Principals’ leadership and teachers’ performance Yi-Gean Chen.pdfInstructional leadership Instructional leadership in this study refers to the leadership style adopted by a school

The Journal of International Management Studies, Volume 12 Number 2, August, 2017

65

Exploring Differences from Principals’

Leaderships and Teachers’ Teaching Performances

in Public and Private Schools

Yi-Gean Chen, Associate Professor,

Department of Early Childhood Education, National University of Tainan, Taiwan

Jao-Nan Cheng, Professor, Department of Education, National Taitung University, Taiwan

AABBSSTTRRAACCTT

Previous researches on public and private schools mainly compare differences in student

performance in the two categories.

A number of studies believe that teachers’ teaching performances and principals’ leadership might

be factors that result in private school students’ better academic performance. However, there are no

empirical studies to support the conclusion that private school teachers’ teaching performance and

principals’ leadership are better. For that reason, this study sets out to delve into this topic to clarify

questions about this topic in previous literature. In line with the ratio of public schools to private schools,

2,177 public school teachers, as well as 189 private school teachers, were chosen as research

participants. The following important conclusions were reached by adopting Structural Equation

Modeling analysis and analysis of variance. Research results showed that public and private school

teachers’ teaching performance has no significant difference, yet private school principals are better

than public school principals in showing various leadership behaviors. Leadership behaviors in public

and private schools are different. How are leadership behaviors shown in public and private schools?

Public school principals’ instructional leadership and delegative leadership can more effectively enhance

teachers’ teaching performance. Private school principals should adopt symbol-oriented leadership in

order to improve teachers’ teaching performance.

Keywords: instructional leadership, multi-model leadership, delegative leadership, teachers’ teaching

performance

INTRODUCTION

Research Background and Purposes

Secondary and primary schools generally include public schools and private schools. Most private

secondary and primary schools are founded by religious groups. These types of schools have higher

tuition fees and students‟ parents are in a better socioeconomic position. On the other hand, public schools

are founded by local government agencies. Compared to private schools, public schools have cheaper

tuition fees and students‟ parents are more diverse in terms of their socioeconomic position. Previous

research papers on public and private schools mainly compared differences in effectiveness, student

performance, tuition fees, and funds for schools. Compared to students in public schools, students in

private secondary and primary schools have better academic performance. Choy‟s research believes that

this is because private secondary and primary school teachers‟ teaching performance is better (Choy, 1997:

1). However, this assumption is not backed up by empirical data yet. This is one reason why this study

wishes to compare public and private school teachers‟ teaching performance.


66

Meanwhile, the structures of public schools and private schools are significantly different. For

example, teachers‟ unions in public schools are more powerful (Dills & Mulholl, 2010: 438; Weshah,

2011), and school principals‟ leadership styles may have to be adjusted accordingly. Meanwhile, different

leadership styles may lead to teachers‟ different teaching performances (Chen & Cheng, 2011). Thus, the

academic value of research on public and private school principals‟ leadership styles is somewhat

significant.

Vernon-Dotson (2008) pointed out that a principal‟s leadership is helpful for a school‟s success. The

researcher of this study believes that the situation that private school students‟ academic performance is

better than public school students‟ academic performance might be a result of principals‟ leadership.

Therefore, discussing public and private school principals‟ leadership behavioral differences and effects is

this study‟s second idea. With respect to the objectives of principals‟ leadership, there are differences in

the parties that public school principals and private school principals are accountable for. Public school

principals are mainly answerable to local education authorities and are to assist the implementation of

local education policies. In contrast, private school principals are answerable to a board of directors and

are to assist a school to realize the purpose of running the school. On the other hand, due to society‟s

gradual democratization, the delegation of power is more emphasized in a school environment, meaning

that a school principal‟s leadership must be adjusted accordingly. Whether the effects of traditional

structure-oriented leadership and interpersonal leadership are no longer effective requires further survey.

After compiling documents regarding “school leadership in the future”, Sentocnik and Rupar (2009)

found that instructional leadership, delegative leadership, structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal

leadership, political leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership are better leadership styles for the current

educational environment. Thus, this study intends to examine the effects of the above mentioned

leadership styles.

Some research indicated that a school‟s success is related to the school‟s focus on instructional

leadership (Bartell & Willis, 1987). Glatthorn and Newberg (1984) suggested that it is difficult for a school

principal to be an expert in each academic discipline in junior high school education, while the teaching of

different academic disciplines is highly specialized. Therefore, teachers‟ teaching performance may be

improved when a school principal delegates power to reliable specialist teachers in each academic discipline,

in order that these teachers can exercise instructional leadership. Uhl-Bien, Marion, and McKelvey (2007)

suggested that delegative leadership may facilitate the flow of knowledge and creativity. Another study

indicated the complex school system should adopt multi-frame leadership (Bolman & Deal, 2008), which

encompasses structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship-oriented leadership, politics-oriented

leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership. Butler and Reese (1991) pointed out that school principals must

adopt multi-model leadership in order to handle complex and diverse school issues.

In summary, this study aspires to examine instructional leadership, delegative leadership, and

multi-model leadership (including structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship -oriented

leadership, and politics-oriented leadership), and determine which leadership styles are more effective.

The purposes of this study include:

1. To explore the differences in public and private school teachers‟ teaching performance and principals‟

leadership.

2. To analyze the correlation between teachers‟ teaching performance and leadership styles at public

junior high schools and primary schools by using structural equation modeling (SEM).

3. To analyze and scrutinize the correlation between teachers‟ teaching performance and leadership styles

at private junior high schools and primary schools.


67

Definition of terms

Below is an explanation of some important terms in this study:

1. Instructional leadership

Instructional leadership in this study refers to the leadership style adopted by a school leader to

encourage subordinates to bring personal talent and teaching plans to activities in order to encourage a

team‟s development (Gletthorn & Newberg, 1984). Meanwhile, leaders also strive to establish an

effective instructional leadership team (Boehnke, Bontis, Distefano, & Distefano, 2003). The specific

operational definition of instructional leadership is according to the scores of this study‟s instructional

leadership questionnaire, which represent a school principal‟s instructional leadership behaviors.

2. Delegative leadership

Delegative leadership in this study refers to the leadership style adopted by a school leader to

delegate power to subordinates, and make subordinates become committed to work (Uhl-Bien et al, 2007).

The specific operational definition of delegative leadership is according to the scores of this study‟s

delegative leadership questionnaire, which represent a school principal‟s delegative leadership behaviors.

3. Multi-model leadership

Multi-model leadership in this study encompasses structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal

relationship-oriented leadership, politics-oriented leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership. Structure-

oriented leadership emphasizes the creation of management rules for an organization, as well as clear role

responsibilities and organizational goals. Interpersonal relationship-oriented leadership focuses on

satisfying the needs of organization members and building interpersonal relationships. Politics-oriented

leadership emphasizes how an organization leader uses power, negotiates organizational conflict, and

makes compromises to acquire the desired benefits. Symbol-oriented leadership involves creating an

organization‟s heroic stories, and developing organizational values, meanings, and rituals (Bolman &

Deal, 2008). The specific operational definition of multi-model leadership in this study is according to the

scores on this study‟s multi-model leadership questionnaire, which represent a school principal‟s

multi-model leadership behaviors.

4. Teachers’ teaching performance

Teachers‟ teaching performance refers to the extent to which teachers reach a school‟s goals or

satisfy the school‟s values (Wang, 2010). As teaching performance is the most important part of teachers‟

performance, the operational definition of teaching performance in this study is according to the scores on

this study‟s teaching performance questionnaire, which present teachers‟ teaching performance.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Research on differences between public schools and private schools

As revealed by previous studies, private secondary and primary school students‟ academic

performance is better than public school students. McEwan (2000: 1) once compared public and private

primary school students‟ academic performance in mathematics. As shown by empirical evidence

collected by McEwan, 2nd

-6th

grade students‟ academic performance in mathematics is better in private

schools than in public schools. Choy (1997: 1) believed that it is because private primary and secondary

school teachers are better at teaching (Choy, 1997: 1), yet there hasn‟t been any empirical evidence to

prove this argument. In addition, according to Hays (1999) and Vernon - Dotson (2008), a principal‟s

leadership may be conducive to a school‟s success. The researcher of this study believes that the situation

that private school students‟ academic performance is better than public school students‟ academic


68

performance can be attributed to principals‟ leadership. Therefore, private secondary and primary school

students perform better than public school students academically as shown in previous literature is a

generally accepted conclusion. However, whether private school students‟ better academic performance

can be attributed to private school teachers‟ better teaching performances or principals‟ higher leadership

behaviors needs further discussion. For that reason, the researcher aspires to collect relevant literature to

discuss the differences and correlation between public and private school principals‟ leadership and

teachers‟ teaching performance.

Among all primary schools in the United States, 12% are private schools, 81% of which are founded

by religious groups, while the other 19 % are founded by non-religious organizations. Therefore, 88% of

primary schools are public primary schools, which is many more than private primary schools (Dills &

Mulholl, 2010: 438). Public schools and private schools are very different in terms of organizational

structure and development. For example, the research of Weshah (2011) on public and private schools in

Jordan (officially the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) found that public schools and private schools showed

great divergence in organizational development (including schools‟ attitudes, beliefs, and efficiency). There

is also difference in public school and private school teachers‟ power. Dills and Mulholland (2010: 438)

found that the power of teachers‟ unions in public schools is greater, in compassion with the power of

teachers‟ unions in private schools. The power of teachers‟ unions also affects school principals‟ leadership.

The authoritarian leadership style has lost popularity in contemporary schools (Pan & Chen, 2011), although

some school principals still adopt the authoritarian leadership style. In contemporary schools with complex

situations and diverse value systems, teachers‟ professionalism must be constantly enhanced, and school

principals‟ leadership styles must be adjusted accordingly.

In addition, both public schools and private schools have many cost-benefit and economic concerns

regarding the size of classes (Dills & Mulholl, 2010); private schools divide students into different classes

according to students‟ level, while public schools do not. Therefore, some studies indicated that the

learning quality for public school students is inferior to that of private school students. In addition, private

schools‟ operations are more cost-effective than public schools‟ operations (Goyal, 2009). In summary,

Previous studies pointed out that private school students‟ better academic performance may be due to

teachers’better teaching performances or principals‟ higher leadership behaviors. This study aspires to

use empirical data to verify whether private school teachers’ teaching performance is better or private

school principals‟ leadership behaviors are higher. Exploring this topic would help to clarify whether

Choy (1997)‟s notion that students‟ good academic performance is attributable to private elementary and

secondary school teachers‟ better teaching is supported. In the meantime, it helps to clarify whether

Vernon-Dotson (2008)‟s notion that a principal‟s leadership may help a school‟s success and private

school students‟ better academic performance may be due to private school principals‟ higher leadership

behaviors. Meanwhile, this study also looked into the correlation between principals‟ leadership and

teachers‟ teaching performances.

The trend of school leadership styles

Propelled by the trend of education reforms in all countries, school principals must change their

original leadership styles (Lin, 2005). The book “School Leadership in the Future”, as published by

Sentocnik and Rupar (2009), also advocated that a school principal, who is no longer the only leader in

future school leadership, should work in the directions of team leadership, distributed leadership, and

multi-model leadership. The main reason is that future leadership styles should align themselves with the

trend of multi-model and complex values in a school environment. As a continuation of the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashemites


69

above-mentioned idea, the book “Leadership: Recent Theories, Research, and Future Directions” by

Avolio, Walumbwa, and Weber (2009), compiled literature, theories, and practices of organizational

leadership in recent years, and developed directions for future organizational leadership. The directions of

these future leadership styles showed the trends of instructional leadership, delegative leadership, and

multi-model leadership. A study of instructional leadership and delegative leadership is given, as follows:

Instructional leadership and delegative leadership

McCoy (2011) mentioned that school principals face many challenges and dilemmas, and

developing instructional leadership is a must for the future. Lin (2005) proposed that, under waves of

education reform, school principals must spend more time sharing their visions with teachers and make

instructional leadership a priority. Therefore, Boehnke, Bontis, Distefano, and Distefano (2003) suggested

building an effective instructional leadership team, as such instructional leadership process may facilitate

the success of a school (Hays, 1999; Vernon-Dotson, 2008).

Early instructional leadership studies included a team approach to instructional leadership, as

proposed by Glatthorn and Newberg in 1984. Glatthorn and Newberg suggested that, it appears difficult

for a junior high school principal to be a professional instructional leader of each academic discipline, as

teaching of academic disciplines is specialized, and there is a clear line between academic disciplines in

junior high schools. Therefore, if a school principal delegates the instructional leadership role to expert

teachers in each academic discipline, such a team approach to instructional leadership may facilitate

teachers‟ teaching effectiveness. Although the line between academic disciplines in junior high school

education is not as clear as that in primary school education, primary school principals‟ competence in

teaching may become rusty after working only in an executive position for a prolonged period of time.

Furthermore, given primary school teachers‟ strong autonomous ego, the implementation of instructional

leadership may also encounter obstacles. The team approach to instructional leadership, as proposed by

Glatthorn and Newberg, which may suit current school situations, is a good leadership style choice.

In addition, Uhl-Bien et al. believed that delegative leadership is an important trend in the future.

The essence of delegative leadership is to delegate power to subordinates, making subordinates become

committed to their work, and facilitate the flow of an organization‟s knowledge and creativity (Uhl-Bien

et al, 2007). Uhl-Bien et al. also believed that delegative leadership can enhance the power of

interpersonal networks, facilitate an organization‟s effectiveness, and improve individuals‟ performance.

Multi-model leadership

Bolman and Deal pointed out that multi-model leadership encompasses four leadership styles:

structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship-oriented leadership, politics-oriented leadership,

and symbol-oriented leadership styles. The structure-oriented leadership style emphasizes the creation of

management rules for an organization, as well as clear role responsibilities and organizational goals.

Interpersonal relationship-oriented leadership focuses on satisfying the needs of organization members

and interpersonal relationships. Politics-oriented leadership emphasizes how organization leaders make

use of power, negotiate organizational conflict, and make compromises to acquire the desired benefits.

Symbol-oriented leadership is a leadership style that involves constructing an organization‟s heroic

stories and developing organizational values, meanings, and rituals (Bolman & Deal, 2008). Conducting a

study with 201 teachers in Taiwan as the research participants, Chen (2004) found that leadership styles

that school principals frequently employed, according to these teachers include: interpersonal

relationship-oriented leadership, politics-oriented leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership, revealing

that multi-model leadership have been adopted by schools.


70

Leadership style and teachers’ performance

Previous research indicated a positive correlation between leadership style and teachers‟ work

performance (Chen & Cheng, 2011). As discovered by the qualitative research of Meyers, Meyers, and

Gelzheiser (2001), school principals who exercise more dominant leadership styles resulted in schools‟

lowered productivity. The decision-sharing leadership style is related to teachers‟ higher work

involvement. The essence of dominant leadership resembles that of structure-oriented leadership; whereas,

the essence of decision-sharing behaviors resembles that of delegative leadership. Therefore, the research

by Meyers, Meyers, and Gelzheiser (2001) indirectly endorsed the correlation between structure-oriented

leadership, delegative leadership, and teachers‟ performance. The research by Pearce and Herbik (2004)

also revealed team leadership‟s positive effects (r=.51) on teachers‟ civil behaviors, and the essence of

teachers‟ civil behaviors bears a resemblance to the essence of teachers‟ performance. Therefore, there is

significant positive correlation between several leadership styles and teachers‟ teaching performance.

Teachers‟ teaching performance can be used as this study‟s criterion variables.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

Research Structure and Description/This study’s preliminary relational model

To begin with, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to analyze whether there are

differences between public and private school teachers‟ teaching performance and principals‟ leadership.

This research structure presents the relational model of the correlation between leadership styles of

public and private school principals, and teachers‟ teaching performance. The examined leadership styles

include: instructional leadership, structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship-oriented

leadership, politics-oriented leadership, and delegative leadership. In terms of data analysis, structural

equation modeling (SEM) was used to measure the correlation between instructional leadership,

delegative leadership, structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship-oriented leadership,

politics-oriented leadership, and teachers‟ teaching performance, in order to determine the goodness of fit

of the relational model in this study.

Research Hypotheses

H1: There are significant differences between public and private school teachers’ teaching performance

and principals’ leadership.

H2: Multi-model leadership of school principals in junior high schools and primary schools in Taiwan

has positive influence on teachers’ teaching performance.

H3: Delegative leadership of school principals in junior high schools and primary schools in Taiwan has

positive influence on teachers’ teaching performance.

H4: Instructional leadership of school principals in junior high schools and primary schools in Taiwan

has positive influence on teachers’ teaching performance.

Research Participants

Junior high school and primary school teachers are chosen as the research participants in this study,

and stratified cluster sampling was adopted for nationwide sampling. Regarding the background data of

the personal demographic statistics, with the exception of missing values in some questionnaires, the

background data of the completed questionnaires includes the following items: there were 806 male

teachers and 1492 female teachers; 710 junior high school teachers and 1657 primary school teachers.


71

Due to more teachers in the public schools, 2177 effective samples were obtained; due to fewer teachers

in private schools, only 189 effective samples were collected. The average age of the teachers is 41.9, and

the standard deviation is 7.38; there is 92 teachers aged 20-29, 713 aged 30-39, 1013 aged 40-49, 299

aged 50-59, and 21 aged more than 60. Regarding the teacher's position, there were 293 subject teachers,

605 both teacher and headman, and 309 both teacher and director. Finally, regarding working experience,

173 were with less than 5 years, 395 with 6-10 years, 581 with 11-15 years, 454 with 16-20 years, and

753 with more than 21 years.

Research Procedure

With stratified random sampling, this research took 2500 junior high school and primary school

teachers. Stratification refers to dividing the entire country into four regions--Eastern region, Western

region, Southern region, and Northern region. Based on the number and proportion of teachers in those

four regions, this study took the target number of 2500 teachers, among which 2367 effective samples

were returned, including 1025 teachers in the Northern region, 658 in the Western region, 520 in the

Southern region, and 164 in the Eastern region.

Research Tools

1. The instructional leadership questionnaire

This study‟s instructional leadership questionnaire was designed with reference to the definitions

proposed by Gletthorn and Newberg (1984). These definitions include leadership adopted by school

leaders to encourage subordinates to introduce personal talent to activities in order that a team can

develop more systematic teaching plans. Leaders also endeavor to build an effective instructional

leadership team. There were four questions in the questionnaire, each with six options: “Extremely

compliant”, “Compliant”, “Somewhat Compliant”, “Not compliant”, “Extremely incompliant”, which are

scored 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point, respectively.

2. The delegative leadership questionnaire

The delegative leadership questionnaire was designed with reference to definitions proposed by

Uhl-Bien et al. (2007), such as a school principal‟s frequent and clear delegation of power to school

teachers regarding which matters teachers can decide. There were four questions in the delegative

leadership questionnaire, each with six options: “Extremely compliant”, “Compliant”, “Somewhat

Compliant”, “Not compliant”, “Extremely incompliant”, which are scored 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point,

respectively.

3. The multi-model leadership questionnaire

The multi-model leadership questionnaire was designed with reference to the concept of

multi-model leadership strategies, as proposed by Bolman and Deal (2008), as well as definitions of terms

proposed by Pekert and Sendjaya (2010:754), and the concepts proposed by Day, Harris, and Hadfield

(2001:43). After performing factor analysis, this study decided that multi-model leadership is a

combination of structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship -oriented leadership,

politics-oriented leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership. There were 12 questions in the multi-model

leadership questionnaire, Part 1 Interpersonal-relationship and politics-oriented leadership had 7 questions,

Part 2 Symbol- oriented leadership had 3 questions, and Part 3 had 2 questions. Each question has 6

options: “Extremely compliant”, “Compliant”, “Somewhat Compliant”, “Not compliant”, “Extremely

incompliant”, which are scored 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 point, respectively.


72

4. The teaching performance questionnaire

Teachers‟ teaching performance is the efficacy of teachers‟ professional abilities (Tsai, 2006:110).

The teaching performance questionnaire in this study is designed with reference to question items in the

research of Vecchio, Justin, Pearce (2008:73); Tsai, Chen, Cheng (2009:212).

Question items on the teaching performance questionnaires were measured using a 6-point scale. 6,

5, 4, 3, 2, and 1 points were allocated to answer options “ strongly agree”, “agree”, “slightly agree”,

“slightly disagree”, “disagree”, and “strongly disagree”, respectively.

Analysis of the research instrument’s reliability and validity

In terms of the construct validity of this study, SPSS statistical software was adopted for factor

analysis. With a construct validity value between.90 and.92, and a reliability coefficient of.93, the

delegative leadership questionnaire has good validity and reliability. With a construct validity value

between.88 and.94, and a reliability coefficient of.93, the instructional leadership questionnaire has good

validity and reliability. The teachers‟ teaching performance questionnaire has less satisfactory reliability,

with a construct validity value between.59 and.86, and a reliability coefficient of.50 (see Table 1). With a

construct validity value between.53 and.93, and reliability coefficient between.84 and.96, the multi-model

leadership questionnaire has good validity and reliability (see Table 2).

Table 1: The summarized factor analysis results of the school principal leadership style

questionnaire and the teachers’ teaching performance questionnaire

Question items Delegative leadership Communality

X12 delegative leadership

The school principal often makes clear delegation of power regarding duties, which can be passed on

to directors of school administrative departments.

.899 .809


The school principal would delegate power to teachers with expertise to be in charge of activities when

the school principal organizes activities.

.903 .815


The school principal encourages teachers to use creativity, and does not easily direct school activity

with his/her own opinions.

.898 .806


The school principal delegates power to the school‟s administrative departments, and gives these

administrative departments peace of mind in organizing activities.

.922 .850

Explained variance 82.002 ----

Eigen value 3.280 ----

Cronbach‟s α(reliability) .93 ----

Question items Instructional Leadership Communality

X8 instructional leadership

The school principal encourages senior teachers to participate in instructional leadership activities. .878 .772


The school principal encourages teachers to bring personal talent to school activities. .926 .858


The school principal encourages the school‟s teacher teams to develop more systematic teaching plans. .937 .878

X11instructional leadership

The school principal endeavors to build this school‟s instructional leadership community and team. .902 .813

Explained variance 83.014 ---

Eigen value 3.321 ---

Cronbach‟s α(reliability) .93 ---

Question items Teaching performance Communality


73

X16 I feel that my teaching can arouse students‟ interest in learning. .594 .353

X17 I feel that my instructional evaluation helps to reach instructional objectives. .858 .737

X18 I feel that I am a punctual and conscientious teacher. .823 .677

Explained variance 58.874 ---

Eigen value 1.766 ---

Cronbach‟s α(reliability) .50 --- Note: results of factor analysis

Table 2: The summarized results of factor analysis of multi-model leadership

Question items

Interpersonal-relationship

and politics-oriented

leadership

Symbol-

oriented

leadership

Structure-

oriented

leadership

Communality

X5 The school principal could listen to and factor in a broad spectrum of

opinions from teachers. .934 -.054 -.038 .856

X6 The school principal always coordinates administrative personnel and

teachers‟ opinions by means of consultation. .918 -.037 -.026 .831

X7 The school principal can make concessions to school teachers

whenever it comes to important matters. .907 .040 .106 .755

X4 The school principal cares about school teachers. .877 .001 -.058 .837

X3 The school principal pays attention to what teachers need. .857 -.024 -.122 .851

X22 The school principal can create a harmonious atmosphere. .806 .025 -.099 .788

X23 The school principal has a mutually beneficial and collaborative

relationship with the school‟s senior teachers. .754 .185 .041 .729

X19 The school principal can convey the school‟s visions by means of

some rituals. -.092 .927 -.068 .833

X20 The school principal can use some stories or anecdotes of the school

to convey the school‟s common values. .130 .790 -.044 .817

X21 The school principal publicizes anecdotes of many exceptional

teachers around the school. .369 .526 -.015 .668

X1 The school principal values reaching the school‟s objectives very

much. -.071 .096 -.928 .888

X2 The school principal values designing thorough administrative

procedures in school affairs management. .181 -.030 -.819 .853

Eigen value 8.057 1.009 .640 ---

Explained variance 67.140 8.411 5.331 ---

Cronbach‟s α(reliability) .96 .84 .85 --- Note: Results of factor analysis

Data Analysis

In this study, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was employed to analyze the differences between

public and private school teachers‟ teaching performance and principals‟ leadership behaviors. This

study used structural equation modeling to analyze the correlation between teachers‟ work performance

and instructional leadership, delegative leadership, structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal

relationship-oriented leadership, and politics-oriented leadership in order to determine the goodness of fit

of this study‟s relational model. Where χ2 value and indices, including GFI, RMSEA, CFI, and NFI, were

used to measure the model‟s goodness of fit. A relational model with GFI, CFI, NFI>0.9, and

RMSEA<.08 is considered reasonable.


74

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results

According to results of this study, public and private school teachers‟ teaching performance has no

significant difference. However, private school principals are better than public school principals in

showing various leadership behaviors including delegative leadership behaviors, instructional leadership

behaviors, interpersonal-relationship and politics-oriented leadership behaviors, symbolic leadership

behaviors, and structure-oriented leadership behaviors. Meanwhile, private school teachers all perceive a

higher level of principals‟ leadership behaviors. However, the mean scores of public and private school

teachers‟ teaching performance are very close and having no significant differences (see Table 3 for

details).

Table 3: An analysis of the differences between public and private school

principals’ leadership and teachers’ teaching performance

The names of variables School

Type

N Mean SD F value P value

Structure-Oriented

Leadership

Private 188 9.82 1.56 21.63* .00

Public 2177 8.99 1.86

Interpersonal-Relationship

and Politics-Oriented

Leadership

Private 188 22.46 4.73 5.93* .003

Public 2177 21.48 5.03

Instructional Leadership Private 188 14.09 2.37 17.57* .00

Public 2177 12.91 2.84

Delegative

Leadership

Private 188 13.60 2.94 3.26* .04

Public 2177 13.10 3.05

Symbolic

leadership

Private 188 13.85 2.40 7.86* .00

Public 2177 13.09 2.61

Teaching performance Private 188 14.10 1.86 .06 .94

Public 2177 14.15 2.20

This research explores studies related to the leadership behaviors in public and private schools, and

found that the effect of leadership behaviors in public and private schools differ. According to the

research results, there is significantly negative influential correlation between public and private school

principals' adoption of human relationships, political leadership behaviors, and teachers' teaching

performance (Figure 1). It means that on a public school campus, if the principal shows certain behaviors,

such as negotiation, care, and pursuit of harmony (human relationships and political leadership behaviors),

it will be a little harmful to teachers' teaching performances. In the past, there were many professional

books indicating that the school principal's behaviors, such as care, negotiation, and compromise, have

positive effect on teachers' efficacy. However, such research results may come from data in public and

private schools, or are obtained without examining teaching efficacy. By limiting analysis to teaching

efficacy in public schools, our research results show that it is better for public school principals to exert

leadership behaviors involving human relationship and political tendency, or it will have negative effect

on teachers' teaching performance. In addition, this research found that when public school principals

demonstrate structure oriented leadership behaviors, it will generate slightly positive influential

correlation (Figure 1). Structure oriented leadership values a bureaucratic framework, and everything is

done for educational purposes though the administrative process of the school. Although many teachers


75

dislike such leadership behavior, for the teachers, following educational purposes and administrative

processes provide a direction for them to follow in the administrative matters of the school, which can

also enhance teachers teaching performance.

This research further found that instructional leadership and delegative leadership have higher

variables that influence public school teachers' teaching performance (Figure 1). In other words, when

junior high school and primary school principals encourage teachers to integrate their personal talent into

the school plan, establish a teaching team, or delegate teachers with certain strengths to handle school

matters, such leadership behaviors will have more positive effect on public school teachers' teaching

performance. Therefore, if public school principals expect to improve teachers' teaching performance,

they should adopt instructional leadership and delegative leadership, carefully demonstrate structure

oriented leadership, and be alert when applying human relationships and political leadership behaviors.

Figure 1: The final relational model of the correlation between leadership

styles and teachers’ teaching performance in public schools

Table 4: The summary table of fit indices in the final relational model of the correlation

between leadership styles and teachers’ teaching performance in public schools

Name of index Test Result Acceptance Value

GFI(goodness-of-fit index) .96 >.90(Hu & Bentler,1999)

IFI(incremental fit index) .99 >.90(Hu & Bentler,1999)

NFI(normal fit index) .99 >.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)

NNFI(non- normal fit index) .99 >.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)

CFI(comparative fit index) .99 >.95(Bentler,1988)

RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) .059 ≦.08(McDonald & Ho, 2002)

DF 94 ---

χ2 812.21 p =.0 0


76

In terms of private schools, this study began with using structural equation modeling to analyze the

variables, including delegative leadership, instructional leadership, structure-oriented leadership,

interpersonal relationship, politics-oriented leadership, and symbol-oriented leadership. As shown in

Figure 2 - the preliminary relational model of the correlation between leadership styles and teachers‟

teaching performance in private schools, the t-values of delegative leadership, instructional leadership,

structure-oriented leadership, interpersonal relationship, and politics-oriented leadership‟s influence on

teachers‟ teaching performance did not meet the requirement, and only the t value of symbol-oriented

leadership influence on teachers‟ teaching performance met the requirement. After measuring the

goodness of fit of the relational model of the correlation between symbol-oriented leadership and

teachers‟ teaching performance, the research found the result shown in Figure 3. Each fit index in the

relational model of the correlation between symbol-oriented leadership and teachers‟ teaching

performance in private schools is higher than.90 (as shown in Table 5), indicating that symbol-oriented

leadership is a better choice for private school principals to enhance teachers‟ teaching performance.

Figure 2: A preliminary relational model of the correlation between

leadership styles and teachers’ teaching performance in private schools


77

Figure 3: The final relational model of the correlation between symbolic

leadership and teachers’ teaching performance in private schools

Table 5: The summary table of fit indices in the final relational model of the correlation between

leadership styles and teachers’ teaching performance in private schools

Name of index Test Result Acceptance Value

GFI(goodness-of-fit index) .96 >.90(Hu & Bentler,1999)

IFI(incremental fit index) .98 >.90(Hu & Bentler,1999)

NFI(normal fit index) .97 >.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)

NNFI(non- normal fit index) .97 >.90(Bentler & Bonett,1980)

CFI(comparative fit index) .98 >.95(Bentler,1988)

RMSEA (root mean square error of approximation) .09 ≦.08(McDonald & Ho, 2002)

DF 8 ---

χ2 20.56 p =.0 08

Discussion

As revealed by this study, there are no significances between private school teachers‟ teaching

performance and public school teachers‟ teaching performance. Such a result seems not supportive of

judgments in Choy (1997)‟s research. Private school students‟ better academic performance may be

attributed to private school teachers‟ better teaching performance. This study clarified that there are no

significant differences between public and private school teachers‟ teaching performances. One possible

reason is that most private school students‟ parents are in a better socioeconomic position, which may

enhance students‟ academic performance. However, public school teachers‟ teaching performance is not

different from private school teachers‟ teaching performance.

Nevertheless, results of this study are supportive of Vernon-Dotson (2008)‟s notion that principals‟

leadership may help a school‟s success, and the situation that private school students‟ academic

performance is better than public school students‟ academic performance may be because of private

school principals‟ higher leadership behaviors. For example, this study found that private school

principals are better than public school principals in showing various leadership behaviors.

If there are significant differences between public and private school leadership behaviors, how

do public and private schools employ leadership behaviors? From the research results, this study found

that the leadership behavior of principals in public junior high school and primary school may require

change. In previous literature, Chen and Cheng (2011) pointed out that there is significantly positive

correlation between the relational leadership behavior and teacher's work performance. The data was


78

output in 2009, and the teacher's work performance in Chen and Cheng's study mainly referred to

performance in teaching activities. The data in this study was acquired in 2013, and the research results

show that there is significantly negative influential correlation between human relationships, political

leadership behaviors, and teachers' teaching performance. This means that, in the past, the campus field

may stress on human relationships and political leadership behaviors, such as negotiation and

compromise. However, this has quietly changed, and today, there is significantly negative influential

correlation between human relationships, political leadership behaviors, and teachers' teaching

performance. Therefore, public junior high school and primary school principals should be careful of

using human relationships and political leadership behaviors.

This research found that structure oriented leadership in public schools has slightly positive

influence on teachers' teaching performance, as structure oriented leadership tends to conduct leadership

with bureaucratic color and administrative dominance. Therefore, based on literature related to structure

oriented leadership, in their qualitative research, Meyers, Meyers, and Gelzheiser (2001) discussed the

relationship between dominant leadership and school productivity. Their research found that, when

principals exert more dominant leadership behaviors, there will be lower productivity in their schools,

suggesting that dominant leadership will decrease school productivity. On the other hand, structure

oriented leadership, which follows the school's bureaucratic system structure and purpose, and draws up

administrative process, can slightly enhance teachers' teaching performance, as it points out the subtleness

in leadership behaviors in public schools. That is, setting the school's goals and administrative processes,

and maintaining a bureaucratic system, are helpful to teachers' teaching performance, while dominant

behaviors will harm the school's overall productivity or performance.

Leadership behaviors in private schools differ from those in public schools. Private schools' teacher

association is not as powerful as public schools' (Dillsa & Mulholland, 2010). Moreover, private school

teachers' behaviors of protest and dispute are relatively fewer. Rather, they expect private school

principal‟s symbol oriented leadership; that is, to create teaching significance and encourage teachers'

teaching performance by teachers' stories of heroes.

CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION

This study found that public and private school teachers’ teaching performances have no

significant differences, yet private school principals are better than public school principals in showing

various leadership behaviors. A private school‟s principal is answerable to a board of directors, and the

principal‟s power is less restricted by teachers at the private school. Private school principals‟ leadership

behaviors are more obvious when school principals carry out the board of directors‟ objectives of

supervising and managing teachers. Public school principals‟ power comes from public sectors and

therefore is more restricted by residents of a city, councils, and teachers‟ associations. In comparison,

public school principals have to considers multiple parties‟ opinions and therefore find it harder to

demonstrate their leadership behaviors. Therefore, this study‟s result is that is that private school

principals are better than public school principals in showing various leadership behaviors.

This study found that the same leadership styles adopted by public schools and private schools may

have different utilitarian functions. Instructional leadership and delegative leadership of public school

principals could more effectively affect teachers‟ teaching performance; whereas, instructional leadership

is slightly more effective than delegative leadership. Although school principals‟ structure-oriented

leadership has positive influence on teachers‟ teaching performance, the coefficient value of influence is


79

not large. Meanwhile, this study also found an obviously reverse correlation between teachers‟ teaching

performance and adopting a leadership style involving interpersonal relationships and political behaviors

in public schools, although the coefficient value of influence is not large. However, these figures are

significant enough to raise school principals‟ awareness.

Judging from the results of this study, public school principals should gradually change their

leadership style to a leadership style that values interpersonal relationships and political behaviors, and

structure a leadership style that values instructional leadership and delegative leadership. The essence of

instructional leadership is that school principals encourage teachers to bring their personal talents to

educational activities, and encourage teachers to exercise team leadership skills when attempting to

develop an instructional leadership team. The more obvious the abovementioned leadership style is, the

better teachers‟ teaching performance is. In addition, as a result of school democratization, teachers‟

participation in school affairs is becoming more and more common. A school principal‟s frequent and

clear delegation of power to school teachers regarding matters that teachers can decide also enhances

teachers‟ teaching performance. In other words, teachers have more autonomy in teaching; they have

space to make choices autonomously regarding teaching approaches, teaching strategies, and teaching

attitudes. As a result, if public school principals expect to enhance teachers' teaching performance, the

best leadership behaviors are delegative leadership and instructional leadership. However,

democratization on campus seems to foster the benefit of structure oriented leadership, and weakens the

effect of human relationships and political leadership. That is to say, behaviors focusing on relationships,

negotiation, and compromise have negative effect in the end. However, such condition may require

subsequent studies to verify whether the school's culture (democratic and open culture) is the intermediate

variable of the principal's leadership behavior and teachers' teaching performance. This study provides

reference for researchers aiming to continue exploration of this subject.

Symbol-oriented leadership is a better choice for school principals in private schools. Private

schools should draw upon schools‟ heroic stories to create schools‟ values of education, meanings, and

rituals, in order to enhance the teaching performance of teachers in private schools. The results of this

study reflect public and private school leadership styles‟ different effects on teachers‟ teaching

performance. Public school principals should emphasize instructional leadership and delegative

leadership; whereas, private schools principals should create heroic stories and special rituals to develop

schools‟ values and meanings of education, and utilize symbol-oriented leadership.

In addition, future research on school leadership styles is recommended in order to factor in

intermediary determinants. The reason that delegative leadership and instructional leadership are highly

related to teachers‟ teaching performance is because school principals‟ delegation of power elevates

teachers‟ self-esteem at work, or because school principals who value teaching may employ instructional

leadership, which brings about teachers‟ mental satisfaction at work and indirectly elevates teachers‟

teaching performance. This is a possible focus of future research. This research set up correlation models

for public and private school principals' leadership behaviors and teachers' teaching performance, which

can function as the theoretical foundation for subsequent researchers to investigate schools' leadership

behaviors, or serve as reference for researchers to compare and discuss other leadership behaviors.


80

REFERENCES

Avolio, B. J., Walumbwa, F. O., & Weber, T. J. (2009). Leadership: Current theories, research, and future direction. The Annual

Review of Psychology, 60, 421–449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621

Bartell, C. A., & Willis, D. B. (1987). American and Japanese principals: A comparative analysis of excellence in instructional

leadership. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/63262131?accountid=12699

Bolman, L. G. & Deal, T. E. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice, and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.

Butler, J. K., & Reese, R. M. (1991). Leadership style and sales performance: A test of the situational leadership model. Journal of

Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(3), 37-46.

Chang, I. (2011). A study of the relationships between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism, and student achievement

in Taiwanese elementary schools. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organization, 31(5), 491-515.

Chen, C. (2004). A study of the relationship between the learning organization and principal leadership styles in Taiwan. (Doctoral

dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3122966)

Chen, Y. & Cheng, J. (2011). Leadership behavior and job performance of teachers in public and private kindergartens: the

perspectives of institutionalization, reason, and feeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 1-19.

DOI:10.1080/ 09243453.2011. 632422

Choy, S. P. (1997). Public and private schools: How do they differ? Findings from “The Condition of Education, 1997,” No. 12. ED

411 593

Day. C., Harris. A., & Hadfield, M. (2001). Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. INT. J. Leadership in

Education, 4(1), 39-56.

Dills, A. K., & Mulholland, S. E. (2010). A comparative look at private and public schools' class size determinants. Education

Economics, 18(4), 435-454. doi: 10.1080/09645290903546397

Glatthorn, A. A., & Newberg, N. A. (1984). A team approach to instructional leadership. Educational Leadership, 41(5), 60-63.

Goyal, S. (2009). Inside the house of learning: the relative performance of public and private schools in Orissa. Education

Economics, 17(3), 315–327. DOI: 10.1080/09645290903142577

Hays, S. (1999). Our future requires collaborative leadership. Workforce, 78(12), 30.

Horn, S. A., & Cross, A. (2009). Japanese management at a crossroads? The changing role of China in the transformation of

corporate Japan. Asia Pacific Business Review, 15(3), 285–308.

Lin, K. (2005). Can western theories of leadership be applied to Asian setting? An exploratory study of school principals in Taiwan.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3172986)

McCoy, J. V. (2011). A multiple case study of principals‟ instructional leadership in „level 5‟ schools of excellence for improvement.

(Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3482388)

McEwan, P. J. (2000). Comparing the effectiveness of public and private schools: A review of evidence and interpretations. ED 480

734.

Meyers, B., Meyers, J., & Gelzheiser, L. (2001). Observing leadership roles in shared decision making: A preliminary analysis of

three teams. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12(4), 277–312. Doi:10.1207/S1532768XJEPC1204_01

Pan, H. W., & Chen, P. (2011). Challenges and research agenda of school leadership in Taiwan. School Leadership & Management,

31(4), 339-353. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2011.606270

Pearce, C. L., & Herbik, P. A. (2004). Citizenship behavior at the team level of analysis: The effects of team leadership, team

commitment, perceived team support, and team size. Journal Of Social Psychology, 144(3), 293-310.

doi:10.3200/SOCP.144.3.293-310

Pekert, A. A., & Sendjaya, S. (2010). Exploring servant leadership across cultures: Comparative study in Australia and Indonesia.

The International Journal of Human Re- source Management, 21(5), 754-780. Doi: 10.1080/09585191003658920.


81

Sentocnik, S., & Rupar, B. (2009). School leadership of the future: How the national education institute in Slovenia supported

schools to develop distributed leadership practice. European Education, 41(3), 7-22. doi:10.2753/EUE1056-4934410301

Tsai, J. H. (2000) A Study of the Correlation between Junior High School Principals‟ Transformational leadership, Transactional

leadership, School Culture, and School Effectiveness. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Graduate School of Education,

National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.

Tsai, J. H. (2011) The Application of Complexity Theory to Explore the Trend of School Leadership and Operations. Teachers‟

Friend, 51(2), 12-19.

Tsai, W., Chen, H., & Cheng, J. (2009). Employee positive moods as a mediator linking transformational leadership and employee work

outcomes. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 20(1), 206-219. DOI:10.1080/09585190802528714

Uhl-Bien, M., Marion, R., & McKelvey, B. (2007). Complexity leadership theory: Shifting leadership from the industrial age to the

knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(4), 298-318. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2007.04.002

Vecchio, R. P., Justin, J. E., & Pearce, C. (2008). The utility of transactional and transformational leadership for predicting

performance and satisfaction within a path-goal theory framework. Journal of Occupational and organizational Psychology,

81(1), 71-82. DOI: 10.1348/096317907X202482

Vernon-Dotson, L. (2008). Promoting inclusive education through teacher leadership teams: A school reform initiative. Journal of

School Leadership, 18(3), 344-373.

Vries, R. E, Bakker-Pieper, A, Oostenveld, W, (2010). Leadership= communication? the relations of leaders‟ communication styles

with leadership styles, knowledge sharing and leadership outcomes. J. Bus. Psychology, 25, 367-380. Doi:

10.1007/s10869-009-9140-2

Wang, C. (2010). An empirical study of the performance of university teachers based on organizational commitment, job stress,

mental health, and achievement motivation. Canadian Social Science, 6(4), 127-140. doi.org/10.3968%2Fj.css.192366

9720100604.013

Weshah, H. A. (2011). Assessing the status-quo of the organizational development efforts of Jordanian public and private secondary

schools from the viewpoint of its principals. Education, 132(2),296-309.

https://www.questia.com/read/1G1-278759329/assessing-the-status-quo-of-the-organizational-development

Documents

Principals’ leadership and teachers’ performance Yi-Gean Chen.pdfInstructional leadership Instructional leadership in this study refers to the leadership style adopted by a school