See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]
net/publication/326989184
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes: A Study on Effective
Leadership Style for Principals in Vocational Colleges
Chapter · August 2018
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5858-3.ch015
CITATIONS READS
3 8,128
1 author:
Joseph Malechwanzi
Pwani University
30 PUBLICATIONS 106 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Malechwanzi on 05 January 2019.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
308
Chapter 15
The Impact of Leadership
on Learning Outcomes:
A Study on Effective Leadership Style
for Principals in Vocational Colleges
Malechwanzi J. Muthiani
Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China
ABSTRACT
Colleges across the world share a common goal of wanting to improve academic performance of students.
In this era of culpability, the pressure for principals to improve students’ performance has increased.
The purpose of this chapter is to identify the best leadership style adopted by principals of vocational
colleges in Kenya. Lecturers in selected vocational colleges were issued with a modified Bass’s multi-
factor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) to aid the data collection process. Structural equation model
(SEM) approach was used to test a model that measures principals’ best leadership style on learning
outcomes. The study established that principals practiced more transactional leadership. In addition,
transactional leadership style significantly and positively influenced learning outcomes. The findings
have a variety of implications to vocational training and future research direction.
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
The ever increasing global pressure to produce excellent students and future superior workers led many
countries to push institutions of higher learning towards improvement in student performance. Kenya
has felt this increased pressure as demonstrated through the Education For All (EFA) Goal Number 3
that requires learning needs of all young people and adults to be met through unbiased access to suitable
learning and life skills programs (Simiyu, 2009). In addition, accrediting agencies like Technical Voca-
tional Education and Training Authority (TVETA) have been forced to revise the criteria for assessing
vocational colleges in order to account for student learning and development (Ferej, Kitainge, & Ooko,
DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-5858-3.ch015
Copyright © 2019, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
2012). The Ministry of Education has also not been left behind in that it has introduced several measures
to improve quality of student learning in vocational colleges: performance contract, quality management
systems and staff appraisal on termly basis (Malechwanzi, Shen, & Mbeke, 2016).
These changes have made the role of principals to become more complex and challenging especially
with the emergence of 21st century learners. For this reason, researchers in education have continued to
search for better leadership styles that can be adopted by school principals in a bid to improve student
learning. After all, what is in the public domain is that principals can make a difference to what stu-
dents gain at school. I guess this sentiment is true because when schools perform poorly, principals find
themselves in hot soup. Whether such opinions hold waters or not is the task of this study to justify by
evidence. However, researchers have identified an effective educational leader as one who has the ability
to develop the capacity of a school through staff and students motivation to promote learning (Guarino,
Santibañez, & Daley, 2011). Leaders of this calibre are determined by their followers not themselves
(Smith, Bhindi, Hansen, Riley & Rall, 2008).
Research on school leadership has demonstrated the link between principal’s leadership types and
student learning outcomes (Witziers, Bosker, & Krüger, 2003). While studies on effective school leader-
ship and school outcomes appear to be relatively simple and open in theory, in practice it is difficult and
inconsistent (Ibrahim & Al-Taneiji, 2013). The reason being that the field of leadership is full of mainly
descriptive studies about effective leadership that are rarely tracked with sufficient rigor to find out their
impact on school achievement (Storey, 2004). Research on principal’s leadership provides insight into
what constitutes a great leader and if it does then education could modify the leadership training for
principals in schools. This study therefore seeks to examine the best leadership style practiced by prin-
cipals of vocational colleges in Kenya and relate the identified leadership style with learning outcomes.
Rationale of the Study
The question of how leadership influence learning outcomes has come to be of international interest. In
consequence, at least six educational researches have focussed their attention on the relation between
school leadership styles and learning outcomes (Al-Safran, Brown, & Wiseman, 2014; Bell, Bolam, &
Cubillo, 2003; Isaac, 2011; Leithwood, Seashore-Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Witziers et al.,
2003; Yildirim, Acar, Buli, & Sevile, 2008). However, these studies limitedly addressed the question:
which leadership style predict the best practice for school outcomes? In addition, the bulk of literature
was conducted at basic education level with only a few done on vocational education level. Apparently,
research on best school leadership styles that predict learning outcomes is inadequate except in a few
such as Al-Safran et al. (2014) who recently studied the effects of principal’s leadership styles on school
environment and outcome. Their study was restricted to 8th grade students using secondary data from
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 1995 on Kuwait and USA.
The findings of Al-Safran et al., (2014) were quite interesting to note and therefore formed the ba-
sis of the present study. Starting with USA schools, integrative principal leadership style was found to
create cooperative school environment for better school outcomes than authoritative. While in Kuwait
schools, authoritative principal leadership style was found to create cooperative school environment
for better school outcomes than integrative. These findings reveals the controversies surrounding many
researches on best leadership styles that greatly impact on learning outcomes. In fact, Al-Safran et al.
(2014) concluded that there was no universal or appropriate leadership styles for all cultures.
309
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Other than integrative and authoritative leadership styles, the Bass (1985) leadership styles namely
transformational, transactional and laissez-faire have availed scholarly recognition among the research
community and is now well thought-out as the mainstream in leadership inquiry (Hardman, 2011; Khan,
Ramzan, & Ahmed, 2011; Timothy, Okwu, & Akpa, 2011). A critical review of various leadership
styles practised by managers: autocratic, democratic, bureaucratic, laissez-faire, transformational and
transactional concluded that the most influential leadership styles among managers combined features
of transformational and transactional leadership (Saqib Khan et al., 2015). In complex organisations,
effective leaders address internal and external environmental factors using transformational and trans-
actional leadership behaviour in order to accomplish tasks (Smith, 2015).
The purpose of this study was to investigate the best leadership style adopted by principals of voca-
tional colleges in Kenya that considerably promote learning outcomes. In this essence, leadership styles
practiced by principals were observed using Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ). MLQ looks
at transformational, transactional and laissez faire leadership styles which are inherent in the Kenyan
culture (Koech & Namusonge, 2012). The structural relation amid these styles for principals and learning
outcomes were analysed. The general purpose of the study led to the following specific research ques-
tions: Which leadership style is practiced by principals of vocational colleges in Kenya? Do demographic
factors influence principle’s leadership style? And is there a significant relation between principal’s
leadership style and learning outcomes? From these questions the study increases the possibility of
adding to existing knowledge thus improving students learning.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Leadership Styles
An appropriate definition of leadership constitutes followers, a leader who influences behaviour of
followers and willingness of followers to carry out actions in accordance to the laid objectives. In this
regard, leadership is the process whereby leaders influence their followers in a way that they willingly
strive towards achieving organisational objectives. Different leadership styles exist in work places, each
with its own pros and cons. Nonetheless it is the culture and goals of an organization which dictates the
leadership style that fits best in a particular organisation. In recent researches, Bass leadership styles:
transformational, transactional, and laissez faire have come up to be prominent among many researchers
(Jones & Rudd, 2008; Judge & Piccolo, 2004; Khan et al., 2011).
Research advocates for the importance of leaders to exhibit qualities that enable followers to trans-
mute to a higher level; this is transformational leadership (Shamir, House, & Arthur, 1993; Yukl, 1999).
Transformational leadership may inspire people to work towards altruism and pursue goals and values
of the shared group. Effective leadership is central to constructive and adaptive change as leaders risk
disorder in pursuit for change (Bedeian & Hunt, 2006). Transformational leadership offers a positive
escalation in leader performance surpassing the effects of transactional leadership and was positively
and significantly correlated with follower satisfaction (Khan et al., 2011).
Transactional leadership style is theorized to comprise contingent reward and management by exemp-
tion (Khan et al., 2011). In contingent reward, leader concentrated on classifying the clear tasks together
with the projected rewards to be received on achievement satisfying the spirit of exchange between
the parties. On the other side, management-by-exception is where leaders ensure the right and timely
310
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
accomplishment of planned objectives. Leaders using transactional leadership give followers certain
tasks to perform and provide rewards or punishments based on their results. The leader and followers
set predetermined goals then agree to abide by these goals but the leader has power to review results
and correct followers when they fail to meet the goals set.
A laissez-faire leader lacks direct command of followers and fails to provide regular feedback to those
under supervision (Bhatti, Maitlo, Shaikh, Hashmi, & Shaikh, 2012). This leadership style is very common
with highly experienced and trained work force requiring little supervision fall. However, laissez-faire
leadership style hinders the creation of work force that needs supervision. The laissez-faire style produces
no leadership efforts from leaders which can lead to poor production, lack of control and raising costs.
Leadership and Learning Outcomes
Learning outcome is the academic standing of a student in a school at a given moment. This academic
standing is demonstrated through students’ performance as measured by their change in knowledge,
skills and attitudes as a result of academic experiences (Adeyemi, 2006; Owoyemi, 2000) How stu-
dents are able to prove that they have acquired certain competencies, is a true measure of performance.
Performance has been regarded as a measure of educational output (Adeyemi, 2006). All actions taken
by school leaders have repercussions on school capacity and may improve or weaken student learning
outcomes. School capacity is defined as the collective power of a school staff to raise student achieve-
ment (Youngs, & King, 2002). An effective educational leader is one who has the ability to develop
school’s capacity in a way that enhances student learning through the motivation of teachers, staff and
students (Guarino et al., 2011).
Leadership is a fundamental factor in school outcomes since schools which perform consistently
well tend to have sound and efficient leadership (Nyongesa, 2014). School leadership was noted to
be a significant contributor of high school performance (Beck & Murphy, 1996). Principals who set
goals and establish strong management for improvement process normally create conditions that sup-
port teachers in helping students to succeed. Principals in high performing schools devote their energy
in developing clear goals that are focused towards student achievement. When principals improve the
quality of teaching in schools, learning outcomes will definitely improve. A quarter of school learning
effects were reported to be as a result of the quality of school leadership (Leithwood & Riehl, 2003).
Teachers’ central position between the principal and students play a vital role in converting leadership
effects to school outcomes. Therefore, school leaders should consider strategies that aim at stimulating
teachers towards effective pedagogies hence learning outcomes.
Transformational Leadership and Learning Outcomes
A study that was done in Canada found that transformational leadership had a strong positive effects
on school and classroom conditions but significantly weak on the affective and behavioural dimensions
of student engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). In Singapore, data that was collected from school
teachers and principals using MLQ revealed that transformational leadership had indirect effects on
student academic achievement (Koh, Steers, & Terborg, 2016). In contrast, Griffith (2004) conducted a
study on the relationship between transformational leadership and school performance in United States.
The results showed that there was no direct association between principal transformational leadership
and school performance. However, schools that practiced higher levels of transformational leadership
311
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
had a smaller achievement gap between minority and nonminority students. Similarly, Leithwood and
Jantzi (2006) investigated the effects of transformational leadership model on student achievement using
data from national literacy and numeracy programme in England. Using path analytic techniques, the
authors found that transformational leadership to have no significant effects on student achievement.
Transactional Leadership and Learning Outcomes
Leithwood and Mascall (2008) conducted a quantitative study involving 2,570 teacher from 90 schools to
assess the impact of transactional leadership on student learning gains. The results showed a significant
relationship between transactional leadership and student learning gains. Further, teachers were moti-
vated highest when the school leadership shares leadership roles with teachers on school improvement.
Similarly, Marks and Printy (2003) used a mixed-method design to conduct a study of 910 teacher from
24 schools with multiple grade levels. Their study established a strong correlation between transactional
leadership and student learning gains. In addition, the academic achievement of students was highest when
the quality pedagogy resulted from transactional leadership. This is because teachers benefited from a
distributed power that gives them a say in the school decision making organ (Ingersoll, 2007). In short,
sharing leadership roles reduces burnout in the leadership thereby enhancing student learning outcomes.
Laissez-faire Leadership and Learning Outcomes
Numerous researches have shown a non-significant relationship between principals’ laissez-faire leader-
ship style and students’ academic performance (Adeyemi, 2013; Goldring & Sharon, 1993; Lieberman,
Beverly & Alexander, 1994). In another study, Paisey (2002) researched on school leadership and its
influence on secondary schools performance in Tanzania. The results showed a negative correlation
between the laissez-faire leadership style and the school performance. The study reported that principals
who use the laissez faire leadership style fail to follow up on those they have delegated duties to and
consequently performance declines. Mc lean, Fairman and Moore (2006) also studied leadership styles
influencing school performance. They similarly established that laissez faire leadership is associated
with high rates of absenteeism, felony and poor performance which lead to fruitless attitudes. Laissez-
faire leadership style is the kind of leadership that makes provisions for the individual to have dominant
roles in decision-making and in the exercise of power with leaders taking a passive role. It is thus a
weak style of leadership as it leads to no meaningful progress within an organization (Obilade, 1998;
Ogunsanwo, 2000).
Theoretical Framework
Human beings exhibits certain characteristics which can be grouped in terms of demographic factors
such as gender, personality traits, ethnicity and age. Other than these, another characteristic which an
individual can possess is leadership style. Leadership as a field of study has continued to grow from
studying traits of great leaders until the development of leadership theories. One such theory, is the
Bass (1985) leadership theory which defines effective leadership as the extent to which a leader leads
followers to the agreed destination as decided by a group. As many employing agencies are determined
to hire or train great leaders, Bass leadership theory may be a solution to issues surrounding employer
performance. More specifically, Bass developed MLQ instrument to identify characteristics of a great
312
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
leader. However, being a great leader is not enough, they should be productive. For example, principal
as a leader of school must demonstrate learning outcomes have improved.
Bass theory of leadership proposed three distinct leadership styles namely: transformational, transac-
tional and laissez faire. In Transformational leadership style, leaders act as role models, inspire, nurture
and give identity to their subordinates to become higher performers. Opposed to transformational lead-
ership, transactional leadership style emphasis on the usage of rewards and punishments in pursuance
of compliance from followers. Lastly, in laissez faire leadership style, a person may be given a headship
position without providing guidance which gives subordinates a leeway in deciding policies and methods.
While transformational leadership styles are associated with positive outcomes, laissez-faire leadership
is linked to negative outcomes, especially in terms of supporters contentment with leader and leader
effectiveness (Judge & Piccolo, 2004).
Principals of well performing colleges are highly esteemed, unfortunately, there is no way of iden-
tifying or producing such principals because these qualities cannot be secluded from factors such as
motivation, personalities, group dynamics, level of skills or even instructional strategies. Nonetheless,
through leadership styles, some researchers have tried to find a way of identifying these qualities of
performing principals (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Leithwood, 1994). If principals can possess leadership
characteristics which can improve learning outcomes, then there is a possibility that education could
train principals to achieve the preferred leadership styles (Isaac, 2011). This research will examine a
set of variables under a specific leadership styles practiced by particular principals and then relate the
identified leadership style to learning outcomes in vocational colleges.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Questions seeking the opinions of teachers about the kind of leadership style practiced by their principal
and how they relate to learning outcomes formed the starting point of the present study.
Design
This study used both cross-sectional and quantitative research approach (Creswell, 2003). The study was
cross-sectional because it engaged key variables under leadership and learning outcomes at a single point
in time. It also used quantitative approach as more effective tool in gathering data, since the leadership
style adopted by school leaders are inherent in vocational colleges and can affect learning outcomes. Pre-
vious literature shows a differential effect of varied leadership styles practiced by principals on learning
outcomes (Al-Safran et al. 2014; Witziers et al. 2003). For this study teachers identified the leadership
style practiced by their principals from the Bass’s MLQ Form 6s, then the identified leadership style
will be related to learning outcomes.
Participants
The target population for this study were lecturers in vocational colleges of Kenya. The sample size con-
sisted of 204 lecturers (representing 81.6% response rate) drawn from a random sample using research
randomizer application (Bellhouse & Kulperger, 1991). The survey instrument was sent to the samples
selected via online methods: e-mail, WeChat, and WhatsApp. Although the whole exercise was on vol-
313
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
untarily basis, two follow-ups over one-month period were conducted for non-respondents via telephone.
Two thirds of the participants were male (136; 66.7%). Majority of participants laid between the age of
30-39 years (108; 52.9%), one third below 30 years (68; 33.3%), with a little fewer between 40-49 years
(20; 9.8%) and above 50 years (8; 3.9%). Lastly, most of the respondents had a teaching experience of
more than five years (112; 54.9%).
Research Instrumentation
Leadership style practiced by principals of Kenya were determined by scoring each participant’s response
to the Multi-factor Leadership Questionnaire, MLQ (Avolio & Bass, 2004). The MLQ has a total of 21
questions that measures three individual leadership styles namely transformational, transactional and
laissez-faire. The MLQ scale scores measure characteristics and behaviours of leaders including those
in academic programs (Jones & Rudd, 2008). The questionnaire also included indicators of learning
outcome and demographic factors such as gender, age and experience. The items form was then built
online using MikeCRM application software (please copy the link and open in your browser: http://
[Link]/6JGRFn5?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0).
Reliability
The MLQ strongly predict leadership performance since its reliability for each leadership dynamic ranged
from .74 to .91 (Avolio & Bass, 2004). This implies that leaders with similar characteristics responded
nearly the same way at different time period. This study estimated internal consistency using factor
analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient on the given set of survey subscales to further bol-
ster the psychometric properties of the instrument (Field, 2005). Table 1 shows that the alpha values for
the subscales were above the threshold value of 0.70 for consistent and reliable scale (Peterson, 1994).
Validity
The samples were randomly selected for external validity check. Unidimensionality of the measure for
construct validity was checked using exploratory factor analysis and subsequently any coefficient below
.45 was eliminated. Furthermore, outliers exceeding a deviation of +/- 2 were also removed. This re-
duced the number of parameters to be estimated from 24 to 13 in all the subsets and the ratio of sample
size to parameters was 16:1, which lays between 5:1 and 20:1 for stable estimates (Kline, 2005). The
factor loadings of the study variables ranged from .536 to .911. Kaiser-Meyer Olkin result gave .751
Table 1. Cronbach Alpha Reliability Coefficients
Subscale Description Alpha Reliabilities
TFL (4)* Transformational leadership .848
TSL (4)* Transactional leadership .713
LFL (4)* Laissez-faire leadership .705
Note: * Number of items comprising measure.
314
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
when evaluated at .000 level of significant which supports sampling adequacy and suitability of data for
uni-factorial determination. Finally, valid relations amid items were assessed to ensure that they were
consistent with the results of the objective measures and other researches (Rugutt & Chemosit, 2005).
Conceptualisation of the Study Variables
Transformational Leadership (TFL)
Because past studies documented that transformational leadership is inherent in academic program leaders,
TFL was included as one of principal leadership style (Jones & Rudd, 2008; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005).
The TFL response format required participants to use a four-likert scale (1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 =
often and 4 = very often) to minimise the effects of odd scale. For TFL construct, five questions were
selected from MLQ for analysis which reads as follows:
1. Principal helps teachers to develop (T3)
2. I have complete faith in my principal (T4)
3. I am proud to be associated with principal (T6)
4. Principal helps teachers to find meaning in their work (T7)
5. Principal want teachers to rethink ideas that were not questioned before (T9)
Transactional Leadership (TSL)
The importance of transactional leadership as a significant determinant of educational outcomes is a
key factor that influences principal’s leadership style (Chattopadhyay & Chaudhuri, 2014; Silins, 1994).
Teachers rated their principal’s leadership style using a four-likert scale ranging from never (1), some-
times (2), often (3) to very often (4). For TFL construct, three questions were selected from MLQ for
analysis which reads as follows:
1. Principal informs teachers what they should do to be rewarded (TA)
2. Principal is satisfied when teachers complete agreed standards (TB)
3. Principal rewards teachers for reaching goal (TC)
Laissez-Faire Leadership (LFL)
This study included LFT as a leadership style because previous research findings have established the
significance of LFL as a leadership style in promoting learning outcomes (Munaf, 2010). Teachers in-
dicated how often their principals practiced some set of activities. The response options for LFT used a
four-likert scale as follows: 1 = never, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often and 4 = very often. For TFL construct,
two questions were selected from MLQ for analysis which reads as follows:
1. Principal is contended when teachers continue to work in the same way (L1)
2. Principal is always OK with what teachers are doing (L3)
315
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Learning Outcomes (LO)
In this study, learning outcome was the dependent variable because it can be predicted by leadership
styles (Beck & Murphy, 1996; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003; Nyongesa, 2014). Students drive to achieve
(A1), academic experiences (A2) and traits (A4) were taken as measure of learning outcomes (Astin,
1999; Ewell, 2006). The outcome variable was measured on a four point likert scale ranging from poor
to very good.
Developing Leadership Model of Learning Outcomes
In this study, Bass leadership styles that are of great influence to leaders were identified. These styles
were used to assess the leadership style employed by principals of vocational colleges in Kenya and
relate the style with learning outcomes as diagrammed in Figure 1.
Data Analysis
Data collected was analysed using SPSS 22.0 and Amos 21.0. Several analysis were done: exploratory
factor analysis to identify empirically derived facet of the study factors, reliability analysis for each
measurement facet, descriptive statistics of the study sample, ANOVA test, goodness of fit, confirma-
tory factor analysis to operationalize the latent variables and Structural Equation Modelling (SEM).
Structural equation model permits a researcher to deduce any relationship existing between the variables
involved in the model.
RESULTS
Principal’s Leadership Style
Principal’s leadership style in this study was judged on how frequently each of the descriptive statement
fits a leader. Three leadership styles were investigated: transformational, transactional and laissez-faire.
The scoring range used was as follows: high = 9-12, moderate = 5-8 and low = 0-4.
Figure 1. Model of leadership styles and learning outcomes
316
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Transformational Leadership (TFL)
This style was indicated with a moderate score of 8.19 with 68.25% of teachers pointing out that their
principal uses this style more frequently (see Table 2). In transformational leadership style, the item means
ranged from a low of 2.55 (“Principal want teachers to rethink ideas that were not questioned before”)
to a high of 2.98 (“I have complete faith in my principal”). Other items means were as follows: 2.61
for “principal want teachers to rethink ideas that were not questioned before”, 2.64 for “principal helps
teachers to develop” and 2.87 for “teachers are proud to be associated with principal” on a scale of 1 to 4.
Transactional Leadership (TSL)
This style was indicated with a high score of 11.96 as 74.75% of teachers identifying that the style is
often employed by the principal to govern the college (see Table 2). In transactional leadership style,
the item means ranged from a low of 2.69 (“Principal rewards teachers for reaching goal”) to a high of
3.22 (“Principal is satisfied when teachers meet agreed standards”). The third item, “principal informs
teachers what they should do to be rewarded” had a mean of 3.06 on a scale of 1 to 4.
Laissez-Faire Leadership (LFL)
This style was indicated with a moderately low score of 5.88 with only 49% of teachers pointing out
that the style is used by their principal (see Table 2). The item means for LFL ranged from a low of 1.65
(“Principal does not care what teachers do”) to a high of 2.27 (“Principal asks no more from teachers
what is absolutely essential”) on a scale of 1 to 4.
Principal’s Leadership Style Comparison
ANOVA Test was conducted on respondents’ demographic factors: gender, age bracket and experience
against the three leadership styles. Homogeneity and Post-Hoc tests established that all demographic
factors were statistically not significant (p-value > .05) as shown in Table 3. Technically, these factors
were not considered a determinant factor since the homogeneity of variance assumption is reasonably
satisfied. After controlling the effects of demographic factors, it was apparently clear that the descriptive
statistics revealed that principals in Kenya tend to be more transactional and less passive in leadership.
The findings coincide with some of Kenya’s cultural characteristics observed at work places and homes
where the “boss” tells the “subjects” what to do and then reward or punish based on job performance.
Table 2. Descriptive statistics
Leadership Style Score % Mean Std. Deviation N
Transformational 8.19 68.25 2.73 .581 204
Transactional 11.96 74.75 2.99 .586 204
Laissez-faire 5.88 49.00 1.96 .656 204
317
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Table 3. AVOVA test
Leadership Style Gender Age Bracket Experience
Transformational F=.696; Sig=.415 F=1.121; Sig=.350 F=2.537; Sig=.112
Transactional F=2.688; Sig=.107 F=.957; Sig=.421 F=2.234; Sig=.118
Laissez-faire F=2.155; Sig=.104 F=1.237; Sig=.307 F=.929; Sig=.402
Relationship Between Leadership Style and Learning Outcomes
The results displayed in Table 4 presents a summary of SEM. The results for the model = s goodness of
fit indices were within acceptable limits thus supporting a good fit of the variables to the measurement
model (Arbuckle, 2012). The acceptable fit values of GFI, IFI, NFI and CFI indices are those closer to
1.000, while RMSEA value should not exceed the .05 cut-off and RMR values must tend towards zero.
The overall model fit appears quite good, the χ2 test yields a value of 19.34 of which when evaluated
with 9 degree of freedom had a corresponding p-value of .117. This p-value is too high to reject fitness
of the model.
Figure 2, shows the correlation coefficients among the SEM exogenous latent variables (TFL, TSL
and LFL) and path coefficients between each exogenous latent variables and endogenous latent variable
(outcome) which were previously developed using CFA procedures. The SEM model examines the degree
of relationship among the exogenous latent variables and their influence on endogenous variable. The
paths from latent variables (oval) to measured variables (rectangular) shows the weighting of measured
variables as they operationalise latent variables. All the measured weights (loadings) were significantly
different from zero. The value above outcomes (independent variable) indicates that transformational
leadership (TFL), transactional leadership (TSL) and laissez-faire (LFL) accounts for 48% of the variance
of learning outcomes. The values displayed above the measured variables are reliability estimates for all
the 13 subsets. It is evident that all the items load on the latent variables while the standard regression
weights are fairly large (.73, .52 and -.65 respectively (see Figure 2). This suggests that all the variables
are the best indicators of the latent variable TFL, TSL and LFL.
Given that the model fits well with the data, what follows next is interpretation. Of special interest
in data interpretation was path from LFL to outcomes (-.65). This path suggests that for LFL had a sig-
nificantly negative effect on learning outcomes. There was a .52 standard deviation increase in learning
outcomes for each standard deviation increase in TSL. This results shows a positive and statistically
significant relationship between TSL and learning outcomes. The path from TFL to learning outcomes
shows a regression weight of .73. This standardised regression coefficient was not statistically signifi-
cant (P >.05). All the bivariate correlations computed demonstrated significant positive relationships
among each other. However, it was weaker between transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles
Table 4. Summary of measurement model fit statistics for the study variables
Measurement Model χ2 df GFI IFI NFI CFI RMR RMSEA
Leadership Styles 19.34 9 .94 .96 .82 .85 .019 .047
318
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Figure 2. Structural equation model (SEM) of the variables under study
(TFL on LFL = .03) and strongest between transformational and transactional leadership styles (TFL
on TSL = .87).
The results of this study established that transactional leadership style would significantly and posi-
tively influence learning outcomes. On the other hand, laissez-faire leadership style would significantly
but negatively influence learning outcomes. Lastly, transformational leadership style was not significantly
related to learning outcomes. See all the standardised regression or path coefficients in Figure 2.
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to identify the best leadership style practiced by principals of vocational
colleges in Kenya and relate the style to learning outcomes. The comparison of descriptive statistics
between transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leadership showed that transactional leadership
was most influential among the principals. This contradicts earlier studies which revealed that academic
leaders were more likely to adopt transformational leadership style (Jones & Rudd, 2008) and laissez-
faire leadership style (Munaf, 2010). Before disputing these findings, it is in order to look at the tasks of
principals and the nature of vocational colleges in Kenya and indeed beyond its border. Nearly all colleges
have formal structure, authority and positions of responsibility in which the principal is responsible for
maintaining routine by managing individual performance and facilitating group performance. This is the
essence of transactional leadership where leaders set the criteria for their juniors according to previously
defined requirements and judge their work on the bases of performance reviews.
319
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
There is unquestionably a place for transactional leadership in the world today. One of its best uses
is in large institutions of higher learning where the students’ body and all employees come from a di-
verse culture. It is easy for workers to complete tasks successfully once they have learned structures
and the requirements. Basically, the descriptive results of the study leads to a three steps procedure of
best leadership style. Firstly, principals need to set out standards for performance related duties. Such
standards could be stipulated in performance appraisal or performance contract forms and shared to all
workers. Secondly, principals should establish a reward system for workers who have attained a certain
level of task accomplishment. Lastly, principals should reward excellent performers. School principals
can help teachers to analyse their teaching effectiveness as a means of creating some intrinsic rewards
system that uses the techniques of clinical supervision. In addition, certain extrinsic rewards are also
very essential. Some of these take the form of pay raise, bonus, benefits, promotion, improved working
conditions, and job security; others relate to some kind of response arrangements that provides teachers
with data from a reference group describing the perceptions principal of teacher’s teaching effectiveness.
When demographic factors such as gender, age and experience were analysed in relation to leader-
ship styles, no relationship existed. The results coincides with other studies investigating respondents
demographic variables and leadership styles (de Boer & Goedegebuure, 2009; Munaf, 2010). The analy-
ses of structural equation model using learning outcomes as dependent variable revealed that transac-
tional leadership significantly and positively influenced learning outcomes but laissez-faire leadership
significantly influenced learning outcomes negatively. The results of laissez-faire leadership style are
favoured by Avolio & Bass, (2004) and Paisey (2002), indicating that this style has depressing effects
on its followers. Although laissez-faire leadership is associated with workers empowerment, this style is
not ideal in a school setup where new members lack experience they need to complete tasks and make
decisions. This style of leadership leads to poor job performance, low leader effectiveness, and hence
low satisfaction. This is very possible with workers who do not meet set deadlines, cannot manage their
own work and solving problems on their own. In such situations, tasks can go off-track and deadlines
can be missed when workers are not effectively directed by their leaders.
Transformational leadership was insignificantly related to learning outcomes because it mainly fo-
cuses on the relationship between the principal and teachers than on the educational work of the school
leadership. Therefore, the quality of this relationship is not predictive of learning outcomes (Robinson,
Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). What’s more, studies conducted by Brown and Keeping (2005) showed that
transformational leadership was strongly influenced by the degree to which subordinates like their leader.
However, when this degree of liking was controlled, the effects of transformational leadership on team
outcome significantly reduced. To that end, Leithwood & Jantzi (2005) concluded that transformational
leadership explained very little variance in learning outcomes.
The results on transformational leadership explains why educational leaders should not only focus
building loyal and friendly teams or even sharing inspirational visions but also relationships on some
specific task accomplishment. This is more suited in transactional leadership style which specifies the
leadership practices that creates conditions for task accomplishment than either transformational or
laissez-faire leadership. A famous American sportsman, Vince Lombardi once quoted that: “The price
of success is hard work, dedication to the job at hand, and the determination that whether we win or
lose, we have applied the best of ourselves to the task at hand.” This statement relates to transactional
leadership where leaders focus on results, conforms to the existing structure of leadership and measures
success according to established rewards system.
320
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Even as this study favours transactional leadership as the best style for college principals, it should
be understood that transactional leadership works well with personnel who recognize their jobs and are
encouraged by the reward-penalty system. Transactional leadership style best fits principals of vocational
colleges because it is simple to learn and does not require extensive training. In this 21st century arena,
the cost of living skyrocket every day and people need a job to pay their bills. For this reason, money
and perks are a powerful motivator. Teachers are not exempted here, they know exactly how to do their
job in order to keep it and reap the rewards.
CONCLUSION
In this study principals tend to use transactional leadership style more than transformational and laissez-
faire leadership. This is important findings for vocational colleges as well as the entire higher education
community since successful school leaders use transactional leadership style. Transactional headship
encompasses alterations in level of improvement that can be seen as the outcome of leadership that
involves give-and-take process. In this leadership, workers needs are fulfilled when their performance
measures up to the required standards of the leader. This is good news for principals of vocational col-
leges that use transactional leadership more often since the chances of academic success are more likely.
Because gender, age and experience did not significantly influence leadership style in this study,
the researcher concluded that these demographic factors never contributed to leadership type. In other
words, whatever the age, experience, male or female, they all perceived similar leadership style. It is
recommended that institutions hiring principals should fully consider diverse applicants for leadership
positions. This study only used gender, age and experience as specific attributes, future studies need
to be conducted to determine additional factors related to leadership style. Lastly, the findings require
replication to demonstrate that they are not unique to the current study sample.
IMPLICATIONS FOR HIGHER EDUCATION AND PRACTICE
Based on the results of the study, several potential implications for practice can be made. Firstly, it is
imperative to understand the contributions of leadership type as forecasters of learning outcomes since
these are professional issues in education. Secondly, when hiring school leaders, professionals must
make decisions on transformational, transactional, laissez-faire styles as well as diversity of applicants.
The results of this study suggest that transactional leadership style positively and significantly relates
to learning outcomes. Thus for poor performing schools, professionals may investigate any changes in
leadership style and continuously train school leaders on best leadership styles to boost performance.
Lastly, the measures used in this study provide much needed information about leadership styles in a
vocational college settings.
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Firstly, the study was cross-sectional in nature using selected vocational colleges in Kenya. The study can
be replicated using longitudinal data with refined study measures from the confirmatory factor analyses
as well as additional measures. Secondly, cross comparison with other countries in the world is necessary
321
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
because the effects of leadership may differ due to geographical location. Thirdly, the study variables
used in the research were very effective and produced rich information for future theory development.
However, the researcher suggest future research may use mixed method to strengthen quantitative re-
sults of the present study. Lastly, only three demographic variables: gender, age and experience were
investigated in this study that were found to have no effect on the leadership type. Future scholars can
include more variables such as economic status, education level among others which might have effects
on leadership type.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author thanks all the sampled respondents for their time and interest as well as the chief editor and
reviewers for their prompt valuable feedback.
REFERENCES
Adeyemi, T. O. (2006). Fundamentals of Educational Management. Lagos: Atlantic Associated Publishers.
Adeyemi, T. O. (2013). Principals’ Leadership Styles and Student Academic Performance in Secondary
Schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education
and Development, 2(1), 187–198.
Al-Safran, E., Brown, D., & Wiseman, A. (2014). The effect of principal’s leadership style on school
environment and outcome. Research in Higher Education, 22, 1–19.
Arbuckle, J. (2012). IBM SPSS Amos 21 user’s guide. Crawfordville, FL: Amos Development. Retrieved
from [Link]
Astin, A. W. (1999). Student involvement: A developmental theory for higher education. Journal of
College Student DevelopmentOct, 40(5), 518.
Avolio, B. J., & Bass, B. M. (2004). MLQ: Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. Redwood City, CA:
Mind Garden.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership: Good, better, best. Organizational Dynamics, 13(3), 26–40.
doi:10.1016/0090-2616(85)90028-2
Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1996). The four imperatives of a successful school. Corwin Press, Inc.
Bedeian, A. G., & Hunt, J. G. (2006). Academic amnesia and vestigial assumptions of our forefathers.
The Leadership Quarterly, 17(2), 190–205. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.12.006
Bell, L., Bolam, R., & Cubillo, L. (2003, September). A systematic review of the impact of school head-
teachers and principals on student outcomes. EPPI-Centre, 49. Retrieved from [Link]
Bellhouse, D. R., & Kulperger, R. J. (1991). Computer generated simple random samples. Communi-
cations in Statistics. Simulation and Computation, 20(2), 539–550. doi:10.1080/03610919108812971
322
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., & Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The Impact of Autocratic
and Democratic Leadership Style on Job Satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2). doi:10.5539/
ibr.v5n2p192
Brown, D. J., & Keeping, L. M. (2005). Elaborating the construct of transformational leadership: The
role of affect. The Leadership Quarterly, 16(2), 245–272. doi:10.1016/[Link].2005.01.003
Chattopadhyay, S., & Chaudhuri, M. R. (2014). Transformational, Transactional and Laissez-faire type
of teaching by faculties as predictors of satisfaction evidence from higher education institution of W.B.
International Journal of Management, 5(4), 131–136.
Creswell. (2003). Quantitative Research. In Encyclopedia of Research Design. Academic Press.
doi:10.4135/9781412961288.n352
de Boer, H., & Goedegebuure, L. (2009). The Changing Nature of the Academic Deanship. Leadership
(Vol. 5). Academic Press. doi:10.1177/1742715009337765
Ewell, P. (2006). Applying student learning outcomes concepts and approaches at Hong Kong Higher
Education Institutions: Current status and future directions. National Center for Higher Education Man-
agement, 54, 1–21. Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/
Ferej, B. A., Kitainge, K., & Ooko, Z. (2012). Reform of TVET Teacher Education in Kenya : Overcom-
ing the Challenges of Quality and Relevance. Association for the Development of Education in Africa
(ADEA).
Field, A. (2005). Factor Analysis Using SPSS. Statistics Hell (Vol. 8057). Retrieved from [Link]
[Link]/docs/[Link]
Goldring, E. B., & Sharon, F. (1993). Principals of dynamic schools. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin.
Griffith, J. (2004). Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction,
staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(3), 333–356.
doi:10.1108/09578230410534667
Guarino, C. M., Santibañez, L., & Daley, G. A. (2011). Teacher Recruitment and Retention : A
Review of the Recent Empirical Literature. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208.
doi:10.3102/00346543076002173
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the Principal’s Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980-
1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 178–182. doi:10.1080/0924345980090203
Hardman, B. K. (2011). Teachers’ Perception of Their Principal’s Leadership Style and the Effects on
Student Achievement in Improving and Non-Improving Schools. University of South Florida. Retrieved
from [Link]
&db=eric&AN=ED536092&site=ehost-live%5Cn[Link]
Ibrahim, A. S., & Al-Taneiji, S. (2013). Principal leadership style, school performance, and principal
effectiveness in Dubai schools. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 2(1), 41–54.
doi:10.5861/ijrse.2012.86
323
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Ingersoll, R. M. (2007). Short on Power, Long on Responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20–25.
Retrieved from [Link]
ost-live&scope=site%5Cn[Link]
Isaac, S. (2011). Teachers’ Leadership Styles and Students’ Academic Performance in Mathematics
Courses. Academic Press.
Jones, D., & Rudd, R. (2008). Transactional, transformational, or laissez-faire leadership: An assessment
of college of agriculture academic program leaders’ (Deans) leadership styles. Journal of Agricultural
Education, 49(2), 88–97. doi:10.5032/jae.2008.02088
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic
Test of Their Relative Validity. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. doi:10.1037/0021-
9010.89.5.755 PMID:15506858
Khan, M. M., Ramzan, M., & Ahmed, I. (2011). Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire
Styles of teaching faculty as predictors of satisfaction, and extra effort among the students : Evidence
from higher education institutions. Interdisciplinary Journal of Research in Business, 1, 130–135.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
Koech, P. M., & Namusonge, G. (2012). The Effect of Leadership Styles on Organizational Performance
at State Corporations in Kenya. International Journal of Business and Commerce, 2(1), 1–12. Retrieved
from [Link]
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M., & Terborg, J. R. (2016). The Effects of Transformational Leadership on
Teacher Attitudes and Student Performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16(4),
319–333. doi:10.1002/job.4030160404
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The Relative Effects of Principal and Teacher Sources of Leader-
ship on Student Engagement with School. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 679–706.
doi:10.1177/0013161X99355002
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A Review of Transformational School Leadership Research 1996–2005.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199. doi:10.1080/15700760500244769
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational School Leadership for Large-Scale Reform: Ef-
fects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement,
17(2), 201–227. doi:10.1080/09243450600565829
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321221
Leithwood, K., Seashore-Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Research Review: How
leadership influences student learning. Learning from Leadership Project, 1–90. 10.1002/2014GB005021
Leithwood, K. A. (1994). Leadership for school structuring. Educational Administration Quarterly,
30(4), 498–518. doi:10.1177/0013161X94030004006
324
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership. Leadership,
(January): 8.
Lieberman, A. (1994). A Culture in the Making: Leadership in Learner-Centered Schools. Creating
New Educational Communities: Schools and Classrooms Where All Children Can Be Smart, the 94th
Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. New York: National Centre for Restructur-
ing Education.
Malechwanzi, J. M., Shen, H., & Mbeke, C. (2016). Policies of access and quality of higher education
in China and Kenya : A comparative study. Cogent Education, 1–11. 10.1080/2331186X.2016.1201990
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of trans-
formational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
doi:10.1177/0013161X03253412
McLean, L., Fairman, M., & Moore, B. (2006). A system approach to charting a path to quality and
achievement. Report no. 1 to the The Council of Chief School Officer’s (Successful practices Series).
Academic Press.
Munaf, S. (2010). Relationship of Transformational, Transactional and Passive/Avoidant Manage-
ment Style with Achievement Motivation of Teaching Faculties of Selected Educational Institutions of
Pakistan. In International Conference on E-business, Management and Economics (Vol. 3, pp. 93–96).
Academic Press.
Nyongesa, L. (2014). Head Teacher’s Leadership Style on School Academic Perfroamance in Kenyan
Secondary Schools. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(3), 12–19.
Obilade, S. (1998). Leadership qualities and styles as Related to Instructional Programme. Academic
Press.
Ogunsanwo, O. A. (2000). Modern Principles and Techniques of Management. Academic Press.
Owoyemi, N. (2000). Moderation and standardisation of continuous and terminal assessment scores in
junior secondary school certificate examination and primary school leaving certificate assessment. Paper
delivered at the senior staff seminar. Ado-Ekiti: Ministry of Education, Ado-Ekiti.
Paisey, A. (2002). Organization and Management in Schools (2nd ed.). New York: Longman Publishing.
Peterson, R. A. (1994). A meta-analysis of Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. The Journal of Consumer
Research, 21(2), 381–391. doi:10.1086/209405
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes:
An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(5), 635–674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509
Rugutt, J. K., & Chemosit, C. C. (2005). A Study of Factors that Influence College Academic Achieve-
ment: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies,
5(1), 66–90.
325
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
Saqib Khan, M., Khan, I., Afaq Qureshi, Q., Muhammad Ismail, H., Rauf, H., Latif, A., & Tahir, M.
(2015). The Styles of Leadership: A Critical Review. Public Policy and Administration Research, 5(3),
2225–2972.
Shamir, B., House, R. J., & Arthur, M. B. (1993). The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership:
A Self-Concept Based Theory. Organization Science, 4(4), 577–594. doi:10.1287/orsc.4.4.577
Silins, H. C. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transacational leadership and
school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 272–298.
doi:10.1080/0924345940050305
Simiyu, J. (2009). Revitalizing a Technical Training Institute in Kenya. UNESCO- UNEVOC Interna-
tional Centre. Retrieved from [Link]
Smith, R. (2015). Advantages and Barriers to transformational Leadership Implementation in a Scien-
tific Laboratory. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. Walden University; doi:10.1111/j.1467-
8616.2008.00521.x
Smith, R., Bhindi, N., Hansen, J., Riley, D., & Rall, J. (2008, May). Questioning the notion of “authentic”
leadership in education: The perspectives of “followers.” Changing Climates: Education for Sustainable
Futures, 1–16.
Storey, A. (2004). The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management,
24(3), 249–265. doi:10.1080/1363243042000266918
Timothy, O., Okwu, A. T., & Akpa, V. O. (2011). Effects of Leadership Style on Organizational Perfor-
mance: A Survey of Selected Small Scale Enterprises in Ikosi-Ketu Council Development Area of Lagos
State, Nigeria. Australian Journal of Business and Management Research, 1(7), 100–111.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krüger, M. L. (2003). Educational Leadership and Student Achieve-
ment: The Elusive Search for an Association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398–425.
doi:10.1177/0013161X03253411
Yildirim, O., Acar, A. C., Buli, S., & Sevile, L. (2008). Relationship between teachers’ perceived
leadership styles, students’ learning styles and academic achievement: A study of high school students.
Educational Psychology, 28(1), 73–81. doi:10.1080/01443410701417945
Youngs, P., King, M. B., Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2002). Principal Leadership for Professional. Edu-
cational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643–670. doi:10.1177/0013161X02239642
Yukl, G. (1999). An evaluation of conceptual weaknesses in transformational and charismatic leadership
theories. The Leadership Quarterly, 10(2), 285–305. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00013-2
326
The Impact of Leadership on Learning Outcomes
KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS
College Principal: This is the chief executive and the chief academic officer of a university or col-
lege especially in certain parts of the commonwealth countries.
Contingent Reward: This is a motivation-based system that is used to reward those that meet their
identified goals by providing positive reinforcement for a job well done.
Cross-Sectional Study: This is a study that makes comparison of sample observations from a popu-
lation at a single point in time and the data obtained is called serial data.
Latent Variables: These are variables that are not directly observed but are rather inferred through
a mathematical model from other variables that are directly measured called the observed variables.
Longitudinal Data: This is the process of collecting sample observations from a larger population
over a given time period.
Management by Exception: This is a style of business management that focuses on identifying and
handling cases that deviate from the standard.
Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire: These are set of questions that measures a broad range of
leadership types from passive leaders, to leaders who give contingent rewards to followers, to leaders
who transform their followers into becoming leaders themselves.
Structural Equation Model: Is a series of statistical methods used in non-experimental data that allow
complex relationships between one or more independent variables and one or more dependent variables.
Vocational College: This is a post-secondary educational institution designed to provide technical
skills required to perform the tasks of a particular job.
327
View publication stats