Role of University Principals’ Leadership Strategies on Teachers’ and Management Performance: Mediating Role of Support and Rewards in Australia and Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leadership strategies of principals in educational institutes is considered an important factor in order to increase support and rewards. Universities in Pakistan suffer from the problems of low support and rewards, due to which most of the teachers and management staff members remain dissatisfied with their principals. This study investigated whether transformational or transactional leadership is better for providing support and rewards to teachers and management staff, along with evaluation of principles’ leadership qualities. For that, 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was utilised to assess the performance of principals by investigating 75 management and 75 teachers of 3 universities of Pakistan. Critical review approach was used for comparison between Pakistan and Australia. It was found that transformational leadership is much better as compared to transactional leadership, because it improves interaction and support, as observed in Australia. However, teachers and management staff members in Pakistan reported dissatisfaction, when asked about leadership role of their principals. They said that their principals never motivate them, support them nor reward them in contrast to leadership approaches in Australia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".