1. Department of Education, Philippines

*             Correspondence: manzanovergilio@gmail.com

Keywords: leadership styles, school performance

1. INTRODUCTION

Leadership plays a crucial role in the success and performance of organizations, the ability of top management to effectively lead and guide their teams can have a significant impact on employee morale, productivity, and overall organizational outcomes [1]. In recent years, there has been growing recognition of the importance of diverse leadership styles in promoting innovation, inclusivity, and adaptability within organizations [2]. Hence, understanding and examining the diverse leadership styles exhibited by top management is essential for enhancing organizational effectiveness and achieving sustainable success [3]. Today, organizations operate in increasingly diverse and multicultural environments. This diversity extends to not only employees but also to leadership positions. Recognizing the value of diversity in leadership, organizations are actively seeking leaders with different backgrounds, experiences, and leadership styles [4]. However, there is still a gap in our understanding of how. These diverse leadership styles impact organizational performance, previous research has predominantly focused on traditional leadership styles, such as transformational or transactional leadership [5]. While these styles have proven to be effective in certain contexts, they may not fully capture the range of leadership approaches employed by top management [6]. In schools, leadership has a significant impact on the performance of teachers. The leadership style exhibited by top management, particularly principals, can greatly influence the professional development, job satisfaction, and motivation of teachers [7]. A study conducted at the college level found a positive correlation between principal leadership and teacher job performance [8]. The chosen leadership style of top management in schools can shape the culture, climate, and teaching practices within the educational institution [9]. Effective leadership styles, such as instructional leadership, have been associated with improved teacher performance, increased job satisfaction, and higher levels of motivation among teachers. On the other hand, ineffective leadership styles can hinder teacher growth and negatively impact the overall school environment [10]. Understanding the impact of leadership styles on teachers’ performance is essential in promoting a supportive and conducive learning environment. By adopting effective leadership practices, schools can enhance teacher engagement, promote professional development, and ultimately improve student outcomes [11]. Further exploration of the relationship between leadership styles and teachers’ performance can provide valuable insights for school administrators and policymakers seeking to optimize leadership practices in schools. This study sought to identify and describe the leadership style leadership styles exhibited by school heads in relation to the organizational performance among selected public schools in San Mateo, Isabela.

2. MATERIALS & METHODS

This is a descriptive-correlational study, where N=80 purposively selected respondents which comprised to groups: N=30 school heads & N=50 of their respective coordinators in their School-based Management (SBM).  Data were collected through survey questionnaire an adapted from leadership in education. Data analysis was done with the aid of Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). Means were used to give details on the perceived leadership styles of schools and the organizational performance. Mann-Whitney U Test (Z score) was used to analyze the difference in the perceptions of the two groups of respondents while Kendall’s tau b was used to test the relationship between the perceived leadership styles of schools and the organizational performance of the selected public schools in San Mateo, Isabela.

3. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

3.1 Perceived Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads 

The six leadership styles of the school heads of the selected public schools in San Mateo Isabela were assessed by the teachers and the school heads themselves. In table 01, it can be noted that the two groups of respondents did not differ in their perceptions regarding the transformational leadership styles of the school heads (Z = 0.08 to 1.38; Sig. = 0.19 to 0.94 > 0.05).  Comparably, they strongly agreed that under the leadership of the school heads,  collaboration and teamwork are fostered among the staff,  the  school promotes a shared vision and collective responsibility among the staff, encourages innovation and new ideas in teaching practices, had opportunities for professional development and growth, establishes a positive and supportive work environment, adapts its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers, and that the  school adapts its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers ( =4.60 to 4.78).  On the other hand, that under the school head’s leadership, both teachers ( =4.34) and school heads themselves ( =4.20) similarly agreed that that they felt empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school. In general, the respondents strongly agreed on most of the transformational leadership styles exhibited by school heads ( =4.61 to 4.74). They highly felt that the school promotes a shared vision and collective responsibility among the staff, encourages innovation and new ideas in teaching practices, establishes a positive and supportive work environment, and adapts its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers.  Moreover, they highly agreed that collaboration and teamwork are fostered among the staff and had opportunities for professional development and growth. They also felt empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school.

Table 01: Perceived Transformational Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I feel empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school.	4.20	A	4.34	A	4.29	A	0.72 NS	0.47
2.       The school promotes a shared vision and collective responsibility among the staff.	4.77	SA	4.66	SA	4.70	SA	0.95 NS	0.34
3.       The school encourages innovation and new ideas in teaching practices.	4.77	SA	4.72	SA	4.74	SA	0.41NS	0.68
4.       I have opportunities for professional development and growth.	4.60	SA	4.62	SA	4.61	SA	0.08 NS	0.93
5.       The school establishes a positive and supportive work environment.	4.63	SA	4.78	SA	4.73	SA	1.32 NS	0.19
6.       Collaboration and teamwork are fostered among the staff.	4.70	SA	4.68	SA	4.69	SA	0.08 NS	0.94
7.       The school adapts its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers.	4.67	SA	4.66	SA	4.66	SA	0.29 NS	0.77

    ^NSNot Significant                                 SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

As seen in table 02, the perceptions about styles exhibited by the school heads, significantly differed between the two groups of respondents (Z = 2.70; Sig. = 0.01 < 0.05). It can be noted that the teachers gave a statistically higher rating ( =4.22) than the school heads ( =3.60) in their perceptions on their feeling that decision-making is primarily top-down and centralized than the school heads. As for the rest of the indicators, their assessments were the significantly same (Z = 0.04 to 1.09; Sig. = 0.28 to 0.97 > 0.05).  The teachers (( =4.10) and the school heads ( =4.23), similarly agreed that clear goals and expectations are provided to them by school leaders. In addition, comparably, the school heads (( =3.00 to 3.23) and the teachers ( =3.16 to 3.39) neither agreed or disagreed that feedback and input from teachers are not actively sought or considered, recognition for efforts and achievements is limited, there is a lack of flexibility and innovation in teaching practices, professional development opportunities are limited or dictated by school leaders, and the work environment feels more directive and less collaborative. In general, it was found out that the respondents were not certain about the autocratic leadership styles of the school heads, particularly, in their feeling that decision-making is primarily top-down and centralized and clear goals and expectations are provided to them by school leaders. On a higher note, they strongly agreed that feedback and input from teachers are not actively sought or considered; recognition for efforts and achievements is limited; there is a lack of flexibility and innovation in teaching practices; professional development opportunities are limited or dictated by school leaders; and the work environment feels more directive and less collaborative.

Table 02: Perceived Autocratic Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I feel that decision-making is primarily top-down and centralized.	3.60	A	4.22	A	3.99	A	2.70 *	0.01
2.       Clear goals and expectations are provided to me by school leaders.	4.23	A	4.10	A	4.15	A	0.04 NS	0.97
3.       Feedback and input from teachers are not actively sought or considered.	3.30	NAD	3.44	NAD	3.39	NAD	0.56 NS	0.57
4.       Recognition for efforts and achievements is limited.	3.10	NAD	3.38	NAD	3.28	NAD	1.09 NS	0.28
5.       There is a lack of flexibility and innovation in teaching practices.	3.23	NAD	3.24	NAD	3.24	NAD	0.23 NS	0.82
6.       Professional development opportunities are limited or dictated by school leaders.	3.00	NAD	3.26	NAD	3.16	NAD	0.88 NS	0.38
7.       The work environment feels more directive and less collaborative.	3.10	NAD	3.36	NAD	3.26	NAD	1.05 NS	0.29

*Significant      ^NSNot Significant           SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

Table 3 reveals that the teachers and the school heads gave statistically the same observations (Z = 0.03 to 0.83, Sig. = 0.40 to 0.97 > 0.05). The school heads (( =4.50 to 4.57) and the teachers ( =4.52 to 4.74) concurred and strongly agreed that open communication and feedback from teachers are encouraged and valued, the school actively promotes collaboration and teamwork among the staff as well as it actively involves teachers in the development of school policies. In addition, they strongly agreed that the school’s mission and goals are effectively communicated to the teachers and the leadership style adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual teachers.  On a lower note, the school heads ( =4.20 and 4.43)  and the teachers ( =4.40 and 4.44)  similarly agreed that opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input and they felt empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school. Generally, the respondents strongly agreed that open communication and feedback from teachers are encouraged and valued, the school actively promotes collaboration and teamwork among the staff, the school’s mission and goals are effectively communicated to the teachers, the school actively involves teachers in the development of school policies and the leadership style adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual teachers ( =4.54 to 4.74).  In a lower note, they agreed that opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input and felt empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school ( =4.33 and 4.74).

Table 03: Perceived Democratic Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I feel empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school.	4.20	A	4.40	A	4.33	A	0.66 NS	0.51
2.       Open communication and feedback from teachers are encouraged and valued.	4.50	SA	4.62	SA	4.58	SA	0.69 NS	0.49
3.       The school actively promotes collaboration and teamwork among the staff.	4.60	SA	4.68	SA	4.65	SA	0.43 NS	0.67
4.       Opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input.	4.43	A	4.44	A	4.44	A	0.07 NS	0.94
5.       The school’s mission and goals are effectively communicated to the teachers.	4.57	SA	4.68	SA	4.64	SA	0.83 NS	0.40
6.       The school actively involves teachers in the development of school policies.	4.73	SA	4.74	SA	4.74	SA	0.03 NS	0.97
7.       The leadership style adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual teachers.	4.57	SA	4.52	SA	4.54	SA	0.31 NS	0.76

  ^NSNot Significant                                 SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

Table 04 shows that the teachers and the school heads significantly differed in three facets (Z = 2.40 to 2.90, Sig. = 0.07 to 0.64 >0.05).  The teachers gave higher ratings ( =4.38 and 4.34) than the school heads ( =4.00 to 4.60) which means that while they agreed, the teachers were more  sure that  they were given the autonomy to make decisions and manage their classroom as they see fit and had the  flexibility to design their own curriculum and instructional methods than the school heads. In addition, it can be observed that the teachers were more sold to the idea that trust is placed in them to take the lead in their professional growth and development. The teachers strongly agreed in this aspect ( =4.58) while the school heads only agreed ( =4.07).

Table 04: Perceived Laissez-faire Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I am given the autonomy to make decisions and manage my classroom as I see fit.	4.00	A	4.48	A	4.30	A	2.40 *	0.02
2.       There is minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders.	3.33	NAD	3.66	A	3.54	A	1.29 NS	0.20
3.       I have the flexibility to design my own curriculum and instructional methods.	3.60	A	4.34	A	4.06	A	2.89 *	0.00
4.       Decision-making processes involve a collaborative approach where teachers have a significant say.	4.33	A	4.50	SA	4.44	A	1.26 NS	0.21
5.       Resources and support are provided when requested, but I primarily rely on myself for professional development.	4.03	A	4.16	A	4.11	A	0.47 NS	0.64
6.       Trust is placed in me to take the lead in my professional growth and development.	4.07	A	4.58	SA	4.39	A	2.90 *	0.00
7.       The leadership style allows for creativity and exploration of innovative teaching practices.	4.27	A	4.60	SA	4.48	A	1.78 NS	0.07

  *Significant      ^NSNot Significant         SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

On the other hand, the observations of the two groups were comparable (Z = 0.47 to 1.28, Sig. = 0.00 to 0.02 < 0.05).  Both teachers ( =4.16) and the school heads ( =4.03) agreed that resources and support are provided when requested, but they primarily rely on myself for professional development. In addition, teachers strongly agreed ( =4.50 and 4.60) that decision-making processes involve a collaborative approach and the leadership style allows for creativity and exploration of innovative teaching practices where teachers have a significant say.  This was noted to be statistically the same with the school heads who only agreed to these aspects ( =4.33 and 4.07).  The teachers agreed ( =3.66) that there is minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders which is comparable with the uncertainty of the school heads in this regard ( =3.33). Summing up, it can be noted that the respondents were  agreeable ( =3.54 to 4.44) with the perceived laissez-faire leadership styles exhibited by school heads, particularly  on  the following aspects:  Giving  of  autonomy to make decisions and management of classrooms as they see fit; minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders; decision-making processes involve a collaborative approach where teachers have a significant say; resources and support are provided when requested, but they primarily rely on myself for professional development; trust is placed in me to take the lead in my professional growth and development; and the leadership style allows for creativity and exploration of innovative teaching practices.

As indicated in Table 5, teachers and the school heads significantly differed in their  the observations in three facets (Z = 1.93 to 2.51, Sig. = 0.01to 0.05 ≤ 0.05).  As regards receiving  clear goals and expectations from school leaders, both strongly agreed but the school heads gave a higher perception ( =4.50) as compared to the teachers  ( =4.50).  In the same manner, on feedback and constructive criticism are provided to support the growth and development,  the teachers perceived higher (( =4.72) than the school heads ( =4.53).    As far as   the leadership style focuses on maintaining efficiency and ensuring tasks are completed is concerned, the teachers perceived higher (( =4.72) as they strongly agreed while the school heads ( =4.43) only agreed to it.

Table 05: Perceived Transactional Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I receive clear goals and expectations from school leaders.	4.33	A	4.60	SA	4.50	SA	2.51*	0.01
2.       My efforts and achievements are recognized and appreciated by school leaders.	4.40	A	4.60	SA	4.53	SA	1.65 NS	0.10
3.       Feedback and constructive criticism are provided to support my growth and development.	4.53	SA	4.72	SA	4.65	SA	1.93 *	0.05
4.       The school provides opportunities for professional development and growth.	4.47	A	4.64	SA	4.58	SA	1.22 NS	0.22
5.       The work environment feels structured and goal-oriented.	4.57	SA	4.74	SA	4.68	SA	1.45 NS	0.15
6.       Rewards and incentives are tied to meeting specific targets or expectations.	4.40	A	4.56	SA	4.50	SA	1.23 NS	0.22
7.       The leadership style focuses on maintaining efficiency and ensuring tasks are completed.	4.43	A	4.72	SA	4.61	SA	2.21 *	0.03

  *Significant      ^NSNot Significant        SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

On the other hand, the school heads and the teachers did not differ in their observations (Z = 1.23 to 1.65, Sig. = 0.10 to 0.22 > 0.05). Teachers ( =4.68) and school heads ( =4.74) comparably agreed strongly that the work environment feels structured and goal-oriented. Similarly, although the  teachers strongly agreed ( =4.56 to 4.64)   that their  efforts and achievements are recognized and appreciated by school leaders, the school provides opportunities for professional development and growth and rewards and incentives are tied to meeting specific targets or expectations, the findings revealed that the school heads who only agreed ( =4.40 to 4.47) on this aspects were not statistically far or they are in the same level.  In conclusion, it can be noted that the respondents strongly agreed ( =4.50 to 4.68)    as to the transactional leadership styles exhibited by the school heads which consists of receiving clear goals and expectations from school leaders,  efforts and achievements are recognized and appreciated by school leaders, feedback and constructive criticism are provided to support their growth and development, the school provides opportunities for professional development and growth, the work environment feels structured and goal-oriented, rewards and incentives are tied to meeting specific targets or expectations, and the  leadership style focuses on maintaining efficiency and ensuring tasks are completed. Table 6 reveals that the teachers and the school heads differed significantly in their observations on three aspects (Z = 2.10 to 2.31, Sig. = 0.02 to 0.04< 0.05). The teachers strongly agreed ( =4.59) that they feel that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving the needs of teachers while the school heads just agreed ( =4.43) on it.  Likewise, while they both strongly agreed that the school promotes a culture of collaboration and teamwork among the staff, it was found out that the teachers’ perception were significantly higher ( =4.76) than the school heads’ perception ( =4.53).  In addition, the teachers strongly agreed ( =4.76) that the school effectively communicates its mission and goals to the teachers while the school heads only agreed on it ( =4.47). On the other hand, the teachers and the school heads did not differ significantly in their observations on four aspects (Z = 0.95 to 1.62, Sig. = 0.11 to 0.34> 0.05).  As such, the teachers ( =4.55 to 4.63)  and the school heads ( =4.56 and 4.78)  both strongly agreed that open communication and feedback are actively encouraged and valued, trust and transparency are fostered within the school and teachers are actively involved in developing and implementing school policies.  Moreover, teachers who strongly agreed  ( =4.62) that opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input was not statistically far from the school head’s perception of agree ( =4.40). Summing up, the respondents strongly agreed in all aspects of  servant leadership styles exhibited by school heads ( =4.53 to 4.71), particularly, their feeling that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving the needs of teachers, open communication and feedback are actively encouraged and valued, the school promotes a culture of collaboration and teamwork among the staff, opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input, trust and transparency are fostered within the school, the school effectively communicates its mission and goals to the teachers and teachers are actively involved in developing and implementing school policies.

Table 06: Perceived Servant Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads.

STATEMENTS	School Heads		Teachers		Grand Mean	Desc.	Z	Sig.
	Mean	Desc.	Mean	Desc.
1.       I feel that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving the needs of teachers.	4.43	A	4.68	SA	4.59	SA	2.21 *	0.03
2.       Open communication and feedback are actively encouraged and valued.	4.56	SA	4.68	SA	4.64	SA	0.95 NS	0.34
3.       The school promotes a culture of collaboration and teamwork among the staff.	4.53	SA	4.76	SA	4.68	SA	2.10 *	0.04
4.       Opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input.	4.40	A	4.62	SA	4.53	SA	1.16 NS	0.24
5.       Trust and transparency are fostered within the school.	4.55	SA	4.74	SA	4.68	SA	1.62 NS	0.11
6.       The school effectively communicates its mission and goals to the teachers.	4.47	A	4.76	SA	4.65	SA	2.30 *	0.02
7.       Teachers are actively involved in developing and implementing school policies.	4.63	SA	4.78	SA	4.71	SA	1.25 NS	0.21

  *Significant      ^NSNot Significant        SA = Strongly Agree    A = Agree   NAD = Neither Agree/Disagree

 

3.2 The School’s Organizational Performance

As depicted in Figure 1, the majority of the schools (46; 58%) were at the “Average- 51-75% increase” level; followed by “High 76-100% increase” level (28, 35%)  and the least were at the “Marginal 26-50% increase” level (6, 7%).

Figure 01: School organizational performance

 

3.3 Perceived Transformational Leadership Styles in Relation to Organizational Performance

Table 7 shows that the perceived transformational leadership styles exhibited by school heads and schools’ organizational performance were not significantly correlated (corr.= -0.05 to 0.00; Sig. = 0.10 to 0.98>0.05). Thus, having the feeling of empowerment and involvement in the decision-making processes of the school, having opportunities for professional development and growth and collaboration and teamwork are fostered among the staff will not contribute to the increase or decrease in the schools’ organizational performance. Moreover, the degree to how the school’s  promote  a shared vision and collective responsibility among the staff, encourage innovation and new ideas in teaching practices, establish a positive and supportive work environment and  adaption of its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers have no bearing on the schools’ organizational performance.

Table 07: Relationship between the Perceived Transformational  Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I feel empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school.	-0.15 NS	0.15
2.       The school promotes a shared vision and collective responsibility among the staff.	0.00 NS	0.97
3.       The school encourages innovation and new ideas in teaching practices.	-0.01 NS	0.92
4.       I have opportunities for professional development and growth.	-0.18 NS	0.10
5.       The school establishes a positive and supportive work environment.	-0.16 NS	0.15
6.       Collaboration and teamwork are fostered among the staff.	0.00 NS	0.98
7.       The school adapts its leadership style based on the needs and characteristics of the teachers.	-0.02 NS	0.87

^NSNot Significant

On the perceived autocratic leadership styles exhibited by school heads, as indicated in table 8, there is significant but indirect relationship between the one factor and schools’ organizational performance (corr. = -0.22, Sig. = 0.03 < 0.05). This implies that the higher is the feeling that decision-making is primarily top-down and centralized and the school’s organizational performance and recognition for efforts and achievements is limited perceived, the greater is the tendency that the school’s organizational performance will decline.  On the other hand, the perception that clear goals and expectations are provided to them by school leaders, feedback and input from teachers are not actively sought or considered, that there is a lack of flexibility and innovation in teaching practices, professional development opportunities are limited or dictated by school leaders and the work environment feels more directive and less collaborative have no bearing on the schools’ organizational performance whatsoever. (corr.= -0.22 to 0.11; Sig. = 0.10 to 0.98>0.05).

Table 08: Relationship between the Perceived Autocratic  Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I feel that decision-making is primarily top-down and centralized.	-0.22 *	0.03
2.       Clear goals and expectations are provided to me by school leaders.	-0.11 NS	0.30
3.       Feedback and input from teachers are not actively sought or considered.	-0.19 NS	0.06
4.       Recognition for efforts and achievements is limited.	-0.22 *	0.03
5.       There is a lack of flexibility and innovation in teaching practices.	-0.14 NS	0.17
6.       Professional development opportunities are limited or dictated by school leaders.	-0.11 NS	0.27
7.       The work environment feels more directive and less collaborative.	-0.16 NS	0.11

*Significant      ^NSNot Significant

As seen in Table 9, the perceived democratic leadership styles exhibited by school heads, particularly of  the feeling of empowerment and involvement in the decision-making processes of the school, is significantly but directly connected with the schools’ organizational performance (corr.= -0.22; Sig. = 0.04 <0.05).  This implies further that as this factor increases, the schools’ organizational performance will likely decrease. On the other hand, the rest of the factors were not significantly associated with schools’ organizational performance (corr.= -0.13 to 0.03; Sig. = 0.23 to 0.92>0.05).  Hence, degree to which the level as open communication and feedback from teachers are encouraged and valued, the school actively promotes collaboration and teamwork among the staff, opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input, the school’s mission and goals are effectively communicated to the teachers, the school actively involves teachers in the development of school policies and the leadership style adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual teachers have no bearing whatsoever on school’s organizational performance.

Table 09: Relationship between the Perceived Democratic Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads  and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I feel empowered and involved in the decision-making processes of the school.	-0.22 *	0.04
2.       Open communication and feedback from teachers are encouraged and valued.	-0.11 NS	0.28
3.       The school actively promotes collaboration and teamwork among the staff.	-0.01 NS	0.92
4.       Opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input.	-0.13 NS	0.23
5.       The school’s mission and goals are effectively communicated to the teachers.	-0.09 NS	0.38
6.       The school actively involves teachers in the development of school policies.	0.03 NS	0.82
7.       The leadership style adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual teachers.	-0.04 NS	0.70

*Significant      ^NSNot Significant

As seen in Table 10,  in two facets under the perceived Laisez-faire leadership styles exhibited by school heads, a significant but indirect relationship was observed with the  schools’ organizational performance (corr.= -0.26, -0.24; Sig. = 0.01, 0.02<0.05).  This implies a possibility that the school’s organizational performance may  decrease as when they are given autonomy to make decisions and manage classroom as they see fit more, as well as when the more they observe that trust is placed in them to take the lead in their professional growth and development.

Table 10: Relationship between the Perceived Laissez-faire Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I am given the autonomy to make decisions and manage my classroom as I see fit.	-0.26 *	0.01
2.       There is minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders.	-0.13 NS	0.18
3.       I have the flexibility to design my own curriculum and instructional methods.	-0.11 NS	0.27
4.       Decision-making processes involve a collaborative approach where teachers have a significant say.	-0.05 NS	0.63
5.       Resources and support are provided when requested, but I primarily rely on myself for professional development.	0.06 NS	0.59
6.       Trust is placed in me to take the lead in my professional growth and development.	-0.24 *	0.02
7.       The leadership style allows for creativity and exploration of innovative teaching practices.	-0.12 NS	0.24

*Significant      ^NSNot Significant

On the other hand, no significant association was seen between the rest of the factors and schools’ organizational performance (corr.= -0.13 to -0.05; Sig. = 0.18 to 0.63>0.05).  Specifically, the school’s organizational performance cannot be measured through the minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders, the flexibility to design their own curriculum and instructional methods, by having decision-making processes which involve a collaborative approach where teachers have a significant say, when resources and support are provided when requested, but they primarily rely on them server for professional development or when the leadership style allows for creativity and exploration of innovative teaching practices.

As indicated in Table 11, as to transactional leadership styles exhibited by school heads, a significant and indirect association was found in one aspect (corr.= -0.26; Sig. = 0.01 < 0.05).  It was found out that schools’ organizational performance will tend to decrease when there is more efforts and achievements recognized and appreciated by school leaders. On the other hand, no  significant  association  with schools’ organizational performance between the rest of the factors (corr.= -0.00 to 0.16; Sig. = 0.12 to 0.98>0.05). Thus, the school’s organizational performance cannot be determined by the degree on how clear goals and expectations from school leaders are received, feedback and constructive criticism are provided to support the growth and development and rewards and incentives are tied to meeting specific targets or expectations.  In addition, the extent to which the school provides opportunities for professional development and growth, how the work environment feels structured and goal-oriented and how the leadership style focuses on maintaining efficiency and ensuring tasks are completed have no bearing on the school’s organizational performance.

Table 11: Relationship between the Transactional Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I receive clear goals and expectations from school leaders.	-0.13 NS	0.22
2.       My efforts and achievements are recognized and appreciated by school leaders.	-0.26 *	0.01
3.       Feedback and constructive criticism are provided to support my growth and development.	-0.16 NS	0.13
4.       The school provides opportunities for professional development and growth.	-0.05 NS	0.63
5.       The work environment feels structured and goal-oriented.	0.00 NS	0.98
6.       Rewards and incentives are tied to meeting specific targets or expectations.	-0.16 NS	0.12
7.       The leadership style focuses on maintaining efficiency and ensuring tasks are completed.	-0.14 NS	0.19

*Significant      ^NSNot Significant

As seen in Table 12,  the perceived servant leadership styles exhibited by school heads and schools’ organizational performance were not significantly associated with schools’ organizational performance (corr.= -0.16 to 0.00; Sig. = 0.14 to 0.97>0.05). This implies that the schools’ organizational performance can not be measured through  the strength of feeling that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving the needs of teachers, extent of actively encouraging and valuing having open communication and feedback, and how the school promotes a culture of collaboration and teamwork among the staff.  In addition, the level of opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input, trust and transparency are fostered within the school, the school effectively communicates its mission and goals to the teachers and the teachers are actively involved in developing and implementing school policies have no bearing on schools’ organizational performance.

Table 12: Relationship between the Perceived Servant Leadership Styles Exhibited by School Heads  and Schools’ Organizational Performance.

STATEMENTS	Corr.	Sig.
1.       I feel that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving the needs of teachers.	-0.11 NS	0.29
2.       Open communication and feedback are actively encouraged and valued.	-0.12 NS	0.26
3.       The school promotes a culture of collaboration and teamwork among the staff.	-0.15 NS	0.16
4.       Opportunities for professional development and growth are provided based on teacher input.	0.00 NS	0.97
5.       Trust and transparency are fostered within the school.	0.02 NS	0.89
6.       The school effectively communicates its mission and goals to the teachers.	-0.16 NS	0.14
7.       Teachers are actively involved in developing and implementing school policies.	-0.10 NS	0.33

      ^NSNot Significant

4. CONCLUSION

Teachers and school heads in San Mateo, Isabela evaluated school heads’ leadership skills. This comprises transformative, authoritarian, democratic, Laissez-faire, transactional, and servant leadership. The statistics showed that over 50% of schools had a “Average- 51-75% increase” in organizational performance. Only 35% were at “High 76-100% increase” while the rest were at “Marginal 26-50% increase”. The two groups significantly agreed on most transformational leadership approaches of school heads. They liked that the school fosters a shared vision and collective responsibility among staff, encourages teaching innovation and new ideas, creates a positive and supportive work environment, and adapts its leadership style to teachers’ needs.  They also agreed that staff teams work together and have professional development opportunities. They felt empowered and involved in school decisions. They were concerned about school leaders’ authoritarian leadership styles, especially since they believed decision-making was top-down and centralized and that school leaders set clear goals and expectations.  Higher up, they strongly agreed that teachers’ feedback and input are not actively sought or considered; recognition for efforts and achievements is limited; teaching practices lack flexibility and innovation; school leaders limit or dictate professional development opportunities; and the work environment feels directive and less collaborative. According to the respondents, democratic leadership encourages and values open communication and feedback from teachers, promotes collaboration and teamwork among staff, effectively communicates the school’s mission and goals to teachers, actively involves teachers in policy development, and adapts to the needs and characteristics of the individual.  They felt empowered and participated in school decision-making and agreed that teacher involvement determines professional development and progress. The respondents agreed with school heads’ laissez-faire leadership styles, particularly in the following areas: autonomy to make decisions and manage classrooms as they see fit; minimal direct supervision or micromanagement from school leaders; collaborative decision-making processes where teachers have a significant say; and resources and support when needed.  The respondents also strongly agreed that school leaders use transactional leadership styles, which include receiving clear goals and expectations, recognizing and appreciating efforts and achievements, providing feedback and constructive criticism to support their growth and development, providing opportunities for professional development and growth, and providing a work environment. Teachers and school heads strongly agreed in all aspects of servant leadership styles exhibited by school heads, particularly their belief that school leaders prioritize empowering and serving teachers, actively encourage and value open communication and feedback, promote a culture of collaboration and teamwork among staff, provide opportunities for professional development and growth based on teacher input, and trust. All features of transformative and servant leadership were similar for teachers and school administrators.  Others, such as authoritarian, democratic, Laissez-faire, and transactional leadership, vary greatly. The perceived transformational leadership styles of school heads did not significantly affect school performance. Thus, empowering and involving staff in school decision-making, providing professional development and growth, and encouraging collaboration and teamwork will not affect organizational performance. One element, school leaders’ perceived autocratic leadership styles, affects school performance indirectly. The more the school feels that decision-making is top-down and centralized and that organizational performance and acknowledgment for efforts and achievements are constrained, the more likely its performance will drop.

REFERENCES

1. Beltran, R. M. (2019). Leadership orientation of the student-organization presidents of Isabela State University: An assessment. International Journal of Advanced Research in Management and Social Sciences, 8(10), 254-322.
2. Beltran, R. M. (2019). An assessement of the leadership skills of the student-organization presidents of Isabela State University. International Journal of Advanced research in Management and Social Sciences, 8(10), 364-414.
3. Ram Keshar Thapa (2024). Understanding of Soft Skills and its Contribution to Employability for Undergraduate Youth. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(01):22-34.
4. Beltran, R. M. (2022). The Relationship between Personal and Socio-Economic Profile of the Student-organization Presidents of the Isabela State University.
5. Cammayo, E., & Cammayo, K. (2020). Factors affecting the performance within the micro, small medium enterprise sector in Isabela, Philippines. Journal of Critical Reviews, 7(11), 3377-3386.
6. Ravi Kiran Karmacharya (2024). The Impact of School Culture on the Students Learning Experiences & Academic Achievement. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 3(01):14-21.
7. Rodriguez, R. (2011). THE SUPERVISORY SKILLS OF PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL PRINCIPALS IN THE DISTRICT.
8. Kalkan, Ü., Altınay Aksal, F., Altınay Gazi, Z., Atasoy, R., & Dağlı, G. (2020). The relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles, school culture, and organizational image. Sage Open, 10(1), 2158244020902081.
9. Emmanuel P. Abuzo (2023). Mathematics Anxiety, Learning Culture, Aptitude and Problem-Solving Ability of Senior High School Students: A Structural Model. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(12):676-702.
10. SULIO, M., & MARTIN, M. (2022). Proficiency and Approaches in Teaching Children with Learning Disabilities among Filipino Teachers. Quantum Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 3(2), 74-92.
11. Ajay Dhakal & Daya Raj Thapa(2023). Students Perceptions about male and female ESL Teachers’ Discourses in Classrooms. Dinkum Journal of Social Innovations, 2(11):628-639.