Assessing the Relationship between Female Head Teachers’ Supportive Leadership Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness of Secondary Schools in Rwanda, Nyagatare District.

Assessing the Relationship between Female Head Teachers’ Supportive Leadership Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness of Secondary Schools in Rwanda, Nyagatare District.

Dr. Nuwatuhaire Benard¹ , Dr. Rwabutogo Zogeye Marcel² , Janan Mubehamwe³ & Dr. Phanual Murenzi⁴

^1,3Valley University of Science and Technology (VUST)

²Kigali Independent University-ULK

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2023.7011100

Received: 08 August 2023; Accepted: 02 September 2023; Published: 14 December 2023

ABSTRACT

This study assesed the relationship between female head teachers’ supportive leadership behaviors and organizational effectiveness of secondary schools in Rwanda, Nyagatare District. The study employed the correlational research designs on a sample of 120 using a questionnaire survey and an interview guide. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics that were means, and inferential analyses that included correlation and regression. Descriptive analysis revealed that organizational effectiveness through supportive leadership behaviors was fair. However, it had a positive and significant influence on schools organizational effectiveness. Therefore, it was concluded that supportive leadership behaviors are imperative for schools organizational effectiveness. Thus, it was recommended that the head teachers should be supportive to teachers to ensure schools’ organizational effectiveness

Keywords: Supportive Leadership Behaviors and Organizational Effectiveness

INTRODUCTION

Education is of great importance to the development of individuals and countries (Duan, Du & Yu, 2018). This is why education systems and institutions are constantly under review to establish their effectiveness (D’Sa& Sheela, 2015). Improving school effectiveness is a fundamental aim for school teachers, leaders, and societies (Duan, Du & Yu, 2018). School Organizational effectiveness is commonly measured by overall satisfaction of stakeholders with schools finances, human resource quality, pedagogics, and investment and infrastructure (De Witte &Schiltz, 2018). Therefore, assessing the relationship between female head teachers’ supportive leadership behaviors and organizational effectiveness is paramount.

Theoretical Review

The Path Goal Theory propounded by Martin Evans (1970) that was further developed by House (1996) informed this study. The Path Goal Theory States identifies a leader’s most practiced style as a motivation to get subordinates to accomplish goals. The basic propositions of the Path-Goal Theory are that one of the strategic functions of the leader is to enhance the psychological states of subordinates that result in motivation to perform or in satisfaction with the job.  In other words, leaders need to be cognisant of the necessary steps to clarify goals, paths, and enhance satisfaction through extrinsic rewards, which will in turn increase subordinates’ intrinsic motivation. The second proposition is that particular situational leader behaviour will accomplish the motivational function (Polston-Murdoch, 2013). The Path Goal Theory proposes that leaders are supposed to clarify and provide directions for followers, help remove obstacles, and provide encouragement and rewards for goal achievement to enhance performance motivation of employees (Farhan, 2018). According to Northouse (2016), the Path-Goal theory is a process in which leaders select specific behaviours that are best suited to the employees’ needs and the working environment so that they may best guide the employees through their path in the obtainment of their daily work activities (goals).

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Supportive Leadership Behaviours and Organizational Effectiveness

Supportive leadership is a leadership style that focuses on concerns for the needs and well-being of followers and the facilitation of a desirable climate for interaction. Supportive encompasses expressing interest in individual followers and attending and responding to their personal needs. Supportive leadership focuses more on social and emotional support which is manifested in behaviours such as sympathising, caring, and listening (Shin et al., 2016). Supportive leadership is a behaviour that enhances some else’s feeling of personal worth and importance. The leader ensures that the team members are provided with ample amount of resources and opportunities to achieve common goals. Personal welfare of team members is taken care of (Budhiraja& Malhotra, 2013). Rahiminejad and Golshani (20180 explain that supportive leadership behaviours give importance to the subordinates’ satisfaction and meet their needs and preferences. Supportive leaders are concerned with the well-being of their employees. With supportive leadership, the concern of leaders is to meet the needs of subordinates and this issue is very important for leaders towards subordinates.

There are different scholars that have related supportive leadership behaviors to Organizational effectiveness. For example, Budhiraja and Malhotra (2013) investigated the relationship between perceived leadership style and Organizational effectiveness amongst middle level managers of two service sector industries in India. Leadership styles were studied in terms of submental, participative and supportive leadership. The findings of the study confirmed the relationship between leader ship styles including supportive leadership and Organizational effectiveness. Derakhshandeh and Gholami (2012) investigated relationship between leadership styles and perceived Organizational effectiveness of directors and managers in organizations of the Agricultural ministry in one of the provinces of Iran. The results revealed that there was meaningful and positive relationship between leadership style including supportive leadership and perceived Organizational effectiveness. Golshani and Rahiminejad (2018) investigated the relationship between supportive leadership and oppressive styles with Organizational effectiveness undergraduate education students with general work experience and job tenure in a company.  The results indicated existence of a positive and significant relationship between supportive leadership with organizational effectiveness in terms of effectiveness of individual results, effectiveness and efficiency of the overall structure and system.

In relation to the above, Nayak and Mishra (2005) examined the impact of leadership styles on organizational effectiveness using employee of Rourkela Steel Plant in India. The study revealed that leadership styles of managers including supportive leadership highly influenced the Organizational effectiveness. Rahiminejad and Golshani (2018) investigate the relationship between Organizational effectiveness, supportive leadership and oppressive styles with employees of a company in Iran as units of analysis.  The study found out existence of a relationship between supportive leadership and Organizational effectiveness in terms of effectiveness of individual results, effectiveness and efficiency of the overall structure and system. Shin et al. (2016) explored the multilevel dynamics involving team leaders’ supportive leadership and individual work outcomes using employees in teams of a large engineering company located in South Korea. The results of multilevel structural equation modelling showed that supportive leadership was positively related to task performance.

Further, Sofi and Devanadhen (2015) sought to propose a conceptual model of the impact of leadership styles (transformational, transactional, participative, supportive and instrumental) on Organizational performance of selected banking organizations in Jammu and Kashmir, India. The findings revealed that supportive had an insignificant impact on organizational performance. Utrilla, Grande and Lorenzo (2015) analysed the effect of the supervisory role of coaching in both employees’ development and Organizational performance using human resource managers of Spanish firms. Structural modelling results indicated that supportive leadership had an influence on both individual performance and organizational performance.  The literature above shows that scholars have made significant effort to relate supportive leadership to Organizational effectiveness. However, contextual and empirical gaps emerged. At contextual level, the studies were skewed outside Rwanda. At empirical level, while all the other studies found a positive and significant relationship between the variables, Sofi and Devanadhen (2015) reported an insignificant relationship. These contextual and empirical gaps made it imperative for this study to further investigate the relationship between supportive leadership and Organizational effectiveness.

METHODOLOGY

The correlational research design was employed in carrying out this study. The correlational research design is used when testing relationships between variables of interest that is the independent and dependent variables (Curtis, Comiskey& Dempsey, 2015). The design is generally used because correlational studies are a quick and easy way of confirming whether there are relationships between two variables (Schober, Boer &Schwarte, 2018). This study adopted the correlational research design because a correlation coefficient is a simple and objective way to describe the strength of a relationship between two variables in a precise manner that makes it clear and easy to understand.

Sample Size and Sampling Technique

The sampling techniques used to select the respondents were census and purposive sampling. Census sampling involved the studying of whole population.  The census sample offers detailed information on all or most elements in the population involving all the total of a small population. This allowed the use of a questionnaire to collect information (Lavrakas, 2008). Census sampling method was used to select the teachers because although a small population, they were sufficient for providing questionnaire survey data necessary for generalisation of the findings. With purposive sampling, this was used to select particular people to provide in-depth views since the study was both quantitative and qualitative. The method of purposive sampling used was intensity purposive sampling. Intensity sampling allows the researcher to select a small number of rich cases that provide in depth information and knowledge of a phenomenon of interest (Palinkas et al., 2015).  The respondents selected purposively were head teachers.

The sample size comprised all the 127 teachers for the questionnaire survey and four female head teachers for the interview guide As shown in table 1 below.

Table 1: The Sample Size for responds  

DATA ANALYSIS

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis

Before analysing the data collected, all the data questionnaires were coded, entered into the computer using the Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS 24.0), summarised them using frequency tables and edited them to remove errors. Quantitative data were analysed at three levels, namely univariate, bivariate and multivariate levels. At univariate level, descriptive statistics specifically means were calculated. At bivariate level, the dependent variable (DV) was correlated and then regressed on the independent variables (IVs).

Qualitative Data Analysis

The processing of qualitative data collected involved coding and grouping following the study objectives and emerging themes. Analysis was done using content analysis. Through content analysis, it was possible to distil words into fewer content related categories. The aim was to attain a condensed and broad description of the phenomenon, and the outcome of the analysis was concepts or categories describing the phenomenon. Qualitative data supplemented quantitative data and help in providing explanations.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Response Rate

The researcher planned to collect data from 131 participants that were 127 teachers for the questionnaire survey and four head teachers for the interview guide. Nonetheless, relevant data for the questionnaire was collected from 116 and interviews from all the four anticipated participants. Therefore, appropriate data were collected from 120 respondents. The response rate was as presented in Table 2

Table 2: Response Rate for the Study

The data in Table 2 shows that questionnaire survey data were collected from 116(91.3%) respondents out of the originally determined 127 and all the four chosen for interviews participated in the study. The overall response rate for both survey data and interview respondents was 120(91.6%). This response rate was considered satisfactory because Nulty (2008) posits that a response rate of 50% is acceptable in social research surveys.

Descriptive Analysis and Results for Schools Organizational Effectiveness

The self-administered questionnaire  shows that the dependent variable (DV) namely, schools organizational effectiveness was studied using 16 items. The items were scaled using the five-point Likert scale where code 1 = Strongly Disagree (very low), 2 = Disagree (low), 3 = fairly agree (fair), 4 = Agree (high) and 5 = Strongly Agree (very high). For each of the items in the questionnaire, means are presented. The results are

presented in Table 3.

Table 3: Descriptive Results for Schools Organizational Effectiveness

The results in Table 3 shows that the respondents indicated that administrations of the schools were receptive to suggestions for change (mean = 4.01), there was cohesion among the teachers (mean = 3.56), the school was successful at attracting stakeholder support (mean = 3.70), attracted quality professional staff (mean = 3.60), the schools enjoyed stability (mean = 3.75) and had performance measures (mean = 3.82). This was because the means for items above were high close to code four corresponding with agree that is ranking at level four (4). However, fairly the schools attracted satisfactory numbers of students (mean = 3.41), academic performance of the schools was good (mean = 3.07), included the views of all constituent groups or stakeholders (mean = 3.14), regularly evaluated performance of staff (mean = 3.09), the strategic plans of the schools included clear and attainable objectives (mean = 3.21) and the schools engaged in long-term strategic planning (mean = 3.01). The results above indicated that the schools Organizational effectiveness on the items was fair because the means obtained were close to code 3 (fair or moderate) which corresponded with fairly agree.

The results nevertheless indicated that the schools lacked a variety of sources from which to acquires resources (means = 2.26), and the schools were not financially heathy (mean = 2.14) because the means on them were close to 2 (disagreed) which indicated low level school Organizational effectiveness on those items. To find out the overall view of how the teachers rated the schools Organizational effectiveness, an average index of schools Organizational effectiveness was computed for the 16 items measuring the same. The summary of the statistics on schools Organizational effectiveness were presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4. Summary Statistics for Schools Organizational Effectiveness

The results in Table 4 show that the mean = 3.27 was almost equal to the median = 3.17. Hence, although the results were negatively skewed (skew -0.50), they were normally distributed. The mean and median close to three suggested that schools Organizational effectiveness was fair because basing on the scale used, three represented fairly agree (fair). The low standard deviation = 0.80 suggested low dispersion in the responses. The curve in Figure 1 indicated normality of the responses.

Figure 1: Histogram for Schools Effectiveness

Figure 1 indicate normal distribution of the responses obtained on schools Organizational effectiveness. This suggests that the data obtained on schools Organizational effectiveness could be subjected to linear correlation and regression and appropriate results obtained.

To have explanations on the state of schools Organizational effectiveness, in the interviews the head teachers were asked to give their assessment on the Organizational effectiveness of the schools. In their responses, various related responses were given on schools. One head teacher said;

While I have been able to promote cohesion amongst my teachers, ensure stability with low staff turnover, attracted the support of parents and other community stakeholders, the students number in the school is low because lacks sufficient infrastructure because of low funding. The parents in the area are poor hence the fees collected cannot sufficiently cater the school needs such as establishing modern infrastructure. The school is largely dependent in government subventions.

On the other hand, another head teacher stated;

The academic performance of the school has improved over time because the school has been able attract quality teachers and facilities such school physical infrastructure including classes and the library have been established. The challenge is low school revenue and lack of other sources besides fees and government subventions to support the activities of the school. The development of the school is low because of limited resources.

 In relation to the above, another head teacher remarked that; “School Organizational effectiveness is low because of lack of finances. However, while the numbers of students in the school are low, they have gradually been increasing because the school has been able to attract good teachers.” Lastly, another head teacher indicated that: “School Organizational effectiveness is fair because the numbers of students have improved over time, the school now has more infrastructures, the numbers of students are also increasing and the school virtually has all the teachers it needs. In general, the views above shows that while Organizational effectiveness of the schools has been improving there is a challenge of limited financial resources. Hence, the growth of the schools remains fair. This finding is consistent with the descriptive statistics results revealed that schools Organizational effectiveness was fair or moderate.

Female Supportive Leadership Behaviours

This section presents results on the second independent variable namely female supportive leadership behaviours. The concept was measured using 16 items. The results on the same follow in Table 4.

Table 5: Descriptive Results for Supportive Leadership Behaviours

The results in Table 5. show that the female head teachers helped subordinates overcome problems that stopped them from carrying out the tasks (mean = 4.01), tried to understand teachers point of view when speaking to them   (mean = 3.57 ), could be relied on with respect to being to open to any remarks made them (mean = 3.98), encouraged teachers even in difficult situations (mean = 3.54), made it a point to express appreciation when teachers did a good job (mean = 3.80) and  made time to listen to the teachers (mean = 3.66). However, the teachers indicated that fairly, the head teachers maintained friendly working relationship with subordinates (mean = 3.08), did things to make it pleasant to be a member of the groups (mean = 3.35), behaved in a manner thoughtful of subordinates’ personal needs (mean = 2.89), tried to meet teachers’ needs (mean = 3.34), knew teachers well enough to know when they had concerns bothering them (mean = 3.47), and tried to meet teachers needs in such ways as informing them of what was expected of them when working (mean = 3.33).

Further, the teachers revealed the fairly, the female head teachers could be relied for help, for example if things were not going well between teachers (mean = 3.27), respected teachers as persons (mean = 3.22), and recognised teachers strengths and areas for development (mean = 2.78). However, the female head teachers did not inspire the teachers (mean = 1.92). To find out the overall perception of teachers on how they rated how the head teachers’ supportive leadership behaviour, an average index for supportive leadership behaviour was computed for the 16 items measuring the same. The summary of the statistics on supportive leadership behaviour were presented in Table 5

Table 6: Summary Statistics for Supportive Leadership Behaviour

The results in Table 6 show that the mean = 3.33 was close to the median = 3.50. Therefore, despite the negative skew (skew -0.41), the results were normally distributed. The mean close to three suggested that supportive leadership behaviour of female head teachers was fair because basing on the scale used, three represented fairly agree (fair). The low standard deviation = 0.72 suggested low dispersion in the responses. The curve in Figure 4.3 indicated normality of the responses.

Figure 2: Histogram for Supportive Behaviour

Figure 2 indicate normal distribution of the responses obtained on supportive leadership behaviour. This suggests that the data obtained on supportive leadership behaviour of female head teachers could be subjected to linear correlation and regression and appropriate results obtained.

To have explanations on the state of directive leadership behaviour, in the interviews the head teachers, they were asked to comment to how they used support leadership behaviour in the schools. In their responses, several related responses were given on how they used support leadership behaviour schools. One head teacher said;

In handling of my teachers, ensure that teachers deliver effectively. Whenever teachers report problems they encounter as they carry out their duties, I come in to support them such that they carry out their work effectively. The problem is that the school lacks financial resources to support the teachers effectively.

In relation to the above, another head teacher stated that;

I help teachers to perform their duties within their job requirements and policies of the school and teaching profession. Each teacher is appraised and feedback given about their level of performance as a way of making them improves their performance and encouraging them to continue the good work they perform.

Further, another head teacher remarked, “I make effort to motivate and mentor my teachers to enhance their performance. Nonetheless, because of lack of resources, I have not been able to provide training by organising workshops for the teachers. The school cannot manage to pay facilitators. Finally, another head teacher said, “I offer my teachers total support by helping them to execute their duties. The low resource envelop of the school is used to ensure that the teachers are able to carry out their work.” The responses above form head teachers showed that they made effort to support teachers as they carried out their work but were curtailed by finances. Therefore, this finding agrees with the descriptive statistics results which revealed that fairly, female head teachers exhibited supportive leadership behaviour.

Inferential Analysis

Correlation of Female Head Teachers’ supportive Leadership Behaviours and Schools Organisational Effectiveness

Table 7: Correlation Matrix for Female Head Teachers’ Supportive Leadership Behaviours and Schools Organisational Effectiveness

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The results in Table 7 suggest that all the component of female head teachers leadership behaviours that is, supportive (r = 0.429, p = 0.000< 0.05), had a positive and significant relationship with schools organisational effectiveness. This means that hypotheses (H₁) was accepted.

Regression of Schools Organisational Effectiveness on Female Head Teachers supportive Leadership Behaviours

At the confirmatory level, to establish whether organisational effectiveness was influenced by female head teachers’ leadership behaviours which was supportive, a regression analysis was carried out. The results were as in Table 7.

Table 7: Regression of Organisational Effectiveness on Female Head Teachers supportive Leadership Behaviours

Dependent Variable: Schools Organisational Effectiveness

The results in Table 7 shows that female head teachers  leadership behaviours which was supportive and achievement oriented explained 71.6% of the variation in schools organisational effectiveness (adjusted R² = 0.716). This means that 28.4% of the variation was accounted for by other factors not considered under this model. Out of the four leadership behaviours, only three behaviours namely directive (β = 0.528, p = 0.000 < 0.05), supportive (β = 0.236, p = 0.000< 0.05) and participative (β = 00.208, p = 0.001< 0.05) had a positive and significant influence on schools organisational effectiveness. However, achievement oriented leadership behaviours (β = 0.107, p = 0.292> 0.05) had a positive but insignificant influence on schools organisational effectiveness. This means that hypotheses one to three (H₁-H₃) were accepted buy hypothesis four (H₄) was rejected.

CONCLUSION

Supportive leadership behaviours are imperative for schools organisational effectiveness. Supportive leadership behaviours entail maintaining friendly working relationship with teachers, doing things that make work pleasant for teachers, helping teachers overcome problems that stop them from carrying out the tasks, and trying to meet teachers’ needs. Also such behaviours include knowing teachers well enough to know concerns bothering teachers, understanding teachers point of view when they speak to them, meeting teachers’ needs in such way as informing them what is expected of them when working, and positioning themselves as reliable to the teachers when they need their help.

RECOMMENDATION

Head teachers should be supportive to teachers to ensure schools organisational effectiveness. Therefore, head teachers should maintain friendly working relationship with teachers, should do things to make it pleasant for teachers, help teachers overcome problems that stop them from carrying out the tasks, and try to meet teachers’ needs. Head teachers should also know their teachers well enough to know concerns bothering teachers, understand teachers point of view when they speak to them, meet teachers needs in such way as informing them what is expected of them when working, and position themselves as reliable to the teachers when they need their help.

REFERENCES

1. Adefeso-Olateju, M., & Olurotimi, O. (2018, February 13). Solving the problem of teacher quality for the future of the Nigerian child. Available at: aventuresafrica.com
2. Akpoviroro, K. S., Kadiri, B., & Owotutu, S. O. (2018).Effect of participative leadership style on employee’s productivity. International Journal of Economic Behaviour, 8(1), 47-60.
3. Al-Mahayreh, M., Kilani, Y. M., & Harahsheh, F. A. (2016).The Influence of the Leadership Style on Managerial Creativeness from the Perspective of Employees within Jordanian Industrial Corporations. International Business and Management, 13(3), 27-39.
4. Aris, A., & Kamarudin, M. F. (2009). The impact of path-goal leadership behaviour on group cohesiveness: A Japanese Electronic Company and Singaporean Electronic Company in Johor. Journal of Human Capital Development (JHCD), 2(1), 1-11.
5. Armstrong, P. (2015). Effective school partnerships and collaboration for school improvement: A review of the evidence. Department for Education. Retrieved from: www.gov.uk/government/publications
6. Arnold, J. A., Arad, S., Rhoades, J. A., &Drasgow, F. (2000). The empowering leadership questionnaire: The construction and validation of a new scale for measuring leader behaviours. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 21(3), 249-269.
7. Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Kuchinke, K. P. (2016). Impact of leadership styles on employees’ attitude towards their leader and performance: Empirical evidence from Pakistani banks. Future Business Journal, 2(1), 54-64.
8. Banjarnahor, H., Hutabarat, W., Sibuea, A. M., & Situmorang, M. (2018). Job Satisfaction as a mediator between directive and participatory leadership styles toward organizational commitment. International Journal of Instruction, 11(4), 869-888.
9. Bell, C., &Mjoli, T. (2014). The effects of participative leadership on organisational commitment: Comparing its effects on two gender groups among bank clerks. African Journal of Business Management, 8(12), 451-459.
10. Bell, C., Chan, M., &Nel, P. (2014). The impact of participative and directive leadership on organisational culture: An organisational development perspective. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(23), 1970-1970.
11. Bell, C., Dodd, N., & Mjoli, T. (2018).The effect of participative and directive leadership on team effectiveness among administrative employees in a South African Tertiary Institution. Journal of Social Sciences, 55(1-3), 81-91.
12. Berry, M. E. (2015). When “bright futures” fade: Paradoxes of women’s empowerment in Rwanda. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 41(1), 1-27.
13. Botha, R. J. (2010). School effectiveness: conceptualising divergent assessment approaches. South African Journal of Education, 30(4), 605-620.
14. Bouwmans, M., Runhaar, P., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2017). Fostering teachers’ team learning: An interplay between transformational leadership and participative decision-making? Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 71-80.
15. Budhiraja, S., & Malhotra, M. (2013).Leadership style & organizational effectiveness in Indian it & banking industry. The Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, 49(2), 70-285.
16. Buengeler, C., Homan, A. C., & Voelpel, S. C. (2016). The challenge of being a young manager: The effects of contingent reward and participative leadership on team‐level turnover depend on leader age. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 37(8), 1224-1245.
17. Buhl-Wiggers, J., Kerwin, J. T., Smith, J. A., & Thornton, R. (2018). Teacher effectiveness in Africa: Longitudinal and causal estimates. Working paper. assets. publishing. service .gov.uk
18. Curtis, E., Comiskey, C., & Dempsey, O. (2015). Correlational research: Importance and use in nursing and health research. Nurse Researcher, 6, 20-25.
19. D’Sa, J. M. C., & Sheela, G. (2015).School learning culture and school effectiveness of secondary schools. International Journal of Education and Psychological Research (IJEPR), 4(2), 47-51.
20. Darling-Hammond, L., Flook, L., Cook-Harvey, C., Barron, B., & Osher, D. (2020).Implications for educational practice of the science of learning and development. Applied Developmental Science, 24(2), 97-140.
21. De Witte, K., & Schiltz, F. (2018). Measuring and explaining organisational effectiveness of school districts: Evidence from a robust and conditional Benefit-of-the-Doubt approach. European Journal of Operational Research, 267(3), 1172-1181.
22. Derakhshandeh, A., & Gholami, R. (2012).A relationship between leadership style and perceived organizational effectiveness by directors and managers in organizations. Management Science Letters, 2(3), 845-850.
23. Devarajan, R., Maheshwari, S., & Vohra, V. (2018). Managing performance: Role of goal setting in creating work meaningfulness. The Business & Management Review, 9(4), 261-274.
24. Dixon, M. L., & Hart, L. K. (2010). The impact of path-goal leadership styles on work group effectiveness and turnover intention. Journal of managerial issues, 22(1), 52-69.
25. Duan, X., Du, X., & Yu, K. (2018). School culture and school effectiveness: The mediating effect of teachers’ job satisfaction. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 17(5), 15-25.
26. Ekaterini, G. (2010). The impact of leadership styles on four variables of executives workforce. International Journal of Business and Management, 5(6), 3-16.
27. Eydi, H. (2015). Organizational effectiveness models: review and apply in non-profit sporting organizations. American Journal of Economics, Finance and Management, 1(5), 460-467.
28. Farhan, B. Y. (2018). Application of path-goal leadership theory and learning theory in a learning organization. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 34(1), 13-22.
29. Fatima, T., Safdar, S., & Jahanzeb, S. (2017). Participative leadership and employee creativity: Moderating role of need for achievement. International Journal of Business & Management, 12(1), 1-14.
30. Gaffield, C. (1994). Children’s lives and academic achievement in Canada and the United States. Comparative Education Review, 38(1), 36-64.
31. Golshani, G., & Rahiminejad, P. (2018).Examining the relationship between organisational effectiveness and leadership styles. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal, 8(3), 115-122.
32. Goswami, A., Li, M., Beehr, T. A., & Goffnett, S. P. (2014). Path-Goal leaders’ behaviors and subordinates’ personalities: Resulting subordinates’ behaviours. In Academy of Management Proceedings(Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 11888).
33. Goswami, A., Li, M., Beehr, T. A., &Goffnett, S. P. (2014). Path-Goal leaders’ behaviours and subordinates’ personalities: Resulting subordinates’ behaviours. In Academy of Management Proceedings(Vol. 2014, No. 1, p. 11888).
34. Guo, W. C., Dai, R., &Yang, J. (2016). The effect of leadership task behavior and relational behavior on job performance: investigating the moderating role of work alienation. Journal of Service Science and Management, 9, 97-110.
35. Harerimana, J. P., Ntahobavukira, B., & Adegoke, O. T. (2017). In-service education programmes for secondary school teachers and students’ academic performance: A case study of Nyarugenge District in Rwanda. IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS), 22(2), 100-115.
36. Haugen, C. S., Klees, S. J., Stromquist, N. P., Lin, J., Choti, T., & Corneilse, C. (2014). Increasing the number of female primary school teachers in African countries: Effects, barriers and policies. International Review of Education, 60(6), 753-776.
37. Hejres, S. K. (2018). Investigating the effectiveness of leadership styles on instructional leadership and teacher outcomes(PhD dissertation, Brunel University London, Uxbridge, Britain).
38. Herrera-Sosa, K., Hoftijzer, M., Gortazar, L., & Ruiz, M. (2018). Education in the EU: Diverging Learning Opportunities? World Bank.
39. Kahai, S. S., Sosik, J. J., & Avolio, B. J. (2004).Effects of participative and directive leadership in electronic groups. Group & Organization Management, 29(1), 67-105.
40. Kasimu, P. (2016). The influence of employee perception of the Leader’s Path-Goal leadership behaviors on organizational commitment: A Case Study of East African Breweries Limited (EABL)(Masters dissertation, United States International University-Africa, Nairobi, Kenya).
41. Kim, M., & Beehr, T. A. (2020). Empowering leadership: leading people to be present through affective organizational commitment? The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(16), 2017-2044.
42. Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). In: Encyclopaedia of survey research methods.  doi: https:// dx. doi. org/10.4135/9781412963947.n61
43. Lumbasi, G. W., Ouma, C. A., & K’Aol, G. O. (2015). The effect of achievement oriented leadership style on the performance of COYA Senior Managers in Kenya. International Journal of Novel Research in Marketing Management and Economics, 3 (2), 118-125.
44. Magombo-Bwanali, N. (2019). Relationship between leader behaviours and subordinates’ work performance. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 8(1), 50-63.
45. McGilton, K. S. (2010). Development and psychometric testing of the supportive supervisory scale. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 42(2), 223-232.
46. Mehmet, S. G., & Büşra, K. (2016).Effects of leadership behaviour on the organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A public sector research. Journal of Entrepreneurship Organizational Management, 5(2), 1-5.
47. Mohajan, H. K. (2017). Two criteria for good measurements in research: Validity and reliability. Annals of SpiruHaret University. Economic Series, 17(4), 59-82.
48. Mugizi, W., Mujuni, B. T., & Dafiewhare, O. A. (2019).Ethical leadership and job performance of teachers in secondary schools in Kyabugimbi Sub-County in Bushenyi District in South western Uganda. Direct Research Journal of Education and Vocational Studies, 1(1), 11-22.
49. Mugizi, W., Tumuhaise, G., Samanya, B., & Dafiewhare, A.O. (2019).Leadership styles and retention of teachers in private primary schools in Bushenyi-Ishaka Municipality, Uganda. Open Journal of Leadership, 8, 167-187.
50. Muntu, V. (2012).Quality of school management committees and head teachers’ management of selected secondary schools in Nyagatare District, Rwanda (Kampala International University, Kampala, Uganda).
51. Mwai, G., Namada, J., & Katuse, P. (2018). Does leadership style influence organizational effectiveness in non-governmental organizations? International Journal of Business and Management, 13(8), 52-64.
52. Mwaisaka, D. M., K’Aol, G., &Ouma, C. (2019). Influence of participative and achievement oriented leadership styles on employee job satisfaction in commercial banks in Kenya. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science 8(5), 42-53.
53. Namara, F. (2018).Factors affecting provision of quality basic education in Nyagatare District- Rwanda. Journal of African Interdisciplinary Studies.2(3), 109-119.
54. Nayak, B., & Mishra, B. B. (2005).Impact of leadership style on organizational effectiveness. Management and Labour Studies, 30(1), 90-103.
55. Ngcobo, A. D. (2016). Analysing the Empowerment of Women Leadership: A Case of the Durban University of Technology (Masters Dissertation, Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa).
56. Northouse, P. G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice (7^th Ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
57. Odiri, V. (2016). Participative leadership and organizational performance: empirical analysis of quoted oil firms on the Nigerian stock exchange. Journal of Academic Research in Economics, 8(2), 287-293.
58. Palinkas, L. A., Horwitz, S. M., Green, C. A., Wisdom, J. P., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and policy in mental health and mental health services research, 42(5), 533-544.
59. Polston-Murdoch, L. (2013). An Investigation of path-goal theory, relationship of leadership style, supervisor-related commitment, and gender. Emerging Leadership Journeys, 6(1), 13-44.
60. Postlethwaite, T. N. (2004). The quality imperative: What do international assessment studies tell us about the quality of school systems? Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2005.
61. Rahiminejad, P. & Golshani, G. (2018).Examining the relationship between organisational effectiveness and leadership styles. Contemporary Educational Researches Journal.8(3), 115-122.
62. Rana, R., K’Aol, G., & Kirubi, M. (2019). Influence of directive and achievement oriented path-goal leadership styles on employee performance of coffee trading companies in Kenya. International Journal of Research in Business and Social Science, 8(6), 137-147.
63. Rangriz, H., & Soltanieh, F. (2015).Exploring the effects of organisational capabilities and managerial competencies on the organisational effectiveness. Journal of Strategic Human Resource Management, 4(2), 1-14.
64. Scheerens, J. (2000). Improving school effectiveness. Paris, France: United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation.
65. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L. A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia& Analgesia, 126(5), 1763-1768.
66. Shepard, L. A. (2016). Testing and assessment for the good of education: Contributions of AERA Presidents, 1915–2015. Educational Researcher, 45(2), 112-121.
67. Shin, Y., Oh, W. K., Sim, C. H. S., & Lee, J. Y. (2016). A multilevel study of supportive leadership and individual work outcomes: The mediating roles of team cooperation, job satisfaction, and team commitment. Journal of Applied Business Research (JABR), 32(1), 55-70.
68. Sofi, M. A., & Devanadhen, K. (2015). Impact of leadership styles on organizational performance: An empirical assessment of banking sector in Jammu and Kashmir (India). IOSR Journal of Business and Management (IOSR-JBM), 17(8), 31-45.
69. Sofijanova, E., & Zabijakin-Chatleska, V. (2013). Employee involvement and organizational performance: Evidence from the manufacturing sector in republic of Macedonia. Trakia Journal of Sciences, 11(1), 31-36.
70. Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational administration quarterly, 41(5), 777-800.
71. Somech, A. (2006). The effects of leadership style and team process on performance and innovation in functionally heterogeneous teams. Journal of management, 32(1), 132-157.
72. Spaull, N. (2013). South Africa’s education crisis: The quality of education in South Africa 1994-2011. Johannesburg: Centre for Development and Enterprise, 1-65.
73. Tabernero, C., Chambel, M. J., Curral, L., & Arana, J. M. (2009).The role of task-oriented versus relationship-oriented leadership on normative contract and group performance. Social Behaviour and Personality: An International Journal, 37(10), 1391-1404.
74. Tahsildari, A., & Shahnaei, S. (2015). Enhancing organizational effectiveness by performance appraisal, training, employee participation, and job definition. European Journal of Business and Management, 7(12), 56-63.
75. Usadolo, S. E. (2020). The influence of participative leadership on agricultural extension officers’ engagement. SAGE Open, 1-14
76. Utrilla, P. N. C., Grande, F. A., & Lorenzo, D. (2015). The effects of coaching in employees and organizational performance: The Spanish Case. Intangible Capital, 11(2), 166-189.
77. Uwamahoro, J. (2011). Barriers to women in accessing principal ship in secondary schools in Rwanda: A case study of two secondary schools in the Gicumbi District (Masters dissertation, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa).
78. Uwizeyimana, D., Yadav, L., Musengimana, T., & Uwamahoro, J. (2018). The impact of teaching approaches on effective physics learning: an investigation conducted in five Secondary Schools in Rusizi District, Rwanda. Rwandan Journal of Education, 4(2), 4-14.
79. Williams, T. P. (2017). The political economy of primary education: Lessons from Rwanda. World Development, 96, 550-561.