See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358234261

LEADERSHIP STYLES OF SCHOOL HEADS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO SCHOOL

PERFORMANCE

Article · January 2022

DOI: 10.11216/gsj.2022.01.57744

CITATIONS READS
4 4,987

1 author:

Richard Oco
Department of Education of the Philippines
19 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard Oco on 31 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1801

GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com
LEADERSHIP STYLES OF SCHOOL HEADS
AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

Richard M. Oco, PhD

Full-time Alubijid National Comprehensive High School Teacher
Part-time The New El Salvador Colleges Instructor
Part-time Southern Philippines College Graduate School Instructor
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to figure the Leadership Styles of the school heads
and its relationship to school performance. Descriptive design were use in
this study with instruments on lifelike leadership style incidents as means
to determine the responses of the 161 teacher respondents and 5 school
heads respondents on leadership styles.

Specifically, it sought to offer data on; (1) respondents’ profile:

gender, civil status, present position and length of service; (2) leadership
styles: Autocratic, Delegative, Democratic, Servant and Transformational;
(3) School performance: SBM Level of Practice, Dropout Rate, Cohort
Survival Rate and Academic performance. Statistical tools like mean,
percentage, z-test, f-test, t-test and Spearman rank correlation coefficients
were used to check the statistical significance of the data.

The study revealed that the majority of the teachers were women,
married, 0-7 years teaching service and present position of Teacher I-III.
The majority of the school heads were male, married, 8-15 years in service
with the present position of Head Teacher IV.

Overall top 3 leadership styles for school heads were Delegative,

Democratic and Transformational. School Heads’ present position and civil
status showed significant difference on Autocratic, Democratic and
Transformational leadership styles. Gender showed no significant
difference significant difference on Delegative and Servant leadership
styles. Length of service showed very high adherence on all leadership
styles.

Overall top 3 leadership styles for teachers were Autocratic,

Democratic and Servant leadership styles. Teachers’ gender showed no
significance in all five leadership styles. Civil Status, Present Position and
Length of Service showed significant difference on Autocratic, Democratic
and Transformational leadership styles. Significant correlations were
registered between leadership styles and school performance.

In the final analysis, it was concluded that since democratic

leadership style is the dominant style in managing teachers and students
in school, continuous development trainings and programs must be

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1802

implemented since both teachers and school heads are still at their novice
level in terms of experience to ensure that performance of school meets if
not exceeds the standards set by the government. Finally, handling school
requires mastery on various leadership styles so that various school
scenario and problems will be addressed properly.
KEYWORDS: Autocratic, Delegative, Democratic, Servant,
Transformational, Performance Indicators

INTRODUCTION

The leadership styles of school heads play a pivotal role that can
affect the school performance in this study. The leadership of school heads
deals with the administrator’s way of supervising his/her subordinates. A
good school head promotes good relationships towards the teachers
working with him/her. Teachers’ awareness over their school heads’
positive doing on duties and responsibilities clearly inspires them to do it
to their own work as well. While a school head who is a deficiency and an
advocate on promoting chaos, confusions, and factions towards his
subordinates definitely losses the teachers’ trusts and confidence.
School heads are the recognized leaders in schools; they are
entrusted with authorities, responsibilities, and accountabilities in the
success or failure of the institution. Their position is significant to the
educational development and academic growth and performance of the
learners because the school heads are usually the major source and the
driving force that uphold the welfare of the organization.
As leaders in the field of education, the school heads have been
entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the school runs
efficiently and students are provided with the best and quality education
that at the end become the indispensable workforce of the community and
the country (Hardman, 2011).
School heads, which form the core of a school’s leadership team, are
increasingly touted as important determinants of school effectiveness.
Thus, school heads play a key role as the primary leaders of schools and
will greatly influence all aspects of the functions of the schools with their
behaviors, personal characteristics and also biases. This view has
garnered them added scrutiny in recent educational policy debates over
how to improve schools (Sabado, 2014).
The best thing about leadership is that we all bring something
different from each other. There are no individuals who can express
leadership in the same way. Each of us can be a unique leader, and that
is why trying to put leadership into a box always fails. If one has to read
articles on good leadership qualities, one would usually see factors like
integrity, effective communication, and influence.

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1803

Most of the time, people tend to believe that the study on leadership
is not that necessary. But leadership has always been important.
Leadership is desperately important. That is why leadership is the most
abused theme in research studies.
This study is a response to the need to have a basis of inference on
the importance of leadership styles of public school heads to the school
performance and to the teachers as well. The results of this study might
show how various leadership styles affect school performance and how
they are used in different scenarios at school. The results of this study
might also show how school heads and their teachers fare in making
democracy functional in the management of their schools.
This study aimed to determine the leadership styles as perceived by
the public school heads and teachers from the selected Junior High
Schools in Misamis Oriental and its relation to school performance.
Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the school heads and teachers from the
selected Junior High Schools in Misamis Oriental in terms of gender, civil
status, present position and length of service?
2. What are the respondents’ comparative responses on
implementing leadership styles at their respective schools?
3. What is the significant difference in the responses of School heads
and Teachers on leadership styles when grouped according to gender, civil
status, present position and length of service?
4. What is the performance of the school in terms of the following
indicators, Academic Performance, Cohort Survival Rate, Drop-Out Rate
and SBM Level of Practice?
5. What is the significant relationship between the leadership styles
of school heads and teachers and the school performance?

THEORITICAL AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

This study was anchored on the premise that the quality of

leadership makes a significant difference in school and student outcomes
(Juntahan, 2012). Important theoretical contributions to the
understanding of Leadership is Taylor’s theory of Scientific Management.
Scientific Management is a philosophy that dealt with the
relationship between people and work. Finding “one best way” for the job,
finding the proper person for the job with maximum output using
minimum effort was the main goal of the theory.
Taylor believed that if both labor and management embrace this
philosophy, they would become teammates rather than adversaries,
disregarding their traditional relationship and shaping in greater profits
than before (Sabado, 2014).
Leadership involves the ability of an individual to influence others
to pursue defined goals and objectives, establishing relationships with

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1804

individuals affiliated with the organization sufficient to gain their

commitment and acquiring knowledge of individuals and situations
(Hardman, 2011).
The study considered the Input-Process-Output model. For the
input, the profile of the school heads and teachers on gender, civil status,
present position and length of service were determined. In the process, the
perception of the respondents on Leadership Styles namely: Autocratic,
Delegative, Democratic, Servant and Transformational were checked. The
school performance on the dropout rate, cohort survival rate, academic
performance and SBM Level of Practice were also checked.
In the Autocratic Leadership Style, the leader makes decisions
without consulting with others. Autocratic leadership style is very effective
when decision making does not need inputs and it does not affect people
in carrying out their subsequent actions whether they were or were not
involved in the decision‐making (Napire, 2014).
Democratic Leadership Style means the leader involves the people
in the decision‐making, although the process for the final decision may
vary from the leader having the final say to them facilitating consensus in
the group. Democratic decision‐making is usually appreciated by the
people, especially if they have been used to the autocratic decisions with
which they disagreed. Democratic style can be problematic when there is
a wide range of opinions and there is no clear way of reaching an equitable
final decision (Cuciac, 2016).
Delegative Leadership Style minimizes the leader's involvement in
decision‐making. Delegative works best when: people are capable and
motivated in making their own decisions, and where there is no
requirement for central coordination.
In Transformational Leadership Style, the leader examines and
searches for the needs and motives of others while seeking a higher agenda
of needs (Cuciac, 2016).
In Servant Leadership Style, leaders often lead by example, although
it is usually admired in politics, employees prefer a servant leader. They
have high integrity and lead with generosity. Servant Leadership style
creates a positive culture and high morale among team members.
Advocates of the servant leadership model suggest that it is a good way to
move ahead and can achieve power because of their values, ideals, and
ethics. This style also takes time to apply correctly. It is ill-suited to
situations where one has to make quick decisions or meet tight deadlines
(Del Valle, 2016).

METHODOLOGY

The study utilized the descriptive design which is appropriate for its
objective to determine the subjects’ perceptions on the leadership styles of

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1805

their school heads under conditions that naturally occurred in their school
environment. The data collected by the study provided bases of inference
on the said styles in the normal daily management of their schools at the
time when the research was conducted.
The design involved description, recording, analyses, and
interpretations of a prevailing conditions as illustrated in the conceptual
framework. Furthermore, the unstructured interview was also conducted
to confirm the consolidated data and for the respondents’ opportunity to
express their reasons and sentiments on perceived prevailing leadership
styles.
The actual population of 161 teachers and 5 school heads were the
respondents of this study, no sampling procedure was employed; hence
the whole universe is the total number of respondents.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Profile of the teacher respondents

Data show that the majority of the respondents are female with 121
out of 161 or 75%, while 40 out of 161 or 25% of the respondents are male.
These data imply that the teaching profession is still dominated by
females. These data affirm the report of Civil Service Commission (CSC) as
quoted by Congressional Commission on Education (CCE) reported in
1991, eighty-four point two (84.2) percent of the teachers’ population was
occupied by females.
Data also re-affirm the Congressional Commission on Education
study in 1993, concluding that female teachers covered 80.9 percent
population, resulting in a 1:4 male to female ratio. Even the Department
of Education record showed that 86% of its employees were women
(Esplanada, 2010). Moreover, the studies of Juntahan (2012) found out
that most of the teachers were female and Agawin (2014) revealed that
female populace dominated the teaching world.
Married teachers also dominated the populace with 83 out of 161 or
51% while the singles were 77 out of 161 or 48%. These data implied that
the majority of the teacher respondents were married. Teaching in public
schools with a permanent tenure is considered by married respondents as
a secured profession for life’s sustainability of their family.
In the aspect of the length of service, 86 out of 161 teachers or 54%
were at 0-7 years of teaching. This was followed closely by 16- 23 years
and 8-15 years of teaching with 29 out of 161 or 18% and 28 out of 161
or 17% respectively. Teachers with 24 years and above teaching service
came last with a tally of 18 out of 161 or 11%. These data implied that in
terms of the teaching experience the majority of the respondents were still
at their novice level, which means that they are still young in the teaching
service in the Department of Education. Teachers at novice level need to

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1806

participate in various training and seminars to get acquainted with the

environment, rule, and regulations of the department that they are
serving.
Moreover, in terms of present position 136 out of 161 or 85% of the
respondents were holding Teacher I-III positions, while 15 out of 161 or
9% of the respondents have Master Teacher positions and 10 out of 161
or 6% was handling Head teacher positions. These data implied that the
teacher respondents are still at the entry level in the Department of
Education which is on a teacher I to teacher III position wherein they can
decide on whether to remain as a teacher or become one of the school
heads in the future.

Profile of the school heads respondents

Data revealed that male respondents were 4 out of 5 or 80%, while

1 out of 5 or 20% of the respondents were female. These data implied that
the majority of the school heads managing the schools were male. These
findings differ from the study of Magtabog (2016) which revealed that there
are more female school heads than males, which means that further study
on this variable must be conducted for confirmation of the findings.
Married School Heads dominated the populace with 4 out 5 or 80%,
while the widow was 1 out of 5 or 20%. Which means that more married
school heads are willing to handle schools for these positions has higher
salary and that their maturity level in terms of decision making are already
high.

In the aspect of the length of service, 5 out of 5 or 100% of the school

heads were at 8-15 years of serving as school heads. These data implied
that the school heads were still very eager in performing their duties and
responsibilities as school heads since they are still new to the position and
that they are still learning and adjusting to it.
These findings support the study of Magtabog (2016) who revealed
that more school heads are still at the novice level in their experience as
school heads. Moreover, in terms of present position 3 out of 5 or 60% of
the respondents were holding Head Teacher IV positions, while 2 out of 5
or 40% of the respondents have principal II positions. These findings
contradict the study of Magtabog (2016) who revealed that there are more
school heads with principal positions than with head teacher positions.
These data implied that school heads do not have the same positions
due to factors like their managerial experience is still not enough, lack of
accredited training and seminars and lack of item positions and needs to
undergo training on School Head Development Program (SHDP).

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1807

Comparative Responses on Leadership Style

Table 1 presents the comparative responses of school heads and

teachers on leadership style. Data revealed that school heads top 3 most
used leadership styles were Democratic, Transformational and Delegative
Leadership Styles. This implies that the school heads value the importance
of freedom, shared duties and responsibilities and in making a difference
for the school and the learners as well. School heads are unselfish in
sharing their managerial knowledge and skills.

Table 1
Comparative Responses of School Heads and Teachers
on Leadership Style
Leadership Style School Heads Teachers
Mean Rank Mean Rank
Autocratic 3.58 5 3.78 1
Delegative 3.70 3 3.69 4
Democratic 3.82 1 3.73 2
Servant 3.68 4 3.72 3
Transformational 3.72 2 3.62 5

Furthermore, the data also revealed that the top 3 perceived

leadership styles of school heads as observed by the teachers were
Autocratic, Democratic and Servant Leadership Styles. These data implied
that teachers perceived their school heads to be autocratic on things that
needs to be implemented even if there are objections into it. Teachers also
realized that they were given the opportunity to explore and put their
leadership skills into practice in serving the learners and the community
where the school is situated as well.
Overall, all the 5 leadership styles generated mean with the
description of “Always” and with the interpretation of “Very High
Adherence” both by the school heads and teachers. Only Democratic
Leadership Style was consistent among the top 3 choices of both
respondents. This data implies that sense of freedom is being emphasize
in the school and learning environment. These findings affirmed the study
of Bago (2010) which revealed that seventy-five percent (75%) of the
administrators assessed themselves to be supporting and twenty-five
percent ( 25%) considered themselves as coaching (more of democratic
way). The teachers regarded their administrators otherwise: their
principals were perceived more of the coaching type of instructional
leaders.
However school heads must be clear on the leadership style that
they are implementing to the school and the teachers because this
situation may lead to misunderstanding and confusions. School heads

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1808

must let their teachers learn the difference of each leadership styles that
they employ at work to have better understanding and interpretations.

Test Significance on School Heads’ Responses on Leadership Style

Table 2
Overall Distribution of School Heads’ Perception on Leadership Style
Variables
Leadership Styles Gender Civil Status Present Position Length of Service
Autocratic NS NS S VHA
Delegative S S NS VHA
Democratic NS NS S VHA
Servant S S NS VHA
Transformational NS NS S VHA
NS=Not Significant S=Significant VHA=Very High Adherence

Table 2 shows the overall distribution of the School Heads’

responses on leadership styles. Data showed that in terms of Gender the
respondents have the same view on Autocratic, Democratic and
Transformational Leadership Styles. Gender showed significant difference
in responses for Delegative and Servant Leadership Styles with male
school heads giving much emphasis in delegating tasks to others as well
as in participating in community activities.
These findings contradict with the studies of Sawati et al (2013) who
found out that gender is not significant to leadership styles, Napire (2014)
who revealed that gender has no relation to leadership style and Ndiku et
al (2015) who revealed that gender was a non factor on school heads’
leadership practices while it contradicts the study of Anbazhagan et al
(2010) who yielded opposite results.
Civil Status revealed no significant difference on Autocratic,
Democratic and Transformational Leadership Styles. Significant difference
was also generated for Delegative and Servant Leadership Styles with
married school heads giving much emphasis in delegating tasks to others
as well as in participating in community activities. These findings
contradict with the study of Napire (2014) who revealed that civil status
has no significant relationship with school heads’ leadership practices.
Present position reveals that School heads respondents have the
same responses on Autocratic, Democratic and Transformational
Leadership Styles and differs in their perception on Delegative and Servant
Leadership Styles with school heads with head teacher position giving
much emphasis in delegating tasks to others as well as in participating in
community activities.
These findings aligns with the study of Ndiku et al (2015) who
showed there is a significant difference in the perception of school heads’
leadership practices while it contradicts with the study of Napire (2014)

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1809

who revealed that the position has no significant relationship on school

heads’ leadership practices.
In terms of length of service, Data revealed that all the school heads
have very high adherence in all 5 leadership styles. They recognize the
importance and uniqueness of each of the leadership style. These findings
support the studies of Balbon (2016) leadership styles were observable at
school and Del Valle (2016) who revealed the leadership styles among
school heads were highly observed and manifested. Moreover, the study of
Napire (2014) revealed that length of service has no significant relationship
on school heads’ leadership styles while the study of Quin et al (2015)
revealed that school heads that employ all leadership styles have the
biggest impact on student achievement.

Data on School Performance

Table 3
Data on Schools’ Academic Performance
School Average of Increase Rating Interpretation
A 70.23 2 Average
B 58.52 2 Average
C 68.15 2 Average
D 50.94 1 Marginal
E 44.61 1 Marginal
Secondary – Baseline 48% Option 2
1 – Marginal: At least 7% Inc. 1 – Marginal: 26-50% increase
2 – Average: At least 8% Inc. 2 – Average: 51-75% increase
3 – High: With 10% Inc. or 75% increase 3 – High: 76-100% increase

Table 3 presents the schools’ academic performance. Data revealed

that 3 out of 5 or 60% of the schools under this research got the average
increase of academic performance between 51% - 75% with the rating of 2
and with the interpretation “average”. The other two schools got the
average increase on the academic performance of between 26% - 50% with
the ratings of 1 and with the interpretation “marginal”.
These data imply that the majority of the schools got an increase in
their National Achievement Test Scores that qualifies to the standards of
School Based Management assessment tools and majority of the schools
had a high rate of students who have average academic performance
although it did not meet the passing mark of 75%. Thus, innovations and
interventions like remedial classes, review classes, enrichment classes and
even tutorials were still implemented to achieve much higher results.
These findings confirmed the report of Post (2016) wherein the
average NAT rate of secondary schools in the Philippines from 2008 to
2012 of the subjects under this test are: Mathematics (41.51%), Science
(41.45%), English (49.52%), AP (54.70%) and Filipino (48.82%). Quite low
to the national passing rate requirement of 75%.

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1810

Table 4
Schools’ data on Cohort Survival Rate
School Average of increase Rating Interpretation
A 21.30 3 High
B 7.95 2 Average
C 18.40 3 High
D 14.34 3 High
E 5.90 1 Marginal
Baseline: 75% 1 – Marginal: At least 5% Inc.
2 – Average: At least 7% Inc. 3 – High: At least 10% Inc.

Table 4 presents the schools’ cohort survival rate. Data revealed that
3 out of 5 or 60% of the schools under this research got the average
increase of cohort survival rate more than 10% with the rating of 3 and
with the interpretation “high”.
The other two schools got the average increase of the cohort survival
rate of more than 5% but less than 10% with the ratings of 2 and 1 with
the interpretation “average” and “marginal” respectively. These data imply
that the majority of the schools had a high rate of students who starts
from grade 7 level and ends at grade 10 level for the past 3 years based on
the standards set by the Department of education and School Based
Management assessment tools. Thus, holding power of schools towards
their students were imminent.
These findings aligned with the report of Post (2016) which stated
that the average cohort survival rate of students in public schools in the
Philippines from 2008 to 2012 was at 78.93%. Causes were lack of
financial support due to poverty and the sometimes unexpected transfer
of residences that led the student to stop from studying at school.

Table 5
Schools’ data on Dropout Rate
School Average of Decrease Rating Interpretation
A 0.54 3 High
B 0.00 3 High
C 0.41 3 High
D 1.16 3 High
E 0.00 3 High
Baseline: 7.06 1 – Marginal: At least 4% Inc.
2 – Average: At least 2% Inc. 3 – High: 0 DR or less than 2%

Table 5 presents the schools’ data on the dropout rate. Data revealed
that all the 5 schools under this research got the average decrease on
dropout rate less than 2% with the rating of 3 and with the interpretation
“high”.

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1811

These data imply that all the schools had a very low case of students
who drop out for the past 3 years based on the standards set by the
Department of education and School Based Management assessment
tools. Per interview, the majority of the school heads and teachers agreed
that several activities were conducted like remedial classes, home
visitations and even counseling to ensure that students continue their
studies.
These findings contradict the report of the Post (2016) which stated
that the dropout rate from 2008 to 2012 is at 7.75% in the Philippine
secondary schools. As well as on the data from the 2016 Annual Poverty
Indicators Survey of the Philippine Statistics Authority as reported by
Golez (2018) which showed that 3.8 million or one in 10 Filipinos aged 6
to 24 years old are not in school. Most of them or almost 3.3 million are
aged 16 to 24 years old who was supposed to be in senior high school or
college level already.
Furthermore, Findings from the study of Brown (2015) indicated
that multiple styles of leadership are recommended as critical in complex
environments like the reduction of dropout cases on the at-risk youth. It
also indicated that students appreciated the role of management and the
need for increased engagement in school.

Table 6
Schools’ data on SBM Level of Practice
School SBM Rating Description Level Interpretation
A 2.47 Better II Maturing
B 1.20 Good I Developing
C 2.35 Better II Maturing
D 2.20 Better II Maturing
E 1.27 Good I Developing

Table 6 presents the schools’ data on School Based Management

(SBM) Level of Practices. Data revealed that 3 out of 5 or 60% of the schools
under this research got the ratings under the description better, equivalent
to level II and with the interpretation “maturing” as evaluated by the
division level and regional level SBM evaluating teams.
The other two schools got the ratings under the description good,
equivalent to level I and with the interpretation “developing” as evaluated
by the division level evaluating teams. These data imply that majority of
the schools had a maturing rate of based on the standards set by the
Department of education and School Based Management assessment
tools. The majority of the schools were able to adjust in implementing the
vision, mission, goals and objectives of the Department of education
without much supervision and monitoring of the central office ever since
the implementation of “decentralization” rule.

Test Significance on School Performance and Leadership Styles

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1812

Table 7 presents test significance on school performance and

responses on leadership style of school heads. Data revealed that
Academic Performance with computed t - value of 11.174, Cohort Survival
Rate with computed t - value of 3.348, Dropout Rate with computed t-
value of 15.084 and School Based Management Level of Practice rating
with computed t - value of 15.247 were all higher that the t - critical value
of 2.306 at 0.05 level of significance. These data means that there is a
significant relationship on the school heads’ responses towards the
leadership styles and school performance. Thus, the null hypothesis is
rejected.

Table 7
Test Significance on School Performance and
Leadership Style Responses of School Heads
School r– Correlation Level t– Interpretation Decision
Performance value value
Academic -0.300 Weak Correlation 11.174 Significant Reject Ho
Performance
Cohort -0.400 Moderate 3.348 Significant Reject Ho
Survival Rate Correlation
Dropout Rate -0.564 Moderate 15.084 Significant Reject Ho
Correlation
SBM rating -0.300 Weak Correlation 15.247 Significant Reject Ho
Legend: Critical t – value at 0.05 level of significance =2.306

These data imply that leadership styles have significant effects on

the school performance. Cohort Survival rate and Dropout rate registered
moderate negative correlation with leadership styles while Academic
Performance and School Based Management Level of Practice rating
registered weak negative correlation. This means that if the school heads
will not perform their managerial duties properly, it will result to negative
effects on the school performance. Thus, leadership styles play important
role in the outcomes of school performance.
These findings aligns with the studies of Wang and Guan (2018) with
results indicating that the school Authoritarian leadership had moderate
but significant indirect effects on student achievement, Morgan (2015)
with study results indicating significant positive relationships between
perceived leadership practices of school heads to academic performance
and Calibara (2016) who revealed that school heads’ perceptions on
leadership practices has a significant relationship on school performance.
However, the study of Mphale (2014) found out that the increase in
students dropping out of school have no effects on some of the roles played
by the school leadership to retain students and recommended that
parents, community and teachers should work together to enhance
student retention.

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1813

REFERENCES

Agawin, C. G. (2014). Exploring school leaders’ leadership styles that

satisfy secondary school teachers (Research project, Capitol
University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines)

Anbazhagan, S., et al. (2010). The influence of age and gender on the
leadership styles (Thesis, Bharathidasan University, Trichy, TN,
India). Retrieved: November 23, 2018. http://iosrjournals.org/iosr-
jbm/papers/Vol16-issue5/Version-3/O0165397103.pdf

Bago, A. (2010). Supervision of instruction: The philippine perspective.

Manila, Philippines: Rex Book Store Incorporated

Balbon, S. (2016). School heads administrative skills affecting teachers’

participation in the implementation of k-12 curriculum: Basis for
district human resource development plan. Retrieved December 7,
2016, from the journal of the Philippine conference on basic
education researchers 2016, PICC, Pasay City, Philippines, 2016

Brown, K. E. (2018). The link between leadership and reduced high school
dropout rates. Retrieved January 05, 2019.
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu

Calibara, L. O. (2016). Effects of school heads with the performance of

teachers in teaching and learning process. Retrieved December 7,
2016, from the journal of the Philippine conference on basic
education researchers 2016, PICC, Pasay City, Philippines, 2016

Cuciac, L. S. (2016). The influence of teachers’ perceived leadership styles

and students’ learning approaches on academic achievement.
Retrieved May 20, 2017, from
http://www.usv.ro/edrp/index.php/EDRP/article/view/22

Del Valle, J. (2016). Leadership style and related variables: Inputs to

school head’s good governance. Retrieved December 7, 2016, from
the journal of the Philippine conference on basic education
researchers 2016, PICC, Pasay City, Philippines, 2016

Esplanada, J. E. (2010). Male teachers in the Philippines. Retrieved May

20, 2017, from
http://www.menteach.org/news/male_teachers_in_the_phillipines

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1814

Golez, P. (2018). K to 12 blamed for the high dropout rate in schools.

Retrieved January 05, 2019 from https://www.panaynews.net/k-
12-blamed-for-high-dropout-rate-in-schools/

Hardman, B. K. (2011). Teacher's perception of their principal's leadership

style and the effects on student achievement in improving and non-
improving schools (Dissertation, University of South Florida,
U.S.A.). Retrieved: November 23,
2018.https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer
=https://www.google.com.ph/&httpsredir=1&article=4921&contex
t=etd

Juntahan, G. G. (2012). Leadership practices of school heads as perceived

by the public elementary school teachers in jasaan district, s.y.
2011-2012 (Masteral Thesis, Southern Philippines College, Cagayan
de Oro City, Philippines)

Magtabog, T. A. (2016). Leadership and management practices of school

heads: Basis for continuous improvement program (Dissertation,
Capitol University, Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines).

Morgan, W. (2015). The influence of school leadership practices on

classroom management, school environment and academic
underperformance. (Walden University, U.S.A., 2015) Retrieved May
20, 2017, from
https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=14
51&context=dissertations

Mphale, L. (2014). Prevalent dropout: A challenge on the roles of school

management teams to enhance students’ retention in botswana
junior high schools (University of Botswana Gaborone) Retrieved:
November 05, 2017.
https://ijbssnet.com/journals/Vol_5_No_11_1_October_2014/19.p
df

Napire, J. N. (2014). Adversity quotient and leadership style in relation to

the demographic profile of the elementary school principals in the
second congressional district of camarines sur (Dissertation,
University of Northeastern Philippines, Camarines Sur, Philippines).
Retrieved: November 22, 2018.
http://www.peaklearning.com/documents/PEAK_GRI_Bautista_Pa
scua_Tiu_Vela.pdf

Ndiku, M. L. et al. (2015). The correlates of leadership amongst selected

secondary school stakeholders in musoma municipality. (University

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
 GSJ: Volume 10, Issue 1, January 2022
ISSN 2320-9186 1815

of Eastern Africa, Kenya, 2015) Retrieved May 20, 2017, from

http://www.sciepub.com/reference/148486

Post, G. (2016). Basic education statistics in the Philippines. Retrieved

January 05, 2019. <https://www.teacherph.com/basic-education-
statistics-philippines/>

Sabado, N. P. (2014). The influence of leadership behavior of school

heads with the performance of public and private high school
teachers in kidapawan city division (Dissertation, University of
Southern Mindanao, Philippines). Retrieved: November 22,
2018.http://www.academia.edu/8219636/The_Influence_of_Leade
rship_Behavior_to_the_Teachers_Performance

Sawati, M. J. et al. (2013). Do qualifications, experience and age matter

for principals leadership styles? (Hazara University, Mansehra,
Pakistan, 2013) Retrieved May 20, 2017, from
http://hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/Do_Qualification,_Experience_
and_Age_Matter_for_Principals_Leadership_Styles.pdf

Quin, J., et al. (2015). Comparison of leadership practices: Implications

for school districts and principal preparation programs. (University
of Southern Mississippi, U.S.A., 2015) Retrieved May 20, 2017, from
Journal of Leadership Education,
http://www.journalofleadershiped.org

Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian

leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power
distance. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 357. Retrieved February 16,
2016. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357

GSJ© 2022
www.globalscientificjournal.com
View publication stats