\documentclass[10pt]{article}

\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{setspace}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage[section]{placeins}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{breakcites}
\usepackage{lineno}
\usepackage{hyphenat}





\PassOptionsToPackage{hyphens}{url}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage{etoolbox}
\makeatletter
\patchcmd\@combinedblfloats{\box\@outputbox}{\unvbox\@outputbox}{}{%
  \errmessage{\noexpand\@combinedblfloats could not be patched}%
}%
\makeatother


\usepackage{natbib}




\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}


\usepackage{authblk}


\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[greek,english]{babel}



\usepackage{float}








\begin{document}

\title{Principal Leadership Style and Teacher Job Performance: Evidence from
Pakistan}



\author[1,1,1]{Atif Saleem}%
\author[2]{Sarfraz Aslam}%
\author[2]{Junaid Rafiq}%
\author[2]{Prof. Congman Rao}%
\affil[1]{Northeast Normal University, Changchun, Jilin Province, China}%
\affil[2]{Affiliation not available}%


\vspace{-1em}



  
  \date{May 25, 2024}


\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup





\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{abstract}
The study intentions were to examine the correlation and impact of the
style of leadership of the principals on job performance of the teachers
of secondary school in private sector in Lahore district, Pakistan. It
is correlational study in terms of research design. The data was
collected from 106 principals and 543 teachers of secondary schools in
private sector in Lahore district through adapted instrument. The first
tool of the instrument ``Principal Leadership Style Questioner (PLSQ)
had cronbach alphas of 0.834 for autocratic leadership sub-scale, 0.764
for democratic leadership sub-scale and 0.861 for laissez-faire
leadership sub-scale. The Second tool of the instrument ``Teacher Job
Performance Questioner'' (TJPQ) had Cronbach alpha of 0.816. The
research question and hypotheses were tested by using percentage,
multiple regression, Pearson correlation at the level of
p\textless{}0.05 significance. The statistics attesting 57.3\% variation
in teachers' job performance was due to mutual contribution of
principals' autocratic leadership, democratic leadership and
laissez-faire leadership styles. The most commonly employed principals'
leadership style was autocratic leadership in secondary school in
private sector in the district. It had statistically significant and
strong positive impact on teachers' performance in the studied area.
Whereas reciprocal impact in case of laissez-faire. The principal
suggestion was that the school principals should be trained to learn the
mixture usage of autocratic and democratic leadership styles wisely in
diverse situations and work settings in secondary schools in private
sector in the district Lahore, Pakistan.%
\end{abstract}%



\sloppy


\textbf{Introduction}

Over the decades, the impact on teachers' job performance has become the
main subject of leadership which has been conceptualized as leadership
styles of school principals and job performance of the teachers
(Ekhaisomi, 2011; Imhangbe, Okecha, \& Obozuwa, 2018), an organizational
process (Cheong Cheng, 1991), a critical factor for school performance
(Cheng, 1994), as a manager and an administrator to control school
resources for organizational goal achievement (Adeyemi, 2010). However,
Imhangbe et al. (2018) not only conceptualized the principal leadership
style and teacher job performance relationship but also discovered the
major positive influence of democratic on teachers' job performance in
this regard, while about substantial joint variation in teacher job
performance was due to autocratic, democratic and laissez-fair
leadership styles as well as it has strongly been suggested that
principals should be encouraged to use democratic leadership style. In
addition, Ekhaisomi (2011) correlated principals' leadership styles to
teachers' job performance and argued employed leadership style tool kit
based on situation, which is in the hand of principals to maximize
teachers' productivity if it is used well, otherwise, it will reverse
the instance.

The education sector of Pakistan was divided into two categories at the
time of independence. They were public sector educational schools,
colleges, and institutions as well as private sector (Burki, 1986).
These public and private schools, colleges and institutions have been
working since or after the creation of Pakistan to date (Iqbal, 2012).
The country's education sector produces responsible citizens and
develops human capital to attain National Education Goals (Ministry of
Federal Education and Professional Training Government of Pakistan,
2017). Here the question is that weather the country or state would
achieve the educational targets alone (International Finance
Corporation, 2002; World Bank, 2002). Concerning to the national
targets, both the public and private sector educational schools,
colleges and institutes are playing their vital roles. The private
schools are the key contributors in bringing their part in Millennium
Development Goals the same as in public sector schools.

A significant phenomenon in Pakistan is the provision of private
education which is the core ground and rational motive in the growth and
expansion of schools, institutes, enrollment and teachers' national
workforce in private sector from the past decades, especially since
2000, in urban as well as rural regions (Institute of Social Policy
Sciences, 2010). This massive growth is a challenge for administrators,
policy makers and school leaders. The school principals provide a
quality education by offering fine teaching services. Imhangbe et al.
(2018) stated that school principals' leadership style had either
positive or negatively / direct or indirect impact on teachers' job
performance.

Leadership phenomena is a captivated sequence of an action which intends
to achieve befitted results through sanitization and improvement of
personal, social and professional work practices. It works by filling
organizational leadership shelves with those personnels and leaders who
have the ability to bring and convert vital assets to the institute and
organization, eventually ameliorating bottom line (Northouse, 2018),
such as to enrich their work practices and to effect the performance of
the teachers. School leadership (Spillane, Halverson, \& Diamond, 2004)
, educational and administrative as technical and nontechnical,
including managers, problem solvers and facilitators (Williams-Boyd,
2002), as well as school uniqueness, purposeful school changes,
successful strategies (Busher, 2006), are all perceived as an imperative
directing process apex. Furthermore, leadership peculiarly principal
leadership styles are burning phenomenon for the researchers over a
period of time around the world, numerous scholarly studies have thrown
light on versatile theoretical leadership approaches and tactics as well
as processing complexities (Bass \& Stogdill, 1990; Bryman, 1992, 2011;
Gardner, 1993; Hickman, 1998; Mumford, 2006; Rost, 1993).

Transformational leadership and transactional leadership (Bass, 1990;
Bass, Avolio, Jung, \& Berson, 2003; Burns, 1978; Downton, 1973) foster
teachers' job performance. Transformational leadership and transactional
leadership which have been zeal in leadership research have mutual and
particular effects on organization (Awamleh \& Gardner, 1999; Bass,
1985; Conger \& Kanungo, 1998; House, 1976). Over the time, group
performance, satisfaction, commitment and organizational performance,
which are linked to the leadership style, are vital outcomes for
numerous organizations (Kirkpatrick \& Locke, 1996). Leadership has
multiple and discrete dimensions which are definite realities (Reeves,
2006), such as path goal theory, situational approach, skill approach,
trait approach, behavioral approach, servant leadership, adaptive
leadership, transformational and transactional leadership (Northouse,
2018), instructional leadership (Harris, Jones, Cheah, Devadason, \&
Adams, 2017; Smith \& Andrews, 1989; Terosky, 2016), strategic
leadership (Petersen, 2015; Van Niekerk \& Van Niekerk, 2006) as well as
principal's strategic leadership (Mokone, 1999), managerial leadership
(Ciriello, 1998; Jaques, 2017; Lee, 2017), and, distributed leadership
(Al-Khasawneh \& Futa, 2012; Chen, 2007; Saadi et al., 2009).

The role of leadership and school conditions contribute to innovation
(Hallinger \& Heck, 1996; Newmann \& Wehlage, 1995), modernization,
adaptation of advanced teaching practices, global changes and current
challenges. It is an essential responsibility of school leadership and
management to equip their teachers with the latest knowledge and
practices, which can contribute to academic success that produces
incentives and opportunities to improve the job practices of teachers
(Bryk \& Driscoll, 1985; Newmann \& Wehlage, 1995).

Tomlinson (2004) proposed distinctive procedures from smells and
incantations of the prophecy to drive and proposed insight into the
intricacies of human interaction in educational institutes and
organizations. School leadership and management develop their teachers
and staff in terms of goals, vision and current challenges to enhance
the job performance. In spite of the facts, management makes and
implements strategies and policies to help principals, directors, and
administrators of schools to achieve their objectives.

Tomlinson (2004) recognizes that the mentoring, coaching and counseling
services offered by leaders are affirm elements. These three elements
compose the tool kit which helps the management to boost up teachers'
jobs performance as well. Tomlinson further argues that it is an
essential back up support service tool box to cope with changes and
current challenges which can be adapted according to schools and
colleges context after alternation.

Principals and school leaders are striving for the quality of having
great facility and competence for proficiency to balance and stabilize
their key roles which is why undoubtedly, today, school leaders and
principals need to wear many hats constantly and juggle them fluidly day
by day (Tobin, 2014), as an agent of success, change or sources of
failure (Kafka, 2009), under the umbrella of multiple leadership
theories and styles which impact the job performance of teachers.

Approaches, like trait approach, skill approach, situational approach,
behavioral approach, path goal theory and multiple leadership styles
(Northouse, 2018) are used by principals being managers, administrators,
diplomates, curriculum instructor, teacher leaders and sometimes all in
one school day context in various situation at various state of affairs.

Leadership style is a portfolio to enhance teachers' job performance
productivity, however no leadership style is superior to others,
although that the situation and context at hand determines what style or
styles to be employed to maximize job performance. In fact, the right
style influences job performance of teachers positively otherwise
reverses in the case (Ekhaisomi, 2011).

Current researches have been commenced in this respect about the leaders
and principals of schools to inspect commonly adopted or practiced the
style of leadership and its impact on teachers' job performance
(Adebayo, 2003; Adeyemi, 2010; Imhangbe et al., 2018; Machumu \&
Kaitila, 2014).

Imhangbe et al. (2018) studied the relationship between ``principals'
leadership styles and the job performance of teachers in secondary
schools in public sector in Edo Central Senatorial district, Nigeria''.
It was correlational study by design and two research instruments were
adapted, named ``Principals' Leadership Style Questionnaire'' (PLESQUE)
and ``Teachers' Job Performance Questionnaire'' (TEJOPAQ) to collect the
data from the population of 69 principals and 397 teachers of the
secondary schools; 21 copies of the teachers' questionnaire were removed
from the analysis due to incorrect filling. Thus, 376 copies of the
instruments were analyzed in the study. The hypotheses were tested at
0.05 significant level by using multiple regression, Pearson
product-moment correlation analysis and percentage. On the bases of
analysis, the results explore that 68.3\% variation in teachers' job
performance was due to democratic leadership style and laissez-fair
jointly. Democratic and laisse-fair leadership have positive influence
on the job performance of the teachers in that area. Therefore, it was
recommended among the other things, principals of Edo Central Senatorial
District, Nigeria should encourage to cope with democratic leadership
style. This study is also main encouragement and guideline for this
present research.

Adeyemi (2010) threw light on ``principals' leadership styles and
teachers' job performance in secondary schools in Ondo State, Nigeria''.
The descriptive research design was adopted for this investigation. 240
secondary schools were selected as study samples out of all comprised
281 population of state secondary schools. Stratified random sampling
technique was used to select 1800 teachers and 240 principals as unit of
analysist. Two questionnaires 1(``The Principals' Leadership Style
Questionnaire (PLSQ)'' and 2) ``Teachers' Job Performance Questionnaire
(TJPQ)'' were used to collect the data. The data collected was analyzed
using the Pearson Product Moment Correlation. A correlation coefficient
of 0.81 value is showing the reliability of instruments. Pearson,
t-test, percentages and frequency tests were used for analysis while
alpha of 0.05 value was used to test the hypotheses. It has been noted
that democratic leadership style was often used by principals. The job
performance of the teachers was better while under autocratic leadership
style as compare to democratic and laissez-fair leadership styles. Among
the other recommendations, the mixture of autocratic and democratic
leadership styles is suggested to be used to enhance teachers' job
performance and reserves the situation while using laissez-fair
leadership style.

Machumu and Kaitila (2014) examined the suitability of school leadership
style and teachers' job satisfaction in primary schools of Tanzania. The
cross-sectional study design was utilized to provide holistic picture
and in-depth problem understanding. 200 teachers were selected among 20
schools as samples including head teachers, deputy head teachers and
classroom teachers through purposive and stratified random sampling. It
was observed along with other findings that the dominant style of
leadership in best performing schools was democratic style. Thus, it was
recommended that there was much more for least performing schools to
learn from the democratic style of leadership.

Werang and Lena (2014) investigated the relationship between principal's
leadership, school organizational climate, and teachers' job performance
by selecting 164 teachers as population while the sample was comprised
of 118 teachers that were approximately 71\% of population, at State
High Schools in Merauke regency, Indonesia. The questionnaire was the
key research tool for this descriptive quantitative study. The
investigation revealed ``a significant relationship between principals'
leadership and teachers' job performance at the state high schools in
Merauke regency, Papua''. Prestigious

Effective leadership is instrumental in ensuring organizational
performance which has a positive impact on organizational performance,
eventually many individual performances culminate in organizational
goals achievement and performance. Effective leaders and principals have
clear visions and strong expectations to school future and teachers
(Werang \& Lena, 2014).

Kozaala (2012) conceptualized ``Leadership styles and job performance of
teachers in selected private secondary schools of Kamuli District,
Uganda''. The sample was comprised on 15 private schools and data was
collected from 125 participants which were comprised on fifteen head of
the teachers, thirty Governors Board personals and five Education
Ministries and Sport Kamuli District, official personals. The research
was conducted through self-constructed questioners for the teachers and
interview guide for the head teachers, Governors Board members and
official personals. This cross-sectional investigation was analyzed by
using Pearson's co-efficient correlation. It was noticed that at
administration positions, principals and head teachers were employed by
autocratic leadership style; the directive language was being used while
talking to teachers and decisions were made solely and without their
teachers' suggestions or opinions, the duties or job responsibilities
were not delegated in regard to democratic leadership style, due to all
that teachers felt rejected and were demotivated, therefore junior
teachers' job performance was negatively impacted.

Indeed, a glut of researches had been conducted available on this enigma
but it is a paradox which has been unsolved so far and varies context to
context; for our acquaintance, it needs elucidation by clearing up what
and how the style of leadership either negatively or positively further
teachers' job performance in secondary schools in private sector.

The available researches' research object was public schools generally
while this paper was carried to throw light on principals' leadership
style and teachers' job performance relationship or correlation in
secondary schools in private sector which may differ than public
schools. Besides the issues, there was no prior published research work
available particularly on this area and population regarding principals'
leadership style (autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire) and
teachers' job performance in private sector at the time of this study.
As a result, there was indigence or chasm in knowledge on this
leadership and job performance subject matter in the view of secondary
schools in public sector in Lahore district.

Thus, there was an acute need to fill this gap in knowledge. To our
knowledge, Therefore, it was first study which gives insightful view
that which leadership style among autocratic, democratic and
laissez-faire, were the most conducive to the job performance in
secondary schools in private sector particularly in Lahore
district-Pakistan.

\textbf{Research Questions}

This study construct raises following research question in response to
the paucity of knowledge.

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  Which style of leadership is frequently employed by the principals in
  secondary schools in private sector in Lahore District?
\item
  What is the impact of style of leadership of the principals on job
  performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector in
  Lahore district?
\item
  What is correlation among principals' autocratic leadership style and
  job performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector
  in Lahore district?
\item
  What is correlation among principals' democratic leadership style and
  job performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector
  in Lahore district?
\item
  What is correlation among principals' laissez-faire leadership style
  and job performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private
  sector in Lahore district?
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Research Hypotheses}

This study proposes the following hypotheses;

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  There is no significant impact of the style of leadership of the
  principals on teachers' job performance in secondary schools in
  private sector in Lahore district.
\item
  Principals' autocratic leadership style has no significant correlation
  with teachers' job performance in secondary schools in private sector
  in Lahore district.
\item
  Principals' democratic leadership style has no significant correlation
  with teachers' job performance in secondary schools in private sector
  in Lahore district.
\item
  Principals' laissez-fair leadership style has no significant
  correlation with teachers' job performance in secondary schools in
  private sector in Lahore district.
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Study Materials and Methods}

The schools and study participants were taken consciously and
purposefully to achieve the study objectives. The researchers selected
those schools for this study which had maximum identical characteristics
similar to public sector secondary schools to justified the research
gap. Due to it, they may not be true representative of the whole
secondary schools in private sector. By having this limitation, the
study nevertheless throws the light on the important issue and evidence
regarding principal leadership style and teacher job performance of
private education sector in the district Lahore, Pakistan.

In this regard, it is essential to explain the characteristics of the
schools and the respondents for clear understanding of research
findings.

Schools' Characteristics

Respondents' Characteristics

\textbf{School Characteristics}

Only secondary schools in private sector participated in this study.
Every participated school had more than one branch or campus of the
school. They had centralized administration system. All powers belonged
to a governing body of a head office of the schools. The governing body
had a power to appoint principals and teachers the same as in secondary
schools in public sector. Also, the policies, rules and regulations were
made by the governing body the same as in public sector schools.

\textbf{Respondents' Characteristics}

All the respondents and participants, teachers and principals of this
study were doing job in the same schools. The minimum duration of their
job was more than 2 years. They were class teachers and subject
specialist as well; the class teachers were responsible to take 2
lectures in their classes in a regular school day. They had experienced
the organizational changes and implementation of school day to day
practices and operations, curriculum materials, methods of instructions
as well as other procedures that transform the schools. It means, the
study participants could see and evaluate the leadership style and the
job performance practices in the schools.

\textbf{Research Design Choice}

This study was adopted correlation research design. The aim to use this
study design, is to divulge and prognosticate the relationship between
independent variable, principal leadership style, and dependent variable
teachers' job performance.

In addition, it's been suggested by scholars to employ correlation
ex-post facto research design or research design to reveal and inquire
the relationship between variables or for a causal comparative
relationship (Gall, Borg, \& Gall, 2007); For the causal comparative
relationship study, it is crucial to have the cause and effect indices
regarding independent and dependent variables in totally natural
settings (p.306); the correlational statistics were applied to
comprehend of this fine rationale. Scholars have been experienced it
with this fine differentiation to appreciate the corelated relationship
between independent and dependent variables (Imhangbe et al., 2018).

\textbf{Material and Method}

This study was adopted correlation research design. The research object
was containing on 106 106 secondary schools in private sector in the
district Lahore. All the principals of 106 schools and teachers of 543
of secondary schools, making 649 respondents as a total, participated in
the study. The instrument of research of Imhangbe et al. (2018) was
adapted for the collection of the data. The instrument was in two tools
titled Principal Leadership Style Questionnaire (PLSQ) and Teacher Job
Performance Questionnaire (TJPQ). They were used to measure the
principal leadership styles named democratic, autocratic and
laissez-faire leadership style and the job performance of the teachers
respectively. The PLSQ was contained on further three sub parts; the
part A was containing on school name, total duration in that specific
school, total experience and other demographics; the part B was
containing 15 items, the items from one to five for democratic
leadership style, the items from six to ten for autocratic leadership
style and the items from eleven to fifteen for laissez-faire leadership
style, to determine the most commonly employed leadership style by the
school principal. These fifteen items were rated on the scale of
``always = 3'', ``sometimes = 2'' and ``never = 1''.

In the regard of adapting Part B of original instrument of Imhangbe et
al. (2018), the item number 8 and 9 which dealt with the autocratic
style of a leader and the item number 13 which dealt with the
laissez-faire style of a leader, were slightly modified. These changes
were made to cover other aspects of leadership style according to the
role of leadership in the studied job framework and context. For
instance, item number 9 which read \emph{``my principal does not accept
ideas from teachers''} was slightly changed to \emph{``My principal sets
his/her expectations and performance standards which teachers have to
finish''.}

The next C part was containing 30 items of questions to check the
relationship of ``democratic from 1 to 10 items'', ``autocratic from 11
to 20 items'' and ``laissez-faire leadership style from 21 to 30 items''
with the job performance of the teachers. The item number 9, 11 and 13
were slightly modified to address the other distinct features of the job
description of the principal except liaison, supervision and
disseminator. For example, item number 9, which read ``\emph{The use of
teachers' meeting and students' representative council for information
is functional''} was slightly changed to \emph{``my principal provides
support to teachers to overcome the problems that create hurdles in
their tasks and responsibilities''.} All the items of part C of the
instrument were appraised on the scale of Likert point four (4) having
the value of ``strongly agree = 4, agree = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly
disagree = 1''.

The instrument's second tool named TJPQ also had 2 sub categories. The
1\textsuperscript{st} portion of the categories was related to
demographics same as the first tool. The second part of the tool was
incorporated on 5 sub categories to rate the job performance of the
teachers related to lesson planning, teaching lesson, lesson evaluation
and about to student discipline for the management of classroom. Each
category had three questions making a total of 15 questions. For the
tool integrity, it was cross checked with the Annual Confidential Report
(ACR) of two schools. ACR was a highly confidential report, thus in the
response of our request, the governing bodies of school A and B (pseud,
school names cannot be disclosed due to confidential and secrecy matters
and research ethics are also under the consideration by the researchers)
agreed to cross check and align the tool TJPQ of the instrument by their
managers who were responsible for teacher evaluation. The managers made
necessary changes in item number 5, 6, 9 and 13. For instance the item
number 5 which read \emph{``Makes the lessons engaging, relevant, and
challenging''} was in some extent altered to ``\emph{Uses relevant
visual/a/v aids and activities of explained material to make the lesson
interesting''.} Each item of the tool was rated on 4-point Likert scale
of ``strongly agree = 4, agree = 3, disagree = 2 and strongly disagree =
1''.

The instrument's content and face validity were ensured by the
educational experts and governing bodies of the two schools (due to
confidential and secrecy matters name cannot be disclosed and research
ethics are also under consideration). The Cronbach alpha was used to
ascertain the reliability of the tools of the instrument. PLSQ tool of
the instrument had cronbach alphas of autocratic leadership of .834,
democratic leadership of .764 and laissez-faire leadership of 861.
While, TJPQ had Cronbach alpha of .816.

In intent to administer the instrument, the approval for data collection
was taken from the head office and the principal of each school
respectively. A total 649 copies of the instrument were administered to
the respondents. Among the respondents, 543 copies were handed over to
teachers to take their consent for the study about the leadership styles
of their principals and its impact on or connection to their job
performance. The copies of 106 of the tools of the instrument for all
the principals were further supplied in intent to rate the job
performance of their teachers. In this way, a of period 6 weeks was
spent to administered the instrument.

Howbeit, the 16 improper, incomplete especially incorrect filled copies
of the instruments for the teachers were taken away from the statistical
analysis to have a consistent and fair results for the study findings.
The percentage was used to determine the most frequently used leadership
style of the principal. The 1\textsuperscript{st} hypothesis was
finished by multiple regression analysis. Pearson correlation was used
for the hypotheses 2, 3 and 4. The level of significance of alpha
p\textless{}.05 was used to test all the hypotheses.

\textbf{Ethical Consideration}

This research study received Ethical approval from the Ethical Committee
of Northeast Normal University, Changchun city, Jilin province, P.R.
China at 1st November 2018 before conduction of the study in the field.
Moreover, researcher also asked volunteer participation from the
participants; for this a written consent form was distributed to the
respondents before data collection.

\textbf{Results}

\textbf{Research Question 1.} Which style of leadership is frequently
employed by the principals in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore District?

The results about the principals' autocratic leadership style
in\textbf{Table 1} show that 334 (63.38\%) the number study participants
confirmed that their schools' principals always assign the duties
against the will of the teachers, while 306 the respondents,
representing 58.07\%, observed that their principals always make
decisions without consulting with the teachers. Likewise, 348 the number
study participants, representing 66.03\%, attested that their principal
sets his/her expectations and performance standards which teachers have
to finish.

The results related to democratic leadership style from the table show
that the majority (188) of the number of study participants,
representing 35.67\%, verified that their principals always welcome
teachers' suggestions regarding school planning and policies, while 156
the study respondents, representing 29.60\%, attested that before
introducing the co-curricular activities the discussion are made on the
planning of the activities by their principals with them. Similarly, 183
(34.72\%) the respondents manifested that their principals always have
friendly working-relationships with the teachers.

The table too shows the results regarding laissez-faire leadership style
that majority of the study participants (187 respondents, 35.48\%) noted
that their principals have a little interest in the school's day to day
activities and assemblies as well as events, likewise, it's been noticed
by 183 respondents, representing 34.72\%, that the teachers are not
supervised by their principals what they do in staff and class rooms.
While 178 (33.78\%) the number of participants confirmed that their
principals occasionally help the teachers to overcome difficulties and
job complications.

\textbf{Table 1.} Analysis to determine which leadership style is
commonly employed by the principals of secondary schools in private
sector in Lahore district.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{S/N}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Variables}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Always}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Sometimes}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Never}\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Autocratic Leadership Style}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
1\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal assigns the duties against the will of the teachers\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
334 (63.38\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
136 (25.81\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
57 (10.81\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal makes decisions solely without consulting with the
teachers\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
306 (58.07\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
153 (29.03)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
68 (12.90\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal sets his/her expectations and performance standards which
teachers have to finish\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
348 (66.03\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
132 (25.05\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
47 (8.92)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Democratic Leadership Style}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
4\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal welcomes teachers' suggestions regarding school planning
and policies\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
188 (35.67\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
217 (41.18\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
122 (23.15\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
5\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal discusses his/her plans on co-curricular activities with
the teachers before introducing them\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
156 (29.60\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
226 (42.88\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
145 (27.51\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
6\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal has friendly working-relationships with the teachers\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
183 (34.72\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
196 (37.19\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
148 (28.08\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\emph{Laissez-faire Leadership Style}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
7\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal has a little interest in the school's day to day activities
and assemblies as well as events\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
171 (32.45\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
169 (32.07\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
187 (35.48\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
8\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal does not supervise what teachers do in the classes and the
staffroom\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
167 (31.69\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
183 (34.72\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
177 (33.59\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
9\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
My principal occasionally helps the teachers to overcome difficulties
and job complications\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
173 (32.83\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
176 (33.40\%)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.19\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
178 (33.78\%)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
S/N = Serial Number\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
S/N = Serial Number\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
S/N = Serial Number\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
S/N = Serial Number\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.17\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
S/N = Serial Number\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

The facts and figures in table are clearly and undoubtedly showing that
autocratic leadership style is the style of leadership which is commonly
employed by the principals of secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore District.

\textbf{Hypothesis 1:} There is no significant impact of the style of
leadership of the principals on teachers' job performance in secondary
schools in private sector in Lahore district.

The statistics in \textbf{Table 2} depict that the autocratic leadership
style's regression coefficient (\selectlanguage{greek}β\selectlanguage{english}) of .753 has a positive and
statistically significant (p \textless{} 0.05) relationship with the job
performance of teachers. The democratic leadership style's regression
coefficient (\selectlanguage{greek}β\selectlanguage{english}) of .076 has a positive and statistically significant (p
\textless{} 0.05) relationship as well with the job performance of the
teachers. However, the laissez-faire leadership style's regression
coefficient (\selectlanguage{greek}β\selectlanguage{english}) of -.289 is directing to negative and statistically
significant (p \textless{} 0.05) relationship with the performance of
the teachers respectively.

The positive sign of regression coefficient of \selectlanguage{greek}β \selectlanguage{english}= .753 and \selectlanguage{greek}β \selectlanguage{english}= .076 for
autocratic and democratic leadership styles respectively were attesting
positive impact of the leadership styles on the job performance of the
teachers in secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district.

\textbf{Table 2.} Impact of leadership styles of the principals on
teachers' job performance in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore district.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
R\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
R Square\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Adjusted R Square\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
F \textsubscript{(3,523)}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Sig.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Remark (Over all Model)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.757\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.573\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.570\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
233.579\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.000\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Significant\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
Model\textsuperscript{a,b} & Unstandardized Coefficients &
Unstandardized Coefficients & Standardized Coefficients & t & P-Value &
Comments\tabularnewline
& \selectlanguage{greek}β & Std. Error & Beta & & &\tabularnewline
(Constant) & 1.234 & .159 & & 7.751 & .000 &\tabularnewline
Autocratic Leadership Style & .753 & .034 & .644 & 21.961** & .000 &
Significant\tabularnewline
Democratic Leadership Style & .076 & .036 & .060 & 2.098** & .036 &
Significant\tabularnewline
Laissez-faire Leadership Style & -.289 & .031 & -.268 & -9.166** & .000
& Significant\tabularnewline
\selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance = Constant +
β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english} & \selectlanguage{greek}\vtop{\hbox{\strut Teacher Job Performance =
Constant + β\textsubscript{1}Autocratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{2}Democratic Leadership Style +
β\textsubscript{3}Laissez-faire Leadership Style;}\hbox{\strut Teacher
Job Performance =1.234 + .753 Autocratic Leadership Style + .076
Democratic Leadership Style -.289 Laissez-faire Leadership
Style;}\hbox{\strut t = it's the relationship strength that is
discovered in the private sector schools in the district among the
leadership style of the principals and teacher's job
performance.}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{a}Dependent Variable: Teacher
Job Performance}\hbox{\strut \textsuperscript{b}Predictors: (Constant),
Autocratic Leadership Style, Democratic Leadership Style, Laissez-faire
Leadership Style}\hbox{\strut **Correlation is significant at the 0.05
level (2-tailed)}}\selectlanguage{english}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

The negative sign of regression coefficient of \selectlanguage{greek}β \selectlanguage{english}= -.289 for
laissez-faire leadership style was indicating to negative impact of the
leadership style on the job performance of the teachers in secondary
schools in private sector in Lahore district. Hence, it was evidencing
that the principals' leadership styles were significantly forecasting or
promising job performance of the teachers in secondary schools in the
district Lahore.

R of .757 of the coefficients of correlation in table 2 too foreshadows
that autocratic, democratic style of leadership and laissez-faire
leadership style are positively and moderately correlated with teachers'
job performance in Lahore district. R square (R\textsuperscript{2}) of
.573 and .570 for adjust R square statistics are further omening that
the leadership styles are jointly and mutually contribute or inform 57.3
\% of variation in the job performance of teachers. Correspondingly, the
value F\textsubscript{(3,523)} of 233.579 infers that autocratic,
democratic and laissez-faire styles of leadership significantly,
together and collectively are promising and predicting job performance
of the teachers in the schools in private sector in the district Lahore.

\textbf{Hypothesis 2:} Principals' autocratic leadership style has no
significant correlation with teachers' job performance in secondary
schools in private sector in Lahore district.

The results of \textbf{Table 3} reveal that autocratic leadership style
has 3.17 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value is .31 of
the participants ( N ) of 527. Similarly, the job performance of the
teachers has 3.14 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value
is .36 for the same ( N ) 527 respondents. It further elaborates that
the Pearson correlation coefficient score which is .707 and p-value is
.000. The positive sign of Pearson correlation coefficient of .707 and
lesser p-value of .000 than alpha of .05 ( p \textless{} .05 ) are
testifying that autocratic style of leadership of the principals and
teachers' job performance have statistically significant and positive
relationship or correlation in the secondary schools in the district.
Correspondingly, it implies that null hypothesis (2.Principals'
autocratic leadership style has no significant correlation with the job
performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore district) is rejected, while, the positive Pearson correlation
coefficient and the significant p-value are manifesting that there is a
statistically significant, strong and positive relationship or
correlation between the autocratic style of principals and job
performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore district.

\textbf{Table 3.} Principals' autocratic leadership style correlation
with the job performance of teachers in secondary schools in private
sector in Lahore district.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Variables}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
N\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
X\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
SD\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Pearson R-Coefficient\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
P-Value\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Comment\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Autocratic Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Autocratic Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3.17\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.31\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Null hypothesis\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
527\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.707*\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.000\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rejected\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3.14\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.36\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
(p \textless{} .05)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Hypothesis 3:}Principals' democratic leadership style has no
significant correlation with teachers' job performance in secondary
schools in private sector in Lahore district.

The results of \textbf{Table 4} expose that democratic leadership style
has 2.15 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value is .29 of
the participants ( N ) of 527. Similarly, the job performance of the
teachers has 3.14 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value
is .36 for the same ( N ) respondents. Additionally, it elaborates that
the Pearson correlation coefficient score which is .119 and p-value is
.003. The positive sign of Pearson correlation coefficient of .119 and
lesser p-value of .003 than alpha of .05 ( p \textless{} .05 ) are
affirming that democratic style of leadership of the principals and
teachers' job performance have statistically significant and positive
but quite weak relationship or correlation in the district.

\textbf{Table 4.} Principals' democratic leadership style correlation
with teacher's job performance in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore district.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}lllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Variables}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
N\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
X\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
SD\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Pearson R-Coefficient\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
P-Value\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.14\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Comment\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Democratic Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Democratic Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.15\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.29\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Null hypothesis\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
527\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.119*\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.003\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rejected\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3.14\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.36\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
(p \textless{} .05)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

Meanwhile, it too implies that null hypothesis (Principals' democratic
leadership style has no significant correlation with teachers' job
performance in secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district)
is rejected. While, positive Pearson correlation coefficient and the
significant p-value were manifesting the positive and statistically
significant but feeble or weak correlation, due to the small score of
r-coefficient of .195 which was very close to zero, between the
leadership style of principals and job performance of the teachers in
secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district.

\textbf{Table 5.} Principals' laissez-faire leadership style correlation
with teachers' job performance in the private schools in Lahore
district.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{longtable}[]{@{}llllllll@{}}
\toprule
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\textbf{Variables}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
N\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
X\selectlanguage{english}\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
SD\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Pearson R-Coefficient\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
P-Value\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Comment\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[b]{0.12\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Comment\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\midrule
\endhead
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Laissez-faire Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Laissez-faire Leadership Style\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
2.25\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.34\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Null hypothesis\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Null hypothesis\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
527\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
-.410*\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.000\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rejected\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Rejected\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
Teacher Job Performance\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
3.14\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
.36\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
(p \textless{} .05)\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
(p \textless{} .05)\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
*Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). SD = Standard
Deviation.\strut
\end{minipage} & \begin{minipage}[t]{0.10\columnwidth}\raggedright\strut
\strut
\end{minipage}\tabularnewline
\bottomrule
\end{longtable}

\textbf{Hypothesis 4:} Principals' laissez-fair leadership style has no
significant correlation with teachers' job performance in secondary
schools in private sector in Lahore district.

The information of \textbf{Table 5} shows that laissez-faire leadership
style has 2.25 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value is
.34 of the participants ( N ) of 527, similarly, the job performance of
teachers has 3.14 mean ( X \selectlanguage{english}) score and standard deviation ( SD ) value
is .36 for the same ( N ) participants. Moreover, it expounds that the
Pearson correlation coefficient score which is -.410 and p-value is
.000.

The negative sign of Pearson correlation coefficient of -.410 and lesser
p-value of .000 than alpha of .05 ( p \textless{} .05 ) are confirming
that laissez-faire style of leadership of the principals and job
performance of the teachers has statistically significant but has
negative or inverse correlation in the schools. It guides that null
hypothesis (Principals' laissez-fair leadership style has no significant
correlation with teachers' job performance in secondary schools in
private sector in Lahore district) is rejected, while, the significant
p-value but negative Pearson correlation coefficient are showing that
there is a statistically significant but reverse and moderate ( due to
-.410 score of r-coefficient) relationship or correlation between
principals' laissez-fair leadership style and the teachers' job
performance in private secondary schools in Lahore district.

\textbf{Discussion}

The analysis results showed that autocratic leadership style was
commonly employed by the majority of the principals of secondary schools
in private sector in the district of Lahore. While the principals of
secondary schools in private sector sometimes practiced democratic and
laissez-faire leadership style as well in the district. Consequently, it
was clear that the mainstream of the principals preferred autocratic
leadership in secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district.
But, this finding is contradictory than the research finding of Imhangbe
et al. (2018), who founded that the democratic style of the leadership
was most frequently used by the secondary schools' principals in the
studied area. While, Imhangbe et al. (2018) carried out their
investigation in secondary schools in public sector in Edo Central
Senatorial District, Nigeria, African continent. While this research
work was done in private sector secondary schools in Lahore district,
Pakistan, subcontinent of Asia. Hence, unlike location and dissimilar
sector of secondary schools are throwing the light on the salient and
important point or argument that must be made about the finding was that
often these principals tended to believe and commonly employed polar
leadership styles in different contexts, work settings and locations. In
simple words, both the studies were catering the evidence that there was
dissimilarity in principals' leadership style in different contexts,
working settings and locations.

Nevertheless, this outcome of the study is too aligned with the
submission of Duze (2012), which asserted that the most dominant
leadership style of principals was the autocratic leadership style in
secondary schools in Delta State of Nigeria. Similarly, this verdict
repeated the submission of Kozaala (2012), who noted autocratic
leadership as the principals' most practiced style of leadership in
secondary schools private sector in Kamuli District, Uganda and the
usage of directive language by the principals while talking to the
teachers and the principals were making decisions solely as well were
also observed in the district.

However, the study of Adeyemi (2010) was in divergent that senior
secondary schools' principals had catchy accustom of democratic
leadership style in Ondo State, Nigeria and Ch, Ahmad, Malik, and Batool
(2017) had a same point about the custom of the leadership style.

Moreover, the analysis results show the significant relationship between
the leadership style of principals and job performance of the teachers
in Lahore district. In simple words, the principals' leadership style
has influence or impact either directly or indirectly alternatively
negatively or positively on teachers' job performance in the surveyed
area. This finding is in line with the piece of research work of Werang
and Lena (2014), who noted that there is a significant relationship
between the leadership style of principals and job performance of the
teachers in State Senior High Schools in Merauke regency, Papua,
Indonesia. Also, in the agreement with the investigation finding of
Okoji (2016), which showed the significant relationship between
autocratic leadership style and job performance of the teachers and
democratic style of leadership was too found significant relationship
with teachers' job performance. Based on the findings, it was
recommended by Okoji that in a school administration spheres a principal
should imbibe a mixture of autocratic leadership style and democratic
leadership style.

It means that in certain situation or context autocratic leadership and
in some occasions democratic leadership to evoke the improvement in
teachers' job performance. However, in the argument with the scholarly
finding of Imhangbe et al. (2018), who too found that there is
statistically positive impact of democratic and laissez-faire style of
leadership on teachers' job performance. On the other hand, it was found
that job performance of the teachers was negatively influenced due to
autocratic leadership. Their suggestion was based on the findings that
the studied area principals should sustain the usage of democratic
leadership style and the prospective principals should be prepared to
use distributed or democratic style of leadership effectively for spur
job performance of the teachers.

But the results of hypothesis 1 of our research were different; there
was a positive influence of autocratic and democratic leadership style
of leadership on teachers' job performance. While laissez-faire style of
leadership was negatively informed teachers' job performance in
secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district. It means that it
provided enough evidence to prove the research gap of our study that
there was divergence or disparity or diversity in terms of impact
leadership style of principal on job performance of the teachers in
different state of affairs, contexts, and work settings.

Furthermore, the outcomes of hypothesis 2 exhibited the strong and
statically significant correlation between the autocratic leadership and
teachers' job performance of in secondary schools in private sector in
district Lahore. It was showing autocratic style of leadership
(independent variable) was impacting the major portion of job
performance of the teachers (dependent variable) in studied area. This
key finding is in line with the submission of Adeyemi (2010), which
disclosed the significantly strong and positive correlation between the
leadership style and job performance of the teachers in the studied
area. These results were in contradiction with the submission of Yusuf
(2012), who made known that autocratic leadership had negative influence
on academic achievements of the students and the job performance of
their teachers. On the other hand, the conducted research of Duze (2012)
had exposed that autocratic leadership style had a significantly
positive correlation with the performance of teachers.

It is therefore coherent that the most probably autocratic style of
leadership principally throws a positive and constructive impression or
impact on teacher's performance because it helps principals and
administration to have a good control over working conditions especially
significantly helpful in enforcing teachers who lack enthusiasm, causing
students not to learn well, to perform their duties and finish complex
job targets timely for the success of the schools and their students.
This striking finding of our study strongly corroborated the significant
point of Mwangi (2013), who stated that the autocratic style of
leadership was a significant tool to do and finish the job
responsibilities by the teachers.

From hypothesis 3, it unveiled that principals' democratic leadership
had a significant, positive but weak correlation with job performance of
the teachers in secondary school in private sector in Lahore district.
Here, the strength of the democratic leadership was quite low or weak,
the most probably it is because of frequency the occurrence of the
instance was comparatively low. It means that sometimes or in some
situations the principals listen to the suggestions or ideas of the
teachers. In simple words, the democratic style of leadership influences
the job performance of the teachers either directly or indirectly in
secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district. This argument or
coherent was somehow affirmed in the suggestions of the submission of
Okoji (2016) that a blend of democratic and autocratic leadership styles
contribute to the better job performance in miscellaneous work settings
and Kiboss and Jemiryott (2014), who noted with other things that
principal's democratic leadership style had a pretty good impact on a
school working atmosphere.

The outcomes of hypothesis 4 exhibited that there was a significant
correlation between principals' laissez-faire leadership style and job
performance of the teachers in secondary schools in private sector in
Lahore district. It's been further noticed that the laissez-faire had
moderate but inverse relationship with job performance of the teachers.
In simple words, in the presence of principals' laissez-faire leadership
style, there was a negative impact or influence of leadership style of
the principal on job performance of the teachers in the schools
surveyed. Although this finding was somewhat in line with the
investigation of Imhangbe et al. (2018), who founded the significant and
positive correlation between the laissez-faire leadership style and job
performance of the teachers in Edo Central Sentorial district. Their
submission showed another compliment that laissez-faire leadership has
positive and negative impacts that on contingent situation. While the
negativity impacts the relationship quality aggravatingly. In this
contention there was semblance and sameness in this present study.
However, Ozuruoke, Ordu, and Abdulkarim (2011) observed counter finding
that the job performance of the teacher was fine in schools with leaders
operating autocratic style of leadership over those schools which were
using laissez-faire leadership styles in studied schools.

\textbf{Recommendations}

On the bases of the findings, the following recommendations were drawn;

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  The school principals should be trained and taught the effective use
  of the mixture of autocratic and democratic leadership styles to
  manage and handle miscellaneous state of affairs and work settings to
  enhance the job performance of the teachers nicely in the district
  Lahore.
\item
  The potential principals should be capable to use the application of
  autocratic leadership carefully and wisely because its careless usage
  may lead to demotivation and job dissatisfaction level, thus there was
  a much more to learn about the motivation and job satisfaction in the
  private sector in the district.
\item
  The participative or shared leadership practices should be encouraged
  in the studied area.
\item
  The principals should be skilled and qualified for the efficient and
  effective use of the applications of instructional leadership.
\item
  Leadership training modules should be there for the teachers and
  principals; in this way principals would learn advanced positive use
  of autocratic and/or instructional leadership and teachers would
  follow the principals well.
\item
  The laissez-faire style of leadership among the principals should be
  discouraged in secondary schools in private sector in Lahore district
  because it was having negative impact on job performance of the
  teachers.
\item
  The head office or governing bodies of the schools should empower the
  principals with caution of fair use.
\end{enumerate}

\textbf{Funding}

No particular financial allowance or endowment fund for this research by
any funding agency.

\textbf{References}

Adebayo, A. (2003). Leadership Styles of Schools Head. \emph{Akure: King
Press} .

Adeyemi, T. (2010). Principals leadership styles and teachers job
performance in senior secondary schools in Ondo State,
Nigeria.\emph{International Journal of Educational Administration and
Policy Studies, 2} (6), 83-91.

Al-Khasawneh, A. L., \& Futa, S. M. (2012). The impact of leadership
styles used by the academic staff in the Jordanian public universities
on modifying students' behavior: A field study in the northern region of
Jordan. \emph{International Journal of Business and Management, 8} (1),
1.

Awamleh, R., \& Gardner, W. L. (1999). Perceptions of leader charisma
and effectiveness: The effects of vision content, delivery, and
organizational performance. \emph{The Leadership Quarterly, 10} (3),
345-373.

Bass, B. M. (1985). \emph{Leadership and performance beyond
expectations} : Collier Macmillan.

Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision. \emph{Organizational dynamics, 18} (3),
19-31.

Bass, B. M., Avolio, B. J., Jung, D. I., \& Berson, Y. (2003).
Predicting unit performance by assessing transformational and
transactional leadership. \emph{Journal of applied psychology, 88} (2),
207.

Bass, B. M., \& Stogdill, R. M. (1990). \emph{Bass \& Stogdill's
handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications} :
Simon and Schuster.

Bryk, A. S., \& Driscoll, M. E. (1985). An empirical investigation of
the school as community. In: Chicago: University of Chicago, School of
Education.

Bryman, A. (1992). \emph{Charisma and leadership in organizations} :
Sage Pubns.

Bryman, A. (2011). \emph{The SAGE handbook of leadership} : Sage
Publications.

Burki, S. J. (1986). \emph{Pakistan: A Nation in the Making. Karachi} :
Oxford University Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978). Leadership New York. \emph{NY: Harper and Row
Publishers} .

Busher, H. (2006). \emph{Understanding Educational Leadership: People,
Power And Culture: People, Power and Culture} : McGraw-Hill Education
(UK).

Ch, A. H., Ahmad, S., Malik, M., \& Batool, A. (2017). Principals'
Leadership Styles and Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Correlation Study at
Secondary Level. \emph{39} (3), 45-56.

Chen, Y.-H. (2007). \emph{Principals' distributed leadership behaviors
and their impact on student achievement in selected elementary schools
in Texas} : Texas A\&M University.

Cheng, Y. C. (1994). Principal's leadership as a critical factor for
school performance: Evidence from multi-levels of primary
schools.\emph{School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5} (3),
299-317.

Cheong Cheng, Y. (1991). Leadership style of principals and
organisational process in secondary schools. \emph{Journal of
Educational Administration, 29} (2).

Ciriello, M. J. (1998). \emph{Principal as Managerial Leader} (Vol. 3):
USCCB Publishing.

Conger, J. A., \& Kanungo, R. N. (1998). \emph{Charismatic leadership in
organizations} : Sage Publications.

Downton, J. V. (1973). \emph{Rebel leadership: Commitment and charisma
in the revolutionary process} : New York, NY, US: Free Press.

Duze, C. O. (2012). Leadership styles of principals and job performance
of staff in secondary schools in Delta State of Nigeria. \emph{AFRREV
IJAH: An International Journal of Arts Humanities, 1} (2), 224-245.

Ekhaisomi, A. (2011). \emph{Influence of Principals' Leadership Styles}
: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Gall, M., Borg, W., \& Gall, J. (2007). Educational Research: An
Introduction. Boston, Massachusetts: Pearson Education. In: Inc.

Gardner, J. (1993). \emph{On leadership} : Simon and Schuster.

Hallinger, P., \& Heck, R. H. (1996). Reassessing the principal's role
in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research,
1980-1995.\emph{Educational administration quarterly, 32} (1), 5-44.

Harris, A., Jones, M., Cheah, K. S. L., Devadason, E., \& Adams, D.
(2017). Exploring principals' instructional leadership practices in
Malaysia: insights and implications. \emph{Journal of Educational
Administration, 55} (2), 207-221.

Hickman, G. R. (1998). \emph{Leading organizations: Perspectives for a
new era} : Sage.

House, R. J. (1976). A 1976 Theory of Charismatic Leadership. Working
Paper Series 76-06.

Imhangbe, O., Okecha, R., \& Obozuwa, J. (2018). Principals' leadership
styles and teachers' job performance: Evidence from Edo State,
Nigeria.\emph{Educational Management Administration \& Leadership} ,
1741143218764178.

Institute of Social Policy Sciences. (2010). Private sector education in
Pakistan: mapping and musing. In: I-SAPS. Islamabad, Pakistan.

International Finance Corporation. (2002). IFC strategic directions. In:
Washington, DC: IFC.

Iqbal, M. (2012). Public versus private secondary schools: A qualitative
comparison. \emph{Journal of Research Reflections in Education, 6} (1),
40-49.

Jaques, E. (2017). \emph{Requisite organization: A total system for
effective managerial organization and managerial leadership for the 21st
century} : Routledge.

Kafka, J. (2009). The principalship in historical
perspective.\emph{Peabody Journal of Education, 84} (3), 318-330.

Kiboss, J. K., \& Jemiryott, H. K. S. (2014). Relationship between
principals' leadership styles and secondary school teachers' job
satisfaction in Nandi South district, Kenya. \emph{Journal of education
human development, 3} (2), 493-509.

Kirkpatrick, S. A., \& Locke, E. A. (1996). Direct and indirect effects
of three core charismatic leadership components on performance and
attitudes. \emph{Journal of applied psychology, 81} (1), 36.

Kozaala, E. (2012). \emph{Leadership styles and job performance of
teachers in selected private secondary schools of Kamuli district,
Uganda.}

Lee, N. R. (2017). \emph{The practice of managerial leadership} :
Xlibris Corporation.

Machumu, H. J., \& Kaitila, M. M. (2014). Influence of Leadership Styles
on Teachers' Job Satisfaction: A Case of Selected Primary Schools in
Songea and Morogoro Districts, Tanzania. \emph{International Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy Studies, 6} (4), 53-61.

Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training Government of
Pakistan. (2017). \emph{National Educaiton Policy 2017-2015} . Retrieved
from
www.moent.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/National\%20Educaiton\%20Policy\%202017.pdf

Mokone, P. E. (1999). \emph{Collaboration as an element of the
principal's strategic leadership.} University of Johannesburg,

Mumford, M. D. (2006). \emph{Pathways to outstanding leadership: A
comparative analysis of charismatic, ideological, and pragmatic leaders}
: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Mwangi, W. (2013). \emph{Effects of leadership styles on teachers" job
performance and satisfaction: a case of public secondary schools in
Nakuru County, Kenya.} M. Sc. Thesis submitted to Kenyatta University,
Kenya,

Newmann, F. M., \& Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school
restructuring: A report to the public and educators.

Northouse, P. G. (2018). \emph{Leadership: Theory and practice} : Sage
publications.

Okoji, O. O. (2016). Relationship between secondary school principals'
leadership style and teachers' job performance in selected rural
communities of Ondo State, Nigeria. \emph{Annals of Modern Education, 8}
(1), 27-36.

Ozuruoke, A., Ordu, P., \& Abdulkarim, M. (2011). Leadership Style and
Business Educators' Job Performance in Senior Secondary Schools in a
Changing Environment. \emph{Journal of Educational Social Research} ,
149.

Petersen, S. (2015). Re-imaging teacher leaders leading school
improvement: The untapped potential. \emph{Leading and Managing, 21}
(2), 1.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). \emph{The learning leader: How to focus school
improvement for better results} : ASCD.

Rost, J. C. (1993). \emph{Leadership for the twenty-first century} :
Greenwood Publishing Group.

Saadi, A. M., Hussain, A., Bhutta, R. N., Perveen, N., Kazmi, U., \&
Ahmad, N. (2009). Democratic and distributed leadership for school
improvement: Case studies from Pakistan. \emph{International Journal of
Learning, 16} (2).

Smith, W. F., \& Andrews, R. L. (1989). \emph{Instructional leadership:
How principals make a difference} : ERIC.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., \& Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a
theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. \emph{Journal
of curriculum studies, 36} (1), 3-34.

Terosky, A. L. (2016). Enacting instructional leadership: perspectives
and actions of public K-12 principals. \emph{School Leadership \&
Management, 36} (3), 311-332.

Tobin, J. (2014). Management and Leadership Issues for School Building
Leaders. \emph{International Journal of Educational Leadership
Preparation, 9} (1), n1.

Tomlinson, H. (2004). \emph{Educational Leadership: Personal Growth for
Professional Development} : SAGE Publications.

Van Niekerk, E., \& Van Niekerk, P. d. P. (2006). Strategic management
in South African education: The leadership dimension. \emph{Africa
education review, 3} (1\_2), 84-99.

Werang, B. R., \& Lena, L. (2014). Relationship between Principal's
Leadership, School Organizational Climate, and Teachers' Job Performance
at State Senior High Schools in Merauke
Regency--Papua--Indonesia.\emph{International Journal of Education and
Research, 2} (6), 635-640.

Williams-Boyd, P. (2002). \emph{Educational leadership: A reference
handbook} : Abc-clio.

World Bank. (2002). ``Pakistan Poverty Assessment---Poverty in Pakistan:
Vulnerabilities, Social Gaps, and Rural Dynamics. In: World Bank
Washington, DC.

Yusuf, A. (2012). The research scene in Nigeria's non-university higher
institutions. \emph{Journal of Research in National Development, 10}
(2), 1-8.\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[H]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.70\columnwidth]{figures/Ethical-Approval-Letter/Ethical-Approval-Letter}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\end{document}

