Introduction
There are various schools of thought about what sort of leadership style is most appropriate for a particular organization. Some school environments may require the application of a participative style of leadership i.e. transformational style. On the other hand, others may feel that it is more appropriate to use a supportive style or a transactional style of leadership. Alternatively, some principals may apply an achievement or a mixture of the two. There are also certain instances when principals fail to use either of the above and apply the laissez faire approach. (Northouse, 1997) The first type of leadership style (Participative) is more appropriate in instances when schools have older teachers. The second type (supportive) is more appropriate when teachers are new to the profession and they require some guidance as they go about their daily tasks and responsibilities. However, some principals may decide to adopt a mixture of theses leadership styles in the event that their school environment is changing. Such an approach is advantageous in that environmental factors are considered. It is crucial to make extrinsic and intrinsic factors a priority because environments are ever changing. The essay will examine the relationship between the nature of leadership and how this relates to teacher job satisfaction.
Literature review
A number of studies conducted in the leadership arena have highlighted the fact that the most effective leaders are those ones who are good at capturing their environment. This brings to light the differing approaches used by two types of leader; the transformational leader and the transactional leader. Transactional leaders tend to have a tendency of adjusting according to their environments. (Weisman & Nathanson, 1985) They are influenced by what goes on around them and adjust their manner of doing things on this basis. On the other hand, transformational leaders take a dissimilar approach. They have the ability to change their surroundings in order to suit their specific goals. Their approach is more of a proactive rather than a reactive role. Such leaders normally make sure that the context they have chosen to work in is receptive to them rather than them being more receptive to their surroundings.
Organizational culture and climate is largely affected by the kind of leadership style adopted. In this case, a school’s learning environment will be greatly determined or affected by the kind of leader chosen. The transactional leaders and the Laissez faire leaders are not very effective at changing their school environments. On the other hand, the transformation leaders are very good at this meaning that their school environments largely depend upon the kind of changes that they institute. (Bass & Avolio, 2000)
The big question that needs to be answered is what kind of leadership style among the three mentioned above will boost teacher’s job satisfaction. (Sheridan et al, 1984) The most appropriate one will have the ability to boost teachers’ job satisfaction to a level which had not been expected. A good approach to leadership will make most teachers feel motivated to add some extra efforts and to increase their level of effectiveness at their jobs.
As it has been seen earlier, transformational leaders have the capacity to change their given environments to suit their goals. Consequently, in the event that teachers are in need of something, they have they can rely on their principal/ administration to change their environments. This goes a long way in enhancing the kind of environment that they are working in. what this does is that it highly motivates teachers. It makes them very energized and their overall level of job satisfaction is likely to be higher than expected. (Bogler, 2000)
There are some outcomes measures that are use to indicate the level of job satisfaction by teachers. It is therefore reasonable to link transformational leadership with high job satisfaction based. It is also likely that transactional leadership styles will score second in this measurement and Laissez Faire will have the least effect on job satisfaction. The basis behind such an assumption is that the latter two leadership styles are avoidance leadership styles. Such leaders normally try to stay away from problems by failing to confront them and chances are that those problems will only worse with time. (Woods & Weasmer, 2004)
It should be noted that there are a number of factors that are taken into account when measuring job satisfaction. Some studies into the topic have highlighted some factors that may be considered as key indicators of job satisfaction. These include;
Innovation
Student supportiveness
Professional interest
Formal decision making procedures
Teacher affiliation
Achievement orientation
Resource adequacy
Teachers that get high scores in any of the following indicators will be indicating that their level of job satisfaction is quite high. (McCutcheon et al, 2004)
There is a need for one to examine the kind of external factors that affect whether or not leaders will influence their teachers, that is; whether they will adopt a transactional, laissez faire or a transformational leadership approach. Studies have indicated that there are some internal factors that greatly affect the kind of leadership style adopted and hence the level of job satisfaction adopted. For instance, if a school has a large capacity, it is very likely that the principal will adopt a transactional style of leadership. The overall effect is that teachers in big schools are less likely to be more satisfied with their work than those ones in smaller schools. Such an assumption is based upon some research conducted in chain stores. The research was trying to determine what kind of internal and external factors affect employee satisfaction. It was found that leaders running large stores had less control and hence employees were less satisfied with their work while those ones located in small stores were quite comfortable in their environment. The same can be applied to the school environment because human resource management principles can be applied in nay scenario even if it is a school environment.
There are other factors that have been highlighted with relation to job satisfaction. It has been found that gender has a certain role to play when determining the kind of leadership style adopted by principals. Workers in a non-school environment ere asked about what factors have demonstrated the kind of leaders that they have had in the past and most of them identified the issue of gender as fundamental.
It should be noted that before a teacher feels satisfied with their schools environment, they need to judge their environments against the backdrop of another scenario that they have witnessed. Consequently, teacher’s previous work experience largely affect the way those teachers go about their duties nada slo how they perceive their leaders. If a teacher had been in a school that had a transactional mode of leadership, then chances are that that teacher will expect the same in their next school. (Mueller & McCloskey, 1990) The same factor will also apply to principals themselves. If they had been in schools where it was okay to apply a Laissez faire approach, then this is the same thing they will do in their next school and this severely affects teacher’s job satisfaction. If a principal chooses to continue with a leadership approach that is inappropriate in the new school, then chances are that teachers will not be satisfied with their job. On the other hand, when a principal had applied transactional leadership in their former school and they continue to do this in their next school, then chances are teachers will be content with the performance.
Another crucial factor that will determine teachers’ perception of their leaders is their level of experience in a certain school or in that career. For instance, there may be cases when a teacher has worked for most of their lives as teachers. Expectations always change with time. Older teachers tend to expect more from the administration. They are aware of the systems and procedures within their specific schools or in the education environment. Such teachers may require greater levels of involvement from their leaders. (Rogg et al, 2001) Teachers who may be new to the profession may have fewer expectations. Some of them may not know the most effective method of leadership and will therefore be satisfied with their jobs even when their leaders tend to display low levels of commitment and involvement. But there is a flipside to this argument, some teachers may have entered the teaching environment with ideal expectations form their schools. But upon seeing the practical aspect, they realize that things don’t work out as easily as they expected. Such new teachers may end up feeling disappointed by their leaders when some their ideals are not met. Consequently, they may end up scoring very low marks in the outcome base measurement of their job satisfaction. (Jorissen, 2002)
Some teachers may have worked very closely with a certain principal or leader in their school, environment. It may be possible that that leader has not been the best example, perhaps they tend to shy away from problems and only apply transactional leadership or Laissez faire styles. However, because such a teacher has worked for a very long time with this leader, they may get accustomed to the way he/she goes about their duties. Such teachers may become very comfortable with the leadership style and this greatly increases their level of satisfaction. (Richards, 2003)
On the other hand, there are certain teachers who attach great importance to their teaching positions. This is because most of them probably have a vision of where they would like to be in the next few years. When a teacher happens to hold a position that is inferior to their expectations, then chances are that most of them will not have a very positive outlook towards their leaders. Such teachers may feel that their leaders have been unfair to them given the fact that they have not been promoted. It is also very likely that such teachers will be dissatisfied with their jobs.
The human mind is such that it always has some preconceived notions or biases towards certain kinds of people. There is a tendency for some employees to despise their female bosses. There is certain rivalry between female employers and female subordinates. The employees claim that employers look at them as threats and may try their level best to minimize their importance. (Nir, & Kranot, 2006) On the other hand female employers claim that such subordinates make the mistake of thinking that they can get away with anything juts because their employers share the same gender with them. In such a scenario, teacher may be dissatisfied with their jobs given the fact that there is a lot of friction between them and their principal.
One cannot ignore the issue of age when trying to tackle some of the factors that affect teachers’ job satisfaction. (Rubin et al, 1990) Taking an example of a school where a relatively young principal is trying to lead relatively older teachers, there may be some hurdles faced in such an arrangement. Teachers may disregard some of their principal’s directives on the basis of their age differences. Such persons may assert that they have more experience than their principals and may object to her directives. The scenario can get confrontational and this will have negative effect on the kind of work done by their teachers. As such, these teachers will be dissatisfied with their jobs.
There is also another perspective on the issue of age and job satisfaction. Some studies have shown that younger employees tend to have higher levels of job satisfaction due to the fact that most of them tend to have less expectation from their colleagues. (Price, 1981) It should be noted that the more one works within an institution the more they interact with their colleagues and the more their colleagues demand form them. Such an argument also applies to the school environment. Young teachers tend to have less pressure and will therefore record higher levels of job satisfaction.
On the other hand, older persons in an institution or organization tend to have higher levels of demand from a number of avenues. For instance, one might find that they are supporting their families and they also have to meet other obligations. Consequently, it may be quite difficult to find such people claiming that they are satisfied with their jobs. Older employees tend to demand a lot from their leaders. (Tett & Meyer, 1993) Matters are also compounded by the fact that a number of them are approaching retirement age and they may need to prepare financially for this. / Therefore some schools experience higher numbers of complaints from their older teachers in comparison to the younger ones. This also means that most of them tend to register low performance in job satisfaction measurements.
There is a very high level of influence that principals’ can exert upon their teachers and this has an inherent effect on their level of job satisfaction. For instance, a principal has the responsibility of articulating their visions and beliefs. They are supposed to convince their teachers about what they want to achieve inn the future. This vision should then be shared by the teachers if there any hope of achieving the vision. There is also a high correlation between the level of communication between teachers, leaders and their level of job satisfaction. When a principal has implemented a leadership approach that mostly focus on their vision without considering their teacher’s views then chances are those teachers will be dissatisfied with their work.
There are two main types of approaches that principals can take up. First of all, they can decide to implement a task centered approach o leadership. In this task centered approach, chances are that decision making powers will be done at the principal’s discretion. Consequently, most of these principals will have lower levels of interaction with their teachers and chances are that teacher’s will be dissatisfied with the performance. (Van der Heijden, 2002)
In case principals decide to take up a people centered approach to leaders, then chances are that decision making will be done at teachers’ discretion. This means that there will be very high levels of delegation in such an environment. Additionally, such an approach also entails high levels of communication between the principal and the teachers. Such principals are also likely to take their teacher’s suggestions very seriously. Consequently, teachers can effectively communicate their needs and chances are that there will be higher levels of job satisfaction.
It should be noted that the principal is the only person who really represents the school and its administration. This means that a teacher’s perceptions about the school administration will be largely affected by the way they think about their principal. A principal who employ sound communication between himself and his subordinates is most likely to get positive influences from his followers. (Haser, & Nasse, 2003)Additionally, a principal who allows teachers to make their decisions will most likely create a conductive environment for their subordinates. This means such principals will register lower level of conflict between the administration and the subordinates. This means that work will get done in a faster way and teachers will have higher levels of job satisfaction. It should be noted that principals who exert such an approach are identified as transformational leaders.
There is a similar approach that may be taken up by certain principals; such principals tend to assign tasks to all their teachers. Additionally, these leaders normally make sure that their teachers understand all the rules and procedures that apply in the schools. Consequently, such teachers will tend to be sure about their roles and duties. This means that they will go about their tasks in a more efficient manner and hence there will be job satisfaction. Leaders who fail to clearly outline jobs and tasks tend to create a lot of ambiguity in the workplace. Consequently, teachers will waste time trying to figure out hat they are supposed to do and what they should not. This means that less work will be done and more teachers will be dissatisfied with their tasks. (Pearson, 1991)
It should be noted that assigning and clarifying roles are quite different from supervising teachers. The former approach involves airing out the kind of expectations that principals have towards their teachers and leaving them to implement these goals ion their own. Such an approach as we have seen earlier yields good results. On the other hand, principals who tend to supervise their teachers all the time, tend to create too much tension in the classroom or in the school environment. There are high levels of emotional exhaustion and in the end such teachers tend to perform poorly. Teachers in such negative environments tend to focus all their energies on pleasing their supervisor rather than fulfilling their obligations. Some teachers may already be working under pressure given the fact that they have deadlines to meet and they still have to instill knowledge. (Stordeur et al, 2001)Therefore, the last thing teachers need is more pressure. By closely monitoring them, principals will only be increasing this pressure and teachers will therefore be dissatisfied with their jobs. Close supervision by principals also creates negative influences due to the fact that teachers will like their leaders do not trust them. If a supervisor has to be around al the time in order to proceed with the task, then very little will get done. Such teachers ill develop a low self image and this really diminishes job satisfaction.
One cannot underestimate the effect that good communication has on teacher’s job satisfaction. A good method of communication is one in which both the teachers and the principal listen to one another. Normally teachers have certain expectations that thy have for themselves within their jobs. If these expected outcomes are not close enough to the actual outcome, then chances are that they will be dissatisfied with their work. If many expectations are not met by the school administration through adequate communication, then chances are that teacher will start expressing signs of job dissatisfaction. (Tumulty et al, 1994) Principals need to look out for any of the following qualities because these are key indicators;
High cases of absenteeism
A lot of grievances
High turnover
Conclusion
Leader’s posses the ability to change their teachers’ level of job satisfaction through the kind of approach they choose. Leaders who use the transformational form of leadership tend to address teachers’ needs directly, delegate duties, conduct less supervision and hence enhance teacher’s job satisfaction. However, those who use Laissez faire form of leadership or transactional leadership tend to avoid problems and may eventually cause low job satisfaction. There are also other factors that are related to leadership and may determine teacher’s outcome. These include; age, gender, pervious work positions and communication levels between the administration and the teacher.
0 comments:
Post a Comment