Motivations and Leadership Behavior of Principals

Motivations and Leadership Styles of Principals…2

Educational leaders take a huge part in the world of

education. They are the primary leaders in shaping today’s

youth into being better citizens of the community. But as

the succeeding generations undergo change, growth, and

maturity, these educational leaders have to adapt to said

things. Principals in public secondary schools in the

Philippines are expected to be goal-oriented, leading the

school altogether towards the improvement of quality

education.

Motivation is an important matter in the effectiveness

of an organization. Luthan (1998) defines motivation as, “a

process that starts with a physiological deficiency or need

that activates a behavior or a drive that is aimed at a goal

incentive”. Being principal is not an easy job; it comes

with a lot of responsibility, and the whole school in your

hands. Because of this, accepting principalship would mean

taking a big risk. But it is motivation that drives


educational leaders to take on the part, be it for

achievement, affiliation, or power. (McClelland,1961).

With the principal being motivated, his/her leadership

behavior would reflect on his/her performance. Northouse

(2007) defined leadership as “Leadership is a process

whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to

achieve a common goal.”. The principals of public secondary

schools find ways on how to influence the teachers under

them with the kind of drive they have. The way the principal

acts towards his/her faculty members and leads the whole

administration will mirror the level of motivation he/she

possesses.

In light of this, this study was conceived and put into

action. It determined selected public secondary school

principals’ motivation and leadership behavior along with

the dimension of consideration and initiating structure as

perceived by themselves and by the teachers of School Year

2012-2013. It is hoped that this study will contribute to


the deeper understanding of the motivation and leadership

behavior of selected public secondary school principals

without an attempt of generalizing the collective views of

public secondary school principals but simply to determine

how these variables sustain them towards effective

educational leadership.

Theoretical Framework

Motivation

David McClelland, an American psychologist, created a

motivational model called the Need Theory in his book “The

Achieving Society”. The theory focuses on explaining how the

need for achievement, affiliation, and power affects the

actions of people from a managerial context. This

motivational theory was developed in 1960s and states that

regardless of age, sex, and culture; we all have these three

types of motivation.

Achievement

Affiliation Power


These needs are found to varying degrees in all workers

and managers, and this mix of motivational needs

characterizes a person’s style and behavior.

Fig. 1 McClelland’s Need Theory

McClelland stated that these motivators are learned.

People motivated with achievement have a strong need to set

and accomplish goals, likes to receive regular feedback on

their progress and achievements, and often likes to work

alone. Those motivated by affiliation, on the other hand,

wants to belong to a group, wants to be liked, and will

often go along with whatever the rest of the group wants to

do. They favor collaboration over competition. Lastly,

people motivated with power like to win in arguments and

enjoy competition and winning, and also value status and

recognition.


Leadership Behavior

Behavioral Theories suggested that leadership is shown

by a person’s acts more than by his traits. It proposes that

appropriate behavior distinguishes leaders from non-leaders.

Patterns of actions used by different individuals determine

leadership potentials.

One famous study on Behavioural Theory is the Ohio

State Studies. The research discussed about the independent

dimensions of leader behavior: initiating structure and

consideration. Initiating structure is the extent to which a

leader is likely to define and structure his or her role and

those of his subordinates in the search for goal attainment.

Consideration is the extent to which a leader is likely to

have job relationships characterized by mutual trust,

respect for subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their

feelings.

LEADERSHIP BEHAVIORConsiderationInitiating StructureMOTIVATIONAchievementAffiliationPower

INPUT

SurveysQuestionnairesPersonal Data Sheets

PROCESS A 1-year faculty and school head development plan

OUTPUT


Conceptual Framework

Fig. 2 The Paradigm of the Study

The researchers considered Leadership Behavior and

Motivation as variables for the Input part of the evaluative

conceptual framework. Under leadership behavior, the


consideration and initiating structure attitudes of

principals are taken into account. Under motivation, the

Need Theory of David McClelland (Achievement, Affiliation,

Power) is considered.

In order to identify the differences and similarities of

principals’ leadership behaviors and motivations, surveys

and questionnaires were distributed to principal and

teacher-respondents along with Personal Data Sheets.

Findings of this study were used to organize a seminar on

work motivation and leadership behavior for principals.

Statement of the Problem

This study assessed the motivation and leadership

behaviors of principals in selected secondary schools in

Taguig City. Specifically, it will seek answers to the

following questions:

1. What is the profile of the principal-respondents in terms

of the following:


Age

Gender

Civil Status

Educational Background

Length of teaching service

Length of principalship service in present school

2. What is the profile of the teacher-respondents in terms

of the following:

Age

Gender

Civil Status

Educational Background

Present Position

Length of teaching service in present school

3. What is the perceived motivational level of the

principal-respondents in terms of:


Achievement

Affiliation

Power

4. Is there a significant difference between the motivation

levels of principals of public secondary schools in Taguig

City in terms of their educational background?

5. How do the teacher-respondents perceive the leadership

behaviors of their principals

in terms of

Consideration

Initiating Structure

6. What is the implication of the findings to the

educational leadership of principals in selected secondary

schools in Taguig City?

Hypothesis


There is no significant difference in the motivation

levels of principals from selected secondary schools in

Taguig in terms of educational background.

Significance of the Study

The purpose of this study was to measure the school

principals’ motivation and leadership behavior, and see how

this affected their current performance. This study will be

beneficial to teachers, students, and most especially to the

principals.

Teachers can benefit from this study for it promotes

good teaching and better environments for learning. Teachers

can also voice out what they perceive of their school

administrators freely, making use of their academic freedom.


Students can be of advantage with this study by

understanding how the school principals administrate their

institution.

Schools can also benefit from this study by assessing

how their principal’s motivators in doing the job

contributes to the educational leadership in their

institution.

Lastly, Principals will benefit from this study by

providing them a deeper understanding of the various

motivation and leadership styles. It can be a guide on

enhancing their motivation levels and leadership behaviors.

The results of this study may also give them insights which

would encourage then to plan upgraded strategies that will

improve the academic performance of their schools.

Scope and Limitations

This study focused on the different motivation and

leadership styles of every Principal from selected secondary


schools in Taguig. Thus, the information was limited only to

the output that the respondents from the selected schools in

Taguig City will provide such as data and information that

will come from the questionnaires distributed, as well as

the information from literatures and studies that will be

cited and reviewed.

Definition of Terms

Motivation – the need that activates a teacher’s behavior to

accept principalship

Leadership – a process where an individual influences a

group of individuals to achieve a common goal.

Principal – the chief executive officer of an educational

institution

Achievement – a result gained by effort

Affiliation – state of being associated with others

Power – possession of control or authority over others


Consideration – the extent to which a leader is likely to

have job relationships characterized by mutual trust,

respect for subordinates’ ideas, and regard for their

feelings

Initiating Structure – the extent to which a leader is

likely to define and structure his or her role and those of

his subordinates in search for goal attainment.

CHAPTER II

RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents local and foreign literature and

studies found to have related aspects to this study’s focus.

Foreign Literature


Principals Matter

Most teachers have long known that they affect the life

chances of children. But it took the work of economists to

convince the world of public policy to take seriously what

is now known as "teacher effectiveness. Now one of those

very same economists has turned to another subject that, to

most teachers and principals, is similarly self-evident:

Principals, like teachers, affect the life chances of

children, too (Chenoweth, 2012).

Stanford’s Eric Hanushek—who conducted many of the

early economic analyses on teacher impact – presented a new

research paper at a conference in Washington, D.C., hosted

by the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in

Educational Research. The findings show, in his words, that

“principals matter” (Chenoweth, 2010).

How much they matter to kids still needs further study

and depends on how you run the analysis. Do you control for

the kind of schools principals lead? Do you control for how


long they’ve been working in the school? On and on the

methodological questions run, but no matter how Hanushek

examined the numbers, he found that principals demonstrably

affected student achievement.

So, if principals matter, it would be worthwhile to

understand what highly expert and effective principals do

that matters so much. Are they good at hiring and keeping

strong teachers? Do they structure the work in such a way

that ordinary teachers can improve their practice and be

successful? Do they establish a climate and culture that

encourages teachers to try new things, but ensure that those

practices that aren’t successful in improving student

achievement are not continued? More broadly, do they

establish the expectation that all children will be

successful, and then engage all the adults in a school to be

part of solving the problems that could thwart such an

expectation from being realized? (Chenoweth, 2010)


A study was conducted to examine the practices and

beliefs of 33 high performing principals who work in schools

with substantial populations of low-income students and

students of color. In general, these schools are not

expected to perform well on standard achievement measures

because of the demographics of their students. And yet, they

all perform about as well – or better – than do white,

middle-class schools. These are schools worth paying

attention to, and can serve as an example for anyone

interested in helping all students learn. (Chenoweth, 2010)

The School Principal as Leader

Today, in a rapidly changing era of standards-based

reform and accountability, a different conception has

emerged , suggesting leadership that focuses with great

clarity on what is essential, what needs to be done and how

to get it done.

This shift brings with it dramatic changes in what

public education needs from principals. They can no longer


function simply as building managers, tasked with adhering

to district rules, carrying out regulations and avoiding

mistakes. They have to be (or become) leaders of learning

who can develop a team delivering effective instruction (The

Wallace Foundation, 2013).

Wallace’s work since 2000 suggests that this entails

five key responsibilities:

Shaping a vision of academic success for all

students, one based on high standards.

Creating a climate hospitable to education in

order that safety, a cooperative spirit and other

foundations of fruitful interaction prevail.

Cultivating leadership in others so that teachers

and other adults assume their parts in realizing

the school vision.

Improving instruction to enable teachers to teach

at their best and students to learn to their

utmost.


Managing people, data and processes to foster

school improvement.

Principals – and the people who hire and replace them –

need to be aware that school improvement does not happen

overnight. A rule of thumb is that a principal should be in

place about five to seven years in order to have a

beneficial impact on a school. In fact, the average length

of a principal’s stay in 80 schools studied by the

Minnesota-Toronto researchers was 3.6 years. They further

found that higher turnover was associated with lower student

performance on reading and math achievement tests,

apparently because turnover takes a toll on the overall

climate of the school.42 “It is far from a trivial problem,”

the researchers say. “Schools experiencing exceptionally

rapid principal turnover, for example, are often reported to

suffer from lack of shared purpose, cynicism among staff

about principal commitment, and an inability to maintain a

school-improvement focus long enough to actually accomplish


any meaningful change.” The lesson? Effective principals

stay put (The Wallace Foundation, 2013).

Leadership Styles of Principals

It is believed that 150 years ago, there was no schol

principals as they are today. Schools were run by maters who

taught, administered and ran all other programmes in schools

with increasing population came larger schools. Demand for

complex and administrative duties led to the practice of

designating one of the masters as Headmaster or Principal

and teacher responsible for school wide administration and

teaching. Over the years, administrative duties mounted and

teaching duties declined, the concept of full time

administrator evolved. (Mehrotra, 2005)

According to Hallak (1990), the Principal of a school

is the focus of authority in the school. The Principal is

responsible for exercising the expertise in true management

and leadership of school affairs. The principal’s leadership

behavior may help to establish a school climate and


conditions that contain high level of staff and student

trust.

“As goes the Principal so goes the school” (Blumberg

and Greenfield, 1980). The principal is the coordinating

agency, which keeps the balance and ensures the harmonious

development of the whole institution. He is the chief force

in molding the traditions, which develop as time goes on. As

a group leader, he undertakes the responsibility of

achieving the goals of education and for this he constantly

directs, guides and influences the thoughts, feelings, and

behavior of the colleagues. (Mehrotra, 2005)

The leadership in education means directing of

activities of those engaged in the training of minds towards

the achievement of goals set by those persons who have

organized themselves for the same. In the educational set up

this leadership is exercised by the Principal.

A leadership style has been viewed as the charismatic

manner in which a leader influences over the subordinates.


The highest performing leader/principal would be someone who

could combine the capacity to envision with the capacity to

influence (de Vries, 1995).

There are three styles in which the leader uses power

to lead. Each style – autocratic, participative, and free

rein – has benefits and limitations. A leader uses all three

styles over a period of time but one style tends to be the

dominant area.

Autocratic leaders centralize power and decision making

in themselves. The leaders take the full authority and

assume full responsibility. Participative leaders

decentralize authority. The leader and group are acting as a

social unit. Free-rein leaders avoid power and

responsibility. They depend largely upon the group to

establish its own goals and work out it own problems.

McClelland’s Need Theory


Needs-based motivation theories are based on the

understanding that motivation stems from an individual's

desire to fulfill or achieve a need. Human beings are

motivated by unsatisfied needs, and certain lower needs must

be satisfied before higher needs can be satisfied. In

general terms, motivation can be defined as the desire to

achieve a goal, combined with the energy, determination and

opportunity to achieve it.

In his 1961 book, The Achieving Society, David McClelland

identified three types of motivational needs, on which he

based a model to describe one’s style with regard to being

motivated and motivating others, depending on the different

level of needs within the individual. There are a few

distinct characteristics possessed by individuals with each

need. (Redmond, 2014)

According to McClelland, most people possess and portray a

mixture of these characteristics. Some people display a

strong bias toward a particular motivational need which, in


return, influences their behavior and influences their

working/management style. McClelland believed that those

who resembled the "affiliation motivation model" had

diminished objectivity as a manager. He attributed this

weakness to their need to be accepted and liked, which can

impair decision making. A person who fits the "authority

motivation model" is more devoted to an organization, and

also possesses a better work ethic. Those who seek power

within a leadership role may not even know how to get along

with others and how to compromise. Lastly, individuals who

fit the "achievement model" are more likely to be

overachieving and overbearing (Accel-team.com, 2010). These

types of people prefer tasks that are challenging and also

prefer to work alone. McClelland also believed that an

individual's need grouping changes as they grow, and those

who do not naturally possess specific needs can acquire them

through training and experience (Mendenhall, Punnett &

Ricks, 1995).


Professional Development and Personal Development

In recognizing the competencies that have to be managed

it is important to distinguish between professional

development, that is, occupational role development; staff

development which is about development in the particular

school context; and personal development, which is the

development of the whole person. (Tomlinson, 2004)

Foreign Studies

Different leadership styles exist for different

principals. Sasheeka Karunanayake (2012) conducted a study

on the Leadership Styles of Principals in Sri Lanka. This

current study and Karunanayake’s study are similar with the

way they try to describe the different leadership styles of

selected principals. Simple descriptive methods were used,

such as executing a survey design. It was found out that all

principals in the sample generally practiced democratic

leadership styles. Further the study brought evidence that

principals change their leadership style according to the


situation. Teacher-respondents have also identified their

principals as democratic leaders, and the study revealed

that the teachers were not supportive for autocratic or

laissez-faire leaderships styles (Karunanayake,2012).

Another study from the University of Minnesota enitled

School Principals as Instructional Leaders: An Investigation

of School Leadership Capacity in the Philippines (Sindhvad,

2009). It also takes into focus the school principals of

Philippine schools, but concentrates more on the Principals’

role as instructional leaders.

Analyses were conducted on data from 364 principals.

Linear regression analysis

showed that Filipino principals thought their capacity to

support teachers through instructional supervision and

professional development was dependent on their beliefs as

to whether these instructional supports could make a

difference in classroom instruction, their level of control,


time they spent on instructional leadership and their degree

of job

satisfaction. Principals’ thought their capacity to support

teachers through classroom

resources was only dependent on their level of control over

them and their beliefs as to whether they could make a

difference in classroom instruction. Principals’ beliefs as

to whether instructional supports could make a difference in

classroom instruction was the most significant factor

related to principals’ sense of capacity for providing

instructional supervision and professional development,

while their level of control was the more significant factor

related to principals’ sense of capacity for providing

classroom resources.(Sindhvad, 2009)

Adevinka Tella’s (2007) Work Motivation, Job

Satisfaction, and Organisational Commitment of Library

Personnel in Academic and Research Libraries in Oyo State,

Nigeria does not focus on principals but rather on library


personnel. Work motivation is the similar focus of this

study to the main research being conducted. It exists in

this study the correlation among perceived work motivation,

job satisfaction, and organizational commitment corresponds

with (Brown and Shepherd, 1997) who reported that motivation

improves workers’ performance and job satisfaction. The

result also agrees with Chess (1994), reported that certain

motivational factors contribute to the prediction of job

satisfaction. Furthermore, Stokes, Riger, and Sullivan’s

(1995) report that perceived motivation relates to job

satisfaction, commitment, and even intention to stay with

the firm corroborates this present result. (Tella, 2007)

Attributes of School Principals – Leadership Qualities

and Capacities (Sharma, ) examines the relationship of

teachers’ perception of the Leadership Capacities of their

Principals to the Leadership Qualities of Empathy, Decision

Making, Time Management, Comfort etc. 300 school teachers

from Malaysia participated in the study and was given


questionnaires on leadership capacities and qualities. They

were asked to perceive how their Principals play their role

in administering their school.

The results of the study revealed that the teachers’

perception of their principals’ leadership attributes were

somewhat positive. The teachers have rated their principals

to be having moderate level of leadership capacities and

leadership qualities. The findings from Malaysian

perspectives seemed to be in contrast with the result of a

study conducted by Hunter-Boykin and Evans (1995) in America

that 67% of the principals were rated as ineffective

principals by their teachers. This study has contradicted

the Researches carried out in Hongkong by Lee, Walker, and

Bodycott, (2000), and in China by Luo and Najjar, (2007).Its

noteworthy that leadership capacities and leadership

qualities of principals are strongly and positively

correlated. It clearly indicates that if principals have


excellent leadership qualities, they will be having

excellent leadership capacities (Sharma, )

Susan Taylor Powell’s (2004) research on the topic

Leadership and School Success: The Behaviors and Practices

of Principals in Successful At-Risk Schools concentrated on

the challenge brought about by at-risk schools to its school

principals. It focused on the question “How do principals

influence the learning outcomes to close the achievement

gap?”

The findings led to some of the following conclusions:

the vision of the principal is paramount for school success;

the culture of the school must be as nurturing to teachers

as the students; the teaching of the curriculum is foremost;

the principal protects time for teaching and provides

programs to address individual students’ differences; the

culture must embrace families as it does teachers and

students; the principal is sometimes a “benign dictator” who

makes decisions without the consideration of the teachers,


and the primary job of the principal is instructional

leader. (Powell, 2004)

Local Literature

Roles of School Heads as Instructional Leader,

Administrator, and Manager

Various studies support the idea that ‘it is the

leadership of the school that makes a difference between

mediocrity and excellence (Hugghes 1991). One can always

point to the principal’s leadership as the key to success of

a school that is vibrant and has a reputation of excellence

in teaching. Indeed, the school manager is the keystone in

the building of effective schools. (Licuanan 1994) found

that the nine positive outliner schools or outstandingly

effective schools in the country do have similarly effective

principals. There is a positively significant correlation

between effective principals and effective schools.


Leaders require followers, and some observers see signs

that school leadership is slowly losing its following.

Administrators seem to get less respect than before. Due

possibly to certain factors as political intervention,

leadership styles and practice, level of intelligence and

communication abilities, and the rumors on how and where he

is able to finish his graduate degree. In this way, lesser

respect and at the outset no more respect plus political

attacks are becoming more common. Moreover, some thoughtful

critics argue that traditional public support is eroding,

and that the public is “halfway out the schoolhouse door”

(David Mathews 1996). Whereas school leaders of long ago

inherited moral authority, today they have to earn it.

Along the way there are many efficient leaders who seem

to be searching for the right balance between managing and

leading. Cascadden found that, these principals recognized

and accepted both functions as essential but reported that

the reform movement was squeezing them between contradictory


demands. On the one hand, restructuring has pushed more

management decisions to the school site; on the other hand,

the current management theories emphasized the importance of

empowering leadership. This creates an obvious time crunch,

as well as the challenge of being both efficient and

collaborative- in a system that retains a top-down

orientation. In the country however, the situations

mentioned already support the reason why top-down

orientation still remains and quite slow to transform itself

on the new principles of leadership and management through

empowerment. But then, it is also good to review and reform

the management functions of the present and future breed of

school managers to make them more productive, dynamic and

efficient like their counterparts in various part of the

world. They should be made ready to meet the challenges of

this constantly changing world particularly now in the face

of the effective implementation of School Based Management

(Forbes, 2012)


Motivation by ambition and inspiration

Situational, transactional, and transformational

motivation paradigms are best combined in the workplace:

situational, to adapt to the follower’s needs;

transactional, for the needs of both leaders and followers;

and transformational, for the good of the organization,

which will also benefit leaders and followers.

Theoretically, if all these are properly applied, everybody

will be happy.

Transactional systems. In particular, transactional

motivation systems applications are vital to create the

conditions that attract and keep both leaders and followers

in the organization. These systems include salaries,

benefits, perks, incentives; as well as policies, rules,

procedures, and codes of discipline.

These are external motivators or what Herzberg calls

hygiene factors. These systems have to be kept dynamic

because they become dissatisfiers, if unchanged.


Internal motivators. In contrast, transformational

motivators address the internal needs identified by

Herzberg: achievement, recognition, the work itself,

responsibility, and career growth. That is why the studies

of James M. Burns on transformational motivation are said to

have brought leadership to a plane higher than

transactional. (Sanchez, 2006)

Theories of Workplace Motivation

The old concept of motivation was that of Abraham

Maslow, also known as the hierarchy of needs. Maslow said

that people are motivated to first satisfy the basic

physiological needs for food, sleep, sex, and safety. When

these are satisfied, people start to pay attention to their

social needs for affection, affiliation, etc. This is

followed by the need for esteem, reputation, honor, pride.

And when all these are satisfied, people become motivated

with their self-actualization needs, accomplishing one’s

ambitions, career aspirations, etc.


Many managers, including those who do not know Maslow’s

theory, have the same idea of motivation. That is why they

believe that the best way to motivate is to satisfy the

basic needs for salaries and benefits, which are equivalent

to satisfying the basic physiological and safety needs in

Maslow’s theory.

Enter Herzberg. In the 1960s, however, after years of

study and volumes of research data, Frederick Herzberg

contradicted Maslow. He said that it is not a matter of

hierarchy, but a differentiation between “motivators” and

“hygiene” or maintenance factors. Herzberg says that the

true motivators are career advancement, responsibility, the

work itself, recognition, and achievement. These are the

chargers of the internal batteries that drive people to do

what they do (Sanchez, 2006).

Transformational Leadership

According to Kouzes and Posner, authors of “The

Leadership Challenge,” five behaviors characterize


transformation leaders. They challenge the process, inspire

a shared vision, enable others to act, model the way, and

encourage the heart.

How do transformational leader behaviors influence

employee attitudes? When a leader challenges, enables,

inspires, models and encourages, he creates opportunities

for work to serve a higher sense of purpose.

Transformational leader behaviors create opportunities for

followers to be treated as human individuals with unique

dignity and soul. Workers do not feel a sense of

powerlessness in being treated like a “thing” that gets paid

for services rendered.

The behavior of leaders arouses the emotions of

followers, making them feel more confident, significant,

powerful, alive, and excited in their work. Their behavior

creates conditions that motivate and energize followers in

their work, build and sustain trust in the leader as well as

cultivate commitment to organization.


By expanding follower needs and focusing on a common

vision, transformational leaders elevate their subordinates

from being dependent on them to being responsible, and self-

governing individuals. They become receptive to greater

responsibilities and converted to leaders themselves.

(Francisco, 2008)

The Filipino Worker

According to the October 2003 Bureau of Labor and

Employment Statistics, a quarter of the workforce is twenty-

four years old and below. Most of the workers re found in

the NCR, Cavite, Batangas, Laguna, Rizal, Quezon, and

Central Luzon. Most are in retail and trade, manufacturing,

and transportation, storage, and communication. Although

literacy rates are high, only half of our workers are high

school graduates and only about one of five workers has

completed college education.

However, poverty still remains a pressing issue in the

country. Sadly, more than one-third, or a total of 26.5


million Filipinos, live below the poverty line (National

Statistics Coordination Board, 2002). Not surprisingly, more

than half of workers in the 1997 Work Orientations Survey

consider themselves poor.

But why do people work? For most respondents in the

1997 Work Orientation Survey, work is seen as a person’s

most important activity. However, three-fourths also agree

that ajob is just a way of earning money. Given the high

incidence of poverty, work is primarily seen as a means of

meeting basic need.

Other than a means to survive, however, work also

provides a venue for individual growth. Majority of

respondents in the 2001 World Values Survey agree that one

needs top have a job fully develop one’s talents. In fact,

65 percent also believe that people who don’t work become

lazy. In a focus group discussion conducted by the Personnel

Management Association of the Philippines (2000) one FGD

participant stated, “Work is core to my existence as an


individual because I have tested myself. I tried staying at

home, something was missing… I was always a working wife, so

for me work is a vehicle for fulfillment in terms of talents

and abilities coming out.

When asked about things that are of primary importance

in looking for a job, 78 percent of workers in World Values

Survey said that the most important element was good job

security, that is, the company has very minimal risk of

closing down. With the increasing incidence of mergers,

acquisitions, downsizing, and closures, the value for job

security is understandable. In fact, only 28 percent of

respondents in the Work Orientation Survey did not worry

about the possibility of losing their jobs. Other than job

security, 38 percent of the World Values Survey respondents

mentioned “good pay” as a primary consideration. Indeed,

having a job with handsome pay is extremely important for

most Filipino Workers, as most are concerned with making


both ends meet. This reality is clearly supported by the

1.06 million overseas Filipino workers all over the world.

Despite the grim economic picture, the positive spirit

of the Filipino still shines through. Based on the Work

Orientation Survey, Filipino workers are generally happy

with their situation. However, level of happiness is

significantly correlated with their income, and satisfaction

with their financial condition. That is, happy workers are

those who are satisfied with their financial situation and

their earnings. Results also revealed that happiness is a

function of job level. Those who are in the higher ranks are

happier than those in lower- level jobs. This is

understandable because higher- level jobs often mean greater

autonomy, challenge, and compensation – factors that

Filipinos look for in a job. (Hechanova, 2005)

Local Studies

The study entitled Leadership Styles of Secondary

School Principals: Implication to School’s Academic


Performance in the Division of Masbate (Marzan, 2009)

answered the question “Is there a significant relationship

between the leadership styles and the NAT results in 5

learning areas?”

The study made use of descriptive and analytical

research, and also used surveys using questionnaires as a

tool in collecting data. The researcher resorted to

unstructured interview to validate and/or strengthen the

presentation and analysis of the findings. Documentary

analysis was employed to reinforce the responses of the

school principals, teachers, and the test results.

The findings revealed that the self-assessment made by

the principals were at times autocratic, democratic, and

laissez faire in performing their functions. Incidence of

autocratic style was “moderately demonstrated” in five of

the twelve functions.

Autocratic style of leadership in performing the

functions of the principals based on the assessment of


teachers was “moderately demonstrated.” For example –

(Administers and manages the personnel, physical, and fiscal

resources of the school : 3.11; performs such other

functions as may be assigned by the secretary, regional

director and schools division superintendent: 3.11; and

recommends the staffing complement of the school based on

needs: 3.08.

The practice of democratic style showed that school

principals “strongly demonstrated” leadership in eight of

their twelve functions. Functions in the assessment were:

Creates and environment within the school that is conducive

to learning: 3.68; and establishing school and community

networks and encouraging the active participation of teacher

organizations, non academic personnel of public schools, and

the parent- teacher community associations: 3.67. Of the

four functions that were moderately demonstrated,

“Introduces new innovative modes of instruction to achieve

higher learning outcomes” and “Performs such other functions


as may be assigned by the secretary, regional director, and

school division superintendent” yielded the highest mean

ratings of 3.49 and 3.48. not a single function was rated

sometimes nor occasionally.

At times, the principals also opted for laissez faire.

This was “moderately demonstrated” in performing ten

functions. The functions with the highest mean ratings were:

Offers educational programs, projects, and services which

provide equitable opportunities for al learners in the

community: 2.83; and Administers and manages the personnel,

physical, and fiscal resources of the school: 2.80.

Nonetheless, they “sometimes demonstrated” this style as in

Sets the mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the

school: 2.50; and Encourages and enhances staff development:

2.39.

The coefficient between the leadership style and

Filipino is the highest (0.270) followed by English (0.206)

and Araling Panlipunan (0.188). the lowest was Mathematics


(0.068). But, all the coefficients remain insufficient (p <

0, 0.01) even taken as a whole to establish a significant

relationship. This concludes that the leadership styles of

the school principals has no relation to the performance in

the National Achievement Test.

Another study focusing on the leadership behavior of

secondary school principals by Toledo (1999) also made use

of descriptive research methods, surveys, and

questionnaires. The differences is that it tried to find out

whether leadership styles of secondary school principals had

an influence on quality education in the secondary schools

in Bulacan. The results revealed that the majority of the

teacher respondents evaluated their principals’

administrative behavior in terms of physical plant and

facilities, school organization and management, provision

for school development, improvement of the curriculum,

upgrading teaching competency and research and evaluation

with a mean rating of 4.21- 5.00 which were verbally


described as “always” while majority of the school

principals evalutaed themselves from 4.21- 5.00 which was

also described as “always”. Theses results implied that

school principals were actually performing their duties and

obligations, and that the relationship of the different

administrative and supervisory behavior of the school

principals and the school’s organizational climate ranged

from 0.7750 to 0.9522 which was verbally interpreted as

strong to very strong relationship indicating that as the

evaluation of the leadership behavior of the school

principal becomes higher, then organizational climate of the

school also goes higher (Toledo, 1999).

Toledo’s study also revealed that out of the 16 items

that described the condition of the organizational climate

of the school, 14 items obtained a weighted mean ranging

from 4.25 to 4.80 which were verbally interpreted as “always

true” while 2 items obtained a mean rating of 4.09 which was

verbally interpreted as “most of the time true” which


implied that the existing organizational climate of the

school in the division of Bulacan is very conducive to the

teaching-learning situation and that there existed within

the study a mutual trust, and respect among principals,

teacher, pupils, parents, and the community.

Achievement Motivation, Work Attitudes, and Performance

of Public Elementary School Principals (Pagaling, 2007)

concentrates on the level of motivation of public elementary

school principals of the division of Ilocos Norte and their

relationships with performance. It involved descriptive-

correlational method with 73 elementary school principals

who were purposively selected from the whole division of

Ilocos Norte. Data on the profile, leevl of achievement

motivation, wqork attitudes, and the performance of the

elementary school principals as perceived by themselves and

their supervisors were gathered with the use of

questionnaires.


Data gathered were analyzed using frequency counts,

percentages, weighted means, Pearson product moment

correlation, and t-test of difference between two

means.Findings showed that the majority of the respondents

are above the 50 years of age, females, married, Masters

degree holders with Doctoral units and occupying elementary

school postions for at elast 5 years. Most of them receive a

salary range of 15,000- 17,000 php. Results revealed the

respondents’ high level of motivation along work and

personal growth, a high level of motivation along mastery,

competitivenes, salary, and professional growth. (Pagaling,

2007)

Results of the t-test of difference revealed that there

were no significant difference in the mean performance

ratings of the elememtary school principals as rated by

themselves and by their supervisors. It was also found out

that among the socio- demographic variables of the

elementary school principals, only age had significant


relationship with the achievement motivation along work,

sex, civil status, educational attainment, monthly salary,

and length of experience as principals had no significant

relationship on each of the components of achievement

motivation.

Moreover, the work attitudes of the elementary school

principals were not affected by the components of

achievement motivation. The overall level of achievement

motivation showed no significance to the overall level of

work attitudes. Specifically, correlation exists among the

achievement motivation components such as work, mastery,

competitiveness, compensational salary, professional and

personal growth and the overall performance of the

elementary schoo, principals. Thus, the overall level of

achievement motivation is significantly related to the

performance of the principals.

Palomanes’ (1995) study regarding the motivations and

leadership styles of school heads in Ilocos Sur seeked to


determine the leadership characteristics of principals in

terms of their motivations and leadership styles. Like this

current study, Palomanes’ research on the extent of

motivation focused on the hierarchy of needs and the

leadership manifestations focused on the people oriented,

task oriented, and shared leadership styles.

Specifically, it sought to find out the extent of self-

motivations of the school heads and the extent to which they

motivate their teachers along the hierarchy of needs; the

comparison of the school heads’ extent of motivation in

light of school district, sex, civil status, age,

educational attainment, and years of experience; the level

of leadership manifestation in light of the above stated

moderator variables. The study focused on the extent of

motivations and level of leadership manifestation of 60

school headsof five selected school districts of Ilocos Sur,

namely Bantay, Magsingal, Sto. Domingo- San Ildefonso, San

Vicente, and Sta. Catalina districts, as of A.Y 1994- 1995.


The extent of motivations focuses on the hierarchy of needs

and the level of leadership manifestations focused on the

people oriented, taskl oriented, and shared leadership

styles.

Two sets of standardized data- gathering tools were

used: the Herzner- Wallace Motivational Questionnaire and

the Task- People Leadership Questionnaire. To determine the

significance of the difference in extent of motivations

according to the moderator variables of school distrcits,

sex, civil status, age, educational attainment, and years of

experiecne, the Analysis of Variance was used. To determine

the significance of the differences in level of leadership

amnifestation according to moderator variables, the chi-

square test was employed.The following conclusions were

drawn from the study: The extent of self-motivation along

the hierarchy of needs is moderate. The pre-dominant

motivating factors among the school heads are self-

actualization needs. The level of leadership manifestatin of


the school heads is average, and are predominantly people-

oriented leaders (Palomanes, 1995).

Altura (2010) conducted a research study entitled

Motivations and Leadership Behavior of Principals of

Christian Secondary Schools which became the offshoot study

for this current research. Altura’s research is a pioneer

study situated within the Christian School system, which

focused on the motivation and leadership behavior of

secondary school principals.

Four interesting motivational factors yielded in the

study: spiritual, cultural, organizational, and social.

Findings showed that principals in the study exhibit high in

the dimension of consideration and initiating structure

(Altura, 2010). It concluded that the motivation and

leadership behavior of principals contribute positively to

their effective educational leadership.


CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This part of the research presents the type of research

method used, description of the respondents, sample and

sampling technique, instruments used in gathering data,

research locale and treatment of data.

Research Method

This study entitled "Motivation and Leadership Behavior

in Selected Secondary Schools in Taguig City" was an

evaluative research which assessed the motivations and

leadership behavior of principals as perceived by themselves

and the teacher respondents. Trochim stated that "a key

reason for doing qualitative research is to investigate and


become more experienced with a particular phenomenon of the

researcher's interest in order to deliver a detailed

description." This study desired to depict the state of

discipline and creativity of the principals during these

modern times.

The researchers utilized the descriptive research

method in conducting the study. Descriptive research is a

method used to obtain information relating to the current

status of an issue or phenomenon to describe what exists

within the variables or conditions of the situation. The two

most common types of descriptive research tools are surveys

and observation. The researchers made use of questionnaires

which were distributed in selected schools within Taguig

City and were accomplished by principals and teachers, and

provided the researchers with the needed information. The

researchers made use of their observations as well as their

experiences from their field study in order to come up with

their personal description of the answer to the research


problem. The descriptive method or design is appropriate for

studies which aim to find out what prevails in the present

conditions or relationships, held opinions and beliefs,

causes and effects, and developing trends. Knowledge of

familiarization of any is not only the concern of

descriptive research, it also seeks to determine

relationships between variables, explore causes of

phenomena, test hypotheses and develop generalizations,

principles or theories on the basis of its findings.

Description of Respondents

The respondents of the study will be the teachers and

principals from selected secondary schools in Taguig City.

The researchers chose to label the schools as Schools 1-5 so

as to keep the confidentiality agreement and respect the

privacy of the respondents.

Sample

The study’s sample respondents were the teachers and

principals from selected public secondary schools. 26


teachers and one principal came from School 1, 43 teachers

and one principal from School 2, 40 teachers and one

principal from School 3, 64 teachers and one principal from

School 4, and 41 teachers plus one principal from School 5.

Sampling Technique

The public secondary schools that were used as a

research locale were picked through the famous simple random

sampling called the Cluster Method. 9 schools from Taguig

City were written in a small piece of paper each, and then

the researchers picked five out of the group of papers.

Letters were then sent out to the selected public

secondary schools asking for the total number of teachers

they have. In order to identify how many teacher-respondents

and principal-respondents per school will participate in the

study, the researchers used the Stratified Random Sampling

method.

First, the researchers solved for the sample size using

Slovin’s formula.


n= N1+Ne2

Where n = sample size

N = population size

e = margin of error

The total population size is 473, from the total

population of 58 for School 1, 93 for School 2, 89 for

School 3, and 142 and 91 for Schools 4 and 5 respectively.

For this research, the researchers used a margin of error of

0.05.

The total sample size acquired from the formula was

216.72, rounded up to 217 respondents.

Second, the researchers used the stratified random

sampling to identify the number of respondents per school.

From the computation, the following number of respondents

was formulated, as seen in Table 1.

TABLE 1


Stratified Random Sample of the Number of Respondents from

Each Public Secondary School

SchoolTeacher-

respondents

Principal-

respondents

1 25 1

2 42 1

3 40 1

4 64 1

5 41 1

Instruments

The researchers distributed two types of survey

questionnaires. The instruments used are as follows:

Leader Behavior Description Questionnaire XII (LDBQ)

1957

Leadership Behavior Description Questionnaire was

developed by the staff of the Ohio State Leadership Studies

(Hemphill & Coons, 1957). The first version of the

questionnaire initially appeared in 1957, and the last


version was formed in 1963 which was the 12th draft revised

by Ralph Stogdill. LBDQ-XII contains the list of items that

may be used to describe the behavior of a principal.

Respondents are required to identify how frequently the

leader engaged in a particular behavior as described by the

item, whether the leader (4) always (3) often (2)

occasionally or (1) never acts as described. LBDQ is a

popular instrument with several studies verifying its

effectiveness as emphasized by Fiether (1971) in his study.

Stogdill (1969) asserts that the descriptions of the

consideration and initiation of structure by leaders are

highly stable and consistent from one situation to another.

Motivators for Accepting Principalship

The Survey Questionnaire entitled Motivators for

Accepting Principalship (SQMAP) It is a 35-item rating

scale adapted from the study of Lucero (2006). This

instrument consists of generalized statements

describing the respondents’ reasons why they joined


principalship. The respondents are to use a check mark

that best describes the extent to which they agree that

such factors have influenced their decision: (4)

Strongly Agree, (3) Agree, (2) Disagree, and (1)

Strongly Disagree.

To gather needed information not included in the

questionnaire, a separate Personal Data Sheet (PDS) Form

were collected from both the high school teachers and the

secondary school principals.

TABLE 2

Researcher- Distributed Statements of the Dimensions of

Motivation


Dimension ofMotivation No. of Statements

Achievement- 13 statements

- #s1,3,4,5,8,9,14,15,19,20,23,24,31

Affiliation - 10 statements- #s 7,10,11,13,17,18,21,22,28,30

Power- 12 statements

- #2,6,12,16,25,26,27,29,32,33,34,35

The researcher focused on the three aspects of McClelland’s

Need Theory namely Achievement, Affiliation, and Power. The

researcher analyzed the SQMAP and distributed the 35

generalized statements to the four dimensions of motivation

which can be seen in Table 2.

TABLE 3

Researcher-Conducted Range of Scores for the Analysis and

Interpretation of Data

Means of InterpretationScale Range Description432

3.5-4.02.5-3.491.5-2.49

Very HighHighLow


1 1.0-1.49 Very Low

To determine how high the principals’ motivation is for

each dimension, the researchers created distribution

categories and the corresponding ranges as a point for the

analysis of data as can be seen in Table 3.

The LBDQ Form XII questionnaire was scored based on the

leadership behavior dimensions – Initiating Structure and

Consideration for each faculty. It is composed of 40 short

descriptive statements of leadership behavior. The members

of the group specified the frequency with which the

principal engages in each form of behavior by checking one

of the four adverbs: 4 – Always, 3 – Often, 2 –

Occasionally, and 1- Never.

Each item was scored on a scale of 40 original items in

the LBDQ, but only 30 are to be scored, 15 for each

dimension of the leadership behavior dimensions.


To prevent the respondents from forming a pattern of

responses, item 5, 10, 15, 19, 25, 30, 33, 36, 37 and 40 are

not scored on both leadership behavior dimensions.

TABLE 4

Range of Scores for the Analysis and Interpretation of Data*

LBDQ Form XII Verbal Interpretation

Scale Description Scale Range Descriptio

n

4321

AlwaysOften

Occasionally

Never

4321

3.5-4.02.5-3.491.5-2.491.0-1.49

Very HighHighLow

Very Low

*adapted from the study of Pestano, 2009

In order to determine how the teachers measure the

leadership behavior of their respective secondary school

principal, the researchers adapted distribution categories

and the corresponding ranges as a point for the analysis and

interpretation of data from the study of Pestano (2009) as

can be seen in Table 4.

Data Gathering Procedures


The researchers started collecting data by securing a

letter addressed to the selected public secondary schools in

Taguig. Said letter asked for permission to acquire

information from the teacher-respondents and principal-

respondents. Upon approval of the request, survey

questionnaires were given to the principals and teachers.

The SQMAP was given to the principal- respondents while the

LBDQ Form XII was given to the high school teacher-

respondents.

Accomplished questionnaires were then collected, hand

scored, and tallied by the researchers, with the help of

Microsoft Office 2007’s Excel software.

Statistical Treatment of Data

The first and second problems of the study were

answered through getting the frequency distribution of the

information gathered from the Personal Data Sheets.


For the third problem of this study, the researchers

used the weighted mean to weigh the level of motivation in

the three dimensions.

For the fourth problem of this study, the Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) was used. ANOVA (also called the F-test) is

used to test the significance of difference between means of

3 or more sets of data simultaneously. It is a method of

dividing the variation observed in experimental data into

different parts, each part assignable to a known source,

cause, or factor.

The F-test was integrated to the three aspects of

motivations (achievement, affiliation, power). In this

method of testing the difference between means

simultaneously, the decision arrived at is the rejection of

the null hypothesis, then the search continues to find out

which pair accounts for the difference.

To compute for the Analysis of Variance, the

researchers utilized the use of a software called MiniTab, a


statistics software package developed in Pennsylvania State

University developed by researchers Barbara F. Ryan, Thomas

A. Ryan, Jr., and Brian L. Joiner in 1972. It now has 16

versions, and the researchers made use of the 14th version

released in 2003. MiniTab has a lot of statistical tools to

offer, from Regression tests to different types of ANOVA.

With this, MiniTab offers credible statistical computation

and interpretation of data, with an additional feature of

presenting the data in different graphical or tabular forms.

To be able to answer the fifth problem of this study,

the researchers used the weighted mean to distinguish how

the teacher-respondents perceived their principal’s

leadership behavior in terms of consideration and initiating

structure.

Research Locale

The study will be conducted in Taguig City, The

principals will be the focus of the study because of the


schools’ need for a better, more efficient and effective

system through the behavior of the school administration.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the findings, analysis, and

interpretation of data gathered with the objective of

finding out the difference in motivation levels of selected

secondary school principals and their leadership behaviors

as perceived by selected secondary school teachers.

Question1: What is the profile of the principal-

respondents in terms of the following:

a. Age

Table 5.1 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Age

Age F %41-45 0 0.0046-50 1 20.0051-55 3 60.0056-60 1 20.0061-65 0 0.00


TOTAL 5 100.00

The table shows that three (3) principals ranges the

age from 51-55 years of age while one (1) principal ranges

from 46-50 years old and the other one (1) principal ranges

from 56-60 years old.

b. Gender

Table 5.2 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Gender

Gender F %Male 3 60.00

Female 2 40.00TOTAL 5 100.00

The table shows that 60.00% or three (3) of the

principal-respondents are male while 40.00% or two (2) are

female.

c. Civil status

Table 5.3 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Civil Status


Civil Status f %Single 0 0.00Married 5 100.00Widowed 0 0.00Divorced 0 0.00TOTAL 5 100.00

The table presents that the civil status of all the principal-respondents are married.

d. Educational background

Table 5.4 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Educational Background

Educational Background F %Bachelor's Degree 0 0.00

Bachelor's Degree with MA units 0 0.00Master's Degree 0 0.00

Master's Degree with Doctoralunits

2 40.00

Doctoral Degree 3 60.00TOTAL 5 100.00

The table presents that 60.00% or three (3) of the

principal-respondents have finished their Doctoral Degree

and 40.00% or two (2) of them have accomplished their

Master’s Degree and acquired Doctoral Units.

e. Length of teaching service


Table 5.5 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Length of Teaching Service

Length of Teaching Service f %2-5 yrs 0 0.006-8 yrs 0 0.009-11 yrs 0 0.0012-15 yrs 0 0.00

more than 15 years 5 100.00TOTAL 5 100.00

The table shows that all of the five (5) principal-

respondents had been in the teaching service for more than

15 years.

f. Length of principalship service in present school

Table 5.6 Profile of the Principal-respondents in termsof Length of Principalship in Present School

Length of Principalship inPresent School

f %

2-5 yrs 4 80.006-8 yrs 1 20.009-11 yrs 0 0.0012-15 yrs 0 0.00

more than 15 years 0 0.00TOTAL 5 100.00

The table 5.6 shows that 80.00% or four (4) of the

principals are still new in their present position with 2-5


years while the other one is currently sitting on his

position for 6-8 years.

Question2: What was the profile of the teacher-

respondents in terms of the following:

a. Age

Table 6.1 Profile of the teacher-respondents interms of Age

Age F %21-25 24 13.8726-30 30 17.3431-35 31 17.9236-40 26 15.0341-45 23 13.2946-50 22 12.7251-55 12 6.9456-60 5 2.8961-65 0 0.00TOTAL 173 100.00

The table 6.1 reveals that 31 of the teacher-

respondents age ranges from 31-35 years old while five (5)

of the teacher-respondents age ranges from 56-60 years old.

b. Gender


Table 6.2 profile of the teacher-respondents interms of Gender

Gender F %Male 54 31.21Female 119 68.79TOTAL 173 100.00

The table reveals that 119 or 68.79% of the teacher-

respondents are female while 54 or 31.21% of them are male.

c. Civil status

Table 6.3 Profile of the teacher-respondents in terms of Civil Status

Civil Status F %Single 76 43.93Married 92 53.18Widowed 5 2.89Divorced 0 0.00TOTAL 173 100.00

The table 6.3 shows that 92 or 53.18% of the teacher-

respondents’ civil status is married while 76 or 43.93% of

them are single and 5 or 2.89% of them are widowed.

d. Educational background

Table 6.4 Profile of the teacher-respondents interms of Educational Background


Educational Background F %Bachelor's Degree 62 35.84

Bachelor's Degree with MA units 77 44.51Master's Degree 26 15.03

Master's Degree with Doctoral units 8 4.62Doctoral Degree 0 0.00

TOTAL 173 100.00

The table 6.4 presents that 77 or 44.51% of the

teacher-respondents holds a Bachelor Degree with MA Units

while 8 or 4.62% of these respondents holds a Doctoral

Degree.

e. Present Position in School

Table 6.5 Profile of the teacher-respondents in termsof Present Position in School

Present Position in School F %Teacher I 137 79.19Teacher II 17 9.82Teacher III 2 1.16Teacher IV 0 0.00Teacher V 0 0.00Teacher VI 0 0.00

Master Teacher I 17 9.83Master Teacher II 0 0.00

TOTAL 173 100.00


The table 6.5 demonstrates that 137 or 79.19% of the

teacher-respondents are Teacher I in the present position in

school in which they belong while 2 or 1.16% of the teacher-

respondents present position in school is being Teacher III.

f. Length of teaching service in present school

Table 6.6 Profile of the teacher-respondents in terms ofLength of Teaching Service in Present School

Length of Teaching Service in PresentSchool

F %

Below 2 years 28 16.182-5 years 53 30.646-8 years 49 28.329-11 years 22 12.7212-15 years 21 12.14

TOTAL 100.00

The table 6.6 displays that 53 or 30.64% of the teacherrespondents are 2-5 years in teaching service in present school while 12-15 years of the 21 or 12.14% of teacher-respondents has a length of teaching service in their present school.

Question 3: What is the perceived motivational level of

the principal-respondents in terms of:

a. Achievement


Table 7.1 Motivation Levels as Perceived by the Principal-respondents in Terms of Achievement

Principals Raw Score Mean Score1 42 3.232 44 3.383 37 2.854 37 2.855 35 2.69

Mean 3.00SD 0.29

The table shows a high motivation level of achievement

with a mean score of 3.00. Principals who have high

motivation levels in terms of achievement are motivated by

setting goals and meeting them and getting regular

feedback.. The Achievement level has a standard deviation of

0.29 which shows that the principals’ responses were

similar.


Mean 2.86SD 0.34

b. Affiliation


Table 7.2 Motivation Levels as Perceived by the Principal-respondents in Terms of Affiliation

Table 7.2 shows that at a mean score of 2.86,

principals get a high level of motivation in terms of

affiliation. Affiliation as a motivation includes having the

need to be accepted in the workplace, or to form deeper

relationships with colleagues. The responses have a standard

deviation of 0.34, showing that they do not deviate from

each other.

c. Power

Table 7.3 Motivation Levels as Perceived by the Principal-respondents in Terms of Power


Mean 3.42SD 0.33

Table 7.3 implies a high motivation level of principals

in terms of Power. With a mean score of 3.42, principals

Data

pow eraffiliationachievem ent

4.00

3.75

3.50

3.25

3.00

2.75

2.50

Boxplot of achievem ent, affiliation, pow er


with a high level in this dimension tend to have the need to

be respected by other people in the workplace. The standard

deviation of 0.33 implies that there is almost no difference

in the motivation levels of the principal-respondents.

Fig. 3. Boxplot of Motivational Dimensions and Levels

Figure 3 shows the difference between the motivation

levels of the five principal-respondents. The highest of

these motivation levels is that of Power, with a mean of

Data

Doctoral DegreeMasters Degree

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

Boxplot of M aster's Degree, Doctoral Degree


3.42, and the lowest is that of Affiliation, with a mean

score of 2.86.

Question 4: Is there a significant difference between the motivation levels of the principals in selected public secondary schools in Taguig City in terms of their educational background?

Fig. 4 Boxplot of Values grouped into the Principal’s

Educational Backgrounds (Achievement)

Fig. 4 shows that there is no significant difference in

the achievement motivation levels of the principal-

respondents when grouped according to their educational

backgrounds. The data has a pooled standard deviation of

Data

Doctoral DegreeM asters Degree

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

2.9

2.8

2.7

2.6

2.5

2.4

Boxplot of M asters Degree, Doctoral Degree


0.27, indicating that there is very low difference in their

responses.


Educational Backgrounds (Affiliation)

Fig. 5 indicates that there is no significant

difference in the affiliation motivation levels of the

principal-respondents when grouped according to their

educational backgrounds. The data has a pooled standard

deviation of 0.15, indicating that the responses were

Data

Doctoral DegreeM asters Degree

3.9

3.8

3.7

3.6

3.5

3.4

3.3

3.2

3.1

3.0

Boxplot of M asters Degree, Doctoral Degree


similar. The mean scores may differ a little largely, but

both scores fall in the high level.


Educational Backgrounds (Power)

Fig. 6 shows that there is no significant difference in

the power motivation levels of the principal-respondents

when grouped according to their educational backgrounds. The


data has a pooled standard deviation of 0.34, implying

similar responses from both groups.

Question 5: How do the teacher-respondents perceive the

leadership behaviors of their principals in terms of

consideration and initiating structure?

Table 8.1. Perceptions of the High School Teachers of School1 on the Leadership Behavior of their Principals in terms of

Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean

1. He does personal favors for faculty members. 2 16 7 2 2.33

3. He does things to make it pleasant to be. 0 6 14 7 3.04

4. He is a hospitable leader to new members of the faculty. 0 6 13 8 3.07

6. He is easy to understand. 1 9 8 9 2.938. He finds time to listen to faculty members. 0 9 8 10 3.04

11. He speaks in a manner to be questioned. 2 12 12 1 2.44

13. He looks out for the personalwelfare of each individual faculty members.

0 6 15 6 3.00


18. He refuses to explain his action. 2 16 8 1 2.30

20. He acts without consulting the faculty. 8 9 8 2 2.15

23. He treats all his faculty members as his equal. 2 11 8 6 2.67

26. He is willing to make changes. 0 7 13 7 3.00

28. He is friendly and approachable. 1 3 12 11 3.22

31. He makes faculty members feelat ease when talking with them. 1 5 13 8 3.04

34. He puts suggestions made by the faculty into operation. 1 8 14 4 2.78

38. He gets faculty approval in important matters before going ahead.

0 10 10 7 2.89

Average Weighted Mean 2.77

Table 8.1 shows the perception of the high school

teachers from school 1 in terms of their principal’s

considerate leadership behaviour. The highest of which, “He

is friendly and approachable.”, has a weighted mean of 3.22,

and the lowest, “He refuses to explain his action.”, has a

weighted mean of 2.30. The average weighted mean of 2.77

indicates a high Consideration of the school principals.



1 2 3 4 W.


Mean2. He makes his attitude clear tothe faculty. 0 10 9 8 2.93

7. He rules with an iron hand. 5 6 13 3 2.52

9. He criticizes poor work. 1 9 15 2 2.67

12. He keeps to himself.. 2 9 13 3 2.6314. He assigns faculty members toparticular tasks. 0 6 15 6 3.00

16. He schedules the work to be done. 0 5 16 6 3.04

17. He maintains definite standards of performance. 0 5 16 6 3.04

21. He backs up members in their actions. 0 11 11 5 2.78

22. He emphasizes the meaning of deadlines. 1 9 10 7 2.85

24. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 0 5 15 7 3.07

27. He makes sure that the part in the organization is understoodby the faculty member.

0 8 14 5 2.89

29. He asks that faculty members follow standard rules and regulations.

1 4 16 6 3.00

32. He lets faculty members know what is expected of them. 0 6 15 6 3.00

35. He sees to it that the faculty members are working up tocapacity.

0 7 15 5 2.93

39. He sees to it that the work of faculty members is coordinated.

0 6 13 8 3.07


Table 8.2 shows the initiating structure of principals

in school 1. The highest item is “He encourages the use of


uniform procedures.” And “He sees to it that the work of

faculty members is coordinated.”, which both got a weighted

mean of 3.07. The lowest item is “He rules with an iron

hand”, which has a mean score of 2.52. The average weighted

mean of 2.93 indicates a high level of initiating structure

of the principal in School 1.


Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean

1. He does personal favors for faculty members. 2 6 18 16 3.143. He does things to make it pleasant to be. 0 6 14 22 3.384. He is a hospitable leader to new members of the faculty. 1 12 11 18 3.106. He is easy to understand. 1 9 17 19 3.488. He finds time to listen to faculty members. 0 2 8 32 3.7111. He speaks in a manner to be questioned. 0 8 22 11 3.0013. He looks out for the personalwelfare of each individual faculty members.

5 6 15 163.00

18. He refuses to explain his action. 2 4 8 28 3.4820. He acts without consulting the faculty. 0 2 19 21 3.4523. He treats all his faculty members as his equal. 2 11 23 6 2.7926. He is willing to make changes. 4 9 27 2 2.64


28. He is friendly and approachable. 1 9 14 18 3.1731. He makes faculty members feelat ease when talking with them. 11 2 12 17 2.8334. He puts suggestions made by the faculty into operation. 0 4 18 20 3.3838. He gets faculty approval in important matters before going ahead.

0 11 14 173.14


Table 8.5 shows the consideration levels of School 3’s

principal’s leadership behavior. The highest item, “He finds

time to listen to faculty members.” gained a weighted mean

of 3.71, while the lowest item, “He treats all his faculty

members as his equal.”, gained a weighted mean of 2.78. The

average weighted mean of 3.18 indicates a high level of

consideration of School 2’s principal.



1 2 3 4 W.Mean

2. He makes his attitude clear tothe faculty. 0 6 26 12 3.31











0 1 18 25 3.74


0 2 15 27 3.76



0 2 26 16 3.50


0 2 19 23 3.67


Table 8.4 shows the initiating structure of School 2’s

principal’s leadership behavior. The highest item, “He asks

that faculty members follow standard rules and

regulation..”, gained a weighted mean of 3.74, while the

lowest item, “He assigns faculty members to particular

tasks.”, gained a weighted mean of 2.55. The average


weighted mean of 3.5 indicates a high level of consideration

of School 3’s principal.


Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean







3 3 21 18 3.60









0 6 17 22 3.78




principal’s leadership behavior. The highest item, “He is

friendly and approachable.”, gained a weighted mean of 4.0,

while the lowest item, “He refuses to explain his action.”,

gained a weighted mean of 2.63. The average weighted mean of

3.53 indicates a high level of consideration of School 3’s

principal.



1 2 3 4 W.Mean








22. He emphasizes the meaning of 0 4 20 15 3.20


deadlines.24. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 2 5 17 16 3.18


1 2 16 21 3.43


1 5 15 19 3.30



0 7 15 18 3.28


0 3 18 19 3.40


Table 8.6 shows the initiating structure level of the

School3’s Principal’s leadership behavior. The highest item,

“He makes sure that the part in the organization is

understood by the faculty members gained a weighted of 3.43,

while the lowest item. “He rules with an iron hand”, gained

a weighted mean of 2.43. the average weighted mean of 3.12

indicates a high level of initiating structure of School3’s

principal.



Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean







4 14 26 24 3.22









0 6 33 25 3.30





willing to make changes.”, gained a weighted mean of 3.69,

while the lowest item, “He refuses to explain his action.”,

gained a weighted mean of 1.58. The average weighted mean

of 2.95 indicates a high level of consideration of School

4’s principal.



1 2 3 4 W.Mean










27. He makes sure that the part 0 1 18 45 3.69


in the organization is understoodby the faculty member.29. He asks that faculty members follow standard rules and regulations.

0 2 35 27 3.39



0 2 26 36 3.53


0 2 19 43 3.64






while the lowest item. “He keeps to himself”, gained a

weighted mean of 2.73. The average weighted mean of 3.34


principal.


Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean








0 6 26 9 2.98









0 0 22 19 2.15




easy to understand.”, gained a weighted mean of 3.59, while

the lowest item, “He gets faculty approval in important


matters before going ahead.”, gained a weighted mean of

2.15. The average weighted mean of 2.82 indicates a high

level of consideration of School 5’s principal.

Table 8.10. Perceptions of the High School Teachers ofSchool 5 on the Leadership Behavior of their Principals in

terms of Initiating Structure

1 2 3 4 W.Mean




12. He keeps to himself.. 1 5 27 8 3.0514. He assigns faculty members toparticular tasks. 0 3 25 13 2.6616. He schedules the work to be done. 0 3 22 16 2.3717. He maintains definite standards of performance. 0 4 27 10 2.9321. He backs up members in their actions. 0 1 23 17 2.3222. He emphasizes the meaning of deadlines. 0 4 24 13 2.6324. He encourages the use of uniform procedures. 0 1 26 14 2.6127. He makes sure that the part in the organization is understoodby the faculty member.

0 3 28 10 2.95


0 5 23 13 2.61

32. He lets faculty members know what is expected of them. 0 0 23 18 2.2435. He sees to it that the faculty members are working up to

0 4 26 15 2.83


capacity.39. He sees to it that the work of faculty members is coordinated.

0 4 23 14 2.54






while the lowest item. “He keeps to himself”, gained a

weighted mean of 1.10. the average weighted mean of 2.57


principal.

Table 8.11 Summarized Mean Scores of High SchoolTeachers’ Perception on the Leadership Behavior of their

Respective Principals in terms of Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean




6. He is easy to understand. 2 27 104 81 3.23

8. He finds time to listen to 2 31 88 93 3.27


faculty members.11. He speaks in a manner to be questioned. 8 58 98 50 2.89


12 35 94 73 3.07









0 33 91 90 3.27


All in all, the selected secondary school principals of

Taguig City have a high level of consideration, with an

average weighted mean of 3.07. the highest consideration

item, “He finds time to listen to faculty members.”, got a

weighted mean of 3.27, while the lowest item, “He acts

without consulting the faculty.”, gained a weighted mean of

2.65.


Table 8.12 Summarized Mean Scores of High SchoolTeachers’ Perception on the Leadership Behavior of their

Respective Principals in terms of Consideration

1 2 3 4 W.Mean











1 15 94 104 3.41


2 18 102 92 3.33



0 22 102 90 3.32


0 17 92 105 3.41



The initiating structure of the leadership behavior of

the selected secondary school principals gained an average

weighted mean of 3.22, indicating a high level of such

behavior. The highest item, “He lets faculty members know

what is expected of them.”, gained a weighted mean of 3.43,

while the lowest, “He keeps to himself.”, gained a weighted

mean of 2.82.

Question 6: What is the implication of the findings to

the educational leadership of principals in selected

secondary schools in Taguig City?

The results gathered by the researchers implied that

the motivation level of principals in public secondary high

schools contribute to how they perform their job as the

school’s administrator. They have various reasons for

accepting principalship, but generally speaking, they are

driven by the need to fulfill their own needs.

When it comes to the perception of teachers regarding

their principal’s leadership behavior, it is very evident


that they see their leader highly, both in terms of work and

personal relationships. With this kind of respect and view,

it is implied that the teachers of the selected public

secondary schools have a good relationship with their

respective principals.

According to the findings of the researchers, the

educational leadership of the selected public secondary

school principals is on a high level, considering how they

evaluated themselves when it comes to their motivational

levels and how the teacher-respondents assessed their

leadership behaviors.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS


This chapter presents the summary of findings,

conclusions and recommendations of the study which were

formulated to answer to the statement of the problem.

Summary of Findings

The researchers came up with the following findings:

The principal-respondents were 46-60 years of age, and

has been in the field of education for more than 15 years.

The teacher-respondents, on the other hand, ranges from 21-

60 years of age, mostly female, and with 2-5 years of

teaching service in their present school.

When it comes to the principals’ motivation levels,

results showed that their accepting of principalship is

mostly due to the power motivation. This motivational need

stems from a person's desire to influence, teach, or

encourage others. With this motivational type comes a need

for personal prestige, and a constant need for a better

personal status.


According to how the teacher- respondents perceived

their principal’s leadership behavior, the researchers found

out that principals of the selected secondary schools scored

high when it comes to consideration and initiating

structure. There is also little deviation in the perceptions

of the teacher- respondents, which means that public

secondary school principals has high levels of consideration

and initiating structure.

The educational leadership of the principal-

respondents, considering the results of their motivational

levels and how the teacher-respondents perceived their

leadership behaviors in line with consideration and

initiating structure, is commendable. The principals have

the proper drive to lead the right way, therefore

contributing to the quality of the institution they belong

to.

Conclusions:


1. Principals of the selected secondary schools are

generally motivated by the need to fulfill their

social, moral, and personal growth. They aspire to have

more in terms of power and authority. On the other

hand, they seek less in terms of affiliations. Their

accepting of principalship was not based on their need

to gain more recognition from family and friends, nor

based on the need to level up themselves with their

colleagues.

2. There is no significant difference in the motivation

levels of the selected principals in terms of the

different levels of motivation when grouped according

to their educational backgrounds.

3. The principals, as perceived by the teacher-

respondents, generally behave and lead with high levels

of consideration and initiating structure. They

strictly implement rules and regulations within the

school community, and have high regard for good work

and deadlines. But this authoritarian side comes with a


softer considerate side, where they look out for the

personal welfare of the faculty members and makes it a

point to be as approachable as possible.

4. The motivations and leadership behavior of selected

secondary school principals, therefore, does imply a

lot to their current performance. Effective educational

leadership comes along with proper motivation and

leadership behavior. A school can only go as far as

their school principal’s drive to push everyone to

achieve their school’s aim.

Recommendations:

1. Secondary school principals may keep their motivations

on “high spirit” through association with successful

positive people, attending conferences, seminars and

trainings, keeping a journal of their goals and

aspirations and a record of being an effective leader

for his/her members and colleagues.


2. Options such as job enrichment, promotions and monetary

and non-monetary compensation should be considered. To

keep the principals highly motivated is to constantly

discover what motivates them and designing a motivation

program based on those needs.

3. Teachers and principals may have proficient activities

and programs outside school to strengthen the

relationship between them.

4. The school may provide seminars, in-service trainings,

workshops to better enhance the educational leadership

of their respective principal.

5. Teachers may have an annual evaluation for principals

to recognize if they have attained their goals or

objectives for this specific year or there is an

improvement in their administration.

6. School administrators must conduct intensive research

and continuous monitoring in the motivation and


leadership styles; the innovations of curriculum

offered based from the goals and objectives of the

school in consonance to DepEd programs.

7. As administrators and principals of secondary public

schools, there should always be a continuous education

to adapt the ever changing innovations of knowledge and

learning done in every routine of work. Seminars,

workshops, forums, camps, etc. should be attended not

only by the school principal and teachers, but also

staff of the school.

8. The study can be used as an aid for developing

leadership qualities and as a basis for future

research.

9. A one-year faculty and school head development plan

should be implemented to strengthen relationships

between the administration and the teachers.

Documents

Motivations and Leadership Behavior of Principals