CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Leadership is considered as one of the key ingredients for the success of any organization. It is therefore, important for a leader to understand what good leadership entails. According to Sergon (2005), leadership style is the manner and approach of providing direction, implementing plans and motivating people. As seen by the employees, it includes the total pattern of explicit and implicit actions performed by their leader. Mirkamal, (2005) identified dierent styles of leadership; autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire. Fan (2009) reveals that achievements in schools are dependent on four identifiable leadership styles namely; autocratic, democratic, transformational and laissez-faire. Autocratic leadership style appears generally self-centered and allows minimum participation of the subordinates in decision making, the democratic style is rather people oriented and counts on the participatory contribution of the subordinates (Mgbodile, 2004).
Autocratic leadership behaviours have prevailed in Mexico and Taiwan, while in South Korea and United States, the dominant leading style is democratic. According to Dickson, Hartog and Mitchelson (2003) only democratic leadership style had a direct and significant ailiation with performance in United States. Fan (2009) identifies that transformational leadership style pays particular attention to the subordinates needs for growth and achievement and thus leaders who use this style are proactive leaders. Laissez-faire leadership styles refer to the style which allows free contributions of ideas or opinions without interference by the leader. Secondary schools all over the world, including Nigeria, are important institutions in the achievement of the educational policy of the state. As a formal organisation, it has a bureaucratic administrative structure with established rules and regulations, aimed at providing the needed opportunities for the education and development of the learners and sta of the schools, and usually under the leadership of the principal. In their views, Ochoyi and Danladi (2009) and Wilson (2016, p. 52) described education as a vital tool in the development of the learners, through the transmission of worthwhile values such as skills, knowledge and planned activities that can develop the learners’ potentials for the benefit of the society.
Education, thus provides for the development of the citizens, and is achieved through the implementation of the necessary school curricula and education policy of the state. In Nigeria, the education policy anchors on five cardinal objectives, basically a free and democratic society; a just and egalitarian society; a united, strong and self-reliant nation; a great and dynamic economy; a land full of bright opportunities for all citizens FGN, (2004, p. 4). In addition, Olatunji (2015, p. 396), stated that Nigeria’s philosophy of education is a complex one that requires adequate administrative procedure to ensure its practical achievement in the state. The desirability of achieving of both the Nigerian education policy and philosophy of education requires eective leadership in all educational institutions in Nigeria, including the secondary schools. Secondary schools provide institutional resources for the secondary education level and needs eective leadership of the principal to ensure the achievement of its objectives. Adwella (2014, p.1) saw leadership as the operational tool in influencing people to strive willingly and enthusiastically towards the achievement of the organisational goals, including secondary schools. Nworgu (1991), Omolayo (2000), and Aghenta (2001) explained leadership as a process of influencing the activities of a group of people by a leader in an eort towards the attainment of the organisational goal. It involves the act of getting things done with the cooperation and assistance of other people. Leadership is therefore an important instrument in the initiation and implementation of the organisational policies, including educational policies and philosophy of the secondary schools in the State, and the leadership style and traits so applied by the leader influences the job performance of the sta in the organisation (Yahaya, Osman, Mohammed, Gibrilla, and Issah, 2014, p. 2). Different leadership styles influence job satisfaction. For example, Fan (2009) studied principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ job satisfaction in South Carolina and revealed that teachers preferred transformational leadership that includes them in decision making rather than be coerced into compliance by their principals.
However apparent contradictions arose when teachers spoke highly of leaders characterized as having democratic leadership styles as well as some having authoritative leadership styles. Iqbal (2010) on the impact of principals’ job satisfaction of teachers the province of Punjab, Pakistan established that democratic leadership style was dominant over autocratic style. 18 per cent of school principals fall in autocratic leadership style and 82 per cent fall in democratic leadership style. The study further revealed that teachers working under a democratic style of leadership were more satisfied than teachers working under autocratic style of leadership.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Some head teachers’ seem to be autocratic in their leadership style (Adeyemi, 2010). Some perhaps tends to be democratic (Akerele, 2007). Some on the other hand seem to practice the laissez faire leadership style (Ige, 2001). These leadership styles tend to have some effect on the management of the school either positively of negatively. Other studies have been on head teachers’ leadership styles with respect to performance in KCSE examination for example Iqbal (2010). Muchina (2009) studied the effects of head teachers’ leadership styles on motivation of secondary school teachers in Nigeria. Common observations in the school system shows that teachers in primary schools have been moving away from the teaching profession to other professions and others have had early retirement (Fan, 2009). Many reasons might have been responsible for this development. Among these reasons may be the perceived low level of teachers’ welfare and the conditions of service which seems not to be comparable with the conditions of service of their colleagues in the civil service.
