A Study Examining the Influence of Principals’ Situational Leadership Practices on Teachers’ Organizational Commitment in Bhutan

Abstract

How well a school performs largely depends on the commitment of teachers and the degree of their commitment greatly depends on the versatility of school leaders. For this reason, school leadership serves as an inner powerhouse of both school effectiveness and teachers' commitment towards their organization. This quantitative research is conducted to examine situational leadership practices and their relationship with teachers' commitment towards their organization in Bhutan. Using a simple random sampling method, 305 teachers in higher secondary schools of Bhutan were selected for the study. The descriptive analysis confirmed that overall Bhutanese principals' situational leadership practices were found at a moderate level. Additionally, results showed a positive correlation between the principal's situational leadership practices and the organizational commitment of the teachers. Although, the effect size of principals' situational leadership was not found high, nevertheless, the study established that the coaching and directing dimension of principal's situational leadership practices are good predictors of teachers' organizational commitment.

Full text

Journal of Educational and Human Resource Development 8:127-138 (2020)
Southern Leyte State University, Sogod, Southern Leyte, Philippines
A Study Examining the Influence of Principals’
Situational Leadership Practices on Teachers’
Organizational Commitment in Bhutan
Lotey Gyeltshen
Arekha Middle Secondary School
Chhukha, Bhutan
Abstract
How well a school performs largely depends on the commitment of teachers and the degree
of their commitment greatly depends on the versatility of school leaders. For this reason,
school leadership serves as an inner powerhouse of both school effectiveness and teachers’
commitment towards their organization. This quantitative research is conducted to examine
situational leadership practices and their relationship with teachers’ commitment towards
their organization in Bhutan. Using a simple random sampling method, 305 teachers in
higher secondary schools of Bhutan were selected for the study. The descriptive analysis
confirmed that overall Bhutanese principals’ situational leadership practices were found at
a moderate level. Additionally, results showed a positive correlation between the principal’s
situational leadership practices and the organizational commitment of the teachers. Although,
the effect size of principals’ situational leadership was not found high, nevertheless, the study
established that the coaching and directing dimension of principal’s situational leadership
practices are good predictors of teachers’ organizational commitment.
Keywords: Bhutanese higher secondary school; Organizational commitment; Situational leadership
practices
Introduction
Modern education in Bhutan started only in
the 1960s. Since then, the appointment of the
head of the schools started. However, almost
all the school heads were appointed from
among the Indian teachers who came to teach
in Bhutan because unlike Indian teachers,
Bhutanese teachers were less qualified to take
headship roles. It was in the mid-1980s that
Bhutanese teachers were directly appointed
as school heads by the Department of
Education. Those heads of school however
lacked the formal training which affected their
management practices. So from 2003, formal
training for school leaders commenced with
the introduction of the Master of Educational
Leadership and management course in Paro
College of Education (Dorji, 2005). This
was one of the major reforms in school
leadership development in Bhutan. The role
of school leadership was heavily explored
by many scholars in different countries.
Consequently, the functions of school leaders
are numerous. Some of the widely explained
roles and leadership practices of school
principals are “instructional leadership” roles,
(Aas & Brandmo, 2016; Hallinger & Murphy,
1985; Leithwood, 2001,), “transformational
leadership style”, (Allix, 2000; Bass, 1990;
Leithwood, 1994; Sun & Leithwood, 2012) and
“participative leadership” practices (Copland,
2001; Neuma & Simmons, 2000). However,
with the evolution of the new education system
all over the world, school leaders need to
rethink their roles on how they would fit best
*Correspondence: loteygyeltshen@education.gov.bt ISSN 2545-9759

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
in every situation. As Howard (2005) stated,
the head of every school or any association
would have a direct effect on the staff, the
activities, and the atmosphere in which they
are guided. As a result, leaders need
to understand both their followers and the
organization that they lead. The researches on
the relationship between principal’s leadership
style and teachers’ commitment were carried
out both intensively and extensively in many
countries (Avolio, 1999; Bass, 1998; Yu et al.,
2002), but very few researches were found
supporting the theoretical bases for situational
leadership style (Graeff, 1983; Nahavandi,
1997; Vecchio & Boatwright, 2002) and
its influence on the teachers’ organizational
commitment. Accordingly, this study is
employed to examine the three research
questions on the following: 1) the teacher’s
perception levels on the principal’s situational
leadership behavior in Bhutanese higher
secondary school; 2) the relationship between
principal’s situational leadership behavior and
organizational commitment as perceived by
higher secondary school teachers; 3) the
principals’ situational leadership behavior as
a good predictor of teacher’s organizational
commitment.
Principal’s Situational Leadership
Style and Organizational
Commitment
Although a large number of studies exploring
principals’ leadership style and teachers’
commitment across the world were performed,
the study of situational leadership and
commitment of teachers are very modest.
According to Hersey and Blanchard (1988),
situational leadership is a behavioral practice
in which leaders select their leadership style
to best fit the situation and readiness level
of their followers. A similar expression was
made by Northouse (2004) and Thompson
and Glaso (2015) that situational leadership
studies the desires of their followers and then
applies their leadership style accordingly. In
a nutshell, situational leadership is all about
understanding the needs and potential of their
subordinates to enhance organizational goals.
According to Ahmad and Oranye (2010),
organizational commitment is characterized
as a trend of “emotion, morale and rationality”
in any individual. It is characterized by the
“loyalty and support” of employees towards
their organization (Baotham et al., 2010).
Therefore, the particular emotional attachment
such as loyalty, trust, and values make the
key characteristics of teachers’ commitment.
The importance of the principal’s situational
leadership was widely acknowledged in the
educational field in understanding academic
achievement (Beaver, 2011; Raza & Sikandar,
2018), job satisfaction (Parveen & Tariq,
2014), teachers’ work performance and
productivity (Hidayat et al., 2020; Mudiyantun,
2019; Refsanjani & Marsidin, 2018; Tobari et
al., 2018;), teachers’ professionalism (Ruslan
et al., 2020), and teachers’ commitment
(Hartati et al., 2020; Thompson & Glasø, 2015;
Silva et al., 2019). Yet, very little is known
on the relation to teacher’s organizational
commitment. All those empirical examinations
depict that principals’ situational leadership
behavior does have some relationship
and influence on school organization
either through teachers or students. As
a consequence, it is worth investigating the
influence of principals’ leadership behavior on
teachers’ organizational commitment.
Theoretical Framework
The birth of the theory took place in 1969
after Hersey and Blanchard published a
journal titled “Life Cycle Theory of Leadership”.
Since then, the theory has been continually
developed and researched until it is in its
current form (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969).
It is an extension of “Tannenbaum and
Schmidt’s leadership continuum”, “Blake and
Mouton’s managerial grid”, and “Reddin’s
three-dimensional leadership style”. The
situational leadership theory pointed out two
key leadership behaviors: “task behavior” and
“relationship behavior”. Task behavior refers
128

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
to leaders’ engagement in spelling out the
duties and responsibilities to an individual
or group through one-way communication,
whereas, the relationship behavior involves
leaders’ engagement in two-way or multi-way
communication to perform tasks. Also,
the situational leadership model is classified
into four quadrants referred to as “directing,
coaching, supporting, and delegating” that
leaders should apply based on employees’
readiness level indicated as “low, moderate,
high, and very high readiness”.
Consequently, as group member readiness
increases, a leader should rely more on
relationship behavior and less on-task
behavior (Hersey & Blanchard, 2007). The
four quadrants are identified in the succeeding
statement. First, directing style (style 1) is
referred to as “high task, low relationship
style”. Hersey and Blanchard (2007) stated
that leaders must apply this style if the
employees are low in both “motivation and
ability” to perform tasks. The leader needs to
tell more on task achievement and maintain a
low relationship. Second is the coaching style
(style 2) known as “high task, high relationship
style”. In this style, the leader provides
considerable input about task completion
but also emphasizes human relationships.
It is more suitable when subordinates have
“adequate motivation, but low ability” (Hersey
& Blanchard, 2007).
Third, is the supporting style (style 3) which
is regarded as “high relationship and low task
behavior”. The leaders give less direction,
but there is more collaboration between the
leader and group members. It is effective
when subordinates have “adequate ability
but low motivation” (Hersey and Blanchard,
2007). Finally, is the delegating style which
is characterized by “low relationship and low
task behavior”. The leader usually delegates
responsibility for a task to a group member
and is simply kept informed of progress. It is
effective when subordinates are very high in
ability and motivation (Hersey & Blanchard,
2007).
In summary, the key concept of leadership
style is that effective leadership happens when
the appropriate leadership style matches the
readiness level of employees. For this
reason, the leaders need to understand
the employees’ ability and willingness to
perform the specific task assigned. Since, the
organization consisted of different individuals
with variations in knowledge, experiences,
and skills, the leader must assign the specific
task based on maturity and readiness level.
Therefore, the application of each leadership
style should be chosen appropriately that
matches both ability and willingness of an
employee.
For the organizational commitment
of employees, the study adopted three
dimensions of the organizational commitment
model namely: affective, continuance,
and normative commitment developed by
Myer and Allen in 1991. According to the
authors, an “affective commitment” is the
psychological attachment of employees
towards their organization. Generally, it
consists of coworkers’ beliefs and ideals in
line with organizational goals and values.
On the other hand, “normative commitment”
is regarded as the extent of the employee’s
conviction on the organization and the
readiness to make substantial hard work
for the assistance of the organization, while
“continuance commitment” is perceived as the
costs connected with leaving the organization.
(Myer & Allen, 1991).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of the study
129

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Methodology
A descriptive survey method was employed
in the study. The data collected through
self-administered questionnaires were
analyzed using quantitative methods.
Study Group
The study group consisted of 2055 teachers
(1215 males and 839 females) teaching in
the public higher secondary schools in Bhutan
(Ministry of Education, 2018). To finalize
the actual sample for the study, Krejcie and
Morgan’s (1970) sample size table was used
where 322 teachers were selected using
a simple random sampling method. Thus
322 survey questionnaires were distributed to
collect data. However, only 305 respondents
returned their questionnaire. The details of
respondents are given in Table 1.
Table 1. Demographic characteristics of
respondents (n=305)
Gender n Percentage
Male 149 48.9
Female 156 51.1
Total 305 100
Education
Master 74 24.3
PGDE/PGE 140 45.9
B.Ed 91 29.8
Total 305 100
Research Instrument and Data
Collection
For collecting data on the situational
leadership behavior of the school principals,
a survey questionnaire of 23 items was
developed after the literature review. The
5-point Likert scale was used for all 23 items
with 1-never, 2-rarely, 3-sometimes, 4-often,
and 5-always as respondents’ choices.
Similarly, a 5-point Likert scale-; 1-strongly
disagree, 2-disagree, 3-neutral, 4-agree,
and 5-strongly agree with a 14-item survey
questionnaire adapted from Meyer and
Allen (1991) for the teachers’ organizational
commitment was used. Before the actual
collection of data, the questionnaire was
checked for reliability by 30 teachers that were
not in the sample. The Cronbach’s α(alpha)
reliability coefficient was calculated at .968 for
principals’ situational leadership practices and
.836 for teachers’ organizational commitment.
The results indicated that there was a greater
internal consistency of items (variables) in the
scale and therefore considered to be suitable
for data collection.
Data Analysis
Three statistical techniques were employed
for data analysis to answer all the research
questions. First, mean and standard deviation
were used to determine the perceived level of
teachers on principals’ situational leadership
practices. The Mean and Standard deviation
were analyzed about the 5-point rating
scale that is divided into 5 equal ranges;
1.00 -1.49 as very low, 1.50-2.49 as low,
2.50-3.49 as moderate, 3.50-4.49 as high,
and 4.50-5.00 as very high (Best & Kahn,
1998). Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient analysis was used to study the
relationship between the principals’ situational
leadership practices and organizational
commitment of teachers. The effect sizes of
correlation efficiency are interpreted as; 0 to
0.3 (0 to -0.3) as a weak positive (negative)
correlation, 0.3 to 0.7 (0.3 to -0.7) as a
moderate positive (negative) correlation and
0.7 to 1.0 (0.7 to -1.0) as a strong positive
(negative) correlation (Ratner, 2009). Lastly,
stepwise multiple regression analysis was
used to study whether principals’ situational
leadership practices are a good predictor of
teachers’ organizational commitment.
Results and Discussion
Results
The study was carried out to examine the
perception of higher secondary school
teachers on the relationship between
situational leadership practices and teachers’
130

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Table 2. Descriptive analysis on the teacher’s perception level on the principal’s situational
leadership style (n=305)
Principals Situational Leadership
Styles
Mean S.D. Perception
Level
Supporting 3.42 0.79 Moderate
Coaching 3.47 0.746 Moderate
Delegating 3.33 0.751 Moderate
Directing 3.55 0.828 High
Principal’ s Situational Leadership
Style
3.44 0.703 Moderate
organizational commitment in the Bhutanese
school context. The result of the study was
explained as follows:
Teacher’s Perception Levels on the
Principal’s Situational Leadership Style
in Bhutanese Higher Secondary School
Overall teacher’s perception level of the
principals’ situational leadership behavior
showed a moderate level (M = 3.44,
SD=.703). Also, supporting (M=3.42,
SD=.790), coaching (M=3.47, SD=.745), and
delegating (M=3.33, SD=751) also presented
a moderate level while directing dimensions of
principal’s situational leadership behavior was
revealed at a high level (M=3.55, SD= .825).
Relationship between Principals
Situational Leadership Style and
Organizational Commitment
The correlational analysis in Table 3 confirmed
that there was a significant relationship
between principals’ situational leadership
behavior and teachers’ organizational
commitment, r=.416, p<.01). Furthermore,
the analysis report showed a significant
relationship between all four dimensions of
situational leadership behavior and teachers’
commitment towards their organization as
perceived by the respondents. The Pearson
r results are .349 for supporting, .414 for
coaching, .350 for delegating, and .398 for
directing behavior with p<.01.
Principal’s Situational Leadership
Behavior the Best Predictor
of Teacher’s Organizational
Commitment
Results in the Table 4 showed that the
predictive variables (dimensions of principal’s
situational leadership style) were significantly
related to the organizational commitment of
teachers with F=35.217 and p=.01.
For the stepwise method of multiple
regression to choose the best predictive
variables from the four dimensions of the
principal’s situational leadership style in
the school, the first predictive variable
selected was Coaching and the analysis
produced R=.414, R2=.171, and F=62.698
with a significance level of .01. The second
predictive variable selected was Directing
and the analysis produced R=.435, R2=.189,
and F=35.217 with p≤.01. However, the
supporting and delegating dimensions of the
principal’s situational leadership style were
excluded from the analysis. Therefore, it can
be concluded that the best predictive variable
for the teacher’s organizational commitment
was coaching and directing contributing
18.9% towards teachers’ organizational
commitment.
Table 6 revealed that the regression
coefficient of predictive variables in
unstandardized scores was .222 for coaching
and .151 for directing. The regression
coefficients in standardized scores were
.265 for coaching and .200 for directing.
The regression analysis produced R=.
435, R2=.189 with F=35.217 and p=.01.
131

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Table 3. Pearson correlation between principal’s situational leadership and teacher’s
organizational commitment[n=305]
Principal Situational Leadership
Style
Organizational Commitment Relationship strength
Supporting .349** Moderate positive
Coaching .414** Moderate positive
Delegating .350** Moderate positive
Directing .398** Moderate positive
Situational Leadership .416** Moderate positive
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed)
Table 4. Analysis of variance in stepwise method of multiple regression using the organizational
commitment of teacher’s as criterion variable [n=305]
Predictors Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 22.459 2 11.229 35.217 .000b
Residual 96.297 302 0.319
Total 118.756 304
a. Predictors: (Constant), Coaching
b. Predictors: (Constant), Coaching, Directing
c. Dependent Variable: Organizational Commitment
Table 5. Multiple correlation coefficients and multiple coefficients of determinations between
predictive variables and criterion variables [n=305]
Situational Leadership Predictors R R2F
Coaching .414a 0.171 62.698**
Coaching/Directing .435b 0.189 35.217**
**Significance level 0.01(2-tailed)
Table 6. Regression Coefficient of significant predictors for teacher’s organizational
commitment[n=305]
Situational Leadership
Predictors b βSE t
Coaching 0.222 0.265 0.065 3.396**
Coaching/ Directing 0.151 0.2 0.059 2.565**
a= 2.218 R=.435 R2= .189 F=35.217 SE=.56468
The result also revealed that 18.9% of
variations were contributed by two predictive
variables (coaching and directing) on the
criterion variable (teacher’s organizational
commitment). Therefore the best predictive
equation for teacher’s organizational
commitment was constructed as Y’ = 2.218
+ .222+ .151 in Unstandardized Score and
Z’=2.218+ .265+ .200 in Standardized Score.
Discussion
While many scholars have positively
applauded the advantages of adopting a
situational leadership style by leaders, this
leadership model has received somewhat
little pragmatic support (Hersey et al, 2001).
To this end, this study was carried out to
explore teachers’ perception of the principals’
situational leadership practices and their
relationship with teachers’ organizational
commitment, specifically, the study was
132

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
undertaken to understand such constructs in
the Bhutanese educational context.
The findings of the study established a
moderate level of support for the situational
leadership practices of principals as perceived
by the higher secondary school teachers in
Bhutan. Furthermore, the study confirmed
a high level of directing style practices
of principals in Bhutan while supporting,
coaching, and delegating constructs of
situational leadership were found to be at a
moderate level. According to Somech (2005),
the directing leadership approach enhances
the job performance through clear rules for
adherence. Hence, the nature of principals
adopting directing approach may mean that
they see a lack of motivation and ability in
their subordinates to perform a specific task.
Also, school leaders in Bhutan are generally
the instructional leaders mandated by the
Ministry of Education. Furthermore, school
leaders are burdened with both academic and
non-academic responsibilities making them
difficult to focus on a specific task.
The influence of principals’ leadership style
on teachers’ job commitment and performance
was significantly found in many empirical
studies. Similarly, a significant moderate
relationship was found between situational
leadership practices of principals and
teachers’ organizational commitment. This
finding is consistent with the study of Suhardi
et al., (2018) which finds a positive correlation
between a principal’s situational leadership
practices and the teachers’ commitment.
Besides, all the four dimensions: supporting,
coaching, directing, and delegating were
found positively significant with teachers’
organizational commitment. Similarly, a
positive correlation was found between
directive, participatory, leadership style and
organizational commitment of employees
(Cokluk & Yilmaz, 2010; Huang, 2011; Mahdi,
Gulam & Almsafir, 2014). On the other hand,
the moderate correlation between the two
variables could be due to how the leader
perceived this particular leadership approach.
For instance, a study conducted by Thompson
and Aarset (2012) found that leaders who are
socially aware, more flexible, older, and small
group leaders were better able to implement
situational leadership style more appropriately
to follower competence and commitment
than those leaders who are not socially
aware, less flexible, young and leading large
group of subordinates. Consequently, higher
secondary schools in Bhutan consist of quite
higher numbers of teachers making school
principals focus less on individual teachers’
competence and commitment.
Although, a significant relationship between
principal situational leadership practices and
teachers’ organizational commitment was
indicated, yet, all the principals’ situational
leadership dimensions were not found as
good predictors of teachers’ commitment to
their organization. The study exposed a mixed
result and limited support for the application of
the theory in the Bhutanese school leadership
context. Johansen (1990) found that “it is
not possible to make a perfect proclamation
based on experimental findings yet it has
opened a lot of debate about the many factors
influencing leadership behaviors and the
essence of leader-subordinate relationship”.
The study revealed the coaching and directing
style of situational leadership dimension as
a good predictor for teachers’ organizational
commitment. The coaching nature of school
principals not only enables employees to
reproduce, think, and perform in new ways
to bring about change in their workplace and
work (Wise & Jacobo, 2010), but, also helps
leaders better understand their work (Thach,
2002). In contrast to coaching, directing
approach of leaders is more authoritative
where all decisions are announced by the
leader himself (Hersey & Blanchard,1998),
unfortunately, such an approach is not good
for both leader and organization.
Conclusion
Many researchers have provided an
understanding of the situational leadership
style in different contexts such as developing
133

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
organizational culture, subordinates’ job
performance, and professionalism. To
this end, this study was conducted to
examine the relationship between principal’s
situational leadership behavior and teachers’
organizational commitment focusing on
Bhutanese school settings.
The current findings suggested that
principals in higher secondary schools of
Bhutan showed moderate levels of situational
leadership behavior. Furthermore, principals
in Bhutan are more into directing approach
of situational leadership style. This may
mean that teachers in higher secondary
schools are low both in “motivation and
ability” to perform tasks. According to Yukl
(2010), situational leadership theory debates
that “leader personality is not inborn, which
position is held by trait theory, but build up
over time as a result of place and situation”.
Thus, principals in Bhutan need to move away
from positional and managerial approach
to situational leadership approach as this
leadership style enables leaders to care for
each subordinate differently based on their
task ability and further look for ways to assist
subordinates to learn new skills and take
greater confidence in their work (Fernandez &
Vecchio, 1997).
The school principals in Bhutan are heavily
occupied with mixed roles and responsibilities
of academic and non-academic activities,
making them lose their specific focus on
their subordinates. Thus, a strong positive
relationship between principals and teachers
must be built with more modern approaches
than just assuming managerial roles. Above
all, the findings from this research have thrown
some moderately significant information on
the situational approach of principals, which
may be due to multicultural societies in
which the education system functions (Tabrizi
& Rideout, 2019). Thus, the way school
leadership functions in a particular situation
need to be realized to have better employee
commitment and organizational productivity.
Although there was some effect of principals’
situational leadership style on teachers’
organizational commitment, the effect size of
influence was found to be very low. Thus,
the Ministry of Education in Bhutan may look
forward to providing professional development
programs on new leadership models than
just mandating school leaders as instructional
leaders in the school.
Limitation and Future
Researches
Notwithstanding the important contribution
to research investigating situational
leadership style and teachers’ organizational
commitment, the present study has the
following limitation; first; the study focused
on a single quantitative approach, and data
was collected only from the higher secondary
school teachers and their perception of
principals’ situational leadership practices,
so, it cannot be generalized as true to all
school levels. Therefore, future research
could explore with the inclusion of a wider and
broader sample size from all school levels.
Second, although a significant relationship
was found between situational leadership style
and teachers’ organizational commitment,
a future investigation could further explore
both extrinsic and intrinsic factors influencing
situational leadership practices of school
principals and then see direct and indirect
effects of all those factors on both situational
leadership practices and organizational
commitment.
References Cited
Ahmad, N., & Oranye, N. (2010).
Empowerment, job satisfaction
and organizational commitment: a
comparative analysis of nurses working
in Malaysia and England, Journal of
Nursing Management, 18, 582-591.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-28
34.2010.01093.x
134

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Allix, N.M. (2000). Transformational
leadership: Democratic or
Despotic? Educational Management
and Administration, 28(1),
7–20.https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211
X000281002
Aas, M., & Brandmo, C. (2016). Revisiting
instructional and transformational
leadership. Journal of Educational
Administration, 54(1), 92-265
Avolio, B. J. (1999). Full leadership
development: Building the vital forces
in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Baotham, S., Hongkhuntod, W., & Rattanajun,
S. (2010). The effects of job satisfaction
and organizational commitment on
voluntary turnover intentions of Thai
employees in the new university. Review
of Business Research, 10(1),73-82.
Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional
to transformational leadership:
Learning to share the vision.
Organizational Dynamics, 18(3),19-31.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-
2616(90)90061-S
Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational
leadership: Industrial, military and
educational impact. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beaver , H.O. (2011). The relationship
between situational leadership and
student achievement (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of
Southern Mississippi, Mississippi, USA.
Best, John W.,& Kahn, James V. (1998).
Research in education (8th ed.). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Cokluk, O., & Yilmaz, Y. (2010). The
relationship between leadership behaviour
and organization commitment in Turkish
primary school. Bilig-Summer, 54, 75-94.
Copland, M. (2001). The myth
of the superprincipal. Phi
Delta Kappan, 82(7), 528–533.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170108200
710
Dorji, J. (2005). Quality of education in
Bhutan: The story of growth and change
in the Bhutanese education system.
Thimphu:KMT publisher
Fernandez, C. E.,& Vecchio, R. P.
(1997). Situational leadership theory
revisited: A test of an across-jobs
perspective. Leadership Quarterly, 8(1),
67-84. https ://doi.org/10.1016/S10
48-9843(97)90031-X
Graeff, C. L. (1983). The situational leadership
theory: A critical review. Academy
of Management Review, 8, 285-291.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1983.4284738
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985).
Assessing the instructional management
behavior of principals. The Elementary
School Journal, 86(2), 217-247.
doi:10.1086/461445
Hartati,S.L., Irwandy., & Simaremare,
A.(2020). The influence of situational
leadership, work discipline, and
achievement motivation on teachers’
affective commitment in junior high
schools. Paper presented at the
5th Annual International Seminar on
Transformative Education and Educational
Leadership (online conference). State
University of Medan, North Sumatra,
Indonesia
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (1969). Life
cycle theory of leadership, Training and
Development Journal, 23(2), 26-34.
135

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1988).
Management of organizational behavior.
Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Hersey. P., & Blanchard, K. A. (1988).
Management of organizational behavior:
Utilizing human resources. Englewood
Cliffs, NY: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K.H. (2007).
Management of organizational behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. E.
(2001). Management of organizational
behavior (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall
Hidayat, R., Hardhienata, S., Patras,Y.E.,
& Agustin,R.R.(2020). The effects of
situational leadership and self-efficacy
on the improvement of teachers’ work
productivity using correlation analysis and
SITOREM. The International Journal of
Counseling and Education, 5(1), 6-14.
https://doi.org/10.23916/0020200525310.
Howard, W. C. (2005). Leadership: Four
styles. Education, 126(2), 384-391.
https://doi.Org/ 10.1080/13603120110057
082
Huang, T. (2011). The relationship between
headmasters’ leadership behavior and
teachers commitment in primary schools
in the district of Sarikei, Sarawak.
Paper presented at International
Conference on Education and
Educational Psychology. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.4
18
Johansen, B.P. (1990). Situational leadership:
A review of the research. Human
Resource Development Quarterly, 1,
73-85
Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970).
Determining sample size for research
activities. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 30(3), 607-610.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for
school restructuring. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 30(4), 498–518.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X9403000
4006
Leithwood, K. (2001). School leadership
in the context of accountability policies.
International Journal of Leadership in
Education, 4(3), 217–35.
Mahdi, O.R., Gulam, S., & Almsafir, M.K.
(2014). Empirical study on the impact
of leadership behavior on organizational
commitment in plantation companies in
Malaysia. Procedia-Social Behavioral
Sciences, 109,1076-1087. https://doi.org
/10. 1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.591
Meyer, J., & Allen, N. (1991) A
three-component conceptualization of
organizational commitment, Human
Resource Management Review, 1(1),
61-89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-
4822(91)90011-Z
Ministry of Education.(2018). Annual
education statistics. Policy and Planning
Division, Thimphu: Bhutan. Retrieved
from www.education.gov.bt
Mudiyantun, Y. (2019). The investigation
of situational leadership, and
work motivation on kinder garden
teacher performance. Jurnal
Kepemimpinan Pendidikan, 2(1), 193-204.
https://doi.org/10.22236/jkpuhamka.v2i1.3
814
Nahavandi, A. (1997). The art and science
of leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
136

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
Neuman, M., & Simmons, W. (2000).
Leadership for student learning.
Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1), 9–13.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170008200
105
Northouse, P.G. (2004). Leadership: Theory
and practice (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
California: SAGE
Parveen,S., & Tariq,A. (2014).
Leadership style, gender and job
satisfaction: A situational leadership
approach, International Journal of
Science and Research, 3(12), 1-6.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org
Ratner, B. (2009). The correlation coefficient:
Its values range between +1/−1, or do
they?, Journal of Targeting, Measurement
and Analysis for Marketing, 17, 139–142.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jt.2009.5
Raza, S.A., & Sikandar. A. (2018). Impact
of leadership style of teacher on the
performance of students: An application of
Hersey and Blanchard Situational Model.
Bulletin of Education and Research,
40(3), 73-94. https://files.eric.ed.Gov
/fulltext/EJ1209826.pdf
Refsanjani, & Marsidin, S. (2018).
Contribution of principal situational
leadership and School climate to the
implementation of teacher task at
public elementary school. Advances
in Social Science, Education and
Humanities Research, 337, 236-238.
https://doi.org/10.2991/picema-18.2019.49
Ruslan, R., Lian, B., & Fitria, H. (2020).
The Influence of principal’s situational
leadership and Teacher’s professionalism
on Teacher’s performance. International
Journal of Progressive Sciences and
Technologies, 20(1), 135-143.
Silva, P. L. D., Nunes, S. C., & Andrade,
D.F. (2019). Managers’ leadership
style and the commitment of their team
members: associating concepts in
search of possible relations. Review of
Business Management, 21(2 ), 291-311.
doi:10.7819/rbgn.v21i2.3975
Somech, A. (2005). Directive versus
participative leadership: Two
complementary approaches to managing
school effectiveness. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 41(5), 777- 800.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X052794
48
Suhardi, E., Juhriyah,A., & Hardhienata,
S.(2018). Increasing teacher’s
commitment to organizations through
the development of organizational culture
and situational leadership. Advances
in Social Science, Education and
Humanities Research, 253, 125-128.
https://doi.org/10.2991/aes-18.2019.30
Sun, J., & Leithwood, K. (2012).
Transformational school leadership effects
on student achievement. Leadership and
Policy in Schools, 11(4), 418-451.
Tabrizi.S. and Rideout.G.(2019). Exploring
situational leadership in the education
system: Practices for multicultural
societies, International Journal Of
Innovative Business Strategies, 5(1),
234-244.
Thach, E. C. (2002). The impact of executive
coaching and 360 feedback on leadership
effectiveness. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 23(4), 205–214.
https://doi.org/10.1108/014377302104290
70
Thompson, G., & Aarset, M. (2012).
Examining the impact of social
intelligence, demographics, and context
for implementing the dynamics of the
137

Gyeltshen JEHRD Vol.8, 2020
situational leadership model. Journal of
International Doctoral Research, 1(1),
122-142.
Thompson, G & Glasø, L. (2015).
Situational leadership theory: A test
from a leader-follower congruence
approach. Leadership & Organization
Development Journal, 36(5), 527-
544. https://doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-01-2018-0050
Rozalena, Tahrun & Tobari. (2018).
The influence of headmasters’
kindergarten situational leadership and
school’s environment toward teachers’
performance. International Journal of
Scientific & Technology Research, 7 (4),
80-92.
Vecchio, R. P., & Boatwright, K.
J. (2002). Preferences for
idealised style of supervision.
Leadership Quarterly, 13, 327-342.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00
118-2
Wise, D., & Jacobo, A. (2010).
Towards a framework for leadership
coaching. School Leadership and
Management, 30(2), 159–169.
https://doi.org/10.1080/136324310036632
06
Yu, H., Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2002).
The effects of transformational leadership
on teachers’ commitment to change in
Hong Kong. Journal of Educational
Administration, 40(4/5), 368-389.
https://doi.org/10.1108/095782302104334
36
Yukl, G. (2010). Leadership in organizations
(7th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall
138