This chapter includes a review of related literatures and studies conducted by both local and foreign researchers, that the writer considers relevant to the study.
Definitions of Leadership
Bass (1981) accepted the view of leadership as an interaction between members of a group. Leaders are agents of change, persons whose acts affect other people more than other people’s acts affect them. Kanter (1983) defined leadership as the existence of people with power to mobilize others and to set constraints. Misumi (1985) wrote: Leadership is understood as the role behaviour of a specific group member, who, more than other members, exerts some kind of outstanding, lasting, and positive influence on fulfilling the group’s functions of problem solving or goal achievement and group maintenance. Weiss (1986) pinpointed the concept of leadership as the top level executive and his dominant coalition of the organization which is invested with the power, status, and resources to manipulate, interpret, and negotiate constraints and resources into policy.
Kellerman (1984) defined leadership as the process by which one individual consistently exerts more impact than others on the nature and direction of group activity. Gardner (1986) waffled at the end of his definition by attaching the last phrase: leadership is the process of persuasion and example by which an individual induces a group to take action that is in accord with the leader’s purposes. Sergiovanni (1989), an influential leadership scholar in education, defined leadership as the process of persuasion by which a leader induce followers to act in a manner that enhances the leaders purposes or shared purposes.
Two more recent books on leadership have been based on military leaders, and they promote the same understanding of leadership. Roberts (1989) considered leadership as the thing that wins the battles. Bailey (1988) an anthropologist, defined leadership as the act of controlling followers. Finally, Schatz (1986) summed up much of what this view of leadership represents: “Leadership is the total effect you have on people and events around you.”
Leadership for Rost (1991) is an influence relationship among leaders and followers who intend real changes that reflect their mutual purposes. A leader does the right things (Bennis and Goldsmith, 1997). Doing the right things implies a goal, a direction, an objective, a vision, a dream, a path, a reach. Leading is about effectiveness. It is about what and why. It is about trust – about people. Bennis and Goldsmith (1997), defined leadership as innovating and initiating. It looks at the horizon, not just the bottom line. Leaders base their vision, their appeal to others, and their integrity on reality, on the facts, on a careful estimate of the forces at play, and on the trends and contradictions. For Drucker (1996), leaders move people from selfish concerns to serving the common good. Leaders can refocus people’s energy with direct interventions or do so indirectly by adjusting the system so that people naturally gravitate toward what needs to be done.
It will be hypothesized that the Indang II District elementary school principals’ leadership styles (Block 2) will affect school effectiveness (Block 3) at Indang II District, Division of Cavite. The mediating variables will be the elementary school principals’ leadership styles consisting of seven dimensions, namely: a) idealized influence; b) inspirational motivation; c) intellectual stimulation; d) individualized consideration; e) contingent reward; f) management by exception; and g) Laissez-faire. The aforementioned dimensions will be discussed in the conceptual framework. The five indicators of school effectiveness will be the output variables. Each variable will be explained thoroughly as part of the related literature of this study on school effectiveness. The line connecting the mediating and the output variables show their relationship. This will imply that the Indang II school principals’ leadership styles affect the effectiveness of the Indang II schools at Indang II District, Division of Cavite.
On the basis of the questions that will be proposed in this study, this hypothesis will be tested. There is no significant relationship between the principals’ leadership styles and school effectiveness in the elementary schools in Indang II District, Division of Cavite.