0.5 Roberts, k., & Sampson, p. (october 2011). a study of principal  (Page 3/6)

Job performance

Kim (1986) found that teachers reported that consideration seemed to be more related to their job performance than to of initiation of structure. Kim (1986) also found that teacher reported degree of initiation of structure of their principal was not significantly correlated with teacher satisfaction. Mason-Bush (2003) concluded that teachers' motivation and performance in schools were affected by the principal's leadership style.

Job performance was evaluated by the use of teacher’s self-evaluation. March and Overall (1979) found that teacher’s self-evaluation were valid and reliable and positively correlated to student evaluations.

Castetter (1976) wrote:

Day-to-day behavior of administrators virtually affects the performance of colleagues. Personnel are quick to detect how the leader feels about organizational intent and formal procedures. The actions of an administrator always convey meaning…and will be observed by personnel and will condition, positively or negatively their behavior pattern. (p. 23)

Statement of problem

This study was conducted to determine the relationship between leadership styles of principals and teacher job performance. The leadership style of the principal was determined by teacher perception using the LDDQ-12 which defines leadership style as degrees of consideration and structure. The teacher job performance was determined by teachers’ self-assessment.

Research hypotheses

1. Teachers work under a High-Consideration, High Structure (HC, HS) principal will experience higher job performance than teachers working under a High-Consideration, Low-Structure (HC, LS) principal or Low-Consideration, High-Structure (LC, HS) principal or Low-Consideration, Low-Structure (LS, LC) principal.
2. Teachers work under a HC, LS principal will experience higher job performance than teachers working under a LC, HS principal or LC, LS principal.
3. Teachers work under a LC, HS principal will experience higher job performance than teachers working with a LC, LS principal.

Methodology

The data were gathered from various size school districts in East Texas selected randomly. Administration was contacted for permission to distribute the instrument to the teachers. After permission was granted the instrument was sent to the principals. They distributed the instrument and they collected the completed instrument. Confidentiality was enhanced by advising the teachers to leave off their name and school district name. Teachers identified their own job performance. Kim (1986) found a significant positive correlation between self reported job performance of teachers and principals' leadership behavior.

Data analysis

The primary purpose of this study was to determine if a principal’s leadership style was related to teacher job performance. Four leadership styles were identified: 1) HC, HS; 2) HC, LS; 3) LC, HS; and 4) LC, LS. Job performance was defined as teacher’s perception of their performance.

This study examined one dependent variable. The instrument that measured teaching job performance yielded one score, the individual’s average. In order to test the hypotheses, descriptive statistics were used which were percentages and means. The principals were classified into the four leadership styles as identified by the teacher.