influence of principals leadership styles …...influence of principals leadership styles on...

INFLUENCE OF PRINCIPALS LEADERSHIP STYLES ON TEACHERS

JOB SATISFACTION IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN

KIAMBU SUB-COUNTY, KIAMBU COUNTY, KENYA

Gakobo Margaret Nyiha

A Research Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Award of Degree of Master of Education in Educational

Administration

University of Nairobi

2015

ii

DECLARATION This research project is my original work and has not been presented for the

award of a degree in any other university

___________________


E55/83952/2012

This research project has been submitted for examination with our approval as

university supervisors.

__________________

Mr. Edward Kanori

Lecturer

Department of Educational Administration and Planning


__________________

Dr. Mugambi

Lecturer

Department of Educational Administration and Planning


iii

DEDICATION

This project is dedicated to my husband Mr. Nahashon Ngugi and our children

Evelyne, Tracy and Stephanie for their support. I left them unattended when I went to

work on it.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost I acknowledge God for being with me. I also acknowledge with

sincere appreciation the support and input of my supervisors, Mr. Edward Kanori and

Dr. Mercy Mugambi who has journeyed with me through this research work. I also

acknowledge with love my family, University of Nairobi lecturers, library staff and

all those whose efforts have made this project a reality.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page

Declaration ............................................................................................................... ii

Dedication ............................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................... iv

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................v

List of Tables ........................................................................................................... ix

List of Figures ......................................................................................................... xi

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................. xii

Abstract ................................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study .................................................................................. 1

1.2 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 7

1.3 Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................ 7

1.4 Objectives of the Study .................................................................................... 7

1.5 Research Questions .......................................................................................... 8

1.6 Significance of the Study ................................................................................. 8

1.7 Limitations of the Study ................................................................................... 9

1.8 Delimitations of the Study ............................................................................. 10

1.9 Basic Assumption of the Study ...................................................................... 10

1.10 Definitions of Significant Terms.................................................................. 10

1.11 Organization of the Study ............................................................................ 11

vi

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 13

2.2 Leadership and Job Satisfaction ..................................................................... 13

2.3 Democratic Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction ........................ 14

2.4 Autocratic Leadership and Teachers Job Satisfaction ................................... 16

2.5 Laissez- Faire Leadership and Teacher‟s Job-Satisfaction ............................ 17

2.6 Transformational Leadership Style and Teacher Job Satisfaction ................. 19

2.7 Summary of Literature Review ...................................................................... 20

2.8 Theoretical Framework .................................................................................. 21

2.9 Conceptual Framework .................................................................................. 23

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 24

3.2 Research Design ............................................................................................. 24

3.3 Target Population ........................................................................................... 25

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure ........................................................... 25

3.5 Research Instruments ..................................................................................... 27

3.6 Validity of the Instruments ............................................................................ 27

3.7 Reliability of the Instruments ......................................................................... 28

3.8 Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................ 29

3.9 Data Analysis Techniques .............................................................................. 29

3.10 Ethical Considerations ................................................................................. 30

vii

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................31

4.2 Questionnaire Return Rate .............................................................................31

4.3 Demographic Information ..............................................................................32

4.4 Leadership Behaviors .....................................................................................37

4.4.1 Democratic Leadership and Teachers Job Satisfaction ............................37

4.4.2 Autocratic Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction .....................40

4.4.3 Laissez faire Leadership Style and Teachers‟ Job Satisfaction ................43

4.4.4 Transformational Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction ..........47

4.5 Teachers Job Satisfaction Survey ...................................................................51

4.6 Correlations and Statistics ..............................................................................59

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................64

5.2 Summary of the Study ....................................................................................64

5.3 Conclusions ....................................................................................................72

5.4 Recommendations ..........................................................................................73

5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies .....................................................................74

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................75

viii

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Introduction Letter ...........................................................................78

Appendix II:Questionnaire for Principals ............................................................79

Appendix III: Questionnaire for Teachers ............................................................83

Appendix IV: Research Permit .............................................................................88

Appendix V: Research Authorization .................................................................89

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

Table 3.1: Proportional Sample Size of Teachers per School ................................ 26

Table 4. 1: Questionnaire Return Rate .................................................................... 31

Table 4. 2: Distribution by Age .............................................................................. 33

Table 4. 3: Principals Highest Academic/Professional Qualification ..................... 34

Table 4. 4: Distribution of Teachers by Experience at Present School .................. 35

Table 4. 5: Principals Distribution by Teaching Experience .................................. 35

Table 4. 6: Distribution of Teachers by Responsibility in School .......................... 36

Table 4. 7: Category of Schools involved in the Study .......................................... 36

Table 4. 8: Principals Response on Democratic Leadership Styles ........................ 38

Table 4. 9: Teachers Perception on Principals Democratic Style of Leadership .... 39

Table 4. 10: Principals Response on Autocratic Leadership Style ......................... 41

Table 4. 11: Teachers Perception on Principals Autocratic Behavior .................... 42

Table 4. 12: Principals Response on Laissez Faire Leadership Style ..................... 44

Table 4. 13: Teachers Perception on Principal‟s Laissez Faire Leadership Style .. 46

Table 4. 14: Principals Responses on Transformational Leadership Style ............. 48

Table 4. 15: Teachers Perception on Principals‟ Transformational Leadership ..... 50

Table 4. 16: Teachers Working Conditions ............................................................ 52

Table 4. 17: Teachers Pay And Promotion ............................................................. 53

Table 4. 18: Teachers Working Relationships ........................................................ 54

Table 4. 19: Teachers Recognition ......................................................................... 56

x

Table 4. 20: Teachers Satisfaction on Administration and Supervision ................. 58

Table 4. 21: Correlation of Democratic Leadership with Teachers Job Satisfaction.60

Table 4. 22: Correlation of Autocratic Leadership with Teachers Job Satisfaction.61

Table 4. 23: Correlation of Laissez Faire Leadership with Teachers Job Satisfaction

............................................................................................................................... ..62

Table 4. 24: Correlation of Transformational Leadership with Teachers Job Satisfaction

................................................................................................................................ .63

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 23

Figure 4. 1: Distribution by Gender ........................................................................ 32

Figure 4. 2: Distribution of Teachers by Professional Qualification ...................... 34

xii

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

JSQ Job Satisfaction Questionnaire

KCSE Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education

KEMI Kenya Educational Management Institute

KTTC Kenya Teachers Training College

LBDQ Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire

NACOSTI National Commission for Science and Technology and

Innovation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Science

TSC Teachers Service Commission

xiii

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of principals‟ leadership

styles on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-

County. The objectives of the study included, to establish how democratic

leadership style influence teachers job satisfaction in public secondary schools in

Kiambu Sub-County. To examine the influence of autocratic leadership style on

teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County. To

determine how laissez-faire leadership style influence teachers job satisfaction in

public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County. To establish how

transformational leadership style influence teachers job satisfaction in public

secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County. This study adopted a descriptive survey

design where the target population for this study was all the 427 teachers and

principals in all the 28 public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub County. The study

purposely sampled 11 principals using simple random sampling and 128 teachers

using stratified random sampling from mixed day schools, girls‟ boarding schools

and boys‟ boarding schools. To collect data, a set of structured questionnaires were

used as an interview guide. Before the actual data collection, piloting of

questionnaires was done in two secondary schools in Kiambu sub county. To

establish the reliability of the instrument, the researcher used the test-retest where

the second test administration was done one week after the first one. The study

therefore concluded that the principals exercised a high level of democratic

leadership. The principals rarely practice laissez faire leadership style as they are

concerned about group performance. The principals practice transformational

leadership by giving encouragement to members of staff to initiate new and

creative ideas to benefit school and the rest of staff members. On job satisfaction

the working conditions are relatively good. However the teachers were not happy

with salary and benefits. The teachers were also not happy with issues to deal with

training, in-service courses and recommendation for study leave by principals. On

administration and supervision issues of concern to teachers included job appraisal

practices employed by principals. The study recommends improvement of working

conditions and provision of transport to teachers by the school vehicles. The

principals should encourage and offer equal opportunities for training, seminars/

in-service courses and give recommendations for teachers to attend. The principals

should actively improve on communication, by giving feedback on inquires and on

a timely basis and improve on job appraisal practices to be competitive and fair.

The researcher suggests the following areas for further study, given the scope and

limitations of this study, the study should be carried again in some other sub

counties for comparative purposes. The study also recommends that aspects of

promotion prospects such as advancement opportunities, opportunity for inservice

training and opportunity for growth should be enhanced. The study recommends

that there is need for school administration to come up with modalities of

improving job satifaction so that teachers job satifaction can be enhanced.

Principals should enhance their supervisory support to enhance teachers job

satisfaction.

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background to the Study

Different scholars have argued that there is no precise definition for

describing the complex phenomenon of leadership. According Ciulla (2004),

leadership is the inspiration on mobilization of others to undertake collective

action in pursuit of common good. Therefore school leadership is a process of

encouraging and helping teachers and learners to work enthusiastically

towards realization of schools and educational objectives (Ciulla,2004).

Spector (1997) defines job satisfaction as an extent to which people like or

dislike their jobs. According to Miskel (2008), job satisfaction is that

emotional state resulting from appraisal of one‟s job or experience.

Significant indicators of job satisfaction which emerged from a study done by

Mwamwenda (1995) in Transei included positive relationship between

teachers and principals, results and achievements and the fact that teaching is

culturally considered to be fine and challenging profession. Olando (2008)

contends that low levels of job motivation and job satisfaction leads to

strikes, slowdowns, absenteeism and employee turn-over. North house (2010)

believed that “a teacher‟s job satisfaction may serve to influence their morale,

motivation and general willingness to maximize their teaching potential”.

Teachers who are not satisfied with their jobs may result in bad teaching or

learning process and school effectiveness will consequently be negatively

impacted.

2

Leadership styles exhibited by a school principal affect school climate,

learning situations and levels of professional and job satisfaction among

teachers (Ingolo, 1991). According to Clerk (2000) leadership style is the

manner and approach in which a leader provides direction, implements plans

and motivates people so as to meet organizational goals. According to

Okumbe (1998) leadership styles to be considered in this study are

democratic, autocratic, laissez faire and transformational leadership.

Numerous researchers on school effectiveness have demonstrated some form

of association between effective schools and the type of leadership practiced

by their principals. Hallinger and Liethwood (1994), Liu (2004) carried out

research on determinants of job satisfaction and found that loyalty to one‟s

employer and job longevity are important as compared to compensation,

benefits and supervision for Mexican-American and vice versa for the non-

Hispanic. A study to identify effective leadership styles in education sector of

Pakistan by Modley and Larochelle (1995), manifested that transformational

leadership was more successful in Pakistan in enhancing job satisfaction.

A study by Morris and Feldman (2003) in Palestine industrial sector showed

that autocratic leadership style was more frequently used than

transformational leadership while laissez faire was considered as the least

commonly occurring leadership style. The latter is more frequent among

leaders with low educational background. Moreover, transformational

leadership was found to encourage satisfaction, willingness to apply extra

3

effort and effectiveness among employees. A study on the organizational

culture, leadership modes, and employee job satisfaction at electric cable

companies in Taiwan, Chen (2008) found that transformational leadership

modes tend to be more acceptable to employees and affect employee job

satisfaction level and innovativeness.

A study carried out in Western Kentucky by Kirk (2012) reveal positive

correlation between transformational leadership style and teacher job

satisfaction. More over the study illustrated weak, negative correlations

between laissez faire leadership style and teacher job satisfaction. Concerning

the dimension of transformational, a research carried out by Bogler (2001) &

Kormaz (2007) found that transformational leadership is significantly

correlated with teacher job satisfaction. A study done by Bogler in Israel

(2001) showed that teachers prefer to work with a principal who exhibits

transformational type of behavior. In a survey of 244 nursing school faculty

members Chen (2008) found that Taiwanese nursing directors were more

transformational leaders than transactional or laissez-faire ones. The results

also indicated that the nursing faculty members were moderately satisfied

with their jobs and felt that the heavy workloads as opposed to the directors‟

leadership styles were possible reasons for their dissatisfaction with their

jobs.

A study carried out in Pakistan by Mohamed (2013) showed that in relation

to other styles, transformational leadership style has a stronger negative effect

on extrinsic job satisfaction while laissez-faire has negative effect on overall

4

job satisfaction. A study carried out by United States Education Department

(1997) found that teachers job satisfaction is strongly associated with

participation and influence in decision making and influence on school

policy, (Bogler, 1999). A study carried out in Malysia by Mohd (2012)

supported Lumsden (1998) who found that if teachers received support from

their principal and from local parents, if they were involved in the decision

making process, and if they worked within a positive school climate and

culture they were likely to succeed and remain in the profession. In the same

study teachers needed to feel included in the decision making process and

wanted to know that their opinions are valued.

A study in Pakistan by Muhammed (2015) concluded that leadership style

and job satisfaction exist, however it varies in its degree with reference to

different leadership styles and different aspects (intrinsic, extrinsic and

overall job satisfaction). Achua (2001) conducted a study on the principals‟

leadership styles and teachers‟ job performance in senior secondary schools

in Ondo State, Nigeria. Teachers‟ job performance was found to be at a

moderate level in the schools. The significant relationship found in this study

between the autocratic leadership style and teachers‟ job performance is value

added.

Differences in leadership styles used by principals have been raised in

performance of schools in which some perform better while others perform

poorly. Frequent conflict between teachers and principals, poor attendance of

lessons, teachers truancy with no apparent reason, teachers persistence

5

behavior in drinking alcohol during working hours are said to be related to

principals leadership style. Research has indicated that job satisfaction of

teachers is highly correlated with teachers‟ retention (Shann, 1998) and

teacher job satisfaction also has been linked to teacher attrition through the

effectiveness of the principals‟ leadership (Marlow, 1997). Mosadegn and

Mohammadian (2006) pointed out that job satisfaction is influenced by many

organization contextual factors, ranging from salaries, job autonomy, job

security, workplace flexibility to leadership. Today many teachers feel

dissatisfied with their jobs because of increased accountability and stress,

heavy, workloads, poor pay and working conditions, a negative school

atmosphere and specifically perceived inadequate principal support (Metlife,

2001, Popham, 2004).

Despite the Kenyan government‟s commitment to improving terms and

conditions of teachers, Schools have been faced with increased cases of

teacher shortage and low morale especially in secondary schools (Okumbe,

1998). Nzuve (1999) says that the leadership style a manager has should

influence the employees such as teachers to accept willingly their direction

and control. In Kenya issues relating to teacher motivation and enhancement

of the job performance have been addressed in various forums such as trade

unions meetings and public commissions. It has been pointed out that there is

need to improve the working conditions of teachers especially the pay

package. Okumbe (1992) in his study found that teachers were only slightly

satisfied in the job factors of working conditions, the work environment,

6

security, recognition, the work content and supervision.

It is argued that effective leadership has a positive influence on the

performance of teachers. (Charlton, 2000). Most school principals are not

effective in their leadership behavior because they treat teachers as tools

believing that teachers can be treated anyhow. In response to this, teachers do

not handle their work properly (Mwangi, 2013). In highly effective schools

which have reversed a trend of poor performance and declining achievement,

the principal sets the pace leading and motivating pupils and staff to perform

to their highest potential (Bush and Oduor, 2006). It is therefore not

surprising that there is pressure mounted by stakeholders on effective

leadership among principals in Kenya which increases job satisfaction among

teachers in public secondary schools, with particular attention to public

secondary schools in Kiambu, sub-county. The relationship between

principals leadership style and teachers job satisfaction has been a subject of

controversy by many researchers (Adeyemi, 2006). The controversy has been

centered whether or not the style of leadership of principals influence job

satisfaction among teachers which is subject of the study.

Following the release of K.C.S.E. results 2014, many principals have been

transferred and deployed to other schools in Kiambu County. Specifically

three principals from Kiambu-Sub-County have been redeployed owing to

poor leadership in their respective schools (T.S.C Staffing Office, Kiambu

Sub-.20 County 2015).Therefore there is need to carry out the study on the

influence of principals‟ leadership styles on teachers‟ levels of job

7

satisfaction which may be having a negative impact on school effectiveness.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

In the recent past, there has been a widespread teacher‟s turnover in

secondary school in Kiambu sub-county despite the fact that Kiambu sub-

county is highly developed and productive area. Statistics at Kiambu

Teachers Service Commission unit showed that the rate of teachers‟ turnover

rose from 12 percent in 2011 to 15 percent in 2012. In 2013, teacher‟s

turnover rose to 20 percent thus portraying a worrying trend. According to

Armstrong (2009) high turnover is a mark of low level of job satisfaction.

The area environment is conducive for working and not the reason for the

high turnover and therefore there is need to carry out the study on influence

of principals‟ leadership styles on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public

secondary schools in Kiambu sub-county.

1.3 Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of principals‟

leadership styles on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in

Kiambu Sub-County.

1.4 Objectives of the Study

i. To establish how democratic leadership style influence teachers job

satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County.

ii. To examine the influence of autocratic leadership style on teachers‟ job


8

iii. To determine how laissez-faire leadership style influence teachers job


iv. To establish how transformational leadership style influence teachers job


1.5 Research Questions

i. How does democratic style of leadership influence teachers‟ job

satisfaction in public secondary schools teachers in Kiambu County?

ii. How does autocratic leadership style influence teachers‟ job satisfaction

in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County?

iii. How does laissez-faire leadership style influence teachers‟ job

satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County?

iv. How does transformational leadership style influence teachers‟ job

satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County?

1.6 Significance of the Study

The research findings from this study could assist in making school principals

more cognizant of their own leadership ability and style and assist them in

developing their own leadership capacity to support teachers in adequately

managing the increased demands placed on them thus improving levels of

teacher job satisfaction. The findings may also help Teachers Service

Commission to improve terms and working conditions of the teachers in

order to increase teachers‟ levels of job satisfaction. It may also be useful to

Kenya Educational Management Institute (KEMI) as they train schools

9

managers on the leadership styles suited for schools. The study may help

other researchers in this area in identifying the areas that require further

research so as to fill the information gap and also to add to the pool of

currently existing knowledge.

1.7 Limitations of the Study

According to Best ad Kahn (1998), limitations are conditions beyond the

control of the researcher that may place restrictions on the conclusions of the

study and their applications to other situations. This includes cases of

exaggerated feedback or outright mis-information; it was difficult for the

researcher to control the attitude of the respondents as they respond to the

questionnaire. However, the respondents were assured of the confidentiality

of their identities.

10

1.8 Delimitations of the Study

These are boundaries of the study (Best & Kahn, 1998). The study was

carried out in Kiambu Sub-County only on sampled public schools. Although

there are other workers in the school, only teachers and principals provided

information. The study excluded teachers from private schools because they

have different management systems from public schools.

1.9 Basic Assumption of the Study

The study was based on the following assumptions

ii. That the respondents had the information the researcher was seeking and

provided the researcher with honest information.

iii. The respondents gave true information which was free from any external

influence.

iv. That the prospective respondents would cooperate with research team.

1.10 Definitions of Significant Terms

The following are the definitions of significant terms:

Autocratic leadership refers to giving full empowerment to the leaders with

minimal participation from the follower.

Democratic leadership refers to a situation where there is equal work among

leaders and followers.

11

Job satisfaction refers to how people feel about their jobs and different

aspects of their jobs.

Leadership style refers to the perceived behavior that a person exhibits when

attempting to influence the activities of others.

Laissez-faire-leadership refers to a leadership style in which leaders are

hands-off and allow group members to make decisions.

Principal refers to the chief executive of schools and may be called the head

teacher.

Public secondary schools refer to four years post primary school which is

developed equipped and provided with staff out of public funds by the

government and parents.

Teacher attrition refers to a component of teacher turn over in which

teachers exit the teaching profession altogether due to natural event such as

retirement death and/or resignations.

Transformational leadership refers to leaders that do support or emphasize

empowerment within their teachers.

1.11 Organization of the Study

The study comprises of five chapters. Chapter one contains background

information of the study, the statement of the problem, purpose of the study,

objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study,

delimitations of the study, assumptions of the study, definitions of key terms

12

and organization of the study. Chapter two contains review of related

literature, leadership and job satisfaction, how democratic leadership style

influences teachers‟ job satisfaction, how autocratic leadership style

influences teachers job satisfaction, how laissez faire leadership style

influences teachers job satisfaction, how transformational leadership style

influences teachers job satisfaction. It also contains theoretical framework

and conceptual framework. Chapter three highlights methodology of the

study. This include research design, target population, sample size and

sampling procedure, research instruments, validity and reliability of research

instruments, data collection procedure, data analysis and ethical

considerations. Chapter four consists of data analysis, presentation and

interpretation. Chapter five consists of summary of the study, conclusions and

suggestions of further research.

13

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents some of the research studies and review that have been

carried out on worker‟s attitudes towards work depending on the environment

which they are subjected to. The literature review pays attention to how

democratic leadership style, autocratic leadership style, laissez faire leadership

style and transformational leadership style influences teachers job satisfaction. It

also presents theoretical and conceptual frameworks.

2.2 Leadership and Job Satisfaction

A study carried out by Richards (2003) examines long-term teacher/principals

relationship and job satisfaction. Teachers who have worked for long periods of

time with the same principal tend to be able to work closely with that principal.

The teachers come to feel comfortable with their principal and her/his leadership

style, and this long-term interaction can improve the level of satisfaction for the

teachers and principal.

Heller (1993), take conflicting view point. He discusses a situation where the

leadership between a principal‟s leadership style and teacher‟s job satisfaction

may not be as much of a factor in a school setting. In some cases, when teachers

are least satisfied with the financial aspect of teaching and the most satisfied with

their co-workers, Heller (1993), did not find that job satisfaction was related to

14

the principals leadership style. Instead, teachers job satisfaction was related to

principals overall friendliness, warmth, support and rapport with the teachers. Job

satisfaction was also dependent on the individual followers‟ personality traits.

This coincides with Hersey and Blahcard‟s (1988) research stating that the theory

of leadership should be based on specific situations and on follower

characteristics, not on an overall style. Unfortunately, this research did not

include an overview of autocratic and transformational leadership styles in their

studies.

Autocratic leadership leads to lower levels of job satisfaction, while democratic

leadership leads to higher level of job satisfaction (Ajuoga, 2000). The level of

job satisfaction under laissez faire is also less than under democratic leadership

(Bass, 1990). Extensive research supports the claim that job satisfaction is

positively related to participative decision making and to transformational

leadership (Maeroff, 1988, Ross miller, 1992).

2.3 Democratic Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction

Decentralization of authority, participatory planning and mutual communication

are some of the main features of democratic leadership. However, as Oyetunyi,

(2006) points out, the major point is sharing; the manager shares decision making

with the subordinates. He/she invites contributions from the subordinates before

making a decision, but retains the final authority to make decisions

(consultative).The principal may seek discussion and agreement with teachers

over an issue before a decision is taken by consensus or may allow teachers to

15

take a vote on an issue before a decision is taken. Using this style is not a sign of

weakness; rather it is a sign of strength that one respects the employee‟s ways of

thinking. However, the concern expressed by Dubrin (1998) is that participate

style of leadership wastes time due to endless meetings and may lead to

confusion and lack of direction, therefore not appropriate for use in times of

crisis when the situations demands on the spot decision (Oyetunyi, 2006).

Savery (1994) found that democratic leadership style related positively to

employees job satisfaction and commitment in federal organizational in Western

Australia, while in contrast, Rad & Yarmohammadiann (2006) found no

relationship between leadership behaviour and employees job satisfaction in

Isfahan University Hospital in Iran, where participative leadership style was

prevalent. Morris (2003) and Spector (1997) carried out a study on local

authorities employees in Britain and found that employees were likely to be

satisfied by their ability to harness and input into work planning, opportunity to

show initiative, ability to have a say in management decisions, a feeling that their

local authority kept them well informed and that any change was well

communicated to them on time. Most studies (Okumbe, 1992; Njue, 2003;

Musila, 2010) attribute teacher‟s job satisfaction to the school Principal‟s

leadership styles. In a study carried out by Njue (2003) on job satisfaction among

secondary school teachers in Nairobi province, teachers were found to be highly

demotivated by the job factors including work environment and working

conditions.

16

2.4 Autocratic Leadership and Teachers Job Satisfaction

Autocratic leadership refers to a system that gives full empowerment to the

leaders with minimal participation from the followers. Yuki (1994) found that

autocratic leaders tend to have the following five characteristics; they do not

consult members of the organization in the decision making process, the leader

set all policies, the leader predetermine the methods of work, the leader

determine the duties of the followers, and the leader specifies technical and

performance evaluations standards. In this case the teacher has a feeling that

he/she is not appreciated thus losing job satisfaction. In an open climate, when

principals are perceived as democratic managers who maintain open channels of

communication with the staff, teachers would be more satisfied with their job as

compared to schools where principal exhibit a harsh and authoritative attitude

(Kottkamp, Mulhern & Hoy, 1987).

Autocratic leaders create a situation where subordinates who do not want to

realize the importance of work are forcefully led to work (Mullins, 2002).

According to Mullins (2002), autocratic leaders supervise subordinates very

closely to ensure compliance and completion of work in the designated time.

Leadership is meant to be effective even where the situation seem harsh so as to

drive organizational intentions towards goal achievement. Research findings by

Kasule (2007) on the effect of leadership styles on teacher productivity in private

secondary schools in Wakiso District indicate that autocratic leaders usually

17

emphasize „authority‟ as a means of having the work done. Principals generally

emphasize it, since it reaps results very quickly as subordinates work under

pressure to meet deadlines. Another study by Storey (1993), however, noted that

head teachers, who use authority to get things done, are too strict in the formality

by which things are done. This hinders teacher creativity especially in instances

where creativity and planning are imperative to anchor academic programmes in

schools. Autocratic leadership leads to lower levels of job satisfaction, while

democratic leadership leads to higher level of job satisfaction (Ajuoga, 2000).

2.5 Laissez- Faire Leadership and Teacher’s Job-Satisfaction

Laissez- Faire leadership is defined by Kornmaz (2007) as being a style of

leadership where leaders refuse to make decisions, are not available when

needed, and choose to take no responsibility for their lack of leadership ability.

Bass (2003) label the laissez-faire leader as not clarifying goals and standards

that the followers must achieve or basically having no expectations for the

followers in the organization. Laissez-faire leadership may occur due to the

avoidance of leadership behavior altogether, which enables the followers to

ignore assignments and expectations. The laissez-faire leader exudes an attitude

of indifference as well as non-leadership approach towards the followers and

their performance.

According to Korkmaz (2007) this leadership style actually decreases the

commitment levels of teacher to stay at a particular school. Bass & Avolio (1995)

also asserted that there is no transaction or transformation of any kind with the

follower because laissez-faire leaders do nothing to affect either the followers or

18

their behaviors. However laissez-faire style is described by Zerras & Lassiter

(2007) as most effective style especially where followers are mature and highly

motivated.

In a study examining the effectiveness of laissez-faire and the degree of

employee satisfaction with the leadership style in the public banking sector,

Siranathan (2002) found that laissez-faire leadership was highly and positively

correlated with extra effort, effectiveness and satisfaction. Contingent rewards

were also positively related to the outcome measures but less than to the

transformational scale ratings. However, management by exception (Active and

passive) and laissez faire were strongly and negatively correlated with the

outcome. Furthermore, Erkutlu and Chafra (2006) found that laissez-faire

leadership style in a boutique hotel led to negative results in organizational

performance such as low satisfaction, high stress, and low commitment by

followers.

Karugu (1980) conducted a study of the relationship between laissez faire

leadership style and job satisfaction by teacher co-ordinators. This study was

conducted in Michigan public schools. This study used the leader behavior

description questionnaire (LBDQ) and the job satisfaction questionnaire (JSQ) to

determine the link between leadership process and job satisfaction. The study

found a significant negative attitude between the style and job satisfaction. There

were non-significant leadership perceptions of vocational education

administrators and teacher co-ordinators.

19

2.6 Transformational Leadership Style and Teacher Job Satisfaction

Bass (1985) categorize the revised model of transformational leadership into four

qualities; idealized influence, inspirational motivation, individual consideration

and intellectual stimulation. With respect to educational leadership

transformational leader ultimately effect change through a bottom up approach

and several studies conclude that they have positive influence regarding teacher

perceptions of the school wide working environment, organizational change, and

student learning (Hallinger, 2003). Transformational leaders must provide

accommodating leadership and offer guidance to followers in order to help them

adopt to the ever-changing world of education (Bass, Avolio, Jung, Berson,

2003). Marks and Printy (2003) proposed that scholars of education are

proponents of transformational leadership because of its focus on identification

and solution of the problem as well as increased collaboration among

stakeholders with the goal of improvement of the organization. They must

influence stakeholders by encouraging teachers to take part in the collaborative

process of making shared decision. A research done by Masood (2006) examined

the perspectives of teachers and found substantial evidence of a positive

correlation with regard to principal influence and the job satisfaction of teachers,

their willingness to follow the principal and positive perceptions of their

principals‟ effectiveness.

Critics of the transformational leadership theory, however, argue that there is

little or no instructional focus (Marks and Printy, 2003), which does not give the

20

principal the necessary tools to actively lead issues regarding curriculum,

instruction and assessment. For that reason, many critics contend that

instructional leadership is actually far superior when compared to

transformational leadership (Robinson, Kannapel, Cilijarati, William &

Oettinger, 2008). Additionally few research studies identify which specific

behaviors of the school principal are associated with transformational leadership.

Bogler (2001) examined transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaction

in several schools in Israel and discovered that a positive relationship existed

between the transformational leadership style of the school principal and job

satisfaction of teachers. Nguni (2006) also examined the effects of

transformational leadership style of the school principal and job satisfaction

among teachers in Tanzania and discovered that transformational leadership

characteristics of the principal do indeed positively affect job satisfaction levels

of teachers. Similarly, Kormaz (2007) examined several school variables from a

sample of high school teachers in Turkey. The results from this study indicate

that teachers who perceived their principals as a transformational leader

experienced higher levels of job satisfaction.

2.7 Summary of Literature Review

A number of studies have been presented in this chapter on job satisfaction. For

example Karugu (1980), Hall (1999), Ngalyuka (1985), Okemwa (2004); and

Ngumi (2003), concur that teachers stay on the job if physical, social and a

21

security dimensions associated with conditions of work were satisfactory. Mutie

(1993) found that teachers are only marginally satisfied with their jobs which

agree with Mwangi (2005) who found tutors in Kenya Teacher Training College

(KTTC) were not satisfied with their job. The study was however conducted in

teachers training college among tutors. Okemwa (2004) established that majority

of teachers in Borabu Division of Kisii County, were moderately satisfied with

their job and that teachers‟ age, teaching subject orientation, and teaching

experience each significantly and uniquely determined job satisfaction among

teachers. These studies were carried out in other areas and concentrated on

demographic variables and not on leadership styles hence this study will establish

how leadership styles influence teachers‟ job satisfaction in Kiambu sub-county.

2.8 Theoretical Framework

The study was be guided by Herzberg two factor theory by Fredrick Herzberg

(cited in Okumbe 2007). The theory states that job satisfaction and job

dissatisfaction are caused by different and independent set of factors, the

motivators and the hygiene factors. Herzberg found that the factors causing job

satisfaction (and presumably motivation) were different from those causing job

dissatisfaction. He developed the motivation-hygiene theory to explain these

results. He called the satisfiers motivators and the dissatisfiers hygiene factors,

using the term “hygiene” in the sense that they are considered maintenance

factors that are necessary to avoid dissatisfaction but that by themselves do not

provide satisfaction. Motivators at the work place, according to Herzberg,

22

Schultz, Bagrain, Potgieter, Viedge and Werner, (2003), are level of recognition,

pleasure of performance, increased responsibility and opportunities for

advancement and promotion.

These hygiene factors include level of supervision, job status, work

circumstances, service conditions, remuneration and interpersonal relationships

(Herzberg in Hoy & Miskel, 1996). The two- factor theory is significant in that

both motivators and hygiene factors play a role in the performance of the

individual. Herzberg theory is related to this study in that just as in any

organization, teacher‟s job satisfaction will be determined by internal factors in

the school environment which include the principals‟ leadership style. Different

leadership styles used by the principals will elicit different levels of job

satisfaction among the teachers.

23

2.9 Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework for this study is presented in the figure 2.1

Figure 2. 1: Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework shows the relationship between the principals

leadership styles and teachers job satisfaction. The framework shows how

different leadership styles will have different effects on teachers‟ job satisfaction.

The leadership styles are in play when the principals manages teachers welfare

which either leads to high or low teachers job satisfaction.

Democratic

Leadership

High Job

Satisfaction

Administrative

Process

Autocratic

Leadership

Laissez Faire

Leadership

Transformational

Leadership

High Job

Satisfaction

Low Job

Satisfaction

Low Job

Satisfaction

24

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter covers: research design, target population, sample size and sampling

procedure, research instruments, validity of the research instruments, reliability

of the research instruments, data collection procedures, data analysis techniques

and ethical considerations.

3.2 Research Design

According to Ngechu (2001), a research design is a plan showing how problems

under investigation are solved. The study was carried out using descriptive

survey design. Descriptive survey design is one that allows a researcher to collect

information through interviewing or administering a questionnaire to a

representative sample drawn from the target population (Orodho, 2009). The

design was chosen because through it, the researcher was able to collect and

analyze data as it exists in the field without manipulating any variables (Mugenda

& Mugenda, 2003). The researcher was able to collect data in order to answer

questions concerning the current status of the subjects of the study and assess

attitudes and opinions about events, individuals or procedures (Gay, 1993).

25

3.3 Target Population

Orodho (2004) defines population as all the items or people under consideration

for this study. The target population consisted of all teachers and principals in all

the 28 public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub County (Kiambu Sub County

Education Office, 2015). The choice of teachers and principals was based on the

fact that the variables under investigation were particular to them and no other

party could provide this information. The study comprised of a target population

of 28 principals and 427 teachers of public secondary school in Kiambu Sub-

County.

3.4 Sample Size and Sampling Procedure

Sampling is the process of selecting a subset of cases in order to draw

conclusions about the entire set (Orodho, 2004). Wiersma (1995) described a

sample as a small population of the target population selected systematically for

the study. Sampling is important because one can learn something about a large

group by studying a few of its members thus saving time and money. To

determine the sample size the researcher adapted the recommendation of 10 to

30% of the universe which is seen as representative and can be generalized to the

population Mugenda & Mugenda (2003).The researcher used the higher limit of

30% of the population. The sample was therefore comprised of the 11 principals

of the sampled schools which is 30 percent of the 28 schools and 128 teachers

which is 30 percent of the total population of 427 teachers. Stratified sampling

was used to identify the sample schools. The schools were grouped into three

strata depending on whether they are day or boarding schools, that is, mixed day

26

schools and girl‟s boarding schools or boy‟s boarding schools. Proportional

allocation of teachers and principals using 30 percent per school category was

used to select teachers and principals from each secondary school in the area.

In order to identify specific teachers and principals to be included in the study,

the researcher used simple random sampling. In selecting of principals from each

category, the researcher wrote down all the names of the schools in each school

category on pieces of paper and randomly selected 11 principals from 6 mixed

schools, 3 from girls boarding and 2 from boys boarding. In selecting the

teachers the researcher wrote small pieces of papers bearing „Yes‟ equal to the

required sample size and „No‟ for other teachers. The papers were then folded

and placed in a bowl. Then each teacher was kindly requested to randomly pick

one paper. Those with „YES‟ papers made the sample for the study.

Table 3. 1: Proportional Sample Size of Teachers per School

School No. of No. of Sample size Total

category Schools teachers (n) per category 30% of n

Mixed day 6 178 12 54

schools

Girls boarding 3 158 21 47

schools

Boys 2 91 18 27

boarding

schools

Total 11 427 71 128

27

3.5 Research Instruments

The tool for data collection was a structured questionnaire. A questionnaire is a

research instrument that gathers data over a large sample (Kombo & Tromp,

2006). Questionnaires were used to gather information and data from the 24

respondents /teachers and principals from various schools. Questionnaires are

ideal for survey study Mugenda & Mugenda (2003) and are widely used in

education to obtain information about current conditions and practices and to

make enquiries about attitudes and opinions quickly and in precise form. The

principals and teachers questionnaires had two parts. Part one dealt with

demographic information of the respondents while part two dealt with items on

leadership styles and job satisfaction.

3.6 Validity of the Instruments

Validity means ascertaining the accuracy of the instruments by establishing

whether the instruments focus on the information they are intended to collect.

Borg and Gall (1989) point out that there are four main types of validity that is,

content validity, predictive validity, concurrent validity and construct validity.

Content validity is the degree to which the sample of an instrument represents the

content that the instrument is designed to measure. Content validity was ensured

through a systematic examination of the items in the questionnaire to ensure that

all the variables were well addressed. The expertise of the two supervisors was

also sought for additional input. A pilot study was conducted to discard

inappropriate question items. The pilot data was analyzed and the results used to

28

modify and improve the questionnaire before rolling it out to the sampled

population.

3.7 Reliability of the Instruments

Mugenda & Mugenda (2003) defines reliability as a measure of the degree to

which a research instrument yields consistent results or data after repeated tests

when administered a number of times. To enhance the reliability of the

instruments a pilot study was conducted. The researcher used test re test method

where the instrument was administered to the respondents, the researcher then

analyzed the results and after two weeks the instruments were administered. The

aim of pre-testing was to gauge the clarity and relevance of the instrument items

so that those items found to be inadequate for measuring variables were

discarded while some were modified to improve the quality of the research

instruments. This ensured that the instrument captured all the required data.

Pearson‟s product moment correlation coefficient formula was used to establish

the coefficient of 0.81.

r = NΣxy – (Σx) (ΣY)

NΣ(x)2

– (Σx)2 (NΣ(x)

2 –ΣY

2

According to Mugenda and Mugenda (2003) a co efficient of 0.70 or more shows

that there is high reliability of data and may be used to determine the reliability

of the instrument.

29

3.8 Data Collection Procedures

The researcher sought a research permit from National Commission for Science

and Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI). The researcher then proceeded to

report to the Kiambu Sub-County director of education and thereafter wrote

letters to the principals to be allowed to do the study. The researcher then visited

the selected schools, created rapport with the respondents, explained the purpose

of the study and then administered the questionnaires. The respondents were

assured about the confidentiality of their identities. The questionnaires were

administered and collected immediately after they were filled in.

3.9 Data Analysis Techniques

Kombo & Tromp (2006) define data analysis as the interpretation of collected

raw data into useful information. The researcher first checked on the data

collected for completeness. The data was then categorized and coded for easy

processing. All the data was entered into and analyzed by the Statistical Package

for the Social Science (SPSS).Prior to statistical analysis, data cleaning and

handling of missing values was performed and typing errors corrected. Pearson

moment correlation coefficient was used to determine the relationships between

principals leadership styles/autocratic, democratic, laissez faire and

transformational and teachers job satisfaction. Quantitative data was analyzed

using descriptive statistics. Descriptive statistics are indices that describe a given

sample, for example, measures of central tendency and measures of dispersion. In

this study, mean and standard deviation were used to compute quantitative

analysis.

30

In this case the quantitative data was presented in the form of frequency tables,

pie charts, percentages and bar graphs.

3.10 Ethical Considerations

Since the research involved human beings the researcher ensured that ethical

requirements were upheld in the study. The researcher informed and explained to

the respondents the purpose of the study in which they were asked to participate

and the benefits expected from the study. The researcher requested the

respondents to answer the questionnaires on their own free will. The respondents

were also asked not to write their names or that of the school on the

questionnaires.

31

CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS, PRESENTATION AND INTERPRETATION

4.1 Introduction

This chapter presents data analysis, presentation and interpretation. The purpose

of this study was to investigate the influence of principals‟ leadership styles on

teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County

Kenya. The data was analyzed using SPSS where frequencies and percentages

guided the researcher to interpret the data. The chapter is divided into sections

based on the research questionnaires. This included, to establish how

democratic leadership style influence teachers job satisfaction in public

secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County. To examine the influence of

autocratic leadership style on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary

schools in Kiambu Sub-County. To determine how laissez-faire leadership style

influence teachers job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-

County. To establish how transformational leadership style influence teachers

job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County.

4.2 Questionnaire Return Rate

Table 4. 1: Questionnaire Return Rate

Return Rate Sample Size Response Return Rate (%)

Head teachers 11 11 100

Teachers 128 80 62.5

32

4.3 Demographic Information

The distribution of principals and teachers on gender was presented by Figure 4.1

Figure 4. 1: Distribution by Gender

Figure 4.1 presents distribution of teachers and principals by gender where most

teachers were female and most principals were female. This is an indication that

school teaching in Kiambu sub-county is dominated by women. It‟s important

to note that the gender ratio as per government regulations has been achieved.

This should be evident in the quality of decisions made and the leadership

regimes adopted among schools in Kiambu sub-county.

The distribution of principals and teachers responses on age were presented on

table 4.2

33

Table 4. 2: Distribution by Age

Teachers Age Bracket Principals

Frequency Valid

Percent

Frequency Valid

Percent

Below 25 years 2 2.5 - -

26-36 years 41 51.3 - -

36-45 years 3 3.8 5 45.5

Over 45 years 34 42.5 6 54.6

Total 80 100 11 100

On distribution by age majority of the principals were aged over 45 years as

shown on table 4.2 while majority of teachers were clustered around 26-36

years. Majority of teachers were between the age of 26 to 36 years. This

indicates that the principals were purposely selected from older teachers with a

lot of experience as shown in table 4.2.

34

The distribution of teachers and principals by professional qualification was

presented in figure 4.2.

Figure 4. 2: Distribution of Teachers by Professional Qualification

Figure 4.2 shows majority of teachers had degrees in education B.Ed academic

qualification. This implies that the schools had highly qualified teachers.

Table 4. 3: Principals Highest Academic/Professional Qualification

Frequency Valid Percentage

B.Ed 8 72.7

B.Sc with PGDE 3 27.3

Total 11 100

For principals academic and professional qualification all had bachelor‟s degree

in qualification with most of them having bachelor of education while a few had

bachelors of sciences with a post graduate diploma in education as presented in

table 4.3.

35

The distribution of teachers and principals in terms of experience was presented

by table 4.4.

Table 4. 4: Distribution of Teachers by Experience at Present School

Frequency Valid

Percentage

Less than 2 years 26 32.5

Three - five years 7 8.7

Six - ten years 47 58.8

Total 80 100

Table 4.4 presents teachers experience at current school where majority had 6 to

10 years of experience. This implies that teachers had stayed long in the same

school.

Table 4. 5: Principals Distribution by Teaching Experience


11-15 years 3 27.3

16-20 years 3 27.3

Twenty years and above 5 45.5

Total 11 100

36

The study sought to find out the principals level of teaching experience where

majority had over 20 years of teaching experience.

Table 4. 6: Distribution of Teachers by Responsibility in School

Frequency Valid

Percentage

Class teacher 31 38.75

Games teacher 2 2.5

Senior teacher 33 41.25

Deputy principal 14 17.5

Total 80 100

Concerning teachers‟ responsibility in school most teachers were senior

teachers and class teachers as presented in table 4.6.

Table 4. 7: Category of Schools Involved in the Study


County mixed day 4 36.4

County girls day 1 9.1

County girls boarding 2 18.2

County boys boarding 1 9.1

Extra county boys boarding 3 27.3

Total 11 100.0

37

Table 4.7 presents categories of schools involved in the study where most

schools visited were boarding schools.

4.4 Leadership Behaviors

The leadership styles / behaviors used in this study were categorized as

democratic, autocratic, laissez faire and transformational and their influence on

teachers‟ job satisfaction was presented below.

4.4.1 Democratic Leadership and Teachers Job Satisfaction

This study sought to establish the influence of democratic leadership styles on

teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu sub-county,

Kenya. In order to achieve this, the study used a likert scale as follows; 1-

Always, 2- Often, 3-Occassionally, 4 Seldom, 5 Never. These enabled the

tabulation and interpretation of the responses from the research instrument. The

main statistics derived are mean, and standard deviation. The mean illustrated

the extent to which the respondents agreed or disagreed with the statements put

forth. The mean ranges between 1 to 5 where, if the mean is closer to one, it

means strong agreement with the variable, while the lower the standard

deviation the more the consensus on the level of agreement. Where 1 is

Always and 5 is never. This is well elaborated in the table and narratives below

which show the respondents and the statistics.

38

Table 4. 8: Principals Response on Democratic Leadership Styles

Mean

Standard

Deviation

I am friendly and easy to dialogue with. 1.73 0.47

I am a good listener to your group despite holding

divergent opinion with them in discussion. 1.36 0.50

I show understanding of staff view point though

holding divergent view point with them.

1.91 0.70

I patiently encourage staff to frankly express fully

viewpoints.

1.91 0.70

I express confidence in staff members regardless

disagreeing with them.

2.18 0.75

I genuinely share information with staff members. 2.27 0.79

I encourage the members of staff to openly express

their feelings.

1.82 0.87

I give room to group members to present their view

points before stating my stand. 2.09 0.94

Table 4.8 presents principals response on democratic leadership style where

majority of the principals often show understanding of staff view point though

holding divergent view point with them with a mean of 1.91. They often

patiently encourage staff to frankly express fully their viewpoints with a mean

of 1.91 and often encourage the members of staff to openly express their

feelings with a mean of 1.82. The principals often express confidence in staff

members despite disagreeing with them with a mean of 2.18, and often give

39

room to group members to present their view points before stating their stand

with a mean of 2.09. This resonates with democratic leadership style that leads

to higher level of job satisfaction (Ajuoga, 2000).

Table 4. 9: Teachers Perception on Principals’ Democratic Style of

Leader ship

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Is friendly and easy to dialogue with 2.38 0.97

Is a good listener to the group 2.75 1.03

Shows understanding of teachers viewpoints though

holding divergent view point with them 2.90 1.00

Is patient and encourages staff to frankly and express

fully view points 2.84 1.07

Expresses confidence in staff members regardless

disagreeing with them 2.79 0.98

Genuinely shares information with staff members 2.73 0.98

Encourages staff members to openly express their

feelings 2.83

1.10

Table 4.9 illustrates teacher‟s perception on their principals‟ behavior where

majority of teachers agreed that their principals are often friendly and easy to

dialogue with a mean of 2.38 and a standard deviation of 0.97. They also agreed

that principals express confidence in staff members despite disagreeing with

them with a mean of 2.79 and genuinely shares information with staff members

with a mean of 2.73, with a good number of principals doing it occasionally. This

indicates that there is disparity in teachers‟ responses especially on whether the

40

principal is a good listener to the group, shows understanding of teachers‟

viewpoints, is patient and encourages staff to frankly and express fully view

points, and encourages staff members to openly express their feelings.

4.4.2 Autocratic Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction

This study sought to establish the influence of autocratic leadership style on





main statistics derived were mean and standard deviation. The mean illustrated


forth. The mean ranges between 1 to 5 where, if the mean is closer to one,it


deviation the more the consensus on the level of agreement. Where 1 is Always

and 5 is never. This is well elaborated in the table and narratives below which

show the respondents and the statistics.

41

Table 4. 10: Principals Response on Autocratic Leadership Style

Mean

Standard

Deviation

I expect the best from staff. 1.00 -

I expect high quality from self. 1.27 0.47

I initiate, direct goals for the staff. 1.27 0.47

I suppress new ideas from members of staff. 3.36 1.03

I pass the back to others for failure or mistakes for low

performance in school or stalled projects. 4.00 1.00

Table 4.10 presents the influence of autocratic leadership on teachers‟ job

satisfaction. Majority of principals indicated that they always expect the best

from staff with a mean of 1, and always expect high quality from themselves

with a mean of 1.27 and a standard deviation of 0.47. In contrast the principals

indicated that they always initiate direct goals for the staff with a mean of 1.27

and standard deviation of 0.47 which is autocratic in nature. Principals enforce

the vision and goals to the teachers to follow which is not democratic in nature

and occasionally suppress new ideas from members of staff. These findings are

similar to Masood (2006) who examined the perspectives of teachers and found

substantial evidence of a positive correlation with regard to principal influence

and the job satisfaction of teachers. The willingness to follow the principal leads

to positive perceptions of their principals‟ effectiveness.

42

Table 4. 11: Teachers Perception on Principals’ Autocratic Behavior

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Expects the very best from staff 1.50 0.84

Expect high quality work from members of

staff 1.95 1.04

Has high opinion over what staff does 2.48 0.93

Suppresses new ideas from members of staff 3.23 0.73

Blames failure or mistakes for low

performance

on staff

3.09 1.08

Table 4.11 illustrates teacher‟s perception on their principals‟ behavior where

the majority of teachers agreed that the principals always expect the very best

from staff with a mean of 1.50 and a standard deviation of 0.84. Majority

agreed that principals have high opinion over what staff does with a mean of

2.48 and a standard deviation of 0.93. However in contrast majority of teachers

indicated that the principals occasionally suppresses new ideas from members of

staff with a mean of 3.23 and occasionally blames failure or mistakes for low

performance on staff with a mean of 3.09. This indicates that the principals

practice some level of autocratic leadership by suppressing new ideas from

members of staff and occasionally blaming failure or mistakes for low

performance on staff which lowers teachers‟ job satisfaction.

43

4.4.3 Laissez Faire Leadership Style and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction

This study sought to establish the influence of Laissez faire leadership style on












44

Table 4. 12: Principals Response on Laissez Faire Leadership Style

Mean

Standard

Deviation

I pay no attention to individual interest in their work

place

4.09 1.30

I am less concerned about group performance towards

attainment of schools goals

4.36 0.92

I am unconcerned with staff‟s welfare 3.6 1.6

I govern the group through non-intervention in what

they are doing

4.18 0.98

I do not supervise teachers in their teaching/learning

assignment

4.55 0.93

I avoid at all costs interfering with group‟s work 2.82 0.98

I enhance discipline owing to non-provision of structure

to staff in doing work

3.45 1.63

I have no belief in self and others attaining 4.64 0.92

My contribution in the staff serve as basis for

suggestions or questions

2.18 0.60

Table 4.12 presents principals response on laissez faire leadership style.

Majority of principals seldom are less concerned about group performance

towards attainment of schools goals with a mean of 4.36 and a standard

deviation of 0.92, they seldom govern the group through non-intervention in

what they are doing with a mean of 4.18 and standard deviation of 0.98. The

principals indicated that they supervise teachers in their teaching/learning

assignment with a mean of 4.55 and have belief in self and others attaining

goals with a mean of 4.64. However in contrast they occasionally avoid at all

45

costs interfering with group‟s work with a mean of 2.82 and also agreed that

contributions from the staff serve as basis for suggestions or questions with a

mean of 2.18 and a standard deviation of 0.60. This indicates that principals

rarely practice laissez faire leadership style as they are concerned about group

performance, govern the group through intervention, and they supervise

teachers in their teaching/learning assignment even though they occasionally

avoid at all costs interfering with group‟s work. Hence this concurs with

Korkmaz (2007) who stated that this leadership style actually decreases the

commitment levels of teachers to stay at a particular school. However in

contrast Zerras & Lassiter (2007) described laissez-faire as most effective style

especially where followers are mature and highly motivated.

46

Table 4. 13: Teachers Perception on Principal’s Laissez Faire Leadership

Style

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Pays attention to individuals interests in their work place

3.56 0.99

Is less concerned about group performance towards

attainment of school goals

3.91 1.03

Is unconcerned with staff welfare

3.47 1.28

Governs the group through non-intervention in what they

are doing

3.65 0.91

Does not supervise teachers in the teaching/learning

assignments

3.41 1.40

Avoids at all costs interfering with group's work

3.15 1.18

Has no belief in self and others attaining quality

performance towards attainment of school goals

3.66 1.19

Gives room to group members to present their view points

before stating a stand

2.70 1.13

Allows staff contributions/suggestions and further

questions

2.73 1.17

Table 4.13 illustrates teacher‟s perception on their principal‟s behavior where

majority of teachers indicated that principals seldom pay attention to

individual‟s interests in their work place with a mean of 3.56 and a standard

deviation 0.99. They seldom govern the group through non-intervention in what

they are doing with a mean of 3.65 and a standard deviation 0.91. However

teachers also indicated that principals occasionally gives room to group

members to present their view points before stating a stand with a mean of 2.70

47

and a standard deviation of 1.13 and allows staff contributions/suggestions and

further questions with a mean of 2.73 and a standard deviation of 1.17.

4.4.4 Transformational Leadership Style and Teachers Job Satisfaction

This study sought to establish the influence of transformational leadership style

on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu sub-county,











48

Table 4. 14: Principals Responses on Transformational Leadership Style

Mean

Standard

Deviation

I have high opinion of what staff do 1.45 0.52

I give encouragement to members of staff to initiate new

and creative ideas to benefit school and the rest of staff

members

1.64 0.50

I am a risk taker (try new adventurous ideas in dealing

with situations)

1.45 0.52

I am open to criticism by members of staff 2.36 0.67

I treat everybody consistently 2.00 0.89

I accept I can error like any other staff members 1.73 0.65

I welcome staff to question matters related to school

affairs 2.00 0.77

I am patient with progress being made by the staff

towards goals attainment

1.73 0.47

I allow the staff members to take centre stage in

discussion in staff meetings and information meetings

2.00 0.63

I insist that staff members work through divergent point

of views with non-suppression of them

2.18 0.75

I use „we‟ or „our‟ and not „I‟ principals or my school,

staff 1.27 0.47

I am impartial to all members of staff 2.00 0.45

I acknowledge all members‟ efforts towards attainment

in school affairs

1.55 0.52

I readily accept even unwarranted blame or mistake in

the school

2.55 0.82

I allow staff to reach at a decision as a collective whole 1.91 0.70

I give opportunity to any staff member to make a

decision 1.82 0.60

49

Table 4.14 presents principals responses on transformational leadership where

majority indicated that they always give encouragement to members of staff to

initiate new and creative ideas to benefit school and the rest of staff members

with a mean of 1.64 and standard deviation of 0.50. Majority indicated that they

are risk takers (try new adventurous ideas in dealing with situations) with a

mean of 1.45 and a standard deviation of 0.52. Majority of principals strongly

agreed that they are patient with progress being made by the staff towards goals

attainment with a mean of 1.73 and a standard deviation of 0.47. In addition

majority indicated that they occasionally readily accept even unwarranted blame

or mistake in the school with a mean of 2.55 and a standard deviation of 0.82.

This indicates that principals in great extent practice transformational leadership

by giving encouragement to members of staff to initiate new and creative ideas

to benefit school and the rest of staff members and are risk takers (try new

adventurous ideas in dealing with situations).

This concurs with Bogler (2001) and Nguni (2006) who discovered that a

positive relationship existed between the transformational leadership style of the

school principal and job satisfaction of teachers. However in contrast

transformational leadership has been criticized by (Marks and Printy, 2003) who

argue there is little or no instructional focus, which does not give the principal

the necessary tools to actively lead issues regarding curriculum, instruction and

assessment and hence back instructional leadership over transformational

leadership.

50

Table 4. 15: Teachers Perception on Principals’ Transformational

Leadership

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Gives encouragement to members of staff to initiate new

and creative ideas to benefit school and the rest of staff

members. 2.35 0.96

Is a risk taker try new adventurous ideas in dealing with

situations. 2.73 1.24

Treats everybody consistently 2.65 0.92

Accepts that he/she can err like any other staff member 3.11 0.98

Welcomes staff to question matters related to school

affairs 3.00 1.01

Is patient with progress being made by the staff towards

goal attainment 2.83 0.87

Allows the staff members to take center stage in

discussions in staff meetings and informal meetings. 2.58 0.92

Insists that staff members work through divergent point of

views with non-suppression of them. 2.74 1.04

Uses 'the' 'our' and not 'I' principals or 'my.....school staff' 2.43 1.26

Is partial to all members of staff. 2.78 0.98

Acknowledge all members efforts towards attainment in

school affairs. 2.35 0.81

Readily accepts even unwanted blame for failure of

mistake in the school. 3.04 0.91

Allows staff to reach at a decision as a collective whole 2.65 1.09

Initiate, direct goals for the school. 2.23 0.89

Gives opportunity to any staff member to make a decision 2.88 1.11

51

Table 4.15 illustrates teachers‟ perceptions on principal‟s behavior. Majority of

teachers indicated that principals are occasionally patient with progress being

made by the staff towards goal attainment with a mean of 2.87 and occasionally

allows the staff members to take center stage in discussions in staff meetings

and informal meetings with a mean of 2.58. The teachers also indicated that

principal‟s often acknowledge all members efforts towards goal attainment in

school affairs with a mean of 2.35. In addition the principals often initiate and

direct goals for the school with a mean of 2.23. This indicates that the principals

utilise transformational leadership to a greater extent.

4.5 Teachers Job Satisfaction Survey

This study sought to establish the influence of principal‟s leadership styles on

teacher‟s job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu sub-county,

Kenya. In order to achieve this, the study used a likert scale as follows; 1-Very

satisfied, 2- Somewhat satisfied, 3-Undecided, 4 Dissatisfied, 5 Very

dissatisfied. This enabled the tabulation and interpretation of the responses from

the research instrument. The main statistics derived were mean and standard

deviation. The mean illustrated the extent to which the teachers were satisfied or

dissatisfied with the statements put forth. The mean ranges between 1 to 5 in

which case, when the mean is closer to one, it means very satisfied with the

variable, while the lower the standard deviation the more the consensus on the

level of satisfaction. This is well elaborated in the table and narratives below

which show the respondents and the statistics.

52

Table 4. 16: Teachers Working Conditions

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Amount of teaching load allocated to you per week 2.21 1.04

Availability of staff houses provided to you by the

school

3.10

1.35

Special services provided to you such as free lunch and

tea provided to you by the school 2.80 1.22

Extent to which you are provided with materials and

equipment 2.26 0.98

The pupil teacher ratio in classrooms in the school 2.73 1.17

Availability of transport facilities provided to you by

the school 3.95 1.18

The spelling out of your job description by the

principals

2.44 1.10

Table 4.16 illustrates the statements on working conditions as per the teachers in

the study.

With regard to working conditions, majority of the teachers reported that they

were somewhat satisfied with the amount of teaching load allocated to them per

week with a mean of 2.21. The standard deviation however shows a lot of

disparity in that there is a level of discontent with a standard deviation of 1.04.

Other variables such as special services provided by the school such as free

lunch and tea provided by the school with a mean 2.80; extent to which teachers

are provided with materials and equipment with a mean 2.26; the pupil teacher

ratio in classrooms in the school with a mean 2.73; and the spelling out of their

job description by the principals with a mean 2.44, caused some satisfaction to

53

the teachers. On availability of transport facilities provided by the school,

majority of teachers were dissatisfied with a mean of 3.95. This indicates that

working conditions are relatively good even though there was no consensus on

the level of satisfaction, with significant numbers admitting that they are

dissatisfied. This is in line with findings by Karugu (1980), Hall (1999),

Ngalyuka (1985), Okemwa (2004); and Ngumi (2003), who concurred that

teachers stay on the job if physical, social and a security dimensions associated

with conditions of work were satisfactory.

Table 4. 17: Teachers Pay and Promotion

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Salary 3.78 1.22

Opportunities for promotion 3.30 1.02

Benefits (health insurance, Life

insurance etc) 3.84 1.01

Job security 2.45 1.32

Recognition for work accomplished 3.01 1.32

Table 4.17 illustrates the statements on teachers‟ pay and promotion. The

teachers gave varied opinions on this question. As expected majority of teachers

were not satisfied with salary with a mean of 3.78 and benefits (health

insurance, Life insurance etc) with a mean of 3.84. There was high disparity and

undecided teachers on whether they were satisfied with recognition for work

54

accomplished with a mean of 3.01 and opportunities for promotion with a mean

of 3.30. However the teachers were somewhat satisfied with job security with a

mean of 2.45. This indicates that teachers were not happy with salary, benefits

and a significant number of teachers were not happy with recognition and

opportunities for promotion.

Table 4. 18: Teachers Working Relationships

Mean

Standard

Deviation

Relationship with other teachers 1.81 0.86

Relationship with the principals 2.29 0.90

Relationships with other subordinates 2.13 0.83

Use of skills and abilities 1.95 0.87

Opportunities to improve your skills and talents 2.34 1.07

Opportunity to learn new skills 2.43 1.16

Support for additional training and education 3.34 1.09

The extent to which teachers in your school are

recommended for further education and training 3.43 0.99

The information availed to you by the principals on

available training opportunities 3.29 1.15

The encouragement and assistance you receive from

your principals to participate in service course and

seminars related to your job 3.25 1.08

The willingness of the principals to assist you acquire

study leave 3.39 1.07

55

Table 4.18 the study found that the majority teachers were dissatisfied and

undecided on support for additional training and education with a mean of 3.34,

the extent to which teachers are recommended for further education and training

with a mean of 3.43 and the information availed to them by the principals on

available training opportunities with a mean of 3.29.They were dissatisfied on

encouragement and assistance they receive from their principals to participate in

service courses and seminars related to their job with a mean of 3.25 and the

willingness of the principals to assist them acquire study leave. There was high

consensus on the extent to which teachers are recommended for further

education and training with a standard deviation of 0.90. However majority of

teachers were somewhat satisfied and had a consensus on relationship with

other teachers with a mean of 1.81 and a standard deviation of 0.86, relationship

with the principals with a mean of 2.29 and a standard deviation of 0.90.

Relationships with other subordinates had a mean of 2.13 and a standard

deviation of 0.83, while the use of skills and abilities had a mean of 1.95 and a

standard deviation of 0.87. This indicates that teachers were not happy with

issues to deal with recommendation for training, encouragement and assistance

to attend seminars and in-service courses from principals and recommendation

for issuance of study leave by principals.

56

Table 4. 19: Teachers Recognition

Mean

Standard

Deviation

The way your job performance is acknowledged in the

school

2.96 1.17

The way your views are taken by the principals 2.83 0.99

Your involvement in decision making on matters

pertaining the school and teachers

2.91 1.06

Your involvement in choosing the kind of incentives to

be given in the school

3.24 1.07

The personal satisfaction that you derive from your

teaching job

2.30 1.31

The extent to which you are allowed to make job-

related decisions

2.71 1.24

The authority to you to carry out the job specified to

you

2.39 1.27

The level of challenge you attach to your job 2.59 1.11

Variety of job responsibilities 2.74 0.95

Table 4.19 presents teachers satisfaction on recognition.

Majority of teachers were somewhat satisfied and others undecided on the way

their views are taken by the principals with a mean of 2.83 and a standard

deviation of 0.99. They were also somewhat satisfied and undecided on variety

of job responsibilities with a mean of 2.74 and a standard deviation of 0.95. The

rest of the variables had little consensus reached upon by teachers and had a

disparity where majority of teachers were satisfied with the level of challenge

they attach to their job, the extent to which are allowed to make job-related

57

decisions and the personal satisfaction that they derive from their teaching job.

However the majority of teachers were dissatisfied with involvement in

choosing the kind of incentives to be given in the school with a mean of 3.24.

This indicates that most teachers were unsure about recognition. In addition

most were dissatisfied with level of involvement in choosing the kind of

incentives to be given in the school. These findings are in line with

transformational leadership proponents, who reckon that this leadership style

must provide accommodating views in leadership and offer guidance to

followers in order to help them adopt to the ever-changing world of education

(Bass, Avolio, Jung, Berson, 2003). Furthermore, Marks and Printy (2003)

proposed that scholars of education are proponents of transformational

leadership because of its focus on identification and solution of the problem as

well as increased collaboration among stakeholders with the goal of

improvement of the organization, in this case the schools.

58

Table 4. 20: Teachers Satisfaction on Administration and Supervision

Mean

Standard

Deviation

The type of feedback you receive from principals 2.70 1.06

The supervisory procedures used by the principals to

evaluate your work 2.68 1.05

The extent to which the principals allow you to

make independent decisions related to your work 2.54 1.19

Job performance appraisal practices employed to

principals 2.71 1.09

Degree of independence associated with your work

roles 2.28 0.94

Adequate opportunity for periodic changes in duties 2.99 1.02

Provision of chance to lead 2.68 1.12

Table 4.20 illustrates teachers‟ satisfaction with administration and supervision

where majority of teachers indicated that they are somewhat satisfied with

degree of independence associated with their work roles with a mean of 2.28

and a standard deviation of 0.94. Majority of teachers were satisfied with the

supervisory procedures used by the principals to evaluate their work with a

mean of 2.60. They were also satisfied with the extent to which the principals

allow them to make independent decisions related to their work with a mean of

2.54. They were undecided on adequate opportunity for periodic changes in

duties with a mean of 2.99. Half of the teachers were dissatisfied with job

performance appraisal practices employed to principals with a mean of 2.71 and

59

the type of feedback they receive from principals with a mean of 2.70. This

indicates that there were huge disparities with no consensus as regards to issues

relating to provision of chance to lead, and adequate opportunity for periodic

changes in duties. Other issues of concern to teachers include job appraisal

practices employed by principals and the feedback received from principals.

On supervision autocratic leaders have been known to create such situations

where subordinates who do not want to realize the importance of work are

forcefully led to work (Mullins, 2002). Mullins (2002), also found that

autocratic leaders supervise subordinates very closely to ensure compliance and

completion of work in the designated time. Leadership is meant to be effective

even where the situation seem harsh so as to drive organizational intentions

towards goal achievement. This findings contrast well with those of Karugu

(1980), Hall (1999), Ngalyuka (1985), Okemwa (2004); and Ngumi (2003),

who emphasized job nature, social and a security dimensions associated with

conditions of work

4.6 Correlations and Statistics

The study used person product moment correlation to investigate the effect of

independent variables on the dependents variable. The strength of the

relationship is indicated by the correlation coefficient: r and is measured by the

coefficient of determination: r2 the significance of the relationship is expressed

in probability levels: p (e.g., significant at p =.05). This tells how unlikely a

60

given correlation coefficient, r, will occur given that no relationship exist in the

population. Note that the smaller the p-level, the more significant the

relationship but the larger the correlation, the stronger the relationship.

Table 4. 21: Correlation of Democratic Leadership with Teachers’ Job

Satisfaction

Job

Satisfaction

Democratic

Leadership

Job satisfaction

Pearson

Correlation 1.00 .258

*

Sig. (1-

tailed) 0.01

N 80 80

Democratic leadership

Pearson

Correlation .258

* 1

Sig. (1-

tailed) 0.01

N 80 80

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (1-tailed).

Table 4.22 illustrates Pearson product moment correlation coefficient results for

the relationship between principals democratic leadership style and teachers job

satisfaction. From the table above the democratic leadership style positively

influence (0.26) teachers job satisfaction. This is because of democratic

leadership style highly involves teachers in decision making hence positively

influence their job satisfaction.

61

Table 4. 22: Correlation of Autocratic Leadership with Teachers’ Job

Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction Autocratic

Leader Ship

Job satisfaction

Pearson

Correlation 1 -0.039

Sig. (1-tailed)

0.365

N 80 80

Autocratic leader

ship

Pearson

Correlation -0.039 1

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.365

N 80 80


the relationship between principals autocratic leadership style and teachers job

satisfaction. From the table above the autocratic leadership style negatively

influence (-0.039) teachers job satisfaction. This is because autocratic leadership

styles are highly detested by teachers.

62

Table 4. 23: Correlation of Laissez Faire Leadership with Teachers’ Job

Satisfaction

Job Satisfaction Laissez Faire

Leadership

Job satisfaction

Pearson

Correlation 1 -0.044

Sig. (1-tailed)

0.349

N 80 79

Laissez faire

leadership

Pearson

Correlation -0.044 1

Sig. (1-tailed) 0.349

N 79 79


the relationship between principals laissez faire leadership style and teachers job

satisfaction. From the table above the laissez leadership style negatively

influence (--0.044) teachers job satisfaction. This is because laissez faire

decreases teachers commitment levels since the principal is showing less

concern or encouragement.

63

Table 4. 24: Correlation of Transformational Leadership with Teachers’

Job Satisfaction

Job

Satisfaction

Transformational

Leadership

Job satisfaction

Pearson

Correlation 1 .300

**

Sig. (1-

tailed) 0.003

N 80 80

Transformational

leadership

Pearson

Correlation .300

** 1

Sig. (1-

tailed) 0.003

N 80 80

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).


the relationship between principals transformational leadership style and

teachers job satisfaction. From the table above the laissez leadership style

positively influence (0.300) teachers job satisfaction. This is because

transformational leadership encourages involvement and creativity.

64

CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Introduction

This chapter discusses the summary of the study, conclusions, recommendations

and suggestions for further study. The purpose of this study was to investigate

the influence of principals‟ leadership styles on teachers‟ job satisfaction in

public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County.

5.2 Summary of the Study

The objectives of the study included, to establish how democratic leadership

style influence teachers job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu

Sub-County. To examine the influence of autocratic leadership style on

teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County.

To determine how laissez-faire leadership style influence teachers job

satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County. To establish

how transformational leadership style influence teachers job satisfaction in

public secondary schools in Kiambu Sub-County.

This study adopted the descriptive survey design where the target population for

this study was all 427 teachers and principals in all the 28 public secondary

schools in Kiambu Sub County. The study purposely sampled 11 principals

using simple random sampling and 128 teachers using stratified random

65

sampling from mixed day schools, girls‟ boarding schools and boys‟ boarding

schools.

To collect data, a set of structured questionnaires were used as an interview

guide. Before the actual data collection, piloting of questionnaires were done in

two secondary schools in Kiambu sub county. To establish the reliability of the

instrument, the researcher used the test-retest where the second test

administration was done one week after the first one. The researcher sought

authorization to conduct the research from the National Council of Science and

Technology and the District Commissioner Kiambu sub county. The study

generated both qualitative and quantitative data. Pearson moment correlation

coefficient was used to determine the relationships between principals leadership

styles/autocratic, democratic, laissez faire and transformational and teachers job

satisfaction. Quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive statistics. In this

study, mean and standard deviation were used to compute quantitative analysis.

In this case the quantitative data was presented in the form of frequency tables,

pie charts, percentages and bar graphs.

Findings on democratic leadership style shows that majority of the principals

indicated that they often show understanding of staff view point though holding

divergent view point with them with a mean of 1.91, they often patiently

encourage staff to frankly express fully viewpoints with a mean of 1.91 and

often encourage the members of staff to openly express their feelings with a

mean of 1.82. The principals often express confidence in staff members despite

disagreeing with them with a mean of 2.18, and often give room to group

66

members to present their view points before stating their stand with a mean of

2.09. On the other hand majority of teachers agreed that their principals often

are friendly and easy to dialogue with a mean of 2.38 and a standard deviation

of 0.97. They also agreed that principals genuinely shares information with

staff members with a mean of 2.73 though a good number of principals do it

occasionally.

On autocratic leadership majority of principals indicated that they always expect

the best from staff with a mean of 1, and always expect high quality from

themselves with a mean of 1.27 and a standard deviation of 0.47. In contrast the

principals indicated that they always initiate direct goals for the staff with a

mean of 1.27 and standard deviation of 0.47. On the other hand majority of

teachers agreed that the principals always expect the very best from staff with a

mean of 1.50 and a standard deviation of 0.84. Majority agreed that principals

have high opinion over what staff does with a mean of 2.48 and a standard

deviation of 0.93. However majority of teachers indicated that the principals

occasionally suppress new ideas from members of staff with a mean of 3.23 and

occasionally blames failure or mistakes for low performance on staff with a

mean of 3.09.

On laissez faire majority of principals rarely are less concerned about group

performance towards attainment of schools goals with a mean of 4.36 and a

standard deviation of 0.92. They rarely govern the group through non-

intervention in what they are doing with a mean of 4.18 and standard deviation

of 0.98. The principals indicated that they supervise teachers in their

67

teaching/learning assignment with a mean of 4.55 and have belief in self and

others attaining goals with a mean of 4.64. However in contrast they

occasionally avoid at all costs interfering with group‟s work with a mean of 2.82

and also agreed that contribution in the staff serve as basis for suggestions or

questions with a mean of 2.18 and a standard deviation of 0.60. On the other

hand majority of teachers indicated principals seldom pays attention to

individual‟s interests in their work place with a mean of 3.56 and a standard

deviation 0.99 and seldom governs the group through non-intervention in what

they are doing with a mean of 3.65 and a standard deviation 0.91. However

teachers also indicated that principals occasionally gives room to group

members to present their view points before stating a stand with a mean of 2.70

and a standard deviation of 1.13 and allows staff contributions/suggestions and

further questions with a mean of 2.73 and a standard deviation of 1.17.

Findings on transformational leadership style shows that majority of principals

indicated that they always give encouragement to members of staff to initiate

new and creative ideas to benefit school and the rest of staff members with a

mean of 1.64 and standard deviation of 0.50. Majority indicated that they are

risk takers (try new adventurous ideas in dealing with situations) with a mean of

1.45 and a standard deviation of 0.52. Majority of principals strongly agreed

that they are patient with progress being made by the staff towards goals

attainment with a mean of 1.73 and a standard deviation of 0.47. In addition

majority indicated that they occasionally readily accept even unwarranted blame

or mistake in the school with a mean of 2.55 and a standard deviation of 0.82.

68

On the other hand majority of teachers indicated that principals are occasionally

patient with progress being made by the staff towards goal attainment with a

mean of 2.87 and occasionally allows the staff members to take center stage in

discussions in staff meetings and informal meetings with a mean of 2.58. The

teachers also indicated that principals often acknowledge all members efforts

towards attainment in school affairs with a mean of 2.35. In addition the

principals often initiate direct goals for the school with a mean of 2.23.

On the job satisfaction the study established that with regard to working

conditions, majority of the teachers reported that they were somewhat satisfied

with the amount of teaching load allocated to them per week with a mean of

2.21. The standard deviation however shows a lot of disparity showing that

there is a level of discontent with a standard deviation of 1.04. Other variables

like special services provided such as free lunch and tea provided by the school

with a mean 2.80; extent to which teachers are provided with materials and

equipment with a mean 2.26; the pupil teacher ratio in classrooms in the school

with a mean 2.73; and the spelling out of their job description by the principals

with a mean 2.44 caused some satisfaction to the teachers. However there was

disparity in their responses and significant discontent on availability of transport

facilities provided to them by the school with a mean of 3.95.

On pay and promotion majority of teachers were not satisfied with salary with a

mean of 3.78 and benefits (health insurance, Life insurance etc) with a mean of

3.84. There was high disparity and undecided teachers on whether they were

satisfied with recognition for work accomplished with a mean of 3.01, and

69

opportunities for promotion with a mean of 3.30. However the teachers were

somewhat satisfied with job security with a mean of 2.45.

On working relationships majority teachers were dissatisfied and others

undecided on support for additional training and education with a mean of 3.34,

the extent to which teachers are recommended for further education and training

with a mean of 3.43. The information availed by the principals on available

training opportunities with a mean of 3.29, the encouragement and assistance

received from the principals to participate in service course and seminars related

to their job with a mean of 3.25 and the willingness of the principals to assist

them acquire study leave. There was high consensus on the extent to which

teachers are recommended for further education and training with a standard

deviation of 0.90. However majority of teachers were somewhat satisfied and

had a consensus on relationship with other teachers with a mean of 1.81 and a

standard deviation of 0.86 and relationship with the principals with a mean of

2.29 and a standard deviation of 0.90. Relationships with other subordinates had

a mean of 2.13 and a standard deviation of 0.83, while the use of skills and

abilities with a mean of 1.95 and a standard deviation of 0.87.

On recognition majority of teachers were somewhat satisfied and others

undecided on the way the teachers‟ views are taken by the principals with a

mean of 2.83 and a standard deviation of 0.99. They were also somewhat

satisfied and undecided on variety of job responsibilities with a mean of 2.74

and a standard deviation of 0.95. The rest of the variables had little consensus

reached upon by teachers and had a disparity where majority of teachers were

70

satisfied with the level of challenge they attach to their job, the extent to which

they are allowed to make job-related decisions and the personal satisfaction that

they derive from their teaching job. However the majority of teachers were

dissatisfied with involvement in choosing the kind of incentives to be given in

the school with a mean of 3.24.

On administration and supervision majority of teachers indicated that they are

somewhat satisfied with degree of independence associated with their work

roles with a mean of 2.28 and a standard deviation of 0.94. Majority of teachers

were satisfied with the supervisory procedures used by the principals to evaluate

their work with a mean of 2.60, though there were disparities in their responses.

They were also satisfied with the extent to which the principals allow them to

make independent decisions related to their work with a mean of 2.54. They

were undecided on adequate opportunity for periodic changes in duties with a

mean of 2.99. Half of the teachers were undecided and dissatisfied with job

performance appraisal practices employed by principals with a mean of 2.71 and

the type of feedback they receive from principals with a mean of 2.70.

The study therefore concluded that the principals exercised a high level of

democratic leadership which positively influences teachers‟ job satisfaction.

The principals rarely practice laissez faire leadership style as they are concerned

about group performance. The principals practice transformational leadership by

giving encouragement to members of staff to initiate new and creative ideas to

benefit school and thus improving teachers‟ job satisfaction. On job satisfaction

the working conditions are relatively good. However the teachers were not

71

happy with salary, and benefits. The teachers were also not happy with issues to

do with training, in-service courses from principals and recommendation for

study leave by principals. On administration and supervision issues of concern

to teachers included job appraisal practices employed by principals.

The study recommends improvement of working conditions and provision of

transport for teachers by school vehicles. The principals should encourage and

offer equal opportunities for training, seminars/ in-service courses and offer

assistance such as recommendations to attend. The principals should actively

improve on communication by giving feedback on inquires on a timely basis

and improve on job appraisal practices to be competitive and fair. The

researcher suggests the following areas for further study. This study should be

carried again in some other sub counties for comparative purpose. The study

also recommends that aspects of promotion prospects such as advancement

opportunities, opportunity for inservice training and opportunity for growth

should be enhanced. The study recommends that there is need for school

administration to come up with modalities of improving job satifaction so that

teachers job satifaction can be enhanced. Principals should enhance their

supervisory support to enhance teachers job satisfaction. For further research a

study should be carried out in other sub-counties. A study should also be carried

out on how teachers demographic variables influence teachers‟ job satifaction.

A study on how learners characteristics influence teachers job satifaction should

also be carried out.

72

5.3 Conclusions

The study concluded that the principals exercised a high level of democratic

leadership which enhances teachers‟ job satisfaction. The principals were good

listeners to the group, shows understanding of teachers viewpoints, are patient

and encourages staff to be frank and express their view points, they also

encourages staff members to openly express their feelings. On autocratic

leadership the study concluded that some principals are autocratic especially

when it came to directing goals of the staff and occasionally suppressing new

ideas from members of staff and occasionally blaming failure or mistakes for

low performance on staff thus which negatively influences teachers job

satisfaction.

The principals rarely practice laissez faire leadership style as they are concerned

about group performance, govern the group through intervention and supervise

teachers in their teaching/learning assignment even though occasionally avoid at

all costs interfering with group‟s work. This negatively influences teachers‟ job

satisfaction. The principals to a great extent practice transformational leadership

by giving encouragement to members of staff to initiate new and creative ideas

to benefit school and the rest of staff members and are risk takers (try new

adventurous ideas in dealing with situations). This positively influences

teachers‟ job satisfaction.

On job satisfactions, the working conditions are not good even though there was

no consensus on the level of dissatisfaction but with significant numbers

73

admitting that they are dissatisfied. The teachers were not happy with salary,

benefits and a significant number of teachers were not happy with recognition

and opportunities for promotion. The teachers were not happy with issues to do

with recommendation for training, encouragement and assistance to attend

seminars and in-service courses from principals and recommendation of study

leave by principals. In addition most were dissatisfied with level of involvement

in choosing the kind of incentives to be given in the school. On administration

and supervision there were disparities with no consensus as regards to issues

relating to provision of chance to lead, and adequate opportunity for periodic

changes in duties. Other issues of concern to teachers included job appraisal

practices employed by principals and the feedback received from principals.

5.4 Recommendations

Based on the findings of the study the following were the recommendations.

1. The study recommends that aspects of promotion such as advancement

opportunities, opportunity for in-service training and opportunity for growth

should be enhanced.

2. The study recommends that there is need for school administration to come

up with modalities of improving job satisfaction so that teachers‟ job

satisfaction can be enhanced. Principals should also enhance their

supervisory support to enhance teachers‟ job satisfaction.

74

3. The study also recommends that some aspects of reward system such as

fringe benefits, recognition by school administration, rewards for job well

done should be enhanced in the school.

4. The principals should actively improve on communication, giving feedback

on inquires on a timely basis and improve on job appraisal practices to be

competitive and fair.

5.5 Suggestions for Further Studies

The researcher suggests the following areas for further study.

The study should be carried out in some other districts for comparative purpose

A study should also be carried out on how teachers demographic variables

influence teachers‟ job satifaction

A study on how learners characteristics influence teachers job satifaction should

also be carried out.

75

REFERENCES

Achua, R. (2001). This complex thing, leadership, in police leadership in the

twenty first century. Winchester: Waterside press:204-222.

Adelabu, M.A. (2005). Teachers motivation and incentive in Nigeria.

Ajuoga, M.A. (2000). Impact of instructional materials on the job satisfaction of

selected schools in Kisumu District in Kenya. An unpublished master‟s

dissertation, Makerere University: Kampala.

Bass B, & Riggio, R.E. (1997). Transformational leadership (2nd

ed) Mahwah,

Nj Lawrence Ev/baum.

Bass, B.M & Yammarino, F.J. (1990). Adding to contingent reward behavior.

The augmenting effect of charismatic leadership. Group and organizational

studies, vol.15. Pp 381-394.

Best, J & Kahn, (1993). Research in education. New York: Prentice Hall Inc.

Bush & Oduro, (2006). New principals in Africa: Preparation, induction and

practice. Journal of educational administration, 44 (4), 359-375.

Charlton, G. (2000). Human habit of highly effective organizations. Pretoria:

Van Schaik Publishers.

Chen, K.J &Chen, S.I (2008). Personal traits and leadership styles of Taiwan‟s

higher educational institution in innovative operations. Journal of American

Academy of Business, Cambridge vol. 12, No 2, pp 145-150.

Choon, K.L. (2001). Gender differences in leadership styles and job satisfaction

perceptions of principals and teachers. Malaysia: International Islamic

University.

Ciulla, J.B. (2004). Leadership and the problems of bogus empowerment in

ethics, the heart of leadership. Edited by Praeger.Page 59-82.

Cole, G. (2002). Organizational behavior; theory and practice. p. 143 UK:TJ

International, Padstow, Cornwall.

76

Gay, H.L. (1993). Educational research: competences for analysis and

application.

Hallinger, P. & Leithwood, J. (1994). Assessing the instructional management

behavior of principals: elementary school journal, 86 (2), 217-247.

Herzberg, F, Mausner, B and Snyderman, BB (1959). The motivation to work

New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of different source of leadership

on student engagement in school. New York, N.Y. Falmer, London, Groom

Helm.

Maicibi, N.A. (2005). Pertinent issues in employees management. M Kampals P.K.

Graphics (4) Ltd. Management training manual 2006. Guidelines to enhance the

governance and management of schools in Uganda Kampala: Ministry of

Education and Sports.

Modley, F & Lurochelle, D.R. (1995). Transformational leadership and job

satisfaction. Nursing Management 26 (a), 64-68.

Mosedegh Rad, A.N. & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship

between managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction. Leadership

in health services, vol19.No. 2 pp xi-xxviii.

Mugenda, & Mugenda, (2003). Research methods; Quantitative and qualitative

approach. Nairobi: Acts Press.

Mumo, D.K. (2000). Job satisfaction of tutors in technical training institutes in

Nairobi province. M.ED Thesis Kenyatta University.

Mutie, E.K. (1993). Facet and overall satisfaction of secondary school administration

and teachers in Kitui County Kenya. Unpublished Med Thesis, University of

Saskathewah, Saskatoon Canada.

Mwangi, W.J. (2013). Leadership effectiveness of headteachers and how it affect the

performance of secondary schools in Gatanga Division, Thika County.

Unpublished MEd. Kenyatta University.

Ngalyuka, J.M. (1985). An investigation of job satisfaction of the mathematics and

science teachers in secondary schools in Muranga County. Unpublished M.Ed

Thesis Kenyatta University.

77

Norwthhouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership theory and practice (3rd

ed) California: Sage

publication, Inc.

Nzuve, S.N. (1999). Elements of organizational behavior. Nairobi: University of

Nairobi Press.

Okumbe, J.A. (1992). Levels of job satisfaction among graduate teachers in Siaya

and Kisumu districts Unpublished PhD Thesis, Kenyatta University.

Okumbe, J.A. (2007). Educational management theory and practice. Nairobi

University Press.

Oyetunyi, C.O. (2006). The relationship between leadership styles and school

climate: Botswana secondary schools. Unpublished PhD. Thesis University of

South Africa.

Rad, A.M.M & Yarmohammadian, M.H. (2006). A study of relationship between

managers’ leadership style and employees’ job satisfaction leadership in health

service, Vol 19 (2): 11-28.

Savery, L.K. (1994). The influence of the perceived styles of leadership on a group

of workers on their attitudes to work. Leadership and organizational

development journal, 15 (4) 12-18.

Spector (P.E) (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes and

consequences. California. Sage publication, Inc.

78

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I:

INTRODUCTION LETTER

University of Nairobi,

School of Education,

Department of Educational Planning,

P.O Box 92 Kikuyu,

Date:___/___ /2015.

The Principal

_________________________ Secondary School

Dear Sir/Madam,

REF: PARTICIPATION IN RESEARCH

I am a student pursuing Masters of Educational Administration at the University

of Nairobi.

I am undertaking a research on the “Influence of Principals Leadership Styles

on Teachers Job Satisfaction in Public Secondary Schools in Kiambu Sub-

County”. Kindly and honestly read the instructions and fill in the questionnaire.

The findings of this study will not be used for any other purpose other than the

academic research while the identity of the respondents will be kept

confidential. Thank you for your cooperation.

Yours sincerely


79

APPENDIX II

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PRINCIPALS

This study is an investigation into the influence of principals‟ leadership styles

on teachers‟ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Kiambu sub-county,

Kenya. You are requested to participate in this study by filling in this

questionnaire. Your identity will be kept confidential.

Kindly give us as honest answers as possible. Indicate the correct option by

inserting a tick (√) in appropriate box provided.

Part A: Demographic Information

1. What is your gender? Female Male

2. What is your age? Below 24 years 26-30 years 31-35 years

36-40 years 41-45 years

46-50years 51 and above

3. What is your highest academic/professional qualification? BED

BA with PGDE Diploma in education

M.Ed Bsc with PGDE SI EAACE/KCE/KCSE/KACE

If any other specify……………………………………………………………

4. What is your teaching experience in years? Below 1yr 2-5yrs

6-10yearsrs 11-15years 16-20years 20 years and over

5. What is the category of your schools? County mixed day

County girls day County boys day

County girls boarding County boys boarding

Extra county girls boarding Extra county boys boarding

80

If any other, specify

……………………………………………………………………..

Part B: Perception of Principals Own Behavior

Please indicate by putting a tick √ in appropriate column to which the following

statements will apply to your leadership behavior in your school.

Key

1-Always, 2- Often, 3-Occassionally, 4 Seldom, 5 Never

Leader

Leadership Behavior Perceptions

1 2 3 4 5

I am friendly and easy to dialogue with

I am a good listener to your group despite

holding divergent opinion with them in

discussion

I show understanding of staff view point though

holding divergent view point with them

I patiently encourage staff to frankly express

fully view points

I express confidence in staff members regardless

disagreeing with them

I genuinely share information with staff

members

I encourage the members of staff to openly

express their feelings

I give room to group members to present their

view points before stating my stand

1 2 3 4 5

81

I expect the best from staff

I expect high quality from self

I initiate, direct goals for the staff

I suppress new ideas from members of staff

I pass the back to others for failure or mistakes

for

low performance in school or stalled projects

1 2 3 4 5

I pay no attention to individual interest in their

work place

I am less concerned about group performance

towards attainment of schools goals

I am unconcerned with staff‟s welfare

I govern the group through non-intervention in

what they are doing

I do not supervise teachers in their

teaching/learning assignment

I avoid at all costs interfering with group‟s work

I enhance discipline owing to non-provision of

structure to staff in doing work

I have no belief in self and others attaining

My contribution in the staff serve as basis for

suggestions or questions

1 2 3 4 5

I have high opinion of what staff do

I give encouragement to members of staff to

initiate new and creative ideas to benefit school

and the rest

of staff members

82

I am a risk taker (try new adventurous ideas in

dealing with situations)

I am open to criticism by members of staff

I treat everybody consistently

I accept I can err like any other staff members

I welcome staff to question matters related to

school affairs

I am patient with progress being made by the

staff towards goals attainment

I allow the staff members to take centre stage in

discussion in staff meetings and information

meetings

I insist that staff members work through

divergent point of views with non-suppression

of them

I use „we‟ or „our‟ and not „I‟ principals or my

school, staff

Am impartial to all members of staff

I acknowledge all members‟ efforts towards

attainment in school affairs

I readily accept even unwarranted blame or

mistake

in the school

I allow staff to reach at a decision as a collective

whole

I give opportunity to any staff member to make

a decision

83

APPENDIX III

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR TEACHERS

You are kindly requested to fill this questionnaire. Your participation will help

gather information on the influence of principal‟s leadership style on teachers‟

job satisfaction in public secondary school in Kiambu sub-county.

Kindly answer all questions as honestly as possible. Your name and that of

institution is not required. This will help to ensure maximum confidentiality.

Put a tick (√) in the spaces provided

1) What is your gender Male Female

2) What is your age bracket? Below 25 years 26-36 years

36-45 years Over 45 years

3) What is your highest professional qualification?

Diploma teachers B.Ed M.Ed

Any other ……………………………………………………………

4) How long have you been in your present school? Less than 2 years

3-5years 6-10years Above 10 years

5) What responsibility do you hold in school? Class teacher

Games teacher Senior teacher

Deputy principal

Others

specify…………………………………………………………………..

84

Part B: Teachers Job Satisfaction Survey

Using the scale shown above, rate your level of satisfaction with the following

aspects of your job.

Key 1) very satisfied 2) Somewhat satisfied 3) Undecided 4) Dissatisfied 5)

Very dissatisfied

Statement Working Conditions 1 2 3 4 5

1 Amount of teaching load allocated to you

per week

2 Availability of staff houses provided to

you by the

school

3 Special services provided to you such as

free lunch

and tea provided to you by the school

4 Extent to which you are provided with

materials and equipment

5 The pupil teacher ration in classrooms in

the school

6 Availability of transport facilities

provided to you by

the school

7 The spelling out of your job description

by the principals

85

Pay and Promotion 1 2 3 4 5

8 Salary

9 Opportunities for promotion

10 Benefits (health insurance. Life

insurance, etc)

11 Job security

12 Recognition for work accomplished

Work Relationships 1 2 3 4 5

13 Relationship with other teachers

14 Relationship with the principals

15 Relationships with other subordinates

16 Use of skills and abilities

17 Opportunities to improve your skills and

talents

18 Opportunity to learn new skills

19 Support for additional training and

education

20 The extent to which teachers in your

school are recommended for further

education and training

21 The information availed to you by the

principals on available training

opportunities

22 The encouragement and assistance you

receive from your principals to participate

in-service course and seminars related to

your job

23 The willingness of the principals to assist

you acquire study leave

86

Recognition

24 The way your job performance is

acknowledged in the school

25 The way your views are taken by the

principals

26 Your involvement in decision making on

matters pertaining the school and teachers

27 Your involvement in choosing the kind of

incentives to be given in the school

28 The personal satisfaction that you derive

from your teaching job

29 The extent to which you are allowed to

make job-related decisions

30 The authority to you to carry out the job

specified to you

31 The level of challenge you attach to your

job

32 Variety of job responsibilities

Administration and Supervision 1 2 3 4 5

33 The type of feedback you receive from

principals

34 The supervisory procedures used by the

principals to evaluate your work

35 The extent to which the principals allows

you to make independent decisions

related to your work

36 Job performance appraisal practices

employed to principals

87

37 Degree of independence associated with

your work roles

38 Adequate opportunity for periodic

changes in duties

39 Provision of chance to lead

88

APPENDIX IV

RESEARCH PERMIT

89

APPENDIX V

RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION

influence of principals leadership styles …...influence of principals leadership styles on...

Documents