = 2.34). 74.7% of teachers agreed that headteacher tends to criticize most about their performance (mean = 3.76). 42.6% of teachers disagree about the statement that headteacher acts without counseling the staff (mean = 2.91).  The mean score is 2.71 is not supported about the statement that headteacher imposes punishment to gain the educational objectives. Majority of teachers are response disagreed about the statement that the headteacher does not allow the teacher to keep a mobile phone in the classroom (Mean 2.79). Headteacher always not uses an autocratic style in the school, which effects on quality of education (60.7%, mean = 2.48). 39.8% of teachers agreed that headteacher forces them to cover the syllabus in time for improving the quality of education (mean 3.08). Seventy-three percent teachers agreed that headteacher assigns duties against their consent (mean 3.75).  41.5% were satisfied with the attitude of their headteacher (mean 3.00). 74.3% of the teachers are agreed that the attitude of the headteacher was polite with them (mean 3.78). Mean score of a total of items (47.8%, mean = 3.13) explore that majority of teachers’ is that the use of autocratic style.

 

Table 2. Democratic Leadership Style

S. No	Statement		SA	A	N	DA	SDA	Mean
14	Headteacher solves the problems you face in the school.	f	101	340	88	33	11	3.85
		%	17.6	59.3	15.4	5.8	1.9
15	Headteacher co-operates with you for improving the quality of education in the school.	f	95	328	77	61	12	3.76
		%	16.6	57.2	13.4	10.6	2.1
16	Headteacher assigns duties among staff according to teacher’s specialization/skills.	f	106	346	63	46	12	3.85
		%	18.5	60.4	11	8	2.1
17	The attitude of the headteacher is good with teaching and non-teaching staff.	f	104	325	65	60	19	3.76
		%	18.2	56.7	11.3	10.5	3.3
18	Headteacher appreciates you when you perform your duties honestly.	f	99	328	93	48	5	3.82
		%	17.3	57.2	16.2	8.4	0.9
19	Headteacher provides all facilities to create a pleasant educational atmosphere in the school for improving the quality of education.	f	160	284	84	31	14	3.95
		%	27.9	49.6	14.7	5.4	2.4
20	Headteacher takes interest to solve the most crucial issues facing you today for improving the quality of education.	f	109	279	112	59	14	3.72
		%	19	48.7	19.5	10.3	2.4
21	Headteacher talks with staff and sets goals.	f	78	341	89	51	14	3.73
		%	13.6	59.5	15.5	8.9	2.4
22	Headteacher creates good relation with the teachers for improving the quality of education.	f	94	327	94	47	11	3.78
		%	16.4	57.1	16.4	8.2	1.9
23	When the teacher commits any mistake, the head teacher corrects it.	f	122	322	81	39	9	3.89
		%	21.3	56.2	14.1	6.8	1.6
24	Headteacher gives you guidelines for making the quality of education comprehensive.	f	71	350	104	38	10	3.76
		%	12.4	61.1	18.2	6.6	1.7
25	Head teacher respects your opinions.	f	97	314	103	38	21	3.75
		%	16.9	54.8	18	6.6	3.7
26	Headteacher calls a meeting of the staff and then assigns duties according to their consent.	f	77	345	79	48	24	3.70
		%	13.4	60.2	13.8	8.4	4.2
27	Headteacher appreciates when we perform our duties well.	f	129	325	73	32	14	3.91
		%	22.5	56.7	12.7	5.6	2.4
28	Headteacher takes no interest in school affairs	f	23	83	70	252	145	2.28
		%	4	14.5	12.2	44	25.3
29	Headteacher involves in nepotism in the school administrative system	f	34	154	159	162	64	2.88
		%	5.9	26.9	27.7	28.3	11.2
30	Headteacher allows you to create and determine their own decisions	f	37	228	142	126	40	3.17
		%	6.5	39.8	24.8	22	7
31	You are responsible for doing your job.	f	149	313	69	25	17	3.96
		%	26	54.6	12	4.4	3
	Overall		16.3	51.8	15.9	11.6	4.4	3.60

 

Table 2 explores the results of teachers’ responses regarding their autocratic style. Results of this table indicate that 77 percent of teachers are agreed that the headteacher solves the problem they face in the school (mean 3.85). Majority of 73.8% of teachers are agreed that headteacher co-operates with them for improving the quality of education in the school (mean 3.76). Seventy-nine percent teachers (mean 3.85) are agreed that headteacher assigns duties among staff according to teachers’ specialization/skills. Seventy-five of teachers are agreed that the attitude of the headteacher was good with teaching and non-teaching staff (mean 3.76). Majority of 74.5% of teachers are agreed that headteacher appreciates them when they perform their duties honestly. 75.5% of teachers responses are agreed that the headteachers provide all facilities to create a pleasant educational atmosphere in the school for improving the quality of education (mean 3.95). Majority of teachers 67.7% are agreed that headteacher takes interest to solve the most crucial issues facing them today for improving the quality of education (mean score is 3.75). Seventy-three percent teachers are agreed that headteacher talks with staff and sets goals (mean 3.73). 73.5% of teachers’ response is agreed that headteacher creates good relation with the teachers for improving the quality of education (mean 3.78). Seventy-seven percent teachers commit any mistakes; headteacher corrects it (mean 3.89). Seventy-three percent of teachers are agreed that headteacher gives the guidelines for making the quality of education comprehensive (mean 3.76). Eighty percent of teachers are agreed that headteacher respects their opinions (mean 3.75). Majority of 73.6% teachers are agreed that headteachers’ calls meeting of the staff and then assigns duties according to their consent (mean 3.70).  Seventy-nine percent of teachers are agreed that headteacher appreciates when we perform our duties well (mean 3.91). Sixty-nine percent teachers are not agreed that the headteacher takes no interest in school affairs (mean score is 2.28). Forty of teachers are not satisfied with the statement that headteacher involves in nepotism in the school administrative system (mean 2.88). 46.3% of teachers are agreed that headteacher allows they to create and determine their own decision (mean 3.17) and 80.6% percent of teachers’ response are agreed that they were responsible for doing their job (mean 3.96). Mean score of a total of items (68.1%, mean = 3.60) explore that majority of teachers’ are that the use of democratic style. 

 

Table 3. The Level of Administrator Leadership Styles 

Factors	Mean value	Standard deviation	Level
Autocratic Leadership Styles	3.13	.65	High
Democratic Leadership Styles	4.40	.56	High

 

Table 3 indicates that the mean score of the respondents' satisfaction level of administrators’ leadership styles. Table 1 shows the mean score for the two factors of leadership styles ranged from 3.13 to 4.40. The favourable acceptance level of the agreement was the autocratic style (M = 3.13, SD = 0.65) and democratic style (M = 4.40, SD = 0.56).

 

Table 4. Effects of Teacher Designation on Coefficients Correlation

Strength to Moderate	Negative	Positive
Low to moderate	-029 till -0.10	0.10 till 0.29
Moderate to substantial	-0.49 till -0.30	0.30 till 0.49
Substantial to very strong	-0.50 till -0.69	0.50 till 0.69
Very strong	-0.70 till -0.89	0.70 till 0.89
Near perfect	-090 till -0.99	090 till 0.99
Perfect relationship	-1.00	1.00

 

As shown in Table 4, quality education is strongly correlated with significant, positive and autocratic leadership style (r = 0.729; p <0.01). It was important that it was strongly associated with democratic leadership style (r = 0.676; p <0.01). It shows improvement in autocratic leadership style is mostly related to an increase in the provision of quality education. A large extent, the improvement of autocratic and democratic leadership styles are concerned with the provision of quality education. However, directive management had the lowest link to the provision of quality education.

 

Table 5. Correlation Coefficient between Two Types of Leadership Styles of Administration in the Provision of Quality Education

Variables	1	2
Autocratic leadership style	0.729**	0.367**
Democratic leadership style	1.00	0.490*

 

Step-by-step regression analysis was performed to determine an important prediction for quality education. In this analysis, two types of leadership style are considered to be independent variables and quality education is considered to be a dependent variable. The purpose of evaluating this regression statistical analysis was to identify leadership styles that have a significant impact on quality education, which are the types of leadership styles that constitute predictors in quality education.

Table 6. Multiple Regression of Leadership Styles of Administration in the Provision of Quality Education

Factors	B	?	t	Sig.	R	R2	SEb	F
Constant	1.484	-	9.526	.001**	.754	.568	.332	21.188
Autocratic Leadership Style	0.450	0.509	8.030	.001**
Democratic Leadership Style	0.218	0.292	4.603	.001**

 

The following multivariate linear regression model shows the relationship between the predictor variables on the dependent variable.

In this analysis, the size of the standardized factor (?) directly indicates the importance of these indicators relative to each other. In context, the autocratic style (? = 0.509) was the most important predictor, followed by the democratic style (? = 0.292). Table 6 shows that the factors for which the correlation coefficient are statistically significant. So, two factors make up 56.8% value of a dependent variable.

Discussion

The results of this study showed that most teachers did not participate in setting the agenda for staff meetings. However, his contribution during the teacher meetings significantly contributed to the decision of the school principal. The meetings were held in an atmosphere conducive to the participation of individual members. School leaders allowed disputes among staff members and made a unanimous decision. School leaders had good interpersonal relationships with their subordinates. Teachers said the school principal had resolved the dispute between staff and distributed resources fairly among staff. School leaders effectively supervised their staff and worked well with their subordinates. Autocratic leadership style is at the highest level of agreement. This is because school work normally consists of an open structure and repetition. The autocratic style was used to encourage teachers both in their personal lives and in their work. For this reason, they should be compassionate, kind and appreciate the feelings of teachers. Participatory administration is appropriate for use in leadership styles face indeterminate and incomprehensible working conditions. To encourage democratic style, administrators should appoint teachers to participate in the administrative process, listen to teachers' opinions and encourage them to discuss in groups. Sometimes leaders need to set challenging goals for teacher participation. Teachers need to know how to motivate them to look for innovative ways to continuously improve their work. Since the policy of the ministry of education is to increase teachers and administrators to participate in various projects, management and educators must learn to work together for development. As a result, teachers will gain experience and self-confidence in job development with their participation. Hopefully, teachers will be able to work independently without waiting for instructions or orders from administrators. Although directive guidance is the last resort, administrators should also use directive guidance when there is a new program or policy by teaching teachers how to work. Teachers are pleased that their supervisors support and encourage them to read more participated in training or excursions for the purpose of presentation.  

Teachers tried to develop themselves to improve their knowledge and teaching methods or techniques by appearing workshops until they did not have time to look after their students effectively, which may be a reason to explain the low quality of students. This is supported by the work of Koonnaree (2009), said the direct and indirect impact of the high organizational commitment of teachers' transformation administration would lead to lower student quality. Finding a relationship between leadership style types and the provision of quality education shows a positive aspect. In summary, of the two types of leadership style, the autocratic style had the highest level of quality education, while democratic style had the lowest with quality education. This is possible because teachers who use autocratic style can help teachers cope with work problems.  

Prevents unsatisfactory work in relation to the organization's policy and work administration, control, command and relationships with superiors and subordinates in a work-related environment. The two factors of leadership styles have a predictive power of 0.568, which is significant at 0.068. For this reason, two factors of leadership styles can predict quality education outcomes, while autocratic style has the highest impact on quality education. In other words, leaders who support teachers and ensure their participation in decision-making will increase teachers' performance. This previous study is supported by Waro's (2006) found that the leading factor that affects the effectiveness of the school is the situational factor, the behavior of the leaders. Leadership theories also support the idea that effective leadership is based on a number of factors, such as leaders' characteristics, leadership behavior and the relevant situation which are important factors for leaders to easily perform their duties. Consistent with a study by Sureeporn (2006), found that the behaviors of supporting leaders, participating leaders, and binding leaders were predictors of teacher motivation in work practices.

Conclusion and Recommendations for Future Studies

It is concluded that leaders do not reward subordinates for motivating staff and encouraging subordinates to use their methods and techniques of their choice. Leaders do not invite subordinates to join in solving administrative problems. Subordinates have the freedom to make decisions, empower subordinates to set their own goals, empower and involve staff in decision-making, allow subordinates to create and research their own directions, pay attention to deadlines and assignments, and use rewards to motivate employees. Leaving without participation, sharing the role of school administration with subordinates, ensuring that subordinates create and define their own goals, and inviting subordinates to communicate in solving administrative problems have a positive effect on the school environment. Conflict resolution under stress, the application of ideas to subordinates, personal monitoring of subordinates to ensure their good performance, setting goals for the school and decision-making without questioning subordinates, threatening subordinates with punishment to achieve educational goals, employee-related goals to act without consulting subordinates, to encourage subordinates to use teaching methods and techniques, to give each person the freedom to take responsibility for defining his or her work, and to give priority to paperwork. A similar study is examining the style of school administration in providing quality education related to students' educational performance.  

References

• Adepoju, T. L. (1998). Managing Educational Change in Nigeria. Guba's Two-Dimensional Change Strategy: Mimeograph Department of Educational Foundation and Management. Ondo: Adeyemi College of Education.
• Bass, B., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D., & Berson, Y. (2003). Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and transactional leadership. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 207-218.
• Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of Children, 4, 71. doi:10.1353/ etc. 2013.0035.
• Chukwusa, J. (2018). Autocratic leadership style: Obstacle to success in academic libraries. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1, 40-55.
• Faulkner, C. (2015). Women's Experiences of Principalship in two South African high Schools in Multiply Deprived rural areas: A life history Approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(3), 418-432.
• Fullan, M. (2000). Leadership for the twenty-first century: Breaking the bonds of dependency. The Jossy-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership, 156-163.
• Güçlü, N., Kalkan, F., & Dağlı, E. (2017). Mesleki ve teknik ortaöğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin algılarına göre okul müdürlerinin liderlik stilleri ile örgütsel sinizm arasındaki ilişki. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 37(1), 177-192.
• Heenan, D. A., & Bennis, W. (1999). Co-leaders, The power of Great Partnership. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1967). Motivation to work (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons
• Hoy, N. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2018). Educational Administration: Theory, Research and Practice. (2nd Ed)., New York: Randam House.
• Hulpia, H., & Deevos, G. (2009). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers' organizational loyalty. Journal of Educational Research, 103(1), 40-52.
• John, C. M. (2017). Million Leaders Mandate. Notebook one. America: Equip Publishers.
• Kalkan, Ü., Altınay A. F., Altınay, G. Z., Atasoy, R., & Dağlı, G. (2020). The relationship between school administrators' leadership styles, school culture, and organizational image. SAGE Open, 10(1), 2158244020902081.
• Koonnaree, T. (2009). School Climate Affecting Job Satisfaction of Teachers in Primary Education. (Unpublished Master thesis). Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen.
• Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706.
• Leu, E., & Price-Rom, A. (2005). Quality of Education and Teacher Learning: A Review of the Literature. Will Belington, DC: USAID Educational Quality Improvement Project.
• Limberman. A., Beverly, F., & Alexander, L. (1994). A Culture in the Making: Leadership in Learner Centred Schools. New York: National Centre for Restructuring Education.
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from Administration: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
• Lussier, R. N., & Achua, C. F. (2014). Charismatic and transformational leadership. Leadership: Theory, Application and Skill Development, 319-357.
• Mba, J., (2004). Strategic Management Centre. Printed and Published by Punch (Nig.) Ltd. 1 Olu Aboderin Onipetesi. Ikeja. Lagos
• McCarley, T. A., Peters, M. L., & Decman, J. M. (2016). Transformational leadership related to school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(2), 322-342.
• Obanya, P. (2004). The Dilemma of Education in Africa. Lagos: Heinemann Educational Books.
• Rowold, J., & Schlotz, W. (2009). Transformational and transactional leadership and followers' chronic stress. Leadership Review, 9, 35-48.
• Salami, K. A. (2009). Major concepts in educational planning. In: Salami, K.A., T. Okemakinde. Oyo: Immaculate- City Publishers.
• Slezak, P. (1984a). The sociology of science and science education Part 1. Science and Education, 3(3), 265-294.
• Smylie, M. A., & Jack, W.D. (2019). Teacher leadership tension and ambiguities in organizational perspective education administration. Quarterly, 26, 235-259.
• Somjit, S. (2009). Development of linear structural model of factors affecting the enhancement for empowerment the teachers' working effectiveness (Unpublished PhD thesis). Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen.
• Sureepon, S. (2006). The school administrators' leadership behavior and work motivation of private vocational school teachers (Unpublished Master thesis). Burapa University, Bangkok
• Torres, D. G. (2019). Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers' job satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 111-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. tate.2018.12.001.
• Vélez, S. C., Lorenzo, M. C. A., & Garrido, J. M. M. (2017). Leadership: its importance in the management of school coexistence. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 237, 169-174.
• Waro, P. (2006). The structural equation modeling of administrator's leadership effectiveness in influencing on school effectiveness (Unpublished PhD thesis). Khon Kaen University, Khon Kaen.
• Yücesoy, Y., Demir, B., Bağlama, B., Baştaş, M., & Öznacar, B. (2020). Secondary education teachers and school administrators' views on positive organizational climate. Near East University Online Journal of Education, 3(1), 12-21.
• Yukl, G. (2008). Leadership in Organizations. New York: Pearson Education.
• Zahran, I. (2012). The role of school administration in the face of crisis of values among second grade primary students in light of the twentieth century variables. The Scientific Conference, Egypt, May 29 to 30, pp. 15-17.
• Zaim, H., Demir, A., & Budur, T. (2021). Ethical leadership, effectiveness and team performance: An Islamic perspective. Middle East Journal of Management, 8(1), 42-66.