30Apr
Abstract
This study aimed at investigating the influence of multifactor leadership on teachers’ intensified works, retention, and job satisfaction. To achieve this aim, the researcher utilized the descriptive-correlational method of research wherein it had a sample of 249 secondary teachers in the School Division of City of Malolos during the school year 2022-2023. The collected data were analyzed and treated statistically using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS). Results of the regression analysis of school administrators’ multifactor leadership on teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction revealed an F-value of 1.643 with a p-value of 0.088. Since the associated probability of the obtained F-value is higher than alpha (0.05), the null hypothesis is sustained. This means that multifactor leadership does not exert significant combined influence on teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction. Hence, multifactor leadership significantly influence teachers’ intensified works, retention, and job satisfaction. School administrators in the Schools Division of City of Malolos should continue to practice “An Hour with School Administrator” with the teachers and it is recommended to conduct this good practice in monthly basis. This would allow teachers to communicate with their school administrators especially in voicing out ideas and insights for the betterment of the school. They are also suggested to consider increasing their multifactor leadership by making themselves for felt by the teachers. Future researchers, especially graduate students, may further explore on which type of leadership could intervene the contentment of teachers at work.
Keywords: Multifactor leadership on teachers’ intensified works, retention, and job satisfaction
INTRODUCTION
Leadership is about influencing other people towards a common goal. A leadership style is a leader’s style of providing directions, implementing plans, and motivating his or her subordinates. Many different leadership styles are exhibited by leaders in political, business, especially in the field of educational system. Multifactor leadership is commonly known with the transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership.
Transformational leadership is defined as a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems (Bass & Avolio, 2016 as cited in Kabeyi, 2018). In its ideal form, it creates significant and positive transformation to the followers with the goal of developing followers into leaders. It transforms followers to become leaders someday. Enacted on its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimize their performance.
Meanwhile, transactional leadership is also known as managerial leadership and focuses on role of supervision, organization, and group performance. Transactional leaders sometimes display the traits or behaviors of charismatic leaders and can be quite effective in many circumstances while creating motivated players. They are adept at making deals that motivate and this can prove beneficial to an organization. Transactional leaders are always willing to give his or her followers something in return for following them such as giving of contingent rewards and other fringe benefits. It can also be any number of things including a good performance review, a raise, a promotion, new responsibilities or a desired change in duties (Kabeyi, 2018).
Lastly, in order to understand laissez-faire leadership, one needs to understand first its etymological definitions, laissez-faire means “hands-off, let things-ride” an approach to influence individuals in the workplace. Bass and Avolio described laissez-faire leadership as “the absence of leadership” and “the avoidance of intervention”. Laissez-faire leaders tend to behave as if they are away from the responsibilities and duties assigned to him or her. This leadership style resembles “impoverished management” by describing a leader exerting minimal effort to get required work done and showing minimal concern for subordinates. In other words, even laissez-faire leaders have been assigned to leadership positions and physically occupy these positions, they just ignore it and maybe they let their subordinates do their jobs. In this view, laissez-faire leadership can be regarded not only as “lack of presence”, but also as “zero leadership (Tosunoglu and Ekmekci, 2016).
Several related studies have shown that educational experts have evolved substantially over the past several decades on their thinking about leadership and the role that the school administrator plays in supporting the teaching and learning environment within a school (Gurley et al., 2016). Generally speaking, the evidence supports the notion that the school administrator plays a critical role in establishing and maintaining a focus on learning in a school through his or her continual and routine engagement in leadership behaviors. It is toward a more precise definition of leadership, and the identification of the specific best practices in leadership behaviors. Nevertheless, according to Sirisookslip (2015), most of the administrators are now facing problems of applying suitable leadership style in their administration, reported by the Educational Work Unit. Hence, applying suitable leadership may assist administrators to solve the confusion due to the overlapping of work occurred in work practice, administration, and ordering or commanding among the top level of management team work unit. Findings showed that beside transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership, there are also two types of leadership styles of school administrators, namely supportive leadership and participative leadership styles which have significantly affecting teacher effectiveness.
Although the knowledge based on leadership is quite well developed in Western societies, empirical studies have only recently begun to emerge in the developing societies of Asia, Africa and Latin America (Hallinger, 2017). The previous study was undertaken to fill a gap in leadership research in Iran, where there have been no prior studies of school administrator instructional leadership (PIL). It sought to understand the relationship between school administrator self-efficacy, instructional leadership, teacher collective efficacy, and teacher organizational commitment. Results identified robust, positive, and statistically significant relationships among the constructs. These findings extend prior research by revealing how leader self-efficacy beliefs and instructional leadership behaviors interact to shape collective teacher efficacy and commitment. This makes a distinct contribution not only to school leadership research in Iran, but also to the growing body of research on the effects of PIL in non-Western, developing societies.
Furthermore, a culturally responsive school leadership has become important to research on culturally responsive education, reform, and social justice education (Khalifa et al, 2016). Culturally responsive leaders develop and support the school staff and promote a climate that makes the whole school welcoming, inclusive, and accepting of minoritized students. This is needed in all settings including those not dominated by minoritized students, and that not all students of color are minoritized. Minoritized students are individuals from racially oppressed communities that have been marginalized - both legally and discursively - because of their nondominant race, ethnicity, religion, language, or citizenship. Indeed, all minoritized students also have rich histories of agency, appropriation, and resistance to oppression; yet, this term recognizes the histories of oppression minoritized students have faced and the need for schools to resist the continuing contexts of oppression. Hence, leaders are also challenged to exercise a non-discriminitive leadership in his or her area of responsibilities.
In this sense, Anderson (2017) recognizes that school systems face unprecedented local, state, and federal accountability for school performance and student achievement. School systems and schools themselves have begun to function like business organizations with management complexities and the requirement of bottom-line results. School leadership is a critical component for strong performance and student achievement. There is concern over whether school leaders have the proper management skills, leadership styles, and approaches necessary to ensure effective operational performance of schools. Education leaders may indeed benefit from training and development in transformational leadership style which proves that it really enhances performance in educational settings. Hence, this multifactor leadership of school administrators may link with teachers’ work intensification, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
Intensification of work refers to how hard and fast an employee is working in any given period. This captures both the amount of work to be done in a fixed time and the time pressure experienced to undertake and complete that work. Work intensity is commonly assessed according to the frequency that workers have to work at high speed and the allocation of effort to meet tight deadlines or manage high workloads (Burke & Fiksenbaum, 2018). Work intensification, therefore, may be expressed as a function of the effort required to achieve one or more valued work outcomes within a fixed amount of time.
According to Franke (2015), there is increasing interest in investigating work intensification as a new job demand. However, its contribution beyond the state of work intensity remains unclear and is thus, far limited to two specific occupations. The study showed that the feeling of intensified work has unique effects beyond the state of intense work and even amplifies the effect of work intensity on psychosomatic complaints. With regard to musculoskeletal complaints, the effects are weaker and the interaction is not significant. For Paškvan et al (2015), work intensification is due to economic and technological changes over the past few decades. This intensification of work takes a toll on employees’ well-being and job satisfaction. To explain the effects of work intensification on its outcomes, the author drew on the transactional stress model and examine the mediating role of cognitive appraisal. It was found out that favorable participative climate serves as a resource in the relationship between work intensification and cognitive appraisal. Additionally, results of a moderated mediation analysis showed that a favorable participative climate weakens the indirect effect of work intensification on its outcomes. This study emphasized the importance of promoting a favorable participative climate in organizations to better manage the work intensification resulting from economic and technological changes.
Nonetheless, Kilderry’s (2015) study purported that operating within a neoliberal education reform context, performativity, and teaching in schools has been a focus of study for a number of years. But, less is known about the effects of performativity on teaching and curriculum in the early childhood (preschool) context. Making a case for the intensification of performativity in Australian early childhood education, the paper reported on findings from a doctoral study and draws on research literature from the past fourteen years to illustrate how performative measures have increasingly affected teaching and curriculum. It was shown that early childhood teachers have different ways of responding to performativity, with the teacher featured in this paper displaying three types of performative accountability: anxiety, confidence, and disregard. Lastly, implications from the findings of this study illustrated how the effects of performativity on teaching and curriculum can be complex, contradictory and at times, unintended.
For Kossivi et al (2016), employees are the most valuable assets of an organization. Their significance to organizations calls for not only the need to attract the best talents but also the necessity to retain them for a long term. This study focused on reviewing the findings of previous studies conducted by various researchers with the aim to identify determinants factors of employee retention. It closely looked at the following broad factors: development opportunities, compensation, work-life balance, management/leadership, work environment, social support, autonomy, training, and development. In the end, it reached the conclusion that further investigations need to be conducted regarding employee retention to better comprehend this complex field of human resource management.
Although retention of employees has become hot topic in this career turbulent era, practically no empirical research is carried out in the fast growing ceramic sector till now and this research fills the gap in the literature (Umamaheswari & Krishnan, 2016). The literatures surveys reported that organization commitment is an important determinant of retention and work environment, supervisor support and training and development are the most relevant antecedents increasing commitment towards organization. This paper examined the impact of the above factors over organization commitment and explores the effects of organization commitment on retention, and verifies the mediating effect of organization commitment on the relationship between proposed factors and retention. This revealed that organization commitment influences retention and all the above factors enhance it. Moreover, organization commitment partially mediates the relationship between proposed factors and retention. However, multiple regression analysis indicated that training and development did not have any notable influence on retention. Hence, human resource managers should extend their support to work environment, supervisor support, and training and development in order to generate better relationship with employees and to reduce their likelihood of leaving the company, as supported by Coetzee and Stoltz (2015).
Job or work is an important aspect of an individual’s life and it occupies a lot of personal and professional time compared to any other activity. Satisfaction is the pleasure felt after a need is fulfilled. One would suppose a person is satisfied when his or her expectations or desires or requirements have been met. Job satisfaction describes how much extent an individual is pleased, comfortable or satisfied with his or her job. It is a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the appraisal of one’s job or job experiences. In current organizations, job satisfaction is a crucial subject of attention which is very considered by the higher authorities, policy makers and top executives because this issue is related to many other significant and important issues of organizations. Employees are the core assets and key part of any organizations by which all means of production are handled. As a human being, this is human nature that employees are satisfied or dissatisfied what work they are assigned.
With these gaps found in related studies embarking school administrators’ multifactor leadership, work intensification, retention factors, and job satisfaction, the researcher purports to explore on these variables in the Schools Division of City of Malolos during the school year 2022-2023.
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
This study is premised on Bass and Avolio (2016) theory of multifactor leadership which states that transformational leadership is a leadership approach that causes change in individuals and social systems. In its ideal form, it creates significant and positive transformation to the followers with the goal of developing followers into leaders. It transforms followers to become leaders someday. Enacted on its authentic form, transformational leadership enhances the motivation, morale, and performance of followers through a variety of mechanisms. These include connecting the follower's sense of identity and self to the mission and the collective identity of the organization; being a role model for followers that inspires them; challenging followers to take greater ownership for their work, and understanding the strengths and weaknesses of followers, so the leader can align followers with tasks that optimize their performance.
Meanwhile, transactional leadership is a managerial leadership and focuses on role of supervision, organization, and group performance. Transactional leaders sometimes display the traits or behaviors of charismatic leaders and can be quite effective in many circumstances while creating motivated players. They are adept at making deals that motivate and this can prove beneficial to an organization. Transactional leaders are always willing to give their followers something in return for following them such giving or contingent rewards and other fringe benefits. It can also be any number of things including a good performance review, a raise, a promotion, new responsibilities or a desired change in duties ( as cited in Kabeyi, 2018).
Laissez-faire leadership as “the absence of leadership” and “the avoidance of intervention”. Laissez-faire leaders tend to behave as if they are away from the responsibilities and duties assigned to him or her. This leadership style resembles “impoverished management” by describing a leader exerting minimal effort to get required work done and showing minimal concern for subordinates. In this sense, it was hypothesized that multifactor leadership influences the intensified works of teachers, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
Figure 1 presents the conceptual model which was used in evaluating the multifactor leadership of school administrators and its influence on teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
The school administrators’ multifactor leadership was assessed in terms of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership.
Meanwhile, the teachers' intensified works was assessed in terms of work intensification, intensified job-related planning and decision-making demands, intensified career-related planning and decision-making demands, intensified knowledge-related learning demands, intensified skill-related learning demands. The teachers’ retention factors were assessed in terms of employee retention strategies, working environment, welfare measure, and rewards and recognition. Lastly, the teachers’ job satisfaction was assessed in terms of authority, supervision, policy and facilities, work itself, interpersonal relationships, commitment, salary, and workload. The solid lines with arrowhead indicate the assumed relationship between the independent and dependent variables.
Research Questions
The main aim of the study was to evaluate the influence of school administrators’ multifactor leadership on teachers’ intensified works, retention factors and job satisfaction in the Schools Division of City of Malolos. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions:
1. How may the school administrators’ multifactor leadership be described in terms of the following indicators:
1.1 transformational leadership;
1.1.1. idealized influence (attributed)
1.1.2. idealized influence (behavior)
1.1.3. inspirational motivation,
1.1.4. intellectual motivation,
1.1.5. individual considerations,
1.2 transactional leadership;
1.2.1. contingent rewards,
1.2.2. management-by-exception (passive),
1.2.3. management-by-exception (active), and
1.3 laissez-faire leadership?
2. What is the status of intensified works of the teachers in terms of:
2.1. work intensification itself;
2.2. intensified job-related planning and decision making demands;
2.3. intensified career-related planning and decision making demands;
2.4. intensified knowledge-related learning demands; and,
2.5. intensified skill-related learning demands?
3. How may the teachers’ retention factors be described in terms of:
3.1. employee retention strategies;
3.2. working environment;
3.3. welfare measure; and,
3.4. rewards and recognition?
4. What is the level of teachers’ job satisfaction in terms of:
4.1. authority;
4.2. supervision;
4.3. policies and facilities;
4.4. work itself;
4.5. interpersonal relationships;
4.6. commitment;
4.7. salary; and
4.8. workload?
5. Does the school administrators’ multifactor leadership significantly influence teachers’ intensified works, retention factors, job satisfaction?
6. What policy may be drawn from the findings of the study to further improve school administrators’ multifactor leadership, intensified works, retention factors and job satisfaction?
METHOD
Type of Research
The descriptive-correlational method of research was used in this study to determine the influence of school administrators’ multifactor leadership on teachers’ intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction. Correlational research is a systematic investigation of the relationship present between two or more variables. The study used quantitative research approach in analyzing and understanding the predictor and criterion variables. The primary data gathering tools were standardized questionnaires on school administrators’ multifactor leadership, intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
Respondents
In determining the teacher-respondents, the researcher used the Raosoft sampling calculator online application to compute for the sample size. A random selection through a draw lots was used. Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondents by schools.
The respondents of the study consisted of 249 from the total population of 698 secondary teachers from the Schools Division of City of Malolos during the school year 2022-2023.
Instrument/s
To gather the necessary information for this study, the researcher used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X by Bass and Avolio to describe the multifactor leadership of school administrators while the Intensification of Job Demand Scale (IDS) developed by Kubicek et al (2014) was used in determining work intensification of teachers. The Questionnaire for Employee Retention Practices developed by Vijayalakshmi (2012) was utilized to measure the retention factors of teachers and lastly, the Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire by Al-Rubaish et al (2014) was used to determine the level of job satisfaction of teachers.
1. Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) Form 5X measures the three major leadership styles: Transformational leadership (5 factors); Transactional leadership (3 factors); and Laissez-faire leadership. There were 36 questions which required gathering responses of teachers to determine their administrator’ multifactor leadership based on the indicators namely: transformational leadership - idealized influence (attributed), idealized influence (behavior), inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, individual consideration; transactional leadership - contingent reward, management-by-exception (active), management-by-exception (passive); and laissez-faire leadership. The instrument is highly reliable as evidenced by the Cronbach's alpha of 0.82.
2. Job Demand Scale (JDS). The Intensification of Job Demand Scale (IDS) measures the five factors of teachers’ work intensification which is composed of total of 19 items, namely, work intensification, intensified job-related planning and decision-making demands, intensified career-related planning and decision making demands, intensified knowledge-related learning demands, intensified skill-related learning demands. It is reliable since it is evidenced by 0.89 Cronbach’s alpha.
3. Employee Retention Practices Questionnaire. The Questionnaire for Employee Retention Practices measures the four factors of teachers’ retention: employee retention strategies, working environment, welfare measure, and rewards and recognition. It is composed of 50 items. It is highly reliable as evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.90.
4. Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire. Lastly, the Academic Job Satisfaction Questionnaire measures the eight factors of job satisfaction, namely, authority, supervision, policies and facilities, work itself, interpersonal relationships, commitment, salary, and workload which consists of 45 items. It is highly reliable as evidenced by Cronbach’s alpha of 0.78.
Data Collection Procedure
The mode of the gathering was questionnaire method. In gathering the data, the researcher will observe the following procedures:
A letter was sent to School Division Superintendent, to ask permission to conduct the study. With their approval, the researcher will prepare the google forms link indicating the consent form on the first part of the survey and then distribute them to the respondents with the assistance of the researchers’ contact persons per subject area.
Ethical Considerations
This study complied with all ethical and moral standards set by the Division Research Ethics Committee regarding the research study through the observation of the following: (1) A written approval from the School Division Superintendent to conduct this research (2) The researcher chose subjects fairly from the population with each person having an equal chances to be part of the study (3) Any result obtained was treated with high confidentiality and was used for academic purposes only.
The researcher assured confidentiality and voluntary withdrawal from the study without the necessity of providing an explanation or of any prejudice at any point during the conduct of the study. Before the data gathering, the participants were provided with essential and appropriate information about the study. They were asked for their consent.
During data collection, and as additional protection, the participants was given adequate time to respond. They were treated with due respect by allowing them to avoid questions which are too private to answer. Moreover, all the data that were gathered from the respondents were treated with high confidentiality. And the researcher ensured the protection of the participants’ identities in accordance with the Data Privacy Act of 2012.
Data Analysis
The data were tabulated and processed using Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) 1.0.0.1406 IBM 2021 version. To analyze and interpret the data gathered, the frequency and percentage procedures were utilized. Furthermore, the following statistical measures will be used:
1. Mean Score. This statistical tool was utilized in the assessment of the school administrator’s multifactor leadership in terms of transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership. It will also be used in assessing the status of intensified works of the teachers, teachers’ retention factors and teachers’ job satisfaction.
2. Multiple Linear Regression Analysis. This statistical tool was utilized to determine the influence of school administrators’ multifactor leadership on teachers’ intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
This research was opted for 95% degree of confidence with a 5% of degree of error and set at p-value of <0.005 and assumed to be statistically significant.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Summary of Results
Problem 1: How may the school administrators’ multifactor leadership be described?
The multifactor leadership of school administrators was statistically described as follows:
Table 2 shows that the overall assessment of the school administrators’ multifactor leadership got a rating of “satisfactory”, due to the earned mean percentage score of 3.29. This was specified through the following indicators: idealized influence (attributed) (4.25), idealized influence (behavior) (3.28), inspirational motivation (3.50), intellectual stimulation (3.22), individual considerations (3.24), contingent reward (3.51), management-by-exception (passive) (2.78), management-by-exception (active) (3.17), and laissez-faire leadership (2.70).
Problem 2: What is the status of intensified works of teachers?
The status of intensified works of teachers was statistically described and summarized as follows:
As can be noticed in the Table 3, the status of teachers’ intensified works got an overall interpretation of “great extent” with a mean percentage score of 4.13. Specifically, this was presented through the following indicators: work intensification (3.91), intensified job-related planning and decision-making demands (3.99), intensified career-related planning and decision-making demands (4.17), intensified knowledge-related learning demands (4.30), and intensified skill-related learning demands (4.29).
Problem 3: How may the teachers’ retention factors be described? The teachers’ retention factors were described using the table below:
Table 4 revealed that the teachers’ retention factors got a rating of
“satisfied”, with a general mean percentage score of 4.04. This was determined through these sub-variables: employee retention strategies (4.15), working environment (4.27), welfare measures (3.74), and rewards and recognition (3.99).
Problem 4: What is the level of teachers’ job satisfaction?
The level of teachers’ job satisfaction was summarized as follows:
Table 5 shows that the teachers’ job satisfaction acquired a rating of “satisfied” , corresponding to a mean percentage score of 4.33. This was specified through the following indicators: authority (3.94), supervision (4.17), policies and facilities (4.17), work itself (4.34), interpersonal relationships (4.71), commitment (4.91), salary (4.51), and workload (3.87).
Problem 5: Does the school administrator’s multifactor leadership significantly relate with the retention factors and job satisfaction?
The significant relationship between school administrator’s multifactor leadership with the retention factors and job satisfaction was assessed using Pearson’s R Coefficient Correlation. Results show that administrator’s multifactor leadership and retention factors yielded an R-value of 0.841, which is interpretated as very high correlation. On the other hand, the administrator’s multifactor leadership and job satisfaction yielded an R-value of 0.743, which is interpreted as high correlation. Moreover, for administrator’s multifactor leadership and retention factors yielded a value of 0.0000, while for administrator’s multifactor leadership and job satisfaction, the value yielded is 0.0020. Both values are lower than the alpha cut off of 0.05. Hence, there is considered to be a significant relationship between the two variables.
Problem 6: Does school administrators’ multifactor leadership significantly influence teachers’ intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction?
The analysis of the sustained Beta coefficients revealed that of the three (3) variables, multifactor leadership of school administrators appeared to be the best predictor of teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction. Results of the analysis of variance of the regression of school administrators’ multifactor leadership on teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction revealed an F-value of 154.64 with a p-value of 0.034. Since the associated probability of the obtained F-value is lower than alpha (0.05), the null hypothesis is rejected. This means that multifactor leadership exerts significant combined influence on teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction.
Problem 6: What policy may be derived from the findings of the study?
Based on the findings of the study, the following are some bases for policy makers:
1. School administrators are challenged to exercise more active involvement and participation in the planning and implementation of school activities, as well as in decision-making and in responding to urgent demands. They are also challenged to tap their teachers, build their confidence, inspire them, include them in the decision-making processes. Deepening school administrator-teacher relations through coaching and proper mentoring is also highly encouraged.
2. School policy makers are implored to create a mechanism that would lighten the burden of teachers. Findings suggest hiring more of non-teaching personnel for the paper works, and the hiring of additional teachers for teaching per se. Doing so would make teacher-students ratio improve, as well as make the teacher-workload ratio more realistic and doable.
3. School policy makers may give attention to the following factors of retention of the teachers: promotion opportunities, welfare measures, working environment job rotation and new assignments, help in career development, location transfer opportunities with promotion, management supports for higher education, rewards & recognition. Based on the findings of the study, although teachers are satisfied with the factors mentioned, these are the indicators which got the lowest score in retention factors assessments which means that there is still room for improvement.
4. School policy makers may also pay attention to the following issues and concerns with regards to teachers’ job satisfaction: workload and job promotion. It is indeed a struggle for teachers in public schools to do administrative work in addition to their workload, yet lack the opportunity and avenues for job promotion, along with delays in the processing of reclassifications.
5. Findings reveal that the multifactor leadership in terms of intellectual stimulation and contingent rewards are the best predictors of teachers’ intensified works, retention, and satisfaction. In this view, school administrators are challenged to rationally explicate to teachers about the integral role of teachers in school-based management which would probably help resolve the issue of additional workload. Offering of rewards contingent to completion of work assignments and obligations are also recommended.
Conclusions
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The school administrators’ multifactor leadership is generally satisfactory. The higher level of assessment was attributed to idealized influence, an indication that school administrators are active in terms of leading the organization through the lens of the vision and mission statement of the school.
2. The status of teachers’ intensified works were rated to be at high level or great extent in terms of intensified knowledge-related learning demands and intensified career-related planning and decision-making demands, which is indicative of the organizations’ challenges to balance between teachers’ workload and career growth.
3. The level of teachers’ retention factors were also rated highly, which implies that the Department of Education was able satisfy the teachers especially on the matter of providing a safe working environment. Having a good and healthy working environment is also partly attributed to teachers’ collaborations and efforts to harmonious relationships.
4. The level of job satisfaction of teachers was also high especially regarding interpersonal relationships, commitment, and salary. The findings indicate that despite teachers’ rants and desire for salary increase, they believe that it is the passion and commitment that ignites them to continue and stay in the organization. Having a good interpersonal relationship with colleagues also give them opportunities to learn and share knowledge.
5. The Pearson R- Coefficient Correlation revealed that school administrators’ multifactor leadership has very high positive correlation with teachers’ retention factors. It also revealed the relation between the school administrators’ multifactor leadership and teachers’ job satisfaction has a high positive correlation.
6. The multifactor leadership of school administrators appeared to be the best predictor of teachers' intensified works, retention factors, and job satisfaction. The results suggest that multifactor leadership is, indeed, about helping people understand the rationale of systemic events in the organization. Multifactor leadership inspires them to reach their goals by using rewards and recognition, which entails job promotion and career development.
Recommendations
Based on the results and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are offered:
1. School administrators in the Schools Division of City of Malolos should continue to practice “An Hour with School Administrator” with the teachers, and it is recommended to conduct this good practice in monthly basis. This would allow teachers to communicate directly with the school administrators, and this avenue is especially valuable in voicing out ideas and insights for the betterment of the school. They are also suggested to consider increasing their multifactor leadership by making themselves more felt by the teachers.
2. The Schools Division of City of Malolos – Human Resource Management Office may realign their funds in hiring additional non-teaching personnel which would be a great help for the teachers in preparing documents that are beyond their job description and responsibilities.
3. School policy makers may utilize the findings of this study to determine the issues and problem of teachers with regards to their retention, so they may be guided in finding solutions. Teachers may be more truthful with their answers when they are asked about their valid needs and rational demands.
4. As schools are reopening its doors for the new normal, the teachers and school administrators are challenged to have quality time for bonding and reuniting themselves, and to promote collaborations and renew the professional relationship among them. Findings suggest that this would increase satisfaction at work. Beyond functional dimensions, there is a core that needs to be taken care of.
5. The top management may recognize teachers’ accomplishments through the conduct of “Dangal ng Lipi ng Edukasyon”, from smallest efforts up to huge achievements of teachers so that they may feel appreciated. They may also be given monetary rewards or bonuses which may come from MOOE funds and/or school savings in lieu of family time, which are usually affected by heavy and unpaid workloads that are past their pay grades.
6. Significant insights can be learned from the management implications drawn from the study. It appears imperative that closer attention and consideration may be extended in the interest of further improvement and development of multifactor leadership among school administrators, teachers’ retention, intensified works, and job satisfaction. Future researchers, especially graduate students, may further explore on which type of leadership could promote the contentment of teachers at work.
References
Ballet, K., Kelchtermans, G. (2009). Struggling with workload: Primary teachers’ experience of intensification. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25 (8), 1150- 1157.
Bibi,P., Pangil,F., Johari, J., Ahmad, A. (2017). The impact of compensation and promotional opportunities on employee retention in academic institutions: The moderating role of work environment. International Journal of Economic, 11 (1), 378-391.
Coetzee, M., Stoltz, E. (2015). Employees' satisfaction with retention factors: Exploring the role of career adaptability. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 89 (1), 83-9.
Dahlkamp, S., Peters, M.L., Schumacher, G., (2017). School administrator self-efficacy, school climate, and teacher retention: A multi-level analysis. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 63 (4), 357-376.
Damanik, E. (2014). School administrator leadership style and its impact on school climate and teacher self-efficacy in indonesian schools. Science and Mathematics Education Centre.
Debra, A., (2020). Relationship between leadership behaviors of high school school administrators and teacher retention in Texas. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Djonko-Moore, C, M. (2016). An exploration of teacher attrition and mobility in high poverty racially segregated schools. Race Ethnicity and Education, 19 (5), 1063-1087.
Döckel, A. et al (2016). The effect of retention factors on organizational commitment: an investigation of high technology employees. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 4 (2), 20-28.
Elmazi, E. (2018). School administrator leadership style and job satisfaction of high school teachers. European Journal of Education, 1 (3), 109-115.Farris, S.L. (2018). The investigation of the relationships between teacher job satisfaction and retention and green's four-dimensional model of educational leadership. The University of Memphis, ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.
Fischer, P., De Jong, D. (2017). The relationship between teacher perception of school administrator servant leadership behavior and teacher job satisfaction. Servant Leadership Theory & Practice, 4 (2), 53-84.
Fitzgerald, S., et al. (2019). Intensification of teachers’ work under devolution: A ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. Journal of Industrial Relations, 61 (5), 613-636.
Franke, F. (2015). Is work intensification extra stress. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14 (1), 17-27.
Geiger,T., Pivovaroba, M., (2018). The effects of working conditions on teacher retention. Teachers and Teaching theory and practice, 24 (6), 604-625.
Ghavifekr, S., Pillai, N.S. (2016). The relationship between school’s organizational climate and teacher’s job satisfaction: Malaysian experience. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev, 17, 87–106.
Gilley, A., Waddell, K., Hall, A., Jackson, S.A., Gilley, J.W. (2015). Manager behavior, generation, and influence on work-life balance: An empirical investigation. The Journal of Applied Management and Entrepreneurship, 20 (1), 1-23.
Göksoy, S. (2015). Distributed leadership in educational institutions. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (4), 110-118.
Gomba, C. (2015). Why Do They Stay: Factors Influencing Teacher Retention in Rural Zimbabwe. International Journal of Instruction, 8 (2), 55-68.
Grissom,j. A., Bartanen, B. (2019). Strategic retention: school administrator effectiveness and teacher turnover in multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems. American Educational Research Journal, 56 (2). Güngör, S.K. (2016). The Prediction power of servant and ethical leadership behaviours of administrators on teachers' job satisfaction. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4 (5), 1180-1188.
Gurley, D.K., Anast-May, L., O’Neal, M., Dozier, R. (2016). School administrator instructional leadership behaviors: teacher vs. self-perceptions. NCPEA International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 11 (1).
Hallinger, P., Hosseingholizadeh,R., Hashemi , N., Kouhsari, M. (2017). Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how school administrator self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–20.
Harris, K., Hinds, L., Manansingh, S., Rubino, M., Morote, E.S. (2016). What type of leadership in higher education promotes job satisfaction and increases retention. Journal for Leadership and Instruction, 15 (1), 27-32. Harfitt, G.J. (2015). From attrition to retention: a narrative inquiry of why beginning teachers leave and then rejoin the profession. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (1), 22-35Hauseman, C. (2020). Managing emotions and coping in a context of work intensification. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 192, 42-51.
Hauseman, D.C., Pollock, K., Wang, F. (2017). Inconvenient, but essential: Impact and influence of school–community involvement on school administrators’ work and workload. School Community Journal, 27 (1), 83-105.
Helber, J. D. (2015). Self-efficacy and instructional leadership: Does mentoring make a difference? . Eastern Michigan University DigitalCommons@EMU.
Hickerson, R.H. (2019). The effects of school culture and workplace bullying on educator job satisfaction. Dissertations. Texas A&M University - Texarkana,
Ho, M.W., Kwan, K., Zhou, A., (2017). Effects of servant leadership on work–family balance in China. Asia Pacific of Journal of Human Resources, 55(4), 387-407.
Hughes, A.L., Matt, J.J., O’Reilly, F.L. (2015). School administrator support is imperative to the retention of teachers inhard-to-staff schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3 (1), 129-134.
Hussain, A., Ahmad,S., Malik, M., Batool, A., (2017). School administrators' leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction: A correlation study at secondary level. Bulletin of Education and Research, 39 (3) 45-56.
Jankov, P., Caref, C. (2017). Segregation and inequality in Chicago Public Schools, transformed and intensified under corporate education reform. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25 (56).
Jones,D., Watson, S.B. (2017). The relationship between administrative leadership behaviors and teacher retention in Christian schools. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 26 (1), 44-45.
Judge, T. A., Weiss, H. M., Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D., & Hulin, C. L. (2017). Job attitudes, job satisfaction, and job affect: A century of continuity and of change. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(3), 356–374.
Kabeyi, M. (2018). The International Journal of Business & Management. The International Journal of Business & Management, 6 (5), 191-193.
Kelly, N., Fogarty, R. (2015). An integrated approach to attracting and retaining teachers in rural and remote parts of australia. Journal of Economic and Social Policy, 17(2).
Khalid, N., Pahi, M.H., Ahmed, U. (2016). Losing your best talent: can leadership retain employees? The dilemma of the banking sector of Hyderabad Sindh, Pakistan: a mediation investigation. International Review of Management and Marketing, 6(3), 608-616.
Khalifa, M.A., Gooden, M. A., Davis, J.E. (2016). culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research 20 (10) , 1–40.
Kianto, A., Vanhala, M. and Heilmann, P. (2016). The impact of knowledge management on job satisfaction. Journal of Knowledge Management, 20 (4), 621-636.
Kilderry, A. (2015). The intensification of performativity in early childhood education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 47 (5), 633-652.
Korunka, C., Kubicek, B., Paškvan, M. and Ulferts, H. (2015). Changes in work intensification and intensified learning: challenge or hindrance demands. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 30 (7), 786-800.
Kossivi1,B., Ming Xu1, B.K. (2016). Study on determining factors of employee retention. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 4 (5).
Kouali, G. (2017). The instructional practice of school school administrators and its effect on teachers’ job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management, 31 (7), 958-972. Kubicek,B., Tement, S. (2016). Work intensification and the work-home interface the moderating effect of individual work-home segmentation strategies and organizational segmentation supplies. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 15,
Kundu, S.C. and Lata, K. (2017). Effects of supportive work environment on employee retention: Mediating role of organizational engagement. International Journal of Organizational Analysis, 25 (4), 703-722.
Comments