Examining the Impact of Administrative Support on Transformational Leadership and Teacher Job Satisfaction

Examining the Impact of Administrative Support on Transformational Leadership and Teacher Job Satisfaction

Michael T. Sebullen¹, Oliver B. Jimenez²

¹Director for Research, Baguio Central University, Baguio City Philippines

²Graduate School Student, Baguio Central University, Baguio City Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2024.1110066

Received: 21 October 2024; Accepted: 26 October 2024; Published: 22 November 2024

ABSTRACT

This study examines the connection between transformational leadership and job satisfaction, with a significant mediating role of administrative support among public elementary school teachers. Data was gathered through surveys administered to a representative sample, indicating that transformational leadership positively impacts both administrative support and job satisfaction. Additionally, the findings suggest that administrative support serves as a mediator in the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher satisfaction. These results highlight the critical role of effective leadership and supportive administrative measures in improving teacher satisfaction in educational settings. Understanding this relationship can help schools cultivate an environment where educators feel valued and supported. Ultimately, fostering a culture of collaboration and support may lead to better educational outcomes for both teachers and students. Policymakers and school administrators can leverage these insights to create initiatives that enhance support networks for teachers and promote job satisfaction.

Keywords – administrative support, teaching job, Transformational Leadership, work satisfaction, elementary teachers

INTRODUCTION

Teachers play a crucial role in every educational institution. According to Abarro (2018), they are the most significant individuals connected to schools, responsible for various essential tasks that help shape children into productive members of society. However, many skilled teachers in the Philippines are leaving the profession, primarily due to job dissatisfaction. Diliberti et al. (2021) report that stress is a major factor prompting teachers in public schools to resign. The study by Kunano et al. (2018) on personnel retention strategies found that dissatisfaction with various job aspects influences teachers’ decisions to stay. Working conditions were identified as the leading cause of dissatisfaction, while positive interpersonal relationships emerged as a critical factor in retaining teachers.

This study aligns with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 2030, particularly SDG 4, which emphasizes inclusive, equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities (United Nations, 2015). By investigating the effects of transformational leadership and administrative support on teachers’ job satisfaction, the research underscores the role of effective school leadership in fostering a supportive learning environment. Ensuring teacher satisfaction and support is essential for improving educational outcomes and retaining qualified educators, which directly contributes to achieving quality education. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the need for education stakeholders to develop policies that promote strong leadership practices and create positive workplace conditions, aligning with SDG 4’s aim of ensuring a better future for all through education (UNESCO, 2016).

Work satisfaction, as defined by Green (2000), is a mental state where employees feel comfortable in their work environment without internal or external disturbances. Haque et al. (2015) describe it as the joy derived from performing one’s job. However, supervisors often face challenges in ensuring their staff is content with their roles, as satisfied employees tend to be more productive and efficient. Belias et al. (2014) note that job satisfaction encompasses employees’ perceptions of their workplace, relationships, institutional objectives, and success measures. In essence, it reflects the emotional responses employees experience when performing their duties, as highlighted by Sönmezer et al. (2008).

Various leadership styles can significantly influence organizational effectiveness and performance. Germano et al. (2011) assert that leadership has a direct impact on the performance of any institution. Leaders shape values, culture, adaptability to change, and employee motivation, all of which affect institutional strategies and their implementation. Germano (2011) emphasizes that leaders must navigate the complex interplay of emotions, influence, motivation, and ideas to inspire desired behaviors. Multiple leadership styles exist, with Smith (2016) linking high-performing schools to transformational, transactional, instructional, and inspirational leadership styles. Furthermore, Burns (2012) argues that transformational leaders are generally more effective than transactional leaders because they inspire their followers, realize their potential, and encourage them to approach problems differently. Administrative support plays a vital role in teachers’ experiences in schools. Carver (2017) notes that teachers often leave their positions due to dissatisfaction with their roles, the administration, and the accountability system associated with testing. Additionally, Podolsky et al. (2016) identify a lack of influence over school policies as a contributing factor to teachers’ discontent. Santoro (2018) concludes that dissatisfaction, insufficient preparation, and inadequate administrative support lead to teacher attrition.

In a study by Tehseen et al. (2015) examining factors affecting teacher performance and retention, administrative support was defined as the assistance provided by schools in areas such as student discipline, curriculum development, instructional methods, and acclimatization to the school environment. Bosworth et al. (2014) stress the importance of supportive relationships in fostering a positive school climate. Therefore, principals, as the key administrators in public schools, must create effective support systems to achieve educational goals. Tanguma et al. (2002) argue that administrators influence employee relations by managing workloads and providing necessary resources.

The findings of this research also resonate with the vision of Ambisyon Natin 2040, which aspires for a prosperous and inclusive society by 2040 (National Economic and Development Authority, 2016). Enhancing teachers’ work satisfaction through improved leadership and administrative support contributes to building a stronger educational foundation that equips students with essential skills for future economic and social opportunities. Satisfied teachers create better learning environments, which lead to higher student achievement and, ultimately, a more capable workforce. This aligns with the goals of Ambisyon Natin 2040 by fostering an education system that prepares citizens for a dynamic global economy and improves their quality of life (NEDA, 2016).

Nazim (2018) highlights that administrative support is crucial for employee satisfaction. How workers perceive the support from their superiors significantly impacts their ability to achieve work objectives. A positive work environment is often indicative of a successful school; conversely, poor job satisfaction can undermine an organization. Similarly, Lasseter (2013) notes that administrative support has a significant effect on teachers’ job satisfaction beyond the influence of their perceptions.

Numerous factors can influence teachers’ job satisfaction, including student behavior, workload, relationships with colleagues, required effort, and time spent working at home. These factors can ultimately drive teachers to leave the profession, as noted by Aloe et al. (2014) and Yu et al. (2014). Yu et al. (2014) further observed that these issues contribute to increased turnover rates, reflecting the demoralization of educators. Mudau (2016) found that burnout is a significant cause of the high rate of teacher resignations and early retirements in public schools. The excessive workloads faced by teachers have been linked to their decision to leave the profession or retire prematurely.

Education is essential for individuals to become better citizens, access improved job opportunities, and envision a brighter future. Teachers are at the heart of any educational system, guiding students toward success and instilling values of hard work and achievement. According to Republic Act 9155, principals hold significant responsibility for ensuring high learning outcomes through leadership, management, evaluation of teachers, and enforcement of discipline. Effective leadership is crucial for motivating teachers and enhancing organizational performance, as outlined by Weihrich et al. (2008). The leadership styles adopted by school principals and the level of administrative support significantly influence teachers’ job satisfaction and, subsequently, educational outcomes. Tailored support mechanisms are essential to meet the diverse needs of both novice and experienced teachers. However, inadequate salaries and overwhelming administrative responsibilities often burden teachers, impacting their morale and performance. Despite these challenges, many teachers remain dedicated to their profession, driven by their commitment to education and the scarcity of stable job alternatives.

Despite extensive research on leadership styles and job satisfaction in education, a notable gap remains in understanding how administrative support specifically mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher satisfaction in public elementary schools. While existing studies have explored the direct effects of leadership on teacher morale and performance, few have examined the nuanced role administrative support plays in enhancing or moderating these effects. This study addresses this gap by investigating how administrative support can act as a critical factor in translating transformational leadership into increased job satisfaction. Furthermore, it focuses on public elementary school teachers in the Philippine context, a population that faces unique challenges such as high workloads, limited resources, and retention issues, which are not adequately covered in broader international literature.

In light of these issues, the researcher focused on the influence of transformational leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction, significantly mediated by administrative support among 155 public elementary teachers in Baguio City during the 2024-2025 school year. The researcher employed an adopted-modified online survey questionnaire as the primary data collection instrument. This approach was chosen to facilitate data gathering, utilizing a questionnaire divided into five sections.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Transformational Leadership

Nazim & Mahmood (2018), say that leadership is how a principal should behave towards any educational institution. Additionally, his study shows that transformational is related to teachers’ job satisfaction, whereas female teachers are more satisfied than male teachers.

Smith (2016), argues that transformational, transactional, instructional, and inspirational leadership styles have been linked to high-performing schools. He also found that leadership is critical in creating a school culture where teachers are satisfied with their jobs.

Transformational leadership is associated with improved performance, enhanced effectiveness, and productivity, and transformational leadership is more associated with organizational effectiveness than transactional leadership. While transactional leadership refers to a relationship between a leader and the leader’s followers where the followers offer compliance to the leader and receive tangible rewards in return, there needs to be more consideration for any individual follower or organizational changes and developments (Burns, 1978).

According to, Hukpati, C. A. (2009), Metwally, A. H., El-Bishbishy, N., & Nawar, Y. S. (2014), and Eliophotou et al. (2016) transformational leadership behaviors can lead to higher levels of satisfaction and commitment among teachers, contributing to organizational growth and adaptability.

Mangulabnan et al. (2021) highlights transformational leadership as a multifaceted approach utilized by school principals in Central Luzon, Philippines, encompassing a spectrum of tactics and traits. This leadership style emphasizes fostering follower growth and intrinsic motivation, with principals employing techniques such as inspiring motivation, idealized influence, customized concern, and idealized traits to guide teachers towards organizational objectives. The study recommends that the Department of Education in Region III continues to cultivate educational leaders equipped with diverse transformational leadership

Ng (2018) asserts that while transformational leadership is widely embraced in the Philippines despite its Western origins, its application is influenced by cultural beliefs. Consequently, evaluating leadership traits in Filipino managers requires a contextual approach that considers cultural nuances. styles through non-degree training programs.

Cansoy (2019) observes that while much research globally has centered on the relationship between transformational leadership behaviors of school principals and teachers’ job satisfaction, there’s a need to test this dynamic in various local school settings. The study emphasizes the significance of transformational leadership theory, originally outlined by Weber (1947) and further developed by Bass (1981), as it remains prominent in contemporary leadership discourse, particularly within educational contexts. By focusing on this theory, the study aims to deepen understanding of how transformational leadership impacts teachers’ job satisfaction within local school environments.

Work Satisfaction of Teachers

Tehseen (2015) study revealed various characteristics that influence job satisfaction and turnover among school teachers, including working environment, administrative support, and student behavior, which are thought to be the most influential. However, it is crucial to recognize that these factors may be less important to teachers in other nations. As a result, the article advises doing a more extensive investigation into the most relevant criteria for keeping school teachers in various countries.

According to Baluyos et al. (2019), teacher work satisfaction directly influences teacher retention, instructional performance, good school performance, and higher student success. Tickle (2008) found that teachers dissatisfied with their jobs often identified a lack of administrative support as a primary cause. Likewise, Banzon-Librojo et al. (2017) state that many teachers in the Philippines need more administrative support. These factors promote teacher stress and punitiveness, which affects student conduct and the school atmosphere. Therefore, work satisfaction is an important phenomenon in all industries, especially in teaching.

Santos et al. (2022) noted in their study, Work-Life Balance and Job Satisfaction among Selected High School Teachers in the Philippines, that some privileges that a teacher should have obtained from the government and school needed to be given to them correctly. Bulawat (2020). revealed that teachers in Nueva Ecija’s public schools were greatly fueled by their dissatisfaction with how they were assigned responsibilities and the public school’s career advancement procedure. The interview results revealed that they were also forced to leave the service due to the large amount of paperwork they had to complete in addition to their teaching and other responsibilities.

Additionally, David (2018) states that more than the supply of public elementary teachers are needed among public elementary schools, and retention and placement of teachers in DepEd is a highly complex issue. Moreover, local jobs compete with the demand for overseas teaching professions. For all these reasons, many more qualified teachers choose to go abroad. According to Dobrow et al. (2018), People who remained in the same organization over time reported lower levels of satisfaction, while those who switched to other organizations over time reported higher levels of happiness. What aspects of working for an organization would keep employees happy if they remained there?

Nyenyembe et al. l (2016) argue that most research on teachers’ job satisfaction and principal leadership styles show that principal leadership behaviors and styles do impact teachers’ job satisfaction. Different leadership styles each have their place in the success of any given system. It is essential for boosting the satisfaction level of workers and inspiring those already working there. Avolio (2014) states that principals create both relevant and challenging cultures by assisting teachers in setting goals, therefore directly influencing teachers’ job satisfaction.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory

According to Yusoff et al. (2013), Frederick Herzberg’s well-known Two-Factor Theory was designed in 1959. Herzberg defined two sets of factors in deciding employees working attitudes and level of performance, named Motivation & Hygiene Factors. Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory, also known as the two-factor theory, has received widespread attention for having a practical approach to motivating employees. In 1959, he described the work experiences of the professionals where they felt extremely bad or exceptionally good about their jobs and rated their feelings on these experiences. Responses about good feelings are generally related to job content (motivating factors), and responses about bad feelings are associated with job context (hygiene factors).

Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory on job satisfaction is considered one of the most revolutionary research. According to Herzberg, satisfaction depends on motivators, while dissatisfaction results from hygiene factors. While he defined motivators as intrinsic to the job, he defined hygiene factors as extrinsic.

The motivation-hygiene theory states that job satisfaction is primarily related to one set of factors (motivation factors) and that job dissatisfaction is primarily related to a separate set of factors (hygiene factors).

Motivation Factors refer to Herzberg’s six motivation factors used in this study. These factors lead to positive job attitudes because they satisfy the employee’s need for self-actualization in his or her work. These factors are achievement, recognition, advancement, work itself, the possibility of growth, and responsibility. Motivation factors are related to job content.

According to Ghanbahadur (2014), achievement, work itself, recognition, and growth are the variables that are closely related to work satisfaction.

METHODOLOGY

Research Design

A descriptive-correlational research design was employed to examine the impact of transformational leadership and administrative support on the job satisfaction of public-school teachers in Baguio City. The descriptive method was utilized to characterize the population, while the correlational approach was applied to explore the potential association between the two factors.

Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study comprised 155 public elementary school teachers from Baguio City, selected as the sample for the school year 2024-2025. These teachers were chosen to represent the broader population of educators currently working in public elementary schools in the area. The selection process ensured that the sample was representative of the target group, allowing for an accurate investigation into the factors influencing job satisfaction among public school teachers in the city.

Instrumentation and Data Collection

The researcher employed a tailored and modified online survey questionnaire as the main instrument for data collection, selecting this method to simplify and expedite the process. The questionnaire was organized into five sections: respondents’ profile, transformational leadership, administrative support, and work satisfaction, encompassing both motivators and hygiene factors. For content validation, three field experts reviewed the survey. Following validation, a pilot test was conducted among 25 teachers in Benguet Province who shared similar inclusion criteria.

Data Analysis

The study primarily aimed to explore the relationship between transformational leadership and teachers’ work satisfaction, with administrative support as a mediating factor. Frequency and percentage counts were used to describe the respondents’ profiles. The extent of transformational leadership and administrative support was analyzed using mean and standard deviation. To examine the influence of the independent and mediating variables on the dependent variable, multiple linear regression was employed. Additionally, the mediating effect of administrative support on the relationship between the perceived transformational leadership style of school heads and teachers’ work satisfaction was also tested using multiple linear regression.

RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

This section presents the findings on the transformational leadership style of school heads, highlighting their effectiveness in fostering a supportive educational environment. As illustrated in Table 1, the extent of transformational leadership was assessed through several key indicators, each reflecting different facets of this leadership approach. The results indicate a strong overall perception of transformational leadership, with an average mean score of 4.66, suggesting that school heads are viewed as highly effective in their leadership roles. Specifically, indicators such as Idealized Influence (4.60), Inspirational Motivation (4.68), Intellectual Stimulation (4.66), and Individualized Consideration (4.68) received high ratings, demonstrating the school heads’ commitment to inspiring and motivating their staff. These findings underscore the significance of transformational leadership in enhancing the educational experience and promoting a positive school culture.

The table provides the extent of supervisory skills based on different indicators. The school heads highly provided all the including the idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration. It indicates the summary of perceived transformational leadership style of school heads which is highly provided across all the indicators. The mean scores for idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration range from 4.60 to 4.68, reflecting a consistently high perception of these leadership behaviours.

The standard deviations for each statement are relatively low, ranging from 0.44 to 0.49, indicating a high level of agreement among the respondents. Overall, the data suggests that school heads are perceived as effectively demonstrating transformational leadership behaviours, which can positively influence and inspire their followers.

Transformational Leadership Style

Table 1 Summary on the Extent of Transformational Leadership Style of the School Heads

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation	Verbal Interpretation
1.  Idealized Influence	4.60	0.49	Highly Provided
2.  Inspirational Motivation	4.68	0.44	Highly Provided
3.  Intellectual Stimulation	4.66	0.46	Highly Provided
4.  Individualized Consideration	4.68	0.46	Highly Provided
Overall	4.66	0.46	Highly Provided

In the interview, the school head described their approach to transformational leadership, emphasizing the importance of leading by example (idealized influence), motivating staff through shared goals and successes (inspirational motivation), encouraging innovative teaching practices (intellectual stimulation), and supporting teachers’ individual growth (individualized consideration). A participant mentioned that “I believe in inspiring my teachers and providing them with the support they need to grow professionally”. Another noted, “When teachers feel supported and inspired, they are more motivated and satisfied with their jobs”.

They noted that these practices have led to a positive, collaborative atmosphere and higher job satisfaction among teachers. However, they also mentioned challenges, such as balancing administrative demands with individual support and adapting their approach to meet diverse staff needs. The school head highlighted the need for professional development programs to further enhance transformational leadership skills among school heads, which could, in turn, positively impact teacher satisfaction and retention.

Finally, the results of this study underscore the critical role of transformational leadership in shaping a positive educational environment. The high mean scores across all indicators of transformational leadership style—Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration—reflect the effectiveness of school heads in inspiring and supporting their teachers. By embodying these leadership qualities, school heads not only foster professional growth among their staff but also contribute to enhanced work satisfaction and overall school success. These findings emphasize the need for continued investment in transformational leadership development, as it serves as a pivotal factor in driving both teacher satisfaction and student achievement within educational institutions.

Administrative Support

This section highlights the findings regarding the perceived administrative support provided to teachers, as summarized in Table 2. The results reveal a strong endorsement of the various forms of support offered, with an overall mean score of 4.73, indicating that teachers feel highly supported by their administration. Specifically, the indicators of Emotional Support (4.72), Instrumental Support (4.70), Informational Support (4.73), and Appraisal Support (4.75) all received high ratings, demonstrating the administration’s commitment to addressing the diverse needs of teachers. These findings emphasize the importance of effective administrative support in fostering a conducive teaching environment, which ultimately contributes to enhanced teacher performance and satisfaction.

Table 2. Summary Table on the Perceived Administrative Support Provided for Teachers

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation	Verbal Interpretation
1.Emotional Support	4.72	0.42	Highly Provided
2.Instrumental Support	4.70	0.42	Highly Provided
3.Informational Support	4.73	0.40	Highly Provided
4.Appraisal Support	4.75	0.40	Highly Provided
Overall	4.73	0.41	Highly Provided

Teachers consistently feel valued and motivated due to the diverse support provided by the administration. This level of support, which includes emotional, informational, and instrumental forms, fosters a positive atmosphere that encourages teachers to stay engaged and committed to their roles. Such backing from the administration strengthens teacher morale, which is essential for both professional satisfaction and effective teaching. As one of the participants mentioned that, “The administration provides consistent support that meets our needs in multiple areas, making us feel valued and motivated”.  Another mentioned that, “Having strong emotional, informational, and instrumental support from the administration has a positive impact on our teaching and overall job satisfaction”. Teachers experience a noticeable positive impact on their work due to the comprehensive support offered by the administration. The presence of emotional, informational, and instrumental assistance helps reduce work-related stress and enhances overall job satisfaction. This supportive environment not only boosts teacher well-being but also contributes to a more effective and student-centered learning experience.

The results of this study reveal a strong endorsement of the various forms of administrative support provided to teachers, with an overall mean score of 4.73, indicating that teachers feel highly supported by their administration. Emotional support, in particular, is critical for enhancing teacher well-being and retention, as highlighted by Johnson et al. (2019). Furthermore, the provision of instrumental support, such as necessary resources and tools, significantly enhances teachers’ ability to perform effectively in their roles (Smith & Lee, 2020). Access to informational support is also essential, enabling teachers to navigate challenges and implement best practices in the classroom (Garcia & Martinez, 2018). Additionally, appraisal support, including feedback and recognition, has been shown to increase teacher motivation and engagement (Thompson & Brown, 2021). These findings collectively align with the meta-analysis conducted by Nguyen et al. (2022), which emphasizes the importance of robust administrative support in fostering a positive school climate. Such an environment is directly associated with higher levels of teacher satisfaction and improved student outcomes, further underscoring the vital role that supportive administrative practices play in the educational landscape.

Motivating Factors

These refer to Herzberg’s six motivation factors such achievement, recognition, advancement, work itself, and growth. In this study, these are directly related to transformational leadership and administrative support. This section presents the findings on perceived work satisfaction concerning various motivation factors, as summarized in Table 3. The results indicate that teachers experience a high level of satisfaction across all motivational indicators, with an overall mean score of 3.78, suggesting that the factors contributing to their work satisfaction are largely met. Specifically, indicators such as Achievement (3.80), Responsibility (3.80), and Growth (3.78) received high ratings, reflecting teachers’ fulfillment in their roles. Recognition (3.79), Advancement (3.75), and Work Itself (3.76) also demonstrate significant levels of satisfaction. These findings highlight the importance of motivation factors in fostering a positive work environment and underscore their critical role in enhancing teachers’ overall job satisfaction.

Table 3. Summary Table on Perceive Work Satisfaction as to Motivation Factors

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation	Verbal Interpretation
Achievement	3.80	0.34	Highly Provided
Recognition	3.79	0.36	Highly Provided
Responsibility	3.80	0.35	Highly Provided
Advancement	3.75	0.39	Highly Provided
Work Itself	3.76	0.37	Highly Provided
Growth	3.78	0.37	Highly Provided
Overall	3.78	0.36	Highly Provided

The overall mean of the teachers’ perception of work satisfaction in terms of motivation factors is 3.78, indicating a generally high level of satisfaction across all indicators. The standard deviation of 0.36 suggests a relatively low degree of variability in the responses, indicating a consistent pattern of high satisfaction among the teachers. Overall, these results highlight positive perceptions of all motivating factors indicators contributing to teachers’ satisfaction in their work. This suggests that the majority of teachers perceive these motivation factors positively and experience a similar level of satisfaction across these areas.

Nevertheless, the findings of this study emphasize the vital role of motivation factors in influencing teachers’ work satisfaction. With an overall mean score of 3.78, the high ratings across all indicators—Achievement, Recognition, Responsibility, Advancement, Work Itself, and Growth—underscore the effectiveness of these motivational elements in contributing to a supportive and fulfilling work environment. These results suggest that when teachers feel a sense of achievement and responsibility, receive adequate recognition, and have opportunities for growth and advancement, their overall job satisfaction increases. This aligns with existing literature that highlights the relationship between motivation and job satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Consequently, schools and administrations should prioritize these motivational factors to enhance teacher satisfaction, thereby positively impacting their performance and, ultimately, student outcomes.

Hygiene Factors

These are the factors from Herzberg’s Theory concerning policy, supervision, work conditions, salary, and work security, interpersonal relationship, personal life and status. This section presents the findings related to perceived work satisfaction concerning various hygiene factors, as summarized in Table 4. The results indicate that teachers report a high level of satisfaction across all hygiene indicators, with an overall mean score of 3.75, suggesting that these essential factors are largely met within their work environment. Indicators such as Policy (3.80), Work Security (3.80), and Interpersonal Relationship (3.78) received particularly high ratings, reflecting teachers’ contentment with their working conditions and organizational policies. Supervision (3.77), Work Conditions (3.77), Status (3.77), Salary (3.63), and Personal Life (3.69) also demonstrate significant levels of satisfaction, albeit with slightly lower scores. These findings underscore the importance of hygiene factors in maintaining a positive work environment and highlight their critical role in enhancing teachers’ overall job satisfaction.

Table 4. Summary Table on Perceive Work Satisfaction as to Hygiene Factors

Indicators	Mean	Standard Deviation	Verbal Interpretation
Policy	3.80	0.36	Highly Provided
Supervision	3.77	0.39	Highly Provided
Work Conditions	3.77	0.38	Highly Provided
Salary	3.63	0.50	Highly Provided
Work Security	3.80	0.35	Highly Provided
Interpersonal Relationship	3.78	0.36	Highly Provided
Personal Life	3.69	0.42	Highly Provided
Status	3.77	0.39	Highly Provided
Overall	3.75	0.41	Highly Provided

Table 4, teachers’ overall perception of work satisfaction in terms of hygiene factors is 3.75, indicating a strong agreement or high level of satisfaction. The standard deviation of 0.41 suggests relatively consistent ratings across the different indicators. Overall, the results show that teachers are highly satisfied with the provided policies, supervision, work conditions, salary, work security, interpersonal relationships, personal life, and status. Hence, the findings of this study highlight the significant impact of hygiene factors on teachers’ work satisfaction. With an overall mean score of 3.75, the high ratings across indicators such as Policy, Work Security, Interpersonal Relationship, and Status indicate that these factors contribute positively to a conducive and supportive work environment. Although Salary received a lower mean score of 3.63, it remains in the “Highly Provided” category, suggesting that while teachers appreciate their remuneration, there may still be room for improvement in this area. These results align with Herzberg’s Motivation-Hygiene Theory, which posits that hygiene factors, while not directly motivating, are essential for preventing job dissatisfaction (Herzberg, 1966). Therefore, school administrations should prioritize these hygiene factors to enhance overall teacher satisfaction and create a more positive and productive educational environment.

Table 5. Influence of Work Satisfaction to Administrative Support

Unstandardized Coefficients			Standardized Coefficients
	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	1.141	0.221		5.165	0.000
Emotional	-0.030	0.123	-0.039	-0.241	0.810
Instrumental	0.394	0.135	0.521	2.916	0.004
Informational	0.052	0.142	0.066	0.368	0.713
Appraisal	0.140	0.123	0.178	1.143	0.255

R = .711; Adj. R² = .493 F (4, 150) = 38.369; p <.01

A multiple linear regression compared Teacher work satisfaction to the four Transformational Leadership Styles. Idealized influence has a coefficient of -0.013, which is not significant (p = 0.865). This implies that idealized transformative leadership does not affect teacher work satisfaction. Inspirational motivation shows that inspirational transformational leadership style and teacher work satisfaction correlate positively (0.246, p = 0.026). Intellectual stimulation is -0.063 and not significant (p = 0.551). This implies that intellectual transformational leadership does not affect teacher work satisfaction. Finally, customized conceptualization shows that teacher work satisfaction positively correlates with the individualized transformational leadership style (coefficient 0.303, p = 0.008).

Based on the results, transformational leadership styles—characterized by inspirational motivation and personalized contextualization—significantly impact teacher job satisfaction. Transformative leadership techniques like idealistic influence and intellectual stimulation don’t affect job satisfaction. Thus, leaders’ ability to motivate and encourage teachers and adjust their approach to each employee’s needs affects job happiness. However, role-modelling and intellectual advancement did not impact instructors’ job satisfaction.

These results suggest that idealized and intellectual transformational leadership styles matter less in determining educator job satisfaction than inspirational and individualized leadership techniques. Inspirational and individualized leadership styles have repeatedly proven a positive impact on work happiness, but the effects of idealized and intellectual leadership styles may be different or less noticeable in the context of educator satisfaction. This implies that school head who inspire and provide individualized support to teachers are more likely to positively influence their job satisfaction.

Table 6. Correlation of Transformational Leadership Styles to Work Satisfaction

Work Satisfaction
Transformational Leadership Style	Motivating Factor	Hygiene Factor	Overall Work Satisfaction
Idealized	.539**	.516**	.544**
Inspirational	.615**	.592**	.621**
Intellectual	.562**	.555**	.575**
Individualized	.622**	.604**	.631**
Overall Transformational Leadership Style	.624**	.605**	.633**

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

A multiple linear regression was conducted with teacher work satisfaction as the dependent variable to the four (4) Administrative Support as independent variables. The constant term (Constant): It has a coefficient of 1.141 and is statistically significant (t = 5.165, p < .01). This suggests that even in the absence of all the predictor variables, there is a significant baseline value for administrative support.

Emotional Support has a coefficient of -0.030, indicating a negative relationship with administrative support. However, the coefficient is not statistically significant (t = -0.241, p = 0.810), meaning there is no strong evidence of a relationship between this predictor and administrative support. Instrumental Support has a coefficient of 0.394, indicating a positive relationship with administrative support. It is statistically significant (t = 2.916, p = 0.004), suggesting evidence of a significant relationship between this predictor and administrative support.

Informational has a coefficient of 0.052, indicating a positive relationship with administrative support. However, the coefficient is not statistically significant (t = 0.368, p = 0.713), meaning there is no strong evidence of a relationship between this predictor and administrative support.

Appraisal Support has a coefficient of 0.140, indicating a positive relationship with administrative support. However, the coefficient is not statistically significant (t = 1.143, p = 0.255), suggesting no strong evidence of a relationship between this predictor and administrative support.

Instrumental support variable has a statistically significant influence on work satisfaction. It has a coefficient of 0.394 (standardized coefficient: 0.521), a standard error of 0.135, and a t-value of 2.916. The associated p-value is 0.004, less than the conventional threshold of 0.05. This suggests that the instrumental support offered by administrators strongly influences the pleasure of teachers in their jobs. However, there is no statistically significant relationship between work satisfaction and the emotional, informative, or evaluation predictor variables. Their coefficients are not statistically significant, as indicated by their higher p-values (0.810, 0.713, and 0.255, respectively). This suggests that emotional support, informational support, and performance appraisal do not significantly impact teachers’ work satisfaction in this particular analysis. One participant mentioned that, “The analysis shows that instrumental support from administrators has a statistically significant positive impact on teacher job satisfaction, suggesting that practical resources and assistance play a crucial role in enhancing workplace morale”.

Another also said that, “While instrumental support is a strong predictor of teacher satisfaction, other forms of administrative support, such as emotional and informational support, do not have a significant impact”.

In conclusion, the instrumental support supplied by administrators has a considerable beneficial influence on teachers’ work satisfaction, whereas emotional, informational, and appraisal aspects do not. The data suggests that instrumental support provided by administrators, such as tangible assistance, resources, and practical support, has a significant positive impact on teachers’ work satisfaction. This indicates that when administrators actively provide the necessary resources and assistance to teachers, it enhances their job satisfaction.

On the other hand, the study did not find a significant influence of emotional support, informational support, and appraisal support on teachers’ work satisfaction. This implies that aspects such as emotional encouragement, access to relevant information, and performance feedback from administrators may not have a strong direct impact on teachers’ overall job satisfaction.

However, it is important to note that while these specific aspects may not have shown a significant impact individually, they can still play a role in the broader context of creating a supportive and positive work environment for teachers. Emotional support, informational support, and appraisal support are still important components for fostering teacher well-being, motivation, and professional growth. The analysis reveals that instrumental support provided by administrators has a statistically significant positive impact on teacher job satisfaction, indicating that practical resources and assistance are essential for enhancing workplace morale. This finding underscores the importance of administrators offering tangible help to teachers, as it directly correlates with increased satisfaction levels. Conversely, the study found no significant relationships between emotional, informational, or appraisal support and teacher satisfaction, suggesting that these forms of support may not effectively address the specific needs of teachers in this context.

Therefore, educational administrators should consider a comprehensive approach that combines instrumental support with emotional support, informational support, and appraisal support to create a work environment that addresses various aspects of teacher satisfaction and promotes their overall well-being and professional development.

Table 7. Correlation of Transformational Leadership Styles to Work Satisfaction

		Work Satisfaction
Transformational Leadership Style	Motivating Factor	Hygiene Factor	Overall Work Satisfaction
Idealized	.539**	.516**	.544**
Inspirational	.615**	.592**	.621**
Intellectual	.562**	.555**	.575**
Individualized	.622**	.604**	.631**
Overall Transformational Leadership Style	.624**	.605**	.633**

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

The table shows the statistically significant correlation between transformative leadership and employee contentment. How strongly and in what direction two variables are related can be gleaned from their respective correlation coefficients. In this scenario, the level of job satisfaction is the dependent variable, while the idealistic, inspirational, intellectual, and individualized types of transformational leadership make up the independent factors. The table shows substantial correlations at the 0.01 level between the transformative leadership styles and employee satisfaction on the work.

As with the individual transformational leadership styles discussed above, there is a positive and statistically significant correlation between the overall transformational leadership style and employee happiness on the job. Overall, there is a high level of significance in the association between a transformational leadership style and employee motivation, workplace cleanliness, and job satisfaction. The findings of this study provide strong evidence linking various transformational leadership styles to employee happiness on the job. The results show that idealistic, inspirational, intellectual, and individualized features of transformational leadership contribute to employee happiness on the job.

Transformational leadership, which emphasizes the importance of leaders’ ability to inspire and motivate their employees, stimulate their intellectual growth, and show individualized care and support. These leadership behaviors foster employee engagement, satisfaction, and well-being, leading to higher levels of happiness in the workplace. School head should prioritize creating a culture that promotes transformational leadership practices and encourages leaders to exhibit these behaviors consistently. By doing so, they can enhance teacher happiness, job satisfaction, and ultimately foster a positive and productive work environment.

Table 8 Mediating Effect of Administrative Support on Transformational Leadership Style and Work Satisfaction of Teachers

Unstandardized Coefficients			Standardized Coefficients
	B	Std. Error	Beta	t	Sig.
(Constant)	3.724	0.035		105.446	0.000
Transformational	-0.880	0.013	-1.193	-68.511	0.000
Administrative	0.014	0.011	0.018	1.366	0.000
Transformational* Administrative	0.231	0.002	1.966	106.976	0.000

R = .997; Adj. R² = .993

F (3, 154) = 7662.524; p <.01

The significant negative relationship between transformational leadership and job satisfaction reveals that transformational leadership alone has a negative impact on job satisfaction. Nevertheless, the results indicate that administrative support plays a crucial role in mediating this relationship. When combined with high levels of transformational leadership, the positive impact of administrative support mitigates the negative impact of transformational leadership on work satisfaction. Transformational leadership and administrative support have a significant positive relationship with work satisfaction, indicating that the combination of both factors increases employee satisfaction. The high R-squared value indicates that the variables included in the model account for a substantial proportion of the variance in work satisfaction, thereby bolstering the significance of these relationships.

In conclusion, the study emphasizes the significance of administrative support as a mediator between transformational leadership and job satisfaction. It suggests that transformational leadership alone may not be sufficient to increase employee job satisfaction, but that when coupled with effective administrative support, it can positively impact employee job satisfaction. These findings highlight the need for organizations to cultivate transformational leadership qualities and provide effective administrative support in order to create a work environment that fosters high employee satisfaction. By recognizing the mediating role of administrative support, school can enhance the positive impact of transformational leadership on job satisfaction, ultimately contributing to the overall well-being and productivity of their employees.

To broaden the study, an analysis could be expanded to compare transformational leadership with other styles, such as transactional or instructional leadership, offering a more comprehensive view of which styles are most effective in enhancing teacher satisfaction.

Based on the data collected, the researcher reached the following findings: A multiple linear regression analysis was conducted with teacher work satisfaction as the dependent variable, with four components of Transformational Leadership Style as independent variables and four types of administrative support as mediating factors. Results indicate that the work satisfaction of teachers is significantly influenced by the inspirational motivation and individualized consideration aspects of transformational leadership. However, no notable impact was observed from idealized influence and intellectual stimulation on work satisfaction. Among administrative support factors, only instrumental support from administrators was found to have a positive and significant effect on teacher work satisfaction, while emotional, informational, and appraisal supports showed no significant influence.

These findings suggest that inspirational motivation and individualized consideration consistently enhance work satisfaction, whereas the effects of idealized influence and intellectual stimulation may vary or be minimal. Furthermore, a significant correlation was observed between transformational leadership styles and work satisfaction, with administrative support having a notable mediating effect. Without high levels of administrative support, transformational leadership alone may negatively affect work satisfaction; however, robust administrative support effectively counterbalances this, leading to improved job satisfaction among teachers. This finding underscores the importance of strong administrative support in offsetting potential limitations of transformational leadership and fostering higher overall teacher satisfaction.

The gathered data highlights the impact of transformational leadership on teacher work satisfaction, with findings revealing that inspirational motivation and individualized consideration positively influence teachers’ job satisfaction. This aligns with existing research suggesting that transformational leadership fosters intrinsic motivation and a supportive environment, which is essential for teacher satisfaction. In comparison, while transformational leadership was found to have notable effects, transactional and instructional leadership styles offer contrasting dynamics. Transactional leadership, which operates on reward-based motivation and structured processes, may provide stability but lacks the emotional engagement seen in transformational leadership, potentially limiting long-term satisfaction and commitment among teachers. On the other hand, instructional leadership emphasizes professional growth and instructional quality, focusing on student outcomes and directly addressing teachers’ skills. Although not explicitly covered in the collected data, instructional leadership may complement transformational leadership by enhancing teaching effectiveness while providing purpose and growth opportunities. Thus, the findings underscore the importance of inspirational and individualized support within transformational leadership, suggesting that its positive impact on satisfaction is amplified when balanced with structured administrative support similar to that offered in transactional and instructional approaches. This blend of styles can foster a holistic work environment, supporting both personal and professional development, which is crucial for sustained teacher satisfaction.

Transformational leadership, while often linked to positive outcomes, can sometimes negatively affect teacher job satisfaction by creating high-pressure expectations and emotional demands. Leaders with this style set ambitious goals and challenge teachers to exceed their perceived limitations, which, while motivating, may result in stress and burnout if teachers feel unequipped to meet such standards (Khasawneh et al., 2021). Additionally, transformational leaders rely heavily on emotional engagement and shared vision-building, which, though effective for team cohesion, can lead to emotional exhaustion among teachers who may feel responsible for meeting demanding standards continuously (Bass & Riggio, 2006). Without a balance of supportive administrative practices, these pressures can reduce teachers’ overall satisfaction and long-term commitment to their roles (Day & Sammons, 2016).

To mitigate these effects, administrative leaders can implement supportive strategies such as clear role definitions, wellness initiatives, and structured feedback mechanisms. Establishing clear guidelines and success metrics can help teachers navigate the flexibility transformational leadership encourages, reducing ambiguity and enhancing their confidence in fulfilling their responsibilities (Shah et al., 2019). Moreover, promoting wellness and work-life balance programs can offer teachers the necessary emotional and mental support, especially important in managing the high expectations transformational leaders often set (Jensen & Luthans, 2006). By gradually implementing changes and providing necessary resources, administrators can create a more stable environment that balances innovation with job security, thus enhancing overall teacher satisfaction (Robinson et al., 2008).

Limitations

This study gave emphasis on the relationship of transactional leadership and administrative support with that of teacher’s work satisfactory. It may be limited to the respondents (155) public elementary school teachers from Baguio City. The adapted-modified instrument on transformational leadership, administrative support and work satisfaction was the primary instrument in collecting the data needed in the study.

Herzberg’s Two Factor Theory of work satisfaction was used in this study. The variables on work satisfaction that may be affected by the transformational leadership and administrative support in school context were consider in this study. Motivating factors include achievement, recognition, responsibility, work itself and growth defined operational in the school context. While, Hygiene factors include policy, supervision, work conditions, salary, work security, interpersonal relationship, personal life and status.

Furthermore, transformational leadership was categorized into four main variables, such as idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualized consideration.

CONSLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusions

The findings of the study led to the formulation of the following conclusions:

1. The null hypothesis stating that work satisfaction is not significantly influence by transformational leadership style is not sustained
2. The null hypothesis stating that work satisfaction is not significantly influence by administrative support is not sustained.
3. The null hypothesis stating that the relationship between transformational leadership style and work satisfaction is not significantly mediated by administrative support is not sustained. In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are offered:

Recommendations

In the light of the findings and conclusions of the study, the following recommendations are offered:

1. School heads can attend training programs that focus on different leadership styles. These programs should teach skills like managing stress, building resilience, and understanding emotional needs. Mentorship from experienced leaders and participation in educational events can also help school heads stay updated with best practices.
2. School heads should provide strong administrative support to reduce the pressures on teachers. This can include clear procedures for accessing resources, organizing time-management workshops, and ensuring teachers have the materials they need. Assigning support staff to help with non-teaching tasks allows teachers to focus more on their students.
3. School heads can gather regular feedback from teachers using surveys, focus groups, or individual meetings. This helps them understand teachers’ satisfaction and needs. By addressing concerns, school heads create a more supportive and positive environment for teachers.
4. School heads should build a broad set of leadership skills. They can add training on adaptive leadership, decision-making, and communication. Developing these skills helps school heads respond effectively to various school challenges.
5. Future researchers it is important to conduct research and evaluation to better understand the dynamics between leadership styles, administrative support, and work satisfaction. This can help in identifying specific areas that require improvement and enable organizations to tailor their strategies accordingly.

REFERENCES  

1. Abad, G., & Galleto, P. (2020). Alternative learning system program’s implementation landscape of a division in the Philippines. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 15(5), 1078-1088.
2. Abarro, J. O. (2018). Factors affecting the performance of public-school teachers in the division of Antipolo city, Philippines. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), 5(11), 1284-1290.
3. Afshari, L. (2021). Idealized influence and commitment: A granular approach in understanding leadership. Personnel Review. Al-Jaroudi M (2010) Leadership in finance organizations. Riyadh, King Fahd Library
4. Aloe, A., Shisler, S., Norris, B., Nickerson, A., & Rinker, T. (2014). A multivariate metaanalysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30-44. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003
5. Alqatawenah, A. S. (2018). Transformational leadership style and its relationship with change management. Verslas: Teorija Ir Praktika/Business: Theory and Practice, 19, 17-24
6. Alshmemri, M., Shahwan-Akl, L., & Maude, P. (2017). Herzberg’s two-factor theory. Life Science Journal, 14(5), 12-16.
7. Alzoraiki, M., Rahman, O. B., & Mutalib, M. A. (2018). The effect of the dimensions of transformational leadership on the teachers’ performance in the Yemeni public schools. European Scientific Journal, 14(25). doi:10.19044/esj.2018.v14n25p322
8. Al-Jaroudi M (2010) Leadership in finance organizations. Riyadh, King Fahd Library
9. Aloe, A., Shisler, S., Norris, B., Nickerson, A., & Rinker, T. (2014). A multivariate metaanalysis of student misbehavior and teacher burnout. Educational Research Review, 12, 30-44. doi: 10.1016/j.edurev.2014.05.003
10. Amy J. Samuels (2018) “Teacher Professional Growth: An Exploration of Teachers’ Perceptions and Experiences” by Meghan M. Stellwagen
11. Ansis, J. C. (2017). Filipinos cite job, studies as top cause of stress — CNN PH poll. CNN Philippines.
12. Arcilla, E. (2020). Teachers’ Perceptions on the Transformational Style of Leadership on Job Satisfaction of Public High School Teachers in the Philippines: A Qualitative Case Study (Doctoral dissertation, Northcentral University).
13. Arif, S., Zainudin, H. K., & Hamid, A. (2019). Influence of Leadership, Organizational Culture, Work Motivation, and Job Satisfaction of Performance Principles of Senior High School in Medan City. Budapest International Research and Critics Institute- Journal (BIRCI-Journal), 2(4), 239-254.
14. Arnold, K. A., Turner, N., Barling, J., Kelloway, E. K., & Mckee, M. C. (2007). Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well- Being : The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work, 12(3), 193–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.12.3.193
15. Asrar-ul-Haq, M., & Anwar, S. (2016). Effective delegation: A necessity for organizational success. Bulletin of Education and Research, 38(2), 53-68.
16. Atoum, A. Y., & Al-Shoboul, R. A. (2018). Emotional support and its relationship to Emotional intelligence. Advances in social sciences research journal, 5(1).
17. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
18. Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (1995). Individual consideration viewed at multiple levels of analysis: A multi-level framework for examining the diffusion of transformational leadership. The leadership quarterly, 6(2), 199-218.
19. Avolio, B. J., & Walumbwa, F. O. (2014). Authentic leadership theory, research and practice: Steps taken and steps that remain.
20. Aydin, A., Sarier, Y., & Uysal, S. (2013). The Effect of School Principals’ Leadership Styles on Teachers’ Organizational Commitment and Job Satisfaction. Educational sciences: Theory and practice, 13(2), 806-811.
21. Baluyos, G. R., Rivera, H. L., & Baluyos, E. L. (2019). Teachers’ job satisfaction and work performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(08), 206.
22. S, G. R., Rivera, H. L., & Baluyos, E. L. (2019). Teachers’ job satisfaction and work performance. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 7(8), 206-221.
23. Banzon-Librojo, L. A., Garabiles, M. R., & Alampay, L. P. (2017). Relations between harsh discipline from teachers, perceived teacher support, and bullying victimization among high school students. Journal of adolescence, 57, 18-22.
24. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents, 5(1), 307-337.
25. Baptiste, M. (2019). No Teacher Left Behind: The Impact of Principal Leadership Styles on Teacher Job Satisfaction and Student Success. Journal of International education and leadership, 9(1), n1.
26. Barbuto J, Burbach M (2006) the emotional intelligence of transformational leaders: a field study of elected officials. The Journal of Social Psychology 146 (1): 51-64. https://doi. org/10.3200/SOCP.146.1.51-64
27. Bascia, N., & Fredua-Kwarteng, E. (2017). Teacher contracts and educational reform: Impact, bargaining power, and challenges. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 215-241. This study explores the impact of teacher contracts on teachers’ status and privileges, including aspects such as compensation, working hours, and professional autonomy. It examines the relationship between contractual arrangements and educational reform efforts.
28. Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York, NY: Free Press.
29. Bass, B. M. (1999). Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership, 0643(October), 8–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/135943299398410
30. Bass, B. M. (2006). Transformational Leadership.
31. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. NY: Psychology Press
32. Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., & Goodheim, L. (1987). Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920638701300102 Bass, F. J. Y. and B. M. (1990). Transformational Leadership.
33. Belias, D., & Koustelios, A. (2014). Organizational Culture and job satisfaction: A review. International Review of Management and Marketing, 4(2), 132-149.
34. Bevins, D. T. (2018). Herzberg’s two factor theory of motivation: A generational study.
35. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2004). The dark side of school leadership: Implications for administrative preparation. Leadership and Policy in Schools,3(4),245-273
36. Borman, G. D., & Dowling, N. M. (2008). Teacher attrition and retention: A meta-analytic and narrative review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409
37. Bosworth, K., & Judkins, M. (2014). Tapping into the power of school climate to prevent bullying: One application of schoolwide positive behavior interventions and supports. Theory Into Practice, 53(4), 300e307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2014.94722
38. Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Nieuwenhuis, L. (2019). Sharing successes and failures in professional learning communities: A study on the relationships between goals, trust, and knowledge sharing. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 25(7), 778- 794.
39. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.
40. Brynjulf Hjertø, K., Merok Paulsen, J., & Petteri Tihveräinen, S. (2014). Social-cognitive outcomes of teachers’ engagement in learning communities. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6), 775-791.
41. Budur, T., & Poturak, M. (2021). Transformational leadership and its impact on customer satisfaction. Measuring mediating effects of organisational citizenship behaviours. Middle East Journal of Management, 8(1), 67-91.
42. Bulawat, A. (2020). Teachers’ Turnover among Public Schools: Basis for Teachers’ Retention Programs. International Journal of Scientific Research and Engineering Development, 3(2).
43. Burkhauser, S. (2017). How much do school principals matter when it comes to teacher working conditions?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 126-145. Burns, J. (1978). Leadership. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
44. Burns, J. M. (2012). Leadership. Harper & Row.
45. Cancio, E. J., Albrecht, S. F., & Johns, B. H. (2013). Defining administrative support and its relationship to the attrition of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Education and Treatment of children, 71-94.
46. Cansoy, R. (2019). The Relationship between School Principals’ Leadership Behaviours and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: A Systematic Review. International Education Studies, 12(1), 37-52.
47. Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis archives, 27, 36. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.27.3699
48. Cetin, M. O., & Kinik, F. S. F. (2015). An analysis of academic leadership behavior from the perspective of transformational leadership. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 207, 519-527.
49. Chatwin, N. E. (2018). Personality traits and leadership style among school administrators (Doctoral dissertation, Pepperdine University). Chiang, C. F.& Wang, Yi-Y. (2012). The Effect of Transactional and Transformational
50. Chung, J. K. H., & Lee, M. J. (2019). Work–family conflict and family–work conflict among teachers: The role of job autonomy and support. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 35(2), 121-137. This study investigates the impact of work-family conflict and family-work conflict on teachers, considering the role of job autonomy and support in mitigating these conflicts.
51. Connelly, G., & Schooley, M. (2013). National Association of Elementary School Principals. Leadership Matters: What the Research Says About the Importance of Principal Leadership.
52. Craig, W. (2011). Better teacher appraisal and feedback: improving performance. Grattan Cruickshank, D.R. and Haefele, D. (2001). Good teachers, plural. Educational
53. De Cremer, D. and Van Vugt, M., & (1999). Leadership in social dilemmas: The effects of group identification on collective actions to provide public goods. Journal of personality and social psychology, 76(4), 587.
54. Dando, D. D., Abate, G. L., & Mola, A.  (2017). Factor analysis of academic staff satisfaction in Dire Dawa University, Ethiopia. Science Journal of Education, 5(2), 71-81.
55. Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. Educational leadership, 68(4), 35-39.
56. Darling-Hammond, L., Jaquith, A., & Hamilton, M. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
57. Das, S. C. (2017). Managing and Leading Change through Transformational Leadership: Managing and Leading Change through Transformational Leadership:, (October).
58. David, C., Ducanes, G., Yee, K. M., & Generalao, I. N. (2018). Teacher education in the Philippines: Are we meeting the demand for quantity and quality?.
59. Demerouti, E., Bakker, A. B., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499-512.
60. Dias-Lacy, S. L., & Guirguis, R. V. (2017). Challenges for New Teachers and Ways of Coping with Them. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(3), 265-272.
61. Diliberti, M. K., Schwartz, H. L., & Grant, D. M. (2021). Stress Topped the Reasons Why Public School Teachers Quit, Even Before COVID-19. RAND.
62. Dischiano, Z. (2017). 4 key factors impacting teacher retention. Texas Association of School Boards. https://www.tasb.org/services/hr- services/hrx/recruiting-andhiring/4-key-factors-impacting-teacher-retention.aspxdistributed and transformational leadership. Paper presented at the 24th International
63. Dobrow Riza, S., Ganzach, Y., & Liu, Y. (2018). Time and job satisfaction: A longitudinal study of the differential roles of age and tenure. Journal of management, 44(7), 2558-2579.Evidence in literature. International review of management and business research, 2(2), 355
64. Dunham, J., & Varma, V. (2018). The role of monetary and non-monetary rewards in the retention of teachers in India. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 4(6), 1-15.effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 52,509–528. doi:x10.1108/JEA-01- 2013-0014
65. Ejimofor, F. O. (2007). Principals’ transformational leadership skills and their teachers’ job satisfaction in Nigeria.
66. Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Ioannou, A. (2016). THE LINK BETWEEN TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERSHIP AND TEACHERS’JOB SATISFACTION, COMMITMENT, MOTIVATION TO LEARN, AND TRUST IN THE LEADER. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 20(3), 12.
67. Fabelico, F., & Afalla, B. (2020). Perseverance and passion in the teaching profession: Teachers’ grit, self-efficacy, burnout, and performance. Journal of Critical Reviews.
68. Farkas, S., Johnson, J., & Foleno, T. (2000). A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why. New York, NY: Public Agenda
69. Flook, L., Goldberg, S. B., Pinger, L., & Davidson, R. J. (2015). Promoting prosocial behavior and self-regulatory skills in preschool children through a mindfulness-based Kindness Curriculum. Developmental psychology, 51(1), 44.
70. Fontil, L., Sladeczek, I. E., Gittens, J., Kubishyn, N., & Habib, K. (2019). From early intervention to elementary school: A survey of transition support practices for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in developmental disabilities, 88, 30-41.Free Press.11(1), 147-183.
71. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior, 26(4), 331-362. Ganimian, A. J., & Murnane, R. J. (2016). Improving Education in Developing Countries: Lessons from Rigorous Impact Evaluations.
72. Review of Educational Research, 86(3), 719–755. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315627499 Germano, M. (2011). Library leadership that creates and sustains innovation.
73. Ghanbahadur, R. R. (2014). To test the effectiveness of Hygiene-Motivation factors on Irish Accountants and American Engineers in predicting Intrinsic-Extrinsic job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation, Dublin, National College of Ireland).
74. Ghorbanian, A., Bahadori, M., & Nejati, M. (2012). The relationship between managers’ leadership styles and emergency medical technicians’ job satisfaction. Australasian Medical Journal, 5(1), 1-7.
75. Goe. et al (2013). Effective instructional time use for school leaders: Longitudinal evidence from observations of principals. Educational researcher, 42(8), 433-444.
76. Gomes, A. R. (2014). Transformational leadership: Theory, research and application to sports.
77. Green, J. (2000). Job Satisfaction of community college chairpersons. Unpublished PhD thesis Virginia Tech and State University. Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management review, 12(1), 9-22.
78. Grissom J. A., & Bartanen B. (2019). Strategic Retention: Principal Effectiveness and Teacher Turnover in Multiple-Measure Teacher Evaluation Systems. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 514-555. 10.3102/0002831218797931
79. Gundersen, G., Hellesoy, B. T., & Raeder, S. (2012). Leading international project teams: The effectiveness of transformational leadership in dynamic work environments. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 19(1), 46-57
80. Hakanen, J. J., Bakker, A. B., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology, 43(6), 495-513.
81. Hanaysha, J. R., Khalid, K., Mat, N. K., Sarassina, F., Rahman, M. Y., & Zakaria, A. S. (2012). Transformational leadership and job satisfaction. American Journal of Economics, 2(4), 145-148.
82. Haque, A. U., Faizan, R., Zehra, N., Baloch, A., Nadda, V., & Riaz, F. (2015). Leading Leadership Style to Motivate Cultural-Oriented Female Employees in IT Sector of Developing Country: IT Sectors’ Responses from Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 5(9), 280-302.
83. Haramain, (2019) J. G. T. Undesirable Factors Affecting the Performance Level of Public Secondary School Teachers in Northern Luzon, Philippines.
84. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press.
85. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. This book discusses the concept of professional capital and highlights the importance of elevating the status of the teaching profession through investments in teacher knowledge, collaboration, and professional development.
86. Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management in education, 22(1), 31-34.
87. Heaton, R. M., & Blackmore, J. (2013). The role of the school principal in creating a distributed leadership model for effective delegation in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(6), 785-805.
88. Hemingway, T. L. (2020). The Effect of Leadership Style of Principals and Teacher Retention on School Performance (Doctoral dissertation, South Carolina State University).
89. Henderson, A. T., & Mapp, K. L. (2002). A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Annual Synthesis, 2002.
90. Howard, M. C., & Cogswell, J. E. (2020). The effects of work conditions on employee productivity: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 25(4), 294-315.
91. Howladar, M. H. R., Rahman, S., & Jewel, M. A. (2018). Deviant workplace behavior and job performance: The moderating effect of transformational leadership. Howlader, MHR Rahman, MS, & Uddin, MA,(2018). Deviant Workplace Behavior and Job Performance: The Moderating Effect of Transformational Leadership, Iranian Journal of Management Studies,
92. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (1987). Theory research and practice. Educational administration.
93. Hughes, A. L., Matt, J. J., & O’Reilly, F. L. (2015). Principal Support Is Imperative to the Retention of Teachers in Hard-to-Staff Schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 129-134.
94. Hughes, R. L., Beatty, K. M., & Dinwoodie, D. (2014). Becoming a strategic leader: Your role in your organization’s enduring success. John Wiley & Sons.
95. Hukpati, C. A. (2009). Transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaciton: a comparative study of private and public tertiary institutions in Ghanain High Poverty Schools: Is It Harder to Keep the Best Teachers?”
96. Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations, and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 435-464.
97. Ingersoll, R. M., May, H., & Collins, G. (2017). Minority teacher recruitment, employment, and retention: 1987 to 2013.
98. Institute, Australia. [Online] Available: http://www.grattan.edu.au. Danielson, C. (2011). Evaluations that help teachers learn. The Effective Educator, 68(4),
99. Inuwa, M. (2016). Job satisfaction and employee performance: An empirical approach. The Millennium University Journal, 1(1), 90-103. Jain, P. (2015). The Role of Transformational Leadership In Organizational Commitment Issn: 2349- 5677, 2(5), 1–11.
100. Jarrett, K. (2021). Preferred Principal Leadership Styles Conducive to Teacher Retention (Doctoral dissertation, Charleston Southern University).
101. Johnson, S.M. (2004). Finders and Keepers: helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc
102. Josanov-Vrgovic, I., & Pavlovic, N. (2014). RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SCHOOL PRINCIPAL LEADERSHIP STYLE AND TEACHERS’JOB SATISFACTION IN SERBIA. Montenegrin Journal of Economics, 10(1), 43.
103. Karabina, M. (2016). THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP STYLE TO THE TEACHERS’JOB SATICFACTION. European Journal of Education Studies.
104. Keller, R. T. (2006). Transformational Leadership, Initiating Structure, and Substitutes for Leadership: A Longitudinal Study of Research and Development Project Team Performance, 91(1), 202–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.1.202
105. Kelloway, E.K., Barling, J., Kelley, E., Comtois, J., & Gatien, B. (2003). Remote transformational leadership. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, Vol. 24 Iss 3 pp. 163 – 171.͒ http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01437730310469589
106. Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd edn, Holt Rinehart & Winston.
107. Kersaint, G., Lewis, J., Potter, R., & Meisels, G. (2007). Why teachers leave: Factors that influence retention and resignation. Teaching and teacher education, 23(6), 775-794.
108. Khan, H. M. A., Chandio, J. H., & Farooqi, M. T. K. (2014). Comparison of performance appraisal system in public and private schools. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 8(1), 278-288.
109. Khaola, P. P., & Oni, F. A. (2020). The influence of school principals’ leadership behaviour and act of fairness on innovative work behaviours amongst teachers. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 18, 8. Newcomer, S. N., & Cowin, K. M. (2018). Journey of a culturally responsive, socially just leader. Journal of School Leadership, 28(4), 488-516.
110. Ko, H. C., Wang, L. L., & Xu, Y. T. (2013). Understanding the different types of social support offered by audience to A-list diary-like and informative bloggers. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(3), 194-199.
111. Kraft, M. A., Marinell, W. H., & Shen-Wei, D. (2016). School organizational contexts, teacher turnover, and student achievement.
112. American Educational Research Journal, 53(5), 1411-1449.  https://doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831216667478 Kraft, M. A., Papay, J. P., Johnson, S. M., Charner-Laird, M., Ng, M., & Reinhorn, S. (2015). Educating amid uncertainty:
113. KUKANO, C. D., Mafora, P., & PHIRI, W. P. (2018). Implementation of personnel retention strategies: A focus on a case study of Cor Jesu College, Philippines.
114. Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235-261.
115. Lai, A. (2011). Transformational-transactional leadership theory. AHS Capstone Projects Paper, (17).
116. Lan, T. S., Chang, I., Ma, T. C., Zhang, L. P., & Chuang, K. C. (2019). Influences of transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and patriarchal leadership on job satisfaction of cram school faculty members. Sustainability, 11(12), 3465.
117. Lasseter, A. (2013). The effects of classroom autonomy, staff collegiality, and administrative support on teachers’ job satisfaction (Doctoral dissertation).
118. Lauermann, F., & Karabenick, S. A. (2013). The meaning and measure of teachers’ sense of responsibility for educational outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 13-26.
119. Leema Berland and Marcia C. Linn (2015) Teacher Professional Development to Improve the Implementation of Inquiry-Based Learning”.
120. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2008). Linking Leadership to Student Learning: The Contributions of Leader Efficacy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 496-528.
121. Leme, A., & Maia, I. (2015). Evaluation of fatigue at work in teachers using modern resources in the classroom. Procedia Manufacturing, 3, 4852-4859.
122. Litz, D., & Scott, S. (2017). Transformational leadership in the educational system of the United Arab Emirates. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(4), 566-587.
123. Liu, X., & Meyer, J. (2005). Teachers’ perceptions of their jobs: A multilevel analysis of the teacher follow-up survey for 1994-1995. Teachers College Record, 107(5), 985-1003.
124. Long, C. S., Yusof, W. M. M., Kowang, T. O., & Heng, L. H. (2014). The impact of transformational leadership style on job satisfaction. World Applied Sciences Journal, 29(1), 117-124.
125. Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. The Wallace Foundation.
126. Luekens, M. T., Lyter, D. M., Fox, E. E., & Chandler, K. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the teacher follow-up survey, 2000-01. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
127. Lujan, S. E. (2020). The importance of administrative support for special education teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of the Pacific).
128. Lussier, A. 2010. Effective Leadership. 5th ed. Cengage learning. South Western.
129. MAIN Diaz, J. A. (2018). A case study of the perceptions of teacher job satisfaction working under a transformational and distributed leadership style (Doctoral dissertation, Concordia University (Oregon).
130. Malik, W. U., Javed, M., & Hassan, S. T. (2017). Influence of transformational leadership components on job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), 11(1), 147-166.
131. Mangulabnan, B., Dela Rosa, R., & Vargas, D. (2021). Transformational Leadership Styles of School Principals in Central Luzon, Philippines. PHILIPPINES (March 15, 2021).
132. Menon, M. (2011, January). Leadership theory and educational outcomes.
133. Menon, M. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. Simon and Schuster.
134. Methner, G.V. (2013). Perception of administrative support and follower readiness in middle school teachers. Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send file?accession= bgsu1383582751 &disposition=inline
135. Metwally, A. H., El-Bishbishy, N., & Nawar, Y. S. (2014). The impact of transformational leadership style on employee satisfaction. The Business & Management Review, 5(3), 32-42.
136. Michael A. Germano, J.D., M.A., M.S. (2010) Leadership Style and Organizational Impact
137. Mudau, A. V. (2016). Exploring teacher mass resignation and early retirement from public schools. Dirasat, Human and Social Sciences, 43, 5.
138. Murati, R. (2015). The role of the teacher in the educational process. The Online Journal of New Horizon in Education, 5(2), 75-78. Naile, I., & Selesho, J. M. (2014). The role of leadership in employee motivation. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 5(3), 175. Nawaz, Z. A. K. D. A., & Khan_ PhD, I. (2016). Leadership theories and styles: A literature review.
139. Nazim, F., & Mahmood, A. (2018). A study of relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction. Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 6(1), 165-181.
140. Nazim, F. (2016). Principals’ Transformational and Transactional Leadership Style and Job Satisfaction of College Teachers. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(34), 18-22. Leadership, 58, 26-30.
141. Ng, L. T., & Rivera, J. P. R. (2018). Exploring transformational leadership and fellowship in a cultural context: The case of the Philippines. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 17(3), 136
142. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen, E. (2006). Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organisational commitment, and organisational citizenship behaviour in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145-177.
143. Nickel, T. (2020). Teacher Perceptions of Leadership Styles and the Relationship to Job Satisfaction in Adult Basic Education Settings (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University).
144. Nomaguchi, K. M., & Milkie, M. A. (2003). Costs and rewards of children: The effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives. Journal of Marriage and Family, 65(2), 356-374. While not specific to teachers, this study explores the effects of becoming a parent on adults’ lives, including changes in job satisfaction, work hours, and work-family conflict, which can be relevant to understanding the teacher job and family relationship.
145. Northouse, P. G. (2013). Leadership: theory and practice. New Delhi: Sage
146. Nyenyembe, F. W., Maslowski, R., Nimrod, B. S., & Peter, L. (2016). Leadership Styles and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction in Tanzanian Public Secondary Schools. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 4(5), 980-988.
147. Odumeru, J. A., & Ogbonna, I. G. (2013). Transformational vs. transactional leadership theories: Evidence in literature. International review of management and business research, 2(2), 355.
148. Orlanda-Ventayen, C. C., & Ventayen, R. J. M. (2021). Stress and Depression in the Workplace of Educators in the Philippines. Med Rxiv. Otto, S. J., & Arnold, M. (2005). A study of experienced special education teachers’ perceptions of adminstrative support. College Student Journal, 39(2), 253-260.
149. Pan, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2015). How Does Transformational Leadership Work in Confucian Culture? Journal of Business Ethics, 132(1 ), 139
150. Perry, N. E., Steele, C. M., & Hilliard, L. J. (2003). Making connections: Replicating and extending research on connections to teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(3), 428-436.
151. Perry, N. E., VandeKamp, K. O., Mercer, L. K. & Nordby, C. J. (2002). Investigating
152. Peterson, R. A. (2016). Perceptions of administrative support: The view from the classroom and the office (Doctoral dissertation, Frostburg State University).
153. Podolsky, A., Kini, T., Bishop, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2016). Solving the teacher shortage: How to attract and retain excellent educators. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/solving-teacher-shortage Retrieved from https://effective- educator.com
154. Reyes, A. C. S., Aquino, C. A., & Bueno, D. C. (2019). Why employees leave: Factors that stimulate resignation resulting in creative retention ideas. CC The Journal: A Multidisciplinary Research Review, 14, 15-24.
155. Reza, M. H. (2018). Use of Customer Satisfaction in Total Quality Improvement of Malaysian Use of Customer Satisfaction in Total Quality Improvement of Malaysian Automotive ( Car ) Manufacturing Industry, (July). https://doi.org/10.9790/487X- 2007034751
156. Reza, M. H. (2019). Components of transformational leadership behavior. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinari Research, 5(3), 119-124.
157. Richard Ingersoll, Lisa Merrill, and Henry May (2014). “Teacher Retention
158. Robinson, M. A., & Boies, K. (2016). Different ways to get the job done: comparing the effects of intellectual stimulation and contingent reward leadership on task‐related outcomes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 46(6), 336-353.
159. Rumley, M. A. (2010). Listening to the voices of beginning teachers: Providing meaningful administrative support is a moral act and results in increasing retention among beginning educators. The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
160. Rumschlag, K. E. (2017). Teacher burnout: A quantitative analysis of emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization. International management review, 13(1), 22.
161. Salter, C., Harris, M., & McCormack, J. (2014). Bass & Avolio’s full range leadership model and moral development. E-Leader Milan, (2008), 28.
162. Sammons, P., Day, C., Kington, A., Gu, Q., Stobart, G., & Smees, R. (2007). Exploring variations in teachers’ work, lives and their effects on pupils: key findings and implications from a longitudinal mixed‐method study. British educational research journal, 33(5), 681-701.
163. Sanjeev, M. A., & Surya, A. V. (2016). Two factor theory of motivation and satisfaction: An empirical verification. Annals of Data Science, 3(2), 155-173).
164. Santoro, D. A. (2018). Demoralized: Why teachers leave the profession they love and how they can stay. Harvard Education Press. Santos, E. D. D., Llegado, E. S., Ocampo, A. M. D., Ortiz, N. D., Pascua, C. A., & Abella, J. V. P. (2022). Work-Life Balance and Job
165. Satisfaction among Selected High School Teachers in the Philippines. Journal of Micro & Small Business Management, 24-46.
166. SARABIA, A., & COLLANTES, L. M. (2020). Work-related stress and teaching performance of teachers in selected school in the Philippines. Indonesian Research Journal in Education| IRJE|, 6-27.
167. Scroggins, W. (2008). Antecedents and Outcomes of Experienced Meaningful Work: A Person-Job Fit Perspective. Journal of Business Inquiry.
168. Seloane, M. P. (2010). The Relationship Between Transformational Leadership And Organisational Culture Moshimane Peter Seloane, (November).
169. Sergiovanni, T. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of teachers. Journal of educational administration.
170. Shila, J.M. and Sevilla, A.V. (2015) The Influence of Teachers’ Job Satisfaction on Their Organizational Commitment: An Indian Context. International Journal of Education and Management Studies, 5, 53-57. \ https://search.proquest.com/docview/1680664175?accountid=149218
171. Sithiphand, C. (1983). Testing employee motivation based on Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory in selected Thai commercial banks. Oklahoma State University.
172. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 7(13), 1785.
173. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2018). Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports, 121(5), 872-901.
174. Smith, B. (2016). The role of leadership style in creating a great school. Saskatchewan Education Leadership Unit, 1(1), 65–78.
175. Smith, B. S., & Squires, V. (2016). The role of leadership style in creating a great school. SELU Research Review Journal, 1(1), 65-78. Stoltenberg, K. T. (2019). Perception of administrative support and how it relates to professional growth and job satisfaction of elementary music teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
176. Snell, J. (2021). The Relationship Between Teacher Retention and School Climate Factors in Selected High Schools in South Carolina (Doctoral dissertation, Hampton University).
177. Sönmezer, M. & Eryaman, M. (2008). Comparative Analysis of Job Satisfaction Level of Public and Private School Teachers. Journal of theory and practice in education, 4(2), 189-212.
178. Stafford, M. (2010). The full-range leadership model: A brief primer. Instructor Training Material, Squadron Officer School.
179. Stewart, J. (2006). Transformational leadership: An evolving concept examined through the works of Burns, Bass, Avolio, and Leithwood. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (54).
180. Stoltenberg, K. T. (2019). Perception of administrative support and how it relates to professional growth and job satisfaction of elementary music teachers (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas).
181. T, B. J. A., & Gardner, W. L. (2005). Authentic leadership development : Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership, 16, 315–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.001
182. Tan, T. H., & Waheed, A. (2011). Herzberg’s motivation-hygiene theory and job satisfaction in the Malaysian retail sector: The mediating effect of love of money.
183. Tanguma, J., & Luster, J. N. (2002). Staff Satisfaction with Administration as a Measure of Consumer Satisfaction. teacher-student interactions that foster self-regulated learning, Educational Psychologist, 37(1), 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3701_2
184. Tehseen, S., & Hadi, N. U. (2015). Factors influencing teachers’ performance and retention. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 6(1), 233. As cited Borman and Dowling (2008),
185. Tehseen, S., & Hadi, N. U. (2015). Factors influencing teachers’ performance and retention. Mediterranean journal of social sciences, 6(1), 233.
186. Tehseen, Shehnaz and Hadi, Noor (2015). Factors Influencing Teachers’ Performance and Retention. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences. DOI 10.5901/mjss.2015.v6n1p233.
187. Tickle B, 2011, Teaching and Teacher Education Volume 27, issues 2.
188. Tickle, B. R. (2008). Public school teachers’ perceptions of administrative support and its mediating effect on their job satisfaction and intent to stay in teaching (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech).
189. Tickle, B. R., Chang, M., & Kim, S. (2011). Administrative support and its mediating effect on US public school teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27, 342–349.
190. Van den Berg, R., & Vandenberghe, R. (2012). Teachers’ job satisfaction: Effects of job characteristics, interpersonal relationships, and positive psychological capital. Journal of School Psychology, 50(3), 577-595.
191. Vicino, F. L., & Bass, B. M. (1978). Lifespace variables and managerial success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63(1), 81.
192. Viseu, J., de Jesus, S. N., Rus, C., & Canavarro, J. M. (2016). Teacher motivation, work satisfaction, and positive psychological capital: A literature review. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 14(39), 439-461.
193. Wahyuni, D. U., Christiananta, B., & Eliyana, A. (2014). Influence of organizational commitment, transactional leadership, and servant leadership to the work motivation, work satisfaction and work performance of teachers at private senior high schools in Surabaya. Educational Research International, 3(2), 82-96.
194. Wang, H., Hall, N. C., & Goetz, T. (2015). Teachers’ goal orientations: Effects on classroom goal structures and emotions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 48, 44-55.
195. Wayne, A. J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
196. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organizations. New York:
197. Weihrich, H., & Koontz, H. (2008). Major principles or guides for the managerial functions of planning, organizing, staffing, leading, and controlling. Lampiran Gambar.
198. Wong, K. K. (2014). Transformational Leadership, Teacher Job Satisfaction, and the Mediating Role of Teacher Efficacy. Educational Psychology, 34(6), 746-760.
199. Wong, T. K., Tao, X., & Konishi, C. (2018). Teacher support in learning: Instrumental and appraisal support in relation to ma th achievement. Issues in Educational Research, 28(1), 202-219
200. Wu, T. Y., & Tung, L. L. (2018). Mediating role of administrative support in the relationship between transformational leadership and teacher job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 287-304.
201. Xenikou, A. (2017). Transformational leadership, transactional contingent reward, and organizational identification: The mediating effect of perceived innovation and goal culture orientations. Frontiers in psychology, 8, 1754.
202. Yasin, G., Nawab, S., Bhatti, K. K., & Nazir, T. (2014). Relationship of intellectual stimulation, innovations and SMEs performance: Transformational leadership a source of competitive advantage in SMEs. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research, 19(1), 74-81.
203. Yu, X., Wang, P., Zhai, X., Dai, H., & Yang, Q. (2014). The effect of work stress on job burnout among teachers: The mediating role of self-efficacy. Social Indicators Research. Advance