Pa ge 1 Pa ge 13 0 American Journal of Arts and Human Science (AJAHS) Leadership Styles and Competencies of School Heads in the Division of Cagayan De Oro City Gerald B. Intud1*, Estrella S. Ferenal1 Volume 4 Issue 2, Year 2025 ISSN: 2832-451X (Online) DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajahs.v4i2.4355 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Article Information ABSTRACT Received: January 08, 2025 Accepted: February 11, 2025 Published: April 25, 2025 This study explored the leadership styles and competencies of school heads in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City and their influence on school effectiveness and teacher performance. It aimed to describe the respondents’ profile, assess leadership styles and competencies, and examine their relationship, including variations based on demographic factors. A total of 429 teachers participated, utilizing a modified questionnaire, with data analyzed through descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and one-way ANOVA. Results showed that most respondents were female, aged 46 to 55, holding the position of Teacher III, with 25 to 29 years of teaching experience, and pursuing a Master’s degree. Transformational leadership emerged as the most prevalent style, with people management being the strongest competency. A significant correlation was found between transactional leadership and leadership competencies. While teamwork and resource allocation were recognized, there was a need for improved policy enforcement and greater teacher autonomy. The findings emphasized the critical role of leadership styles in school effectiveness and teacher satisfaction. It is recommended that school heads adopt more transformational leadership approaches to foster teacher engagement and independence. Leadership training should focus on contemporary strategies, while teachers should be actively involved in policymaking to enhance implementation. Additionally, recognition systems for outstanding teachers, mentorship programs for novice educators, and continuous evaluations of resource needs should be implemented to strengthen school leadership and instructional quality. These findings underscore the importance of leadership development in enhancing educational outcomes and creating a more effective and motivated teaching workforce. Keywords Competencies Transformational, School Head Leadership Styles, Transactional 1 Phinma Cagayan De Oro College, Carmen, Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental, 9000, Philippines * Corresponding author’s email: gbon_i@yahoo.com INTRODUCTION Background of the Study Leadership styles and competencies of school heads play a crucial role in shaping the overall environment and performance of educational institutions. School leaders are not only tasked with managing daily operations but are also responsible for inspiring teachers, engaging with the community, and fostering a positive culture that supports student achievement. Different leadership styles, such as transformational, transactional, and instructional, bring varied approaches to influencing staff and guiding school improvement efforts. In addition to style, specific competencies—like effective communication, decision- making, and conflict resolution—are essential for addressing the complex challenges in education today. As school leaders face increasingly complex demands, this study seeks to explore how different approaches and skill sets among school heads contribute to their effectiveness and ultimately, to the success of the school community. Thus, there are various factors affecting their professional leadership competencies. These factors would include increasing demand for administrative and instructional roles in ensuring school effectiveness as well as the quality of their performance (Cabigao, 2019). Similarly, in an attempt to improve teaching and learning standards and expectations, school heads are a significant player (Rester, 2020). It is the responsibility of school heads to oversee the school’s authority and instruction. To accomplish the organization’s goals, they should think strategically and take on activities that are enthusiastically demanding. They need to have the skills that the Department of Education has established. These leadership competencies are leading people, people performance and people management. These competencies must be demonstrated in achieving excellent performance. The more the school heads acquire these competencies, the higher the school performance. According to Republic Act 9155, they are both administrative managers and instructional leaders, and their approaches to managing and regulating their individual schools demonstrated these leadership philosophies. Through the effective leadership of school heads, school communities as well as the surrounding communities would thrive. Although the quality of basic education in the Philippines has increased since the year 2000, the nation’s public schools still confront numerous difficulties. The leadership style of school heads causes a discrepancy between a school’s successes and failures. As a result, schools have a big impact on educational results. Thus, one of the factors that led to a school’s success was the leadership styles of its administrators . Other school-related issues include the amount of coaching and supervised learning that instructors provide, teacher standards, leadership Pa ge 13 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 style, teaching methods, school size, environment, trends, and school setting characteristics (Yariv & Kass, 2019). These challenges if left unaddressed would lead to poor productivity which affects school performance. Oco (2022) stated that a school leader who encourages turmoil, confusion, and division among his staff members undoubtedly loses the respect and confidence of the teachers. Heads of schools are acknowledged leaders. They have been given power, duties, and accountability for the institution’s success or failure. Their role has a big impact on academic success and growth. Until they are content and safe in their jobs, school administrators cannot carry out their obligations. Issues with school leaders can have a number of unfavorable effects on companies and their employees, which lowers the effectiveness of the organization as a whole. According to Lepardo and Caingoy (2021), a large number of school heads regrettably fail the principals’ exam. There have actually been low rates of literacy and numeracy, poor academic achievement, a shortage of highly qualified and experienced teachers, and a small number of schools in the advanced level of school- based management. Some school heads subsequently encountered challenges in running their institutions. In addition, inefficient leadership has also been an issue in some public schools. Hallo et al. (2020) commented; “Unintentional ineffective leadership been shown to lead to negative impacts on followers.” Notions on laissez-faire or authoritarian leadership styles are now considered insufficient. Many leaders are uncertain about how to make decisions, what leadership style to use, and how to maintain competency in order to achieve organizational outcomes in light of these demands. School administrators’ outdated methods are certainly no longer suitable for the many issues that arise in the classroom nowadays. The need for a major paradigm shifts in leadership styles application and leadership competence in developing desirable schools is vital. The primary goal of this research is to identify important problems with the leadership styles of school heads. By examining data gathered from survey questionnaires that instructors perceive, it would also look at the primary characteristics that affect school heads’ ability to lead effectively in challenging situations. This information could provide insights into how school heads leadership styles impacted their competencies in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City for School Year 2024-2025. LITERATURE REVIEW Leadership Styles in Educational Institutions Leadership styles significantly influence school performance, affecting teacher engagement and student outcomes. Various leadership models, including transformational, transactional, laissez-faire, democratic, servant, and distributed leadership, have been explored in educational settings (Northouse, 2021). Distributed Leadership Distributed leadership emphasizes collaboration and shared responsibility among school heads and teachers. According to Galdames (2023), this approach fosters school autonomy and improves institutional decision- making. Sahraee et al. (2021) found that distributed leadership positively correlates with job satisfaction and student performance. Similarly, Calderón (2023) suggested that school heads who engage teachers in decision-making enhance leadership competencies and overall school effectiveness. Transactional Leadership Transactional leadership operates on a system of rewards and punishments to maintain stability and achieve objectives. Bwalya (2023) highlighted that transactional leaders clearly define expectations and link performance to rewards or penalties. However, Chebonye et al. (2021) reported that while transactional leadership ensures compliance, it does not necessarily enhance teacher autonomy or intrinsic motivation. Laissez-Faire Leadership Laissez-faire leadership, often characterized by minimal intervention, yields mixed outcomes. Ertem (2020) demonstrated a strong correlation between laissez-faire leadership and positive school outcomes. However, Achimugu and Obaka (2019) warned that excessive autonomy might lead to disengagement among teachers and reduced student performance. Upendo and Mkulu (2020) emphasized that moderate application of this leadership style can empower teachers while ensuring accountability. Democratic Leadership Democratic leadership, which encourages participative decision-making, has been linked to improved teacher satisfaction and student performance (Sarwar et al., 2022). Amiri (2019) found that democratic leaders foster open communication and collective problem-solving, leading to higher organizational commitment. Additionally, principals employing democratic leadership ensure fair task distribution and foster a collaborative school environment (Martinez & Lopez, 2019). Servant Leadership Servant leadership prioritizes the well-being of staff and students. According to Zagorsek et al. (2019), this approach fosters a sense of unity and collective responsibility. Panaccio, Henderson, Liden, Wayne, and Cao (2020) emphasized that servant leaders facilitate professional growth by actively addressing teachers’ needs, improving team performance and institutional outcomes. Transformational Leadership Transformational leaders inspire and motivate teachers to exceed expectations (Salari & Nastiezaie, 2020). Mi et al. (2019) identified transformational leadership as a key factor in fostering innovation and sustaining high academic performance. Kanat-Maymon et al. (2020) noted that transformational leadership positively Pa ge 13 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 influences teachers’ motivation and commitment, driving organizational success. Leadership Competencies in School Heads Leadership competencies, such as leading people, performance management, and professional development, are critical for effective school administration (Lepardo & Caingoy, 2021). Effective school heads exhibit strong decision-making, communication, and motivational skills, contributing to a productive learning environment (Abbas et al., 2020). Leading People Leadership effectiveness significantly impacts school success (Lepardo & Caingoy, 2021). Geerts (2024) proposed that evidence-based leadership strategies enhance school performance by fostering collaboration and continuous improvement. People Performance Management Effective school heads implement performance management systems that enhance teacher engagement and retention (Tumbokon, 2023). According to the National Foundation for Educational Research [NFER] (2023), professional autonomy in teacher development improves job satisfaction and institutional stability. People Development Investing in professional development fosters teacher growth and institutional excellence. Sumabat (2019) highlighted that school heads who prioritize continuous learning create a culture of excellence. Zalsos and Corpuz (2024) recommended structured faculty development plans to improve instructional quality and align educational practices with institutional goals. Statement of the Problem This study aimed to determine the level of school heads’ leadership styles and their competencies in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City during the School Year 2023- 2024 as basis for school improvement plan. Specifically, this study sought to answer the following questions: 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex, position, teaching experience, and highest educational attainment? 2. What is the level of school heads’ leadership styles as perceived by the respondents based on distributed, transactional, laissez-faire, democratic, servant, and transformational? 3. What is the level of school heads’ competencies as perceived by the respondents with regard to leading people, people performance management, and people development? 4. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ perceived school heads’ leadership styles and their competencies? 5. Is there a significant difference in the respondents’ perceived school heads’ leadership competencies when grouped according to their profile? 6. Based on the findings of the study, what school improvement plan on school heads leadership style can be designed? Theoretical Framework This study was grounded in Peter G. Northouse’s leadership theory (1980), which emphasizes the shift from a command-and-control model to a more collaborative, team-oriented approach in leadership. Northouse’s framework underscores the importance of ethical behavior, collaboration, and high standards in leadership, especially for school heads. Effective leadership in schools involves applying competencies such as leading people, managing performance, and developing staff, which directly impact the school’s success. Supporting this, Kiral (2020) argued that excellent leaders are continuously striving for improvement, fostering a culture of excellence within schools. Nandasinghe (2020) also highlighted that strong leadership behaviors are key to driving change and innovation in educational institutions. Both authors reinforced the idea that leadership is not just about management, but about creating a vision for school success and inspiring a shared commitment among staff. The theoretical framework of this study incorporates these ideas, examining how different leadership styles, such as distributed, transformational, and servant leadership, influence the effectiveness of school heads. These theories collectively emphasize that great leadership is crucial for creating a thriving educational environment and driving continuous improvement in school performance. Scope and Limitation This study focused on the School Heads leadership styles and competencies in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City during the School Year 2023 – 2024. The respondents were the 429 public elementary school teachers in the schools of the forecited division. The independent variables were limited to the school heads leadership styles such as distributed, transactional, laissez-faire, democratic, servant, and transformational. While the dependent variables were also limited to the school head competencies, namely: leading people, people performance management, and people development. Indeed, the moderating variables were the respondents’ profile in terms of age, sex, position, teaching experience and highest educational attainment. Furthermore, an in-depth interview was limited to 10 randomly selected teachers in the divisions mentioned above. MATERIALS AND METHODS Research Design This study utilized a descriptive correlational method of research. The purpose of descriptive study design is to precisely and methodically characterize a population, circumstance, or phenomena. As McCombes (2022) Pa ge 13 3 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 made apparent, it could respond to inquiries about what, where, when, and how, but not why. To examine one or more variables, a descriptive research design might include a broad range of research techniques. Under this method of research, description of the respondents’ characteristics like age, sex, position, work experience, and highest educational attainment were described, analyzed, and interpreted. Moreover, school head leadership styles comprised of distributed, transactional, laissez-faire, democratic, servant and transformational and leadership competence like leading people, people performance, and people management were tested. Study Setting This study was conducted in the Division of Cagayan de Oro City which comprised the following schools: City Central School, West City Central School, East City Central School, Bulua Central School, South City Central School, and North City Central School during School Year 2024-2025. The researcher opted to have this location since he is stationed in one of the schools in this division. The mentioned schools are under the supervision of the Department of Education with its corresponding school heads that direct, lead, and supervise, the operation of the schools. Study Population and Sampling Technique The respondents of the study were the four hundred twenty-nine (429) public elementary school teachers assigned across Grades 1 to 6 within the Division of Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, School Year 2023-2024. These teachers were selected from six central schools, identified as representative of large and medium-sized schools within the division. Each school contributed respondents across various grade levels to ensure a comprehensive distribution. The distribution of the respondent’s by school is shown in Table 1. The researcher employed Slovin’s formula with the sampling was utilized to assign the number of teachers by grade level. Research Instrument The instrument used in gathering the necessary data was a questionnaire composed of 3 parts. Part I dealt on the respondent’s profile such as age, sex, position, work experience, and highest educational attainment. Part II inquired on the school heads leadership styles based on distributed, transactional, laissez-faire, democratic, servant, and transformational leadership. This was patterned and modified from Perkins (2020). It had ten (10) indicators each variable with the options: 4 (almost of the time), 3 (at all times), 2 (sometimes), and 1 (never). Part III elicited on school heads’ leadership competencies in the areas of leading people, people performance management, and people development. This was based on the department of Education Order 2 Series 2015 on Results-Based Performance Management System. Data Gathering Procedures The researcher employed a systematic approach to data gathering, ensuring ethical standards were upheld throughout the process. Initially, formal permission was secured from the Dean’s Office of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies at PHINMA, Cagayan de Oro College, followed by approval from the Office of the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) of Cagayan de Oro City. With the SDS’s authorization, the researcher visited six central schools—City Central School, West City Central School, East City Central School, Bulua Central School, South City Central School, and North City Central School—to introduce the study and obtain consent from the principals for questionnaire distribution. In collaboration with assistant principals or designated personnel, the researcher distributed questionnaires to teachers based on the respondent table, ensuring minimal disruption to classes in compliance with DepEd guidelines. Adequate time was provided for respondents to complete the questionnaires thoughtfully. Upon completion, the researcher collected the forms and expressed gratitude to all participants. Additionally, in-depth interviews were conducted with 10 randomly selected teachers, representing various teaching positions, to gather qualitative insights and validate the survey findings. This comprehensive data collection process maintained ethical integrity and facilitated a deeper understanding of school leadership styles and competencies. Statistical Treatment of the Data The researcher used descriptive statistics for the summary and analysis of the data like frequency, percentage, means, standard deviations, Pearson Product Moment Correlation. For Problem 1 on teachers’ profile, frequency and percentage were employed. For Problems 2 and 3, mean and standard deviation were used on the level of Table 1: Distribution of Respondents Schools Population Respondents City Central School 210 110 West City Central School 180 94 East City Central School 160 84 Bulua Central School 145 76 South City Central School 80 42 North City Central School 45 23 Total 820 429 confidence level of 3% and a population of 820 teachers, to obtain the desired number of respondents which is 429. Further, Stratified sampling technique was used to get the appropriate number of respondents in every central school. This was done by dividing the computed sample size by its population . Then simple random Pa ge 13 4 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 school head leadership style and their competence. Pearson Product Moment Correlation was used for Problem 4 in determining the significant relationship between the school heads’ leadership styles and their characteristics while for Problem 5, Regression analysis was considered for the significant effect of the school heads’ leadership styles on their competencies. Ethical Considerations Throughout this study, unwavering commitment to ethical principles was maintained by adhering to the established protocols mandated by the Office of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies. A crucial facet of this ethical commitment was the rigorous ethics review process, a safeguard to uphold various ethical standards. Firstly, explicit permission was sought and obtained for questionnaires, ensuring that the research instruments employed were authorized and aligned with ethical guidelines. Concurrently, a paramount focus was placed on providing informed consent, emphasizing transparency and respect for participants’ autonomy. It involved communicating the study’s objectives, procedures, potential risks, and the voluntary nature of participation. The ethical framework further incorporated measures to safeguard participant identities, with a commitment to anonymity to protect individual privacy. The principle of confidentiality was rigorously upheld, ensuring that all information obtained from participants remained secure and protected from unauthorized access. In addition, the study adhered to the Principles of Precaution, assessing and minimizing potential risks. This comprehensive ethical approach aimed to contribute knowledge while prioritizing all participants’ well-being, rights, and dignity. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Problem 1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex, position, teaching experience, and highest educational attainment? Table 2: Distribution of Respondents’ Profile Variables Category Frequency Percentage Age 56 years old and above 55 12.82 46 to 55 years old 201 46.85 36 to 45 years old 89 20.75 26 to 35 years old 51 11.89 25 years old and below 33 7.69 Total 429 100.00 Sex Male 47 10.96 Female 382 89.04 Total 429 100.00 Position Master Teacher II 17 3.96 Master Teacher I 31 7.23 Teacher III 146 34.03 Teacher II 78 18.18 Teacher I 157 36.60 Total 429 100.00 Teaching Experience 30 years and above 42 9.79 25-29 years 96 22.38 20-24 years 65 15.15 15-19 years 74 17.25 10-14 years 57 13.29 5-9 years 45 10.49 4 years and below 50 11.66 Total 429 100.00 Highest Educational Doctorate Degree 7 1.63 Attainment With Doctorate Degree Units 23 5.36 Master’s Degree 86 20.05 With Master’s Degree Units 141 32.87 Bachelor’s Degree 172 40.09 Total 429 100.00 Pa ge 13 5 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Table 2 presents the demographic profile of the respondents, focusing on key variables such as age, sex, position, teaching experience, and highest educational attainment. The data reveal that the largest age group comprises respondents aged 46 to 55 years old, accounting for 46.85% of the total participants. This suggests that a significant portion of the teaching workforce is in the later stages of their careers, which could be advantageous due to their extensive experience and institutional knowledge. As noted by Brown and Miller (2021), this age group often exhibits a unique blend of traditional and modern leadership approaches, benefiting from both tested practices and adaptability to new trends. Regarding sex, the majority of respondents are female (89.04%), reflecting a gender imbalance typical in many educational systems, where teaching remains a female- dominated profession. In terms of position, Teacher I constitutes the largest group with 36.60%, followed closely by Teacher III at 34.03%. This indicates a strong representation of entry- to mid-level teaching positions, which may influence perspectives on leadership styles and school management practices. For teaching experience, respondents with 25–29 years of service make up 22.38%, highlighting a workforce with substantial teaching tenure. This aligns with Clark and Sanders (2022), who emphasized that extensive teaching experience contributes significantly to leadership competence, as seasoned educators bring practical insights that enhance decision-making and mentoring capacities. In terms of highest educational attainment, the majority hold a bachelor’s degree (40.09%), while 32.87% have earned master’s degree units. Interestingly, only 1.63% of respondents possess a doctorate degree, suggesting that advanced academic qualifications are relatively rare within the sample. This finding aligns with Carter and Lopez (2019), who argued that higher educational attainment enhances leadership effectiveness by fostering strategic thinking and evidence-based decision-making. Overall, Table 1 reflects a teaching workforce characterized by significant professional experience, a predominance of female educators, and a concentration of bachelor’s and master’s degree holders. These demographic factors provide essential context for interpreting the respondents’ perceptions of leadership styles and competencies, as they influence how leadership practices are experienced and evaluated in educational settings Problem 2. What is the Level of Respondents’ School Head Leadership Styles Based on Distributed, Transactional, Laissez-Faire, Democratic, Servant, and Transformational? Table 3: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Distributed Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Collaborates teachers to perform duties for highest performance. 2.89 0.66 Agree Teams up teachers for school policies and reminded to obey it. 2.78 0.68 Agree Builds teachers’ capacity for improvement. 3.01 0.54 Agree Works together for a task to avoid any possible rework. 2.85 0.59 Agree Empowers teachers to impart their expertise to colleagues. 2.86 0.51 Agree Generates more opportunities for change. 2.79 0.62 Agree Provides and distributed leadership opportunities 3.14 0.71 Agree Distributes and communicated clear expectations 3.10 0.60 Agree Shares the responsibility and authority for school improvement. 3.17 0.74 Agree Collectively works with teachers towards positive relationship. 3.05 0.55 Agree Overall 2.96 0.62 Agree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 3 shows that respondents generally agreed on the leadership style of their school head, particularly in terms of distributed leadership, with an overall mean of 2.96 (SD = 0.62), described as “Agree.” The evidence suggested that teachers perceived the school head’s leadership as effective and aligned with their expectations. This leadership style, which emphasizes collaboration and shared responsibility, fostered a positive work environment and supported the school’s goals. According to Miller and Johnson (2022), distributed leadership enhances organizational effectiveness by involving various stakeholders, thus promoting collaboration, innovation, and a shared sense of ownership among teachers. The highest mean score of 3.17 (SD = 0.74) for the indicator “My school head shares the responsibility and authority for school improvement” emphasized that the school head was viewed as effectively fostering collaboration for school development. This reflects a participative approach that empowered teachers and encouraged collective efforts toward school improvement, aligning with the findings of Carter and Brown (2021) on the benefits of shared responsibility. Pa ge 13 6 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 However, the lowest mean of 2.78 (SD = 0.68) for “My school head teams up teachers for school policies and reminded to obey it” highlighted some challenges in policy implementation and teacher engagement. The lower score indicated that the school head’s efforts to communicate and enforce school policies were perceived as less effective, suggesting the need for improved communication and support for policy adherence, as noted by Nguyen and Patel (2022). Overall, while the leadership style was largely perceived as positive, continuous feedback and professional development are essential to refine strategies and ensure that all teachers feel supported and involved in both leadership and policy enforcement. Table 4: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Transactional Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Rewards teachers who follow rules and regulations to complete the objectives on time. 2.45 0.67 Disagree Coaches teachers and negotiates their demands. 2.55 0.56 Agree Recognizes teachers who achieve optimal job performance. 3.10 0.69 Agree Talks to every teacher when a teacher commits mistakes. 2.67 0.52 Agree Intervenes when teacher performance expectations are not met. 2.72 0.54 Agree Motivates teachers based on a system of rewards and incentives 2.79 0.50 Agree Earns contingent rewards and perks if they reach their goal. 2.88 0.71 Agree Helps teachers when they unintentionally commit mistakes. 2.89 0.66 Agree Actively shows appreciation of teachers who do their jobs better than expected. 3.12 0.73 Agree Gives teachers the chance to choose between good or right without any directive. 2.40 0.70 Disagree Overall 2.76 0.63 Agree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 4 presents the distribution of the respondents’ level of school head leadership styles based on transactional leadership, with an overall mean of 2.76 (SD = 0.63), described as “Agree.” This indicates that respondents generally perceived transactional leadership practices as present and somewhat effective. Transactional leadership, characterized by clear rules, rewards for performance, and management by exception, was appreciated for providing clarity and structure. However, while this leadership style was effective in achieving short-term goals and maintaining order, there is a need for its integration with other leadership styles, such as transformational leadership, to foster long-term growth and innovation. Johnson and Green (2020) highlighted that transactional leadership ensures compliance but may limit teacher empowerment and growth opportunities. The indicator “My school head actively shows appreciation of teachers who do their jobs better than expected” received the highest mean score of 3.12 (SD = 0.73), underscoring the importance of recognition and reward in motivating teachers and enhancing morale. This aligns with the findings of Wright and Smith (2021), who emphasized that recognition contributes to a positive work environment and boosts teacher engagement. On the other hand, the indicator “My school head gives teachers the chance to choose between good or right without any directive” had the lowest mean score of 2.40 (SD = 0.70), indicating a lack of autonomy for teachers. This suggests that school heads tended to be more directive, limiting opportunities for teachers to make decisions independently. Miller and Adams (2022) argued that providing teachers with autonomy boosts job satisfaction and sense of ownership, pointing to an area for improvement in the current leadership practices. In conclusion, while transactional leadership practices, such as appreciation and recognition, were effective, offering more autonomy and opportunities for decision-making could further improve teacher engagement, motivation, and satisfaction. Table 5: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Laissez-faire Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Gives teachers the freedom to make decisions 2.79 0.66 Agree Takes a hands-off approach to leadership 1.91 0.56 Disagree Does not fail to take necessary actions 1.92 0.60 Disagree Leaves decisions to be made by teachers. 2.00 0.67 Disagree Allows the subordinates solved their own problem alone. 1.99 0.54 Disagree Does not interfere in the decisions made by the subordinates. 1.98 0.58 Disagree Pa ge 13 7 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Delegates power to teachers. 1.96 0.61 Disagree Provides the teachers with the necessary resources. 3.24 0.70 Agree Allows non-enforcement of school rules and regulations. 1.90 0.59 Disagree Delegates most tasks and responsibilities to teachers. 1.97 0.53 Disagree Overall 2.17 0.53 Disagree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 5 presents the distribution of respondents’ perceptions of their school head’s leadership style based on laissez-faire, with an overall mean of 2.17 (SD = 0.53), described as “Disagree.” This indicates that respondents generally disagreed with the idea that their school head exhibited laissez-faire leadership qualities, suggesting that a hands-off or passive approach to leadership was not a prominent characteristic. The findings implied that teachers valued a more proactive leadership style with greater involvement and guidance, rather than one that allowed teachers to operate independently without support. Adams and Green (2021) noted that while laissez-faire leadership might encourage creativity and independence, it could also lead to accountability issues and a lack of cohesion, especially in more structured environments. The highest mean score of 3.24 (SD = 0.70) for the indicator “My school head provides the teachers with the necessary resources” suggested that, although laissez- faire leadership was not widely endorsed, respondents appreciated the school head’s efforts to provide necessary resources. This showed that the support provided in terms of tools and materials positively impacted the teachers’ work environment. Roberts and Taylor (2022) emphasized that adequate resources enhance teacher effectiveness and job satisfaction, contributing to a more productive and positive learning environment. On the other hand, the lowest mean score of 1.90 (SD = 0.59) for “My school head allows non-enforcement of school rules and regulations” revealed that respondents disagreed with the idea that the school head was lenient in enforcing rules. This low mean indicated that the school head actively enforced policies and regulations, reflecting a more structured and consistent approach to leadership, contrary to laissez-faire tendencies. Evans and Carter (2021) argued that lax rule enforcement could result in inconsistencies and a decline in discipline, particularly in schools lacking a strong culture of responsibility. In conclusion, while the respondents generally disagreed with laissez-faire leadership, they valued the provision of resources and the enforcement of school rules. This suggested that a leadership style balancing autonomy with clear guidance and structure was most effective in fostering teacher satisfaction and school success. Table 6: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Democratic Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Encourages teachers to participate in decision-making by sharing their opinions. 3.30 0.66 Strongly agree Solicits teacher’s opinion for the success of the school projects and activities. 2.89 0.76 Agree Encourages open conversation with teachers to set goals, evaluate own performance and motivate them to be productive. 2.97 0.68 Agree Shares leadership role with the teachers. 3.10 0.72 Agree Treats all the teachers with equality. 3.26 0.79 Strongly agree Respects teachers’ opinions in decision making. 3.45 0.65 Strongly agree Involves teachers in solving non-emergency administrative problems which do not require urgent solution. 2.55 0.67 Agree Allows teachers to vote over a presented issue and, thereafter, the decisions are made. 2.57 0.69 Agree Facilitates collective responsibility and consultative decision making with teachers. 2.87 0.77 Agree Makes teachers feel valued and heard. 3.10 0.59 Agree Overall 3.01 0.70 Agree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 6 presents the distribution of respondents’ perceptions of their school head’s leadership style based on democratic principles, with an overall mean of 3.01 (SD = 0.70), described as “Agree.” This indicates that respondents generally viewed the democratic leadership Pa ge 13 8 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 style as an effective and important aspect of their school head’s approach. The findings suggest that teachers valued a collaborative, participatory environment where their input was actively sought and considered. Thompson and Brooks (2021) found that democratic leadership, which includes engaging teachers in decision-making, was linked to improved collaboration, staff morale, and overall school performance. The highest mean score of 3.45 (SD = 0.65) for the indicator “My school head respects teachers’ opinions in decision-making” indicates that respondents strongly felt their school heads valued and incorporated teachers’ perspectives. This practice was seen as a key strength of the school head’s democratic leadership and was positively associated with job satisfaction and teacher engagement. Miller and Johnson (2020) highlighted that respecting teachers’ opinions fosters a collaborative work environment and enhances school improvement efforts by ensuring that decisions are informed by teachers’ insights. On the other hand, the lowest mean score of 2.55 (SD = 0.67) for the indicator “My school head involves teachers in solving non-emergency administrative problems” suggests that while teachers agreed their school heads involved them in such matters, this practice was less emphasized compared to other democratic leadership practices. Robinson and Adams (2021) found that involving teachers in non-urgent administrative tasks can enhance collaboration and problem-solving efficiency, indicating that this area could be further developed to strengthen the democratic leadership approach. While respondents agreed that their school heads practiced democratic leadership, the distribution indicates that respecting teachers’ opinions in decision-making was particularly valued, while greater involvement in non- urgent administrative matters could enhance collaboration and further improve the democratic leadership style. Table 7: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Servant Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Serves their team and organization first. 2.88 0.67 Agree Cares about teachers when they face challenges. 3.26 0.65 Strongly agree Sacrifices on some occasions to help teachers. 2.78 0.71 Agree Shows humility in dealing with teachers. 2.98 0.77 Agree Prioritizes serving the greater good 3.10 0.81 Agree Prioritizes the growth, well-being, and empowerment of teachers. 3.32 0.78 Strongly agree Makes personal connections with all teachers. 2.67 0.69 Agree Helps solve administrative problems with teachers. 3.15 0.70 Agree Manages teachers before their own personal ambitions. 2.51 0.63 Agree Leads by example and invested in the growth of their team. 2.85 0.60 Agree Overall 2.95 0.70 Agree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 7 presents the distribution of respondents’ perceptions of their school head’s leadership style based on servant leadership, with an overall mean of 2.95 (SD = 0.70), described as “Agree.” This indicates that respondents generally agreed with the level of servant leadership exhibited by their school heads. The mean score suggests that teachers recognized and valued the servant leadership qualities of their school heads, such as prioritizing teachers’ well-being and fostering a supportive, collaborative school environment. Green and Harris (2022) found that servant leadership, focused on serving others, significantly enhanced teacher satisfaction, school culture, and performance. The highest mean score of 3.32 (SD = 0.78) for the indicator “My school head prioritizes the growth, well- being, and empowerment of teachers” indicates that respondents strongly perceived this aspect of servant leadership as a key strength of their school head’s leadership style. Teachers highly valued the school head’s commitment to their personal and professional growth, seeing it as fundamental to fostering a supportive and empowering school environment. Johnson and Lee (2021) emphasized that such prioritization of teachers’ development not only enhances job satisfaction but also improves teacher retention and effectiveness, benefiting student outcomes and overall school success. On the other hand, the lowest mean score of 2.51 (SD = 0.63) for the indicator “My school head manages teachers before their own personal ambitions” suggests that respondents perceived this aspect of servant leadership as less prominent. While respondents agreed that the school head prioritized teachers’ needs to some extent, it was not viewed as strongly as other dimensions of servant leadership. This might reflect a perception that the school head could further emphasize selflessness and place teachers’ needs above personal ambitions. Miller and Roberts (2022) found that prioritizing teachers’ needs over personal gain helps build trust, enhances teacher Pa ge 13 9 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 morale, and fosters a more cohesive team, leading to improved educational outcomes and school culture. The overall distribution indicates that while the respondents generally supported the servant leadership style of their school heads, there is room for further development, particularly in the area of prioritizing teachers’ needs over personal ambitions. Enhancing this aspect could strengthen the servant leadership approach and contribute to a more collaborative and supportive school environment. Table 8: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles based on Transformational Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Encourages and inspires teachers to innovate and develop new ways to grow and improve the path for future success. 3.45 0.66 Strongly agree Maintains the highest standards of honesty and integrity. 3.28 0.69 Strongly agree Attends conferences, meetings, training and workshop schedules. 3.30 0.72 Strongly agree Communicates in proper manner or charismatic. 2.98 0.71 Agree Displays behavior as example or role model in the school. 2.99 0.81 Agree Gives time and efforts to complete reports and deadlines. 3.32 0.82 Strongly agree Trusts teachers the independence to make decisions and support new problem- solving approaches. 3.29 0.78 Strongly agree Encourages to develop and search for innovative ideas for teaching. 3.31 0.61 Strongly agree Develops a strong sense of cohesion and team spirit teachers. 3.15 0.67 Agee Motivates teachers to get the highest performance. 3.39 0.74 Strongly agree Overall 3.25 0.72 Agree Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 8 outlines the distribution of respondents’ perceptions of their school head’s transformational leadership style, which received an overall mean of 3.25 (SD = 0.72), categorized as “Agree.” This indicates that respondents generally recognized and agreed with the transformational leadership traits exhibited by their school head, such as inspiring and motivating teachers, fostering professional growth, and maintaining a shared vision for the future. The overall mean score reflects a strong positive evaluation of transformational leadership, suggesting that it positively influenced teacher motivation, commitment, and school performance. The indicator “My school head encourages and inspires teachers to innovate and develop new ways to grow and improve the path for future success” achieved the highest mean score of 3.45 (SD = 0.66), categorized as “Strongly Agree.” This suggests that teachers strongly felt inspired by their school head to innovate and grow, leading to a culture of continuous improvement. The result indicates that teachers appreciated the leadership approach that encouraged innovation and development, contributing to a dynamic school environment. Carter and Lopez (2019) emphasized that leaders who inspire teachers to innovate and search for new methods for improvement foster school success and create a culture of creativity. On the other hand, the indicator “My school head communicates in proper manner or charismatic” received the lowest mean score of 2.98 (SD = 0.71), categorized as “Agree.” This reflects that while teachers generally agreed that their school head communicated effectively and charismatically, there was room for improvement in this area. It suggests that while the communication style was seen as acceptable, it might not have fully inspired or motivated all teachers to the same extent. Lee and Kim (2020) found that charismatic and effective communication from school leaders fosters trust, increases teacher motivation, and improves school morale, benefiting the overall school climate and student outcomes. Transformational leadership style of the school head was well-received, with particular emphasis on the encouragement of innovation and growth. However, the area of communication may require further development to ensure it fully supports and inspires teachers to achieve their highest potential. Table 9: Summary Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Leadership Styles Variable Mean SD Interpretation Distributed 2.96 0.62 High Transactional 2.76 0.63 High Laissez-faire 2.17 0.53 Low Democratic 3.01 0.70 High Pa ge 14 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Servant 2.95 0.70 High Transformational 3.25 0.72 High Overall 2.85 0.65 High Legend: 3.26-4.00 Strongly Agree / Very High 2.51-3.25 Agree/High 1.76-2.50 Disagree/Low 1.00-1.75 Strongly Disagree/ Very Low Table 9 summarizes the respondents’ perceptions of their school head’s leadership styles, with an overall mean of 2.85 (SD = 0.65), categorized as “High.” This suggests that teachers generally viewed their school heads as effective leaders who utilized various leadership styles, contributing to a positive school environment and teacher empowerment. The Transformational leadership style received the highest mean of 3.25 (SD = 0.72), indicating it was the most prevalent and effective. Teachers appreciated school heads who inspired innovation, growth, and a shared vision for success. This style contributed to a collaborative and progressive school culture, improving school performance and teacher satisfaction. Research by Johnson and Smith (2020) supports this, highlighting the impact of transformational leadership on teacher motivation and student outcomes. On the other hand, Laissez-faire leadership had the lowest mean of 2.17 (SD = 0.53), reflecting dissatisfaction among teachers. This hands-off approach was seen as ineffective, as teachers preferred more structured leadership that provided guidance and support. Other leadership styles, including Distributed, Transactional, Democratic, and Servant, received positive ratings, with means ranging from 2.76 to 3.01. The Democratic style (mean = 3.01) was valued for its inclusiveness, while Transactional and Distributed leadership styles were appreciated for their focus on rewards and shared responsibilities. Overall, transformational, democratic, and distributed leadership styles were the most effective, while laissez- faire leadership was least favored. Problem 3. What is the Level of School Heads Competencies as Perceived by the Respondents with Regards to Leading People, People Performance Management, and People Development? Table 10: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Competencies with Regard to Leading People Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Uses basic persuasion techniques in a discussion or presentation of agenda with teachers. 2.67 0.65 Most of the time Uses influencing style on staff mobilization and appeals to reason and/or emotions. Uses data and examples, visual aids. 2.54 0.62 Most of the time Persuades, convinces or influences others, in order to have a specific impact or effect. 2.73 0.56 Most of the time Sets himself/herself a good example. 3.01 0.71 Most of the time Is a credible and respected leader; and demonstrates desired behavior. 2.88 0.66 Most of the time Forwards personal, professional and work unit needs and interests in an issue. 2.71 0.52 Most of the time Assumes a pivotal role in promoting the development of an inspiring, relevant vision for the department. 3.15 0.75 Most of the time Influences others to share ownership of deped goals, in order to create an effective work environment. 3.21 0.55 Most of the Time Uses authentic data and examples or visual aids in delivering presentations. 2.82 0.54 Most of the time Delegates and communicates very clearly to teachers the interesting and stimulating work to be accomplished. 2.86 0.67 Most of the time Overall 2.86 0.62 Most of the Time Legend: 3.26-4.00 At all Times / Highly Competent 2.51-3.25 Most of the Time/Competent 1.76-2.50 Sometimes/Slightly Competent 1.00-1.75 Never/ Not Competent Table 10 presents the respondents’ perceptions of school head competencies in leading people, with an overall mean of 2.86 (SD = 0.62), described as “Most of the Time.” This implies that school heads generally demonstrated competent leadership skills, providing a stable and supportive environment for their teachers. However, the mean score also suggests room for improvement in optimizing leadership performance. The highest-rated competency was “influences others to share ownership of DepEd goals” with a mean of 3.21 (SD = 0.55), showing that school heads were effective in fostering collective responsibility and alignment with goals. This competency contributed to a positive work environment, with teachers perceiving their school heads Pa ge 14 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 as successful in promoting collaboration. The lowest-rated competency was “uses influencing style on staff mobilization and appeals to reason and/ or emotions” with a mean of 2.54 (SD = 0.62). While school heads generally used influencing techniques, the frequency and effectiveness of these methods—such as using data, examples, and visual aids—were seen as areas for improvement. Teachers indicated that more consistent and effective mobilization strategies could enhance engagement and goal alignment. Research by Green and Nelson (2022) highlights the importance of school head competencies in motivating staff and building team dynamics, while Rodriguez and Patel (2021) emphasize the value of fostering shared responsibility for educational goals. Improving leadership competencies, particularly in staff mobilization and the use of influencing styles, could further enhance leadership effectiveness and contribute to improved school performance. Table 11: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Competencies with Regard to People Performance Management Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Makes specific changes in the performance management system or in own work methods to improve performance. 2.54 0.66 Most of the time Manages something better, faster, at lower cost, more efficiently. 2.45 0.62 Sometimes Manages to improve quality, teacher satisfaction, morale, and revenues. 2.68 0.67 Most of the time Sets performance standards and measures progress of teachers based on office and department targets. 2.69 0.58 Most of the time Provides feedback and technical assistance such as coaching for performance improvement and action planning. 2.88 0.69 Most of the time States performance expectations clearly and checks understanding and commitment. 2.71 0.51 Most of the time Performs all the stages of result-based performance management system supported by evidence and required documents/forms. 2.67 0.63 Most of the time Is responsible for knowing if the team members are performing well. 2.80 0.65 Most of the time Conducts in a way that is guided by the values of the organization and to the health and social care sector. 2.78 0.67 Most of the time Promotes the health, wellbeing, and independence of teachers and they support with compassion, respect, and dignity. 2.64 0.74 Most of the time Overall 2.68 0.64 Most of the Time Legend: 3.26-4.00 At all Times / Highly Competent 2.51-3.25 Most of the Time/Competent 1.76-2.50 Sometimes/Slightly Competent 1.00-1.75 Never/ Not Competent Table 11 presents the respondents’ perceptions of school head competencies in people performance management, with an overall mean of 2.68 (SD = 0.64), described as “Most of the Time.” This indicates that school heads were generally effective in managing people performance, but there were occasional lapses or areas for improvement. While school heads demonstrated competencies in performance management, enhancing consistency and addressing gaps could further improve their effectiveness. The highest-rated competency was “provides feedback and technical assistance such as coaching for performance improvement and action planning” with a mean of 2.88 (SD = 0.69), reflecting that school heads were relatively successful in providing feedback and support for staff performance improvement. This competency was seen as a strength, although further development could enhance its impact. The lowest-rated competency was “manages something better, faster, at lower cost, more efficiently” with a mean of 2.45 (SD = 0.62), indicating challenges in managing resources and processes efficiently. This competency showed room for improvement in task management and resource optimization, which could enhance overall performance in people management. Research by Martinez and Robinson (2022) emphasizes that competencies in managing people performance are essential for effective school leadership, while Clark and Sanders (2022) highlight the need for efficient resource and process management. School heads who focus on improving these areas can enhance their overall leadership effectiveness and contribute to better school outcomes. Table 12: Distribution of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Competencies with Regard to People Development Indicator Mean SD Description My school head… Allows in capacity building that explains and helps me understand the Results- Based Performance Management System guidelines. 2.39 0.63 Sometimes Pa ge 14 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Improves the skills and effectiveness of individuals through employing a range of development strategies. 2.90 0.67 Most of the time Facilitates workforce effectiveness through coaching and motivating/developing people within a work environment that promotes mutual trust and respect. 2.87 0.66 Most of the time Conceptualizes and implements learning interventions to meet identified training needs. 2.79 0.56 Most of the time Does long-term coaching or training by arranging appropriate and helpful assignments, formal training, or other experiences. 3.01 0.69 Most of the time Cultivates a learning environment by structuring interactive experiences 3.10 0.72 Most of the time Improves the skills and effectiveness of individuals through employing a range of development strategies. 2.99 0.68 Most of the time Gives opportunities for the purpose of supporting a person’s learning and development. 2.90 0.64 Most of the time Provides greater opportunities for future use that are in support of achieving individual career goals. 2.78 0.62 Most of the time Nurtures and enhances teacher’s skills, knowledge, and potential within an organization. 2.80 0.61 Most of the time Overall 2.85 0.65 Most of the Time Legend: 3.26-4.00 At all Times / Highly Competent 2.51-3.25 Most of the Time/Competent 1.76-2.50 Sometimes/Slightly Competent 1.00-1.75 Never/ Not Competent Table 12 presents the respondents’ perceptions of school heads’ competencies concerning People Development. The table shows an overall mean score of 2.85 (SD = 0.65), interpreted as “Most of the Time”, suggesting that school heads are generally effective in fostering people development but with areas needing improvement. The highest-rated competency is “cultivates a learning environment by structuring interactive experiences” with a mean score of 3.10 (SD = 0.72), indicating that school heads excel in creating engaging environments that promote continuous learning and professional growth. This aligns with Adams and Reed (2022), who emphasized that interactive learning fosters collaboration, motivation, and a culture of continuous improvement. Meanwhile, competencies related to capacity building received lower ratings, particularly “allows capacity building that explains and helps me understand the Results-Based Performance Management System (RPMS) guidelines”, with a mean score of 2.39 (SD = 0.63). This suggests that while school heads are effective in facilitating learning environments, they fall short in providing clear guidance on performance management systems. This finding is supported by Johnson and Martinez (2023), who highlighted the importance of comprehensive training to help educators understand RPMS guidelines, as it directly impacts performance expectations and teaching practices. Despite the generally positive ratings, the data suggests gaps in school heads’ approaches to performance management and long-term development strategies. Teachers perceived inconsistencies in the application of coaching, mentoring, and capacity-building activities. These results underscore the need for professional development programs focusing on enhancing school heads’ competencies in capacity building, performance evaluation, and individualized support for teachers. Table 13: Summary of the Respondents’ Level of Perceived Competencies Variable Mean SD Interpretation Leading People 2.86 0.62 Competent People Performance Management 2.68 0.64 Competent People Development 2.85 0.65 Competent Overall 2.80 0.64 Competent Legend: 3.26-4.00 At all Times / Highly Competent 2.51-3.25 Most of the Time/Competent 1.76-2.50 Sometimes/Slightly Competent 1.00-1.75 Never/ Not Competent Table 13 shows the summary of respondents’ perceptions of school heads’ competencies across three critical domains: Leading People, People Performance Management, and People Development. The table reveals that the overall competency mean score is 2.80 (SD = 0.64), which falls under the “Competent” category. This suggests that, while school heads generally meet the expected standards, there remains room for improvement in specific areas of leadership. Among the competencies assessed, Leading People attained the highest mean score of 2.86 (SD = 0.62), indicating that school heads are effective in managing and inspiring staff, fostering Pa ge 14 3 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 positive relationships, and guiding teams toward achieving organizational goals. This finding aligns with Lepardo and Caingcoy (2021), who emphasized that effective leadership in managing people significantly contributes to organizational success through strong interpersonal skills, effective communication, and motivational strategies. Following closely is People Development, with a mean score of 2.85 (SD = 0.65), highlighting school heads’ satisfactory performance in nurturing professional growth among teachers. This includes mentoring, coaching, and supporting continuous learning opportunities to enhance instructional practices and teacher competencies. Sumabat (2019) also supported this, stating that effective people development fosters continuous professional growth, which is essential for sustaining educational quality within schools. The results imply that school heads are generally proactive in creating an environment conducive to professional development. Conversely, People Performance Management received the lowest mean score of 2.68 (SD = 0.64). Although this score still falls within the “Competent” range, it suggests notable gaps in areas such as performance evaluation, feedback mechanisms, and staff appraisal processes. This indicates that school heads may need additional support or training to strengthen their skills in effectively managing and improving staff performance. This observation aligns with Tumbokon (2023), who noted that leadership gaps in performance management often stem from inconsistent evaluation practices and insufficient feedback systems, which can hinder overall school performance. These findings underscore the need for targeted professional development programs, particularly focusing on enhancing school heads’ competencies in performance management. Additionally, qualitative interviews conducted as part of the study revealed that 40% of teachers believe that strong leadership competencies significantly influence school management outcomes. This reinforces the importance of continuous capacity-building initiatives aimed at improving leadership effectiveness within the educational system. Problem 4. Is There a Significant Relationship between the School Heads’ Leadership Styles and Their Competencies? Table 14: Result of the Test on Relationship between the Respondents Perceived Leadership Styles and their Competencies School Head Leadership Styles Leadership Competencies Leading People People Performance Management People Development Overall r-value r-value r-value r-value p-value p-value p-value p-value Distributed 0.209 0.190 0.178 0.192 0.0002 0.0013 0.0010 0.0008 S S S S Transactional 0.229 0.398 0.278 0.302 0.0812 0.0660 0.0371 0.0614 NS NS S NS Laissez-faire 0.345 0.415 0.456 0.405 0.0628 0.0698 0.0672 0.0666 NS NS NS NS Democratic 0.161 0.412 0.421 0.331 0.0231 0.0122 0.0252 0.0202 S S S S Servant 0.409 0.360 0.396 0.388 0.0682 0.0670 0.0952 0.0768 NS NS NS NS Transformational 0.201 0.292 0.101 0.198 0.0101 0.0012 0.0092 0.0068 S S S S Legend: S- Significant NS-Not Significant Table 14 presents the results of the test on the relationship between the respondents’ perceived leadership styles and their leadership competencies. The study categorized leadership competencies into three key areas: Leading People, People Performance Management, and People Development, alongside an overall competency measure. The leadership styles analyzed included Distributed, Transactional, Laissez-faire, Democratic, Servant, and Transformational. Pa ge 14 4 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 The results revealed a significant relationship between distributed, democratic, and transformational leadership styles and leadership competencies. Specifically, distributed leadership showed a positive correlation with leading people, people performance management, and people development, emphasizing the importance of shared leadership responsibilities. Democratic leadership was found to significantly impact all three competencies, highlighting the value of inclusive decision-making and collaboration. Transformational leadership, with its focus on inspiring a shared vision and motivating growth, also displayed significant positive correlations with leadership competencies in the areas of leading people and people performance management. These findings align with the research of Smith and Brown (2021), which highlighted how transformational leadership contributes to decision-making and staff development. Similarly, White and Thompson (2021) stressed the importance of feedback and coaching in leadership development, which aligns with the study’s findings regarding leadership styles that foster positive outcomes in school management. In contrast, the transactional, laissez-faire, and servant leadership styles did not show significant relationships with leadership competencies, suggesting that these styles may not be as effective in promoting leadership development. This indicates that leadership competencies may be more influenced by factors such as personal traits, professional experience, or organizational support rather than a specific leadership approach. The lack of significant correlations with laissez-faire and servant leadership styles further suggests that these approaches might not align well with the competencies needed for effective school leadership. The implications of these findings challenge the notion that adopting a particular leadership style automatically leads to enhanced leadership competencies. Instead, the study points to the importance of aligning leadership behaviors with the unique needs and context of each school. Furthermore, this suggests that competency- based training, mentorship, and experience-based learning should be prioritized over a singular focus on specific leadership styles in professional development programs. Ultimately, the study calls for a more holistic approach to leadership development, emphasizing the integration of leadership behaviors with the competencies required to manage and develop effective teams in educational settings. Problem 5. Is There a Significant Difference in the School Heads’ Leadership Competence When Grouped According to Their Profile? Table 15: Difference in the Respondents’ Perceived Leadership Competencies when Grouped According to their Profile Respondents’ Profile School Head Leadership Competencies Leading People People Performance Management People Development Overall t-value t-value t-value t-value p-value p-value p-value p-value Age 0.245 0.445 0.472 0.387 0.0672 0.0680 0.0632 0.0661 NS NS NS NS Sex 0.265 0.385 0.406 0.352 0.0788 0.0604 0.0692 0.0695 NS NS NS NS Position 0.211 0.201 0.291 0.234 0.0021 0.0051 0.0013 0.0028 S S S S Teaching Experience 0.281 0.361 0.302 0.315 0.0301 0.0028 0.0061 0.013 S S S S Highest Educational Attainment 0.237 0.282 0.241 0.253 0.0171 0.0041 0.0142 0.0118 S S S S Legend: S- Significant NS-Not Significant Table 15 presents the results of testing the differences in school heads’ perceived leadership competencies based on their profile variables: age, sex, position, teaching experience, and highest educational attainment. This shows that position, teaching experience, and highest educational attainment significantly influenced leadership competencies, including leading people, people performance management, and people development. This suggests that those in higher positions or with more experience and education exhibit stronger leadership competencies. Pa ge 14 5 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 In contrast, age and sex did not significantly impact leadership competencies. These results imply that demographic factors should not be the primary basis for leadership evaluations, and instead, focus should be placed on merit, experience, and educational attainment. The findings are aligned with Johnson and Williams (2020), who highlighted that factors such as educational background, experience, and leadership roles play a significant role in shaping school heads’ competencies. The results suggest that professional development programs should cater to the specific needs of school heads, considering their professional and educational profiles to enhance their leadership effectiveness. Problem 6. Based on the Findings of the Study, What School Improvement Plan on School Heads Leadership Style Can be Designed? Table 16: School Improvement Plan Year 1: Enhancing Leadership and Performance A re as o f C on ce rn Sp ec ifi c O bj ec tiv es St ra te gi es / A ct iv iti es T im e Fr am e Pe rs on /s In vo lv ed So ur ce o f Fu nd E st im at ed B ud ge t E xp ec te d O ut co m e La iss ez -f ai re In cr ea se pr oa ct iv e de ci sio n- m ak in g Le ad er sh ip tra in in g fo r sc ho ol h ea ds Q 1 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Tr ai ne rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 Im pr ov ed le ad er sh ip an d de ci sio n- m ak in g sk ill s E nh an ce ac co un ta bi lit y E st ab lis h re gu la r pe rf or m an ce re vi ew s Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Su pe rv iso rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 Be tte r ac co un ta bi lit y an d pe rf or m an ce tra ck in g Im pr ov e co m m un ic at io n sk ill s C om m un ic at io n w or ks ho ps Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , C oa ch es M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 E nh an ce d co m m un ic at io n w ith in th e le ad er sh ip te am St re ng th en pr ob le m - so lv in g ca pa ci ty C on fli ct re so lu tio n an d de ci sio n- m ak in g w or ks ho ps Q 3 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Tr ai ne rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d pr ob le m - so lv in g ab ili tie s D ev el op da ta - in fo rm ed de ci sio n- m ak in g D at a an al ys is an d st ra te gi c pl an ni ng tra in in g Q 4 Sc ho ol he ad s, A dm in M O O E ₱9 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d us e of d at a fo r d ec isi on - m ak in g Pe op le P er fo rm an ce M an ag em en t Im pr ov e te ac he r ev al ua tio n pr oc es se s Im pl em en t a ne w pe rf or m an ce ap pr ai sa l sy st em Q 1 Sc ho ol he ad s, Te ac he rs M O O E ₱7 ,0 00 .0 0 E nh an ce d ac cu ra cy in te ac he r ev al ua tio ns Pr om ot e pr of es sio na l gr ow th Pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t pr og ra m s Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d pa rt ic ip at io n in pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t E nc ou ra ge te ac he r co lla bo ra tio n Te ac he r-l ed w or ks ho ps on b es t pr ac tic es Q 3 Te ac he rs , A dm in M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 Im pr ov ed co lla bo ra tio n an d id ea - sh ar in g Pa ge 14 6 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Im pr ov e te ac he r- st ud en t in te ra ct io n C la ss ro om m an ag em en t tra in in g Q 3 Te ac he rs , Tr ai ne rs M O O E ₱7 ,0 00 .0 0 Be tte r te ac he r- st ud en t ra pp or t D ev el op a fe ed ba ck cu ltu re In tro du ce re gu la r fe ed ba ck se ss io ns Q 4 Sc ho ol he ad s, Te ac he rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d co ns tr uc tiv e fe ed ba ck am on g st af f Year 2: Developing Collaborative Culture La iss ez -f ai re Fo st er co lla bo ra tiv e le ad er sh ip In tro du ce re gu la r le ad er sh ip fo ru m s Q 1 Sc ho ol he ad s, Te ac he rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d co lla bo ra tio n am on g sc ho ol le ad er s E nc ou ra ge sh ar ed de ci sio n- m ak in g Jo in t p la nn in g se ss io ns w ith st af f Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 Sh ar ed re sp on sib ili ty in d ec isi on - m ak in g E nh an ce le ad er sh ip de le ga tio n A ss ig n le ad er sh ip ro le s t o te ac he rs in sm al l i ni tia tiv es Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 M or e em po w er ed an d en ga ge d te ac he r-l ea de rs Bu ild a su pp or tiv e en vi ro nm en t Te am - bu ild in g ac tiv iti es Q 3 Sc ho ol he ad s, A ll st af f M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 St ro ng er te am co he sio n an d su pp or t Im pr ov e st ra te gi c pl an ni ng sk ill s W or ks ho ps on lo ng - te rm st ra te gi c pl an ni ng Q 4 Sc ho ol he ad s, Te ac he rs M O O E ₱7 ,0 00 .0 0 E nh an ce d ab ili ty to pl an a nd ex ec ut e st ra te gi es Pe op le P er fo rm an ce M an ag em en t St re ng th en co nt in uo us pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t Re gu la r pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t w or ks ho ps Q 1 Te ac he rs , E xt er na l ex pe rt s M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 C on tin uo us im pr ov em en t in te ac hi ng qu al ity In cr ea se go al -s et tin g pr ac tic es G oa l-s et tin g w or ks ho ps Q 2 Te ac he rs , Sc ho ol h ea ds M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 C le ar er pe rs on al a nd pr of es sio na l go al s E nh an ce pe er su pp or t m ec ha ni sm s Pe er m en to rin g pr og ra m s Q 3 Te ac he rs , M en to rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 E nh an ce d pe er su pp or t a nd co lla bo ra tio n St re ng th en sc ho ol go ve rn an ce G ov er na nc e an d po lic y re vi ew w or ks ho ps Q 3 Sc ho ol he ad s, A dm in M O O E ₱7 ,0 00 .0 0 Im pr ov ed sc ho ol go ve rn an ce Pa ge 14 7 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 M ai nt ai n a ba la nc e be tw ee n au to no m y an d ac co un ta bi lit y Pe rf or m an ce m on ito rin g an d re fle ct io n se ss io ns Q 4 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 Ba la nc ed le ad er sh ip an d im pr ov ed ac co un ta bi lit y Year 3: Sustaining Improvements La iss ez -f ai re E ns ur e su st ai ne d pr oa ct iv e le ad er sh ip E st ab lis h a m en to rs hi p pr og ra m fo r ne w le ad er s Q 1 E xp er ie nc ed le ad er s, N ew le ad er s M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 Su st ai na bl e le ad er sh ip de ve lo pm en t M ai nt ai n ac co un ta bi lit y sy st em s Re gu la r a ud its an d fe ed ba ck Q 2 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs , Su pe rv iso rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 O ng oi ng ac co un ta bi lit y an d pe rf or m an ce im pr ov em en t St re ng th en sc ho ol go ve rn an ce G ov er na nc e an d po lic y re vi ew w or ks ho ps Q 2 Sc ho ol he ad s, A dm in M O O E ₱7 ,0 00 .0 0 Im pr ov ed sc ho ol go ve rn an ce Pr om ot e co nt in uo us le ar ni ng A nn ua l le ad er sh ip re tre at s Q 3 Sc ho ol he ad s, Te ac he rs , Tr ai ne rs M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 C on tin uo us le ad er sh ip gr ow th a nd le ar ni ng M ai nt ai n a ba la nc e be tw ee n au to no m y an d ac co un ta bi lit y Pe rf or m an ce m on ito rin g an d re fle ct io n se ss io ns Q 4 Sc ho ol h ea ds , Te ac he rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 Ba la nc ed le ad er sh ip an d im pr ov ed ac co un ta bi lit y Pe op le P er fo rm an ce M an ag em en t O pt im iz e pe rf or m an ce m an ag em en t sy st em s A nn ua l r ev ie w an d up da te o f pe rf or m an ce ap pr ai sa l sy st em s Q 1 H R, S ch oo l he ad s, Te ac he rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 C on tin ua lly re fin ed a nd ef fe ct iv e pe rf or m an ce ap pr ai sa ls E nc ou ra ge in no va tio n in te ac hi ng In no va tio n gr an ts a nd re co gn iti on pr og ra m s Q 2 Te ac he rs , Sc ho ol he ad s M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 In cr ea se d in no va tiv e te ac hi ng pr ac tic es Im pl em en t te ac he r w el ln es s pr og ra m s W or ks ho ps on m en ta l he al th an d st re ss m an ag em en t Q 2 Te ac he rs , E xt er na l tra in er s M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 Im pr ov ed te ac he r w el l- be in g an d w or k- lif e ba la nc e Su st ai n pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t O ng oi ng pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t fu nd in g Q 3 Te ac he rs , Sc ho ol h ea ds M O O E ₱8 ,0 00 .0 0 Su st ai ne d hi gh -q ua lit y pr of es sio na l de ve lo pm en t E xp an d m en to rin g an d pe er co ac hi ng E xp an d pe er co ac hi ng a nd m en to rin g in iti at iv es Q 3 Te ac he rs , M en to rs M O O E ₱5 ,0 00 .0 0 St ro ng er p ee r su pp or t a nd pr of es sio na l gr ow th Pa ge 14 8 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 CONCLUSION Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions are drawn. Transformational leadership identified as the most effective style, emphasizing inspiring and motivating teachers, fostering teamwork, and driving innovation. “Leading people” was highlighted as the most developed competency, exhibiting school heads’ strong ability to guide, influence, and build relationships within their teams. The study highlighted that transformational leadership aligned with the competency of leading people, promoting trust, teamwork, and shared commitment. Transformational, Democratic and distributed leadership styles significantly enhanced teacher motivation, collaboration, and school performance, while laissez-faire leadership hindered outcomes due to non-enforcement of school rules and regulations. The theory developed highlighted that leadership style is most effective when combined with high competencies. School leaders with good leadership skills, such as leading people, people performance management, and people development, were more equipped to apply their preferred leadership styles, whether transformational, distributed, or others. The combination of effective leadership styles and strong competences enabled school leaders to inspire their workers, foster a pleasant learning environment, and successfully address the challenges of modern education. High competences enhanced the influence of leadership styles, resulting in improved overall school performance. Recommendations Based on the conclusion drawn from the study, the following recommendations are provided: 1. School heads should undergo targeted training programs to enhance their leadership skills, particularly focusing on moving away from the Laissez-faire approach. These programs should emphasize active engagement, accountability, and proactive decision-making to foster a more dynamic and responsive leadership style. 2. School heads, with the help of district supervisors, should establish a mentorship and coaching program to address the shortcomings observed in laissez-faire leadership strategies. This would allow experienced leaders to guide and support those who struggle with leadership, helping them become more active and involved. By doing this, school heads could build better leadership skills, support their teachers more effectively, and create a positive impact on their schools. 3. School heads and district supervisors should conduct workshops specifically designed to improve People Performance Management skills. These workshops should cover best practices in setting performance goals, providing constructive feedback, conducting evaluations, and implementing performance improvement plans. 4. Encourage continuous professional development for school heads through advanced courses, seminars, and workshops that focus on modern leadership strategies and performance management techniques. This would ensure that school heads are well-equipped with the latest knowledge and skills to lead their schools effectively. 5. School heads should implement regular feedback systems that allow teachers and staff to provide input on school heads’ leadership styles and performance management practices. The gathered feedback could help identify specific areas that need improvement, guiding the customization of professional development programs to address those needs effectively. 6. Utilize the School Improvement Plan to strengthen the school heads’ leadership competencies, focusing on transitioning from a laissez-faire style to a more proactive approach. Implementing regular performance evaluations will identify growth areas in People Performance Management, enabling better support for staff. REFERENCES Abbas, A., Saud, M., Usman, I., & Ekowati, D. (2020). Servant leadership and religiosity: An indicator of employee performance in the education sector. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13, 391–409. Achimugu, L., & Obaka, P. (2019). Influence of principals’ leadership styles on senior secondary school students’ achievement in Chemistry. Science Education International, 30(2), 92–96. https://doi.org/10.33828/ sei.v30.i2.2 Adams, R. J., & Reed, L. M. (2022). Structuring interactive experiences to cultivate a learning environment: Leadership practices and outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(1), 45–62. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013161X211058468 Adams, R. T., & Green, M. L. (2021). Laissez-faire leadership in schools: Implications for teacher autonomy and school performance. Journal of School Administration, 59(4), 310–325. https://doi.org/10.10 80/12345678.2021.1234567 Anderson, K., & Williams, R. (2020). Early-career teachers and their perceptions of school leadership: The role of mentorship and support. Journal of Educational Leadership, 59(3), 245–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 12345678.2020.1234567 Aliu, L. (2019). How they can become more autonomy supportive. Analysis of Kosovo’s Education System. Friedrich Ebert Foundation Educational Psychology, 44(3), 159–175. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/ kosovo/15185-20190220.pdf Amiri, N. (2019). Leadership styles and competence among Generation Z Emirati nursing students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 18(8), 23–45. https://doi.org/10.26803/ ijlter.18.9.2 Angwaomaoddoko, E. (2023). The effect of leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction in Nigerian secondary schools. International Research in Education, 11(2), 15– 28. https://doi.org/10.5296/ire.v11i2.21012 Aquino, C., Afallam, B., & Fabelico, F. (2020). Managing Pa ge 14 9 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 educational institutions: School heads’ leadership practices and teachers’ performance. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 10(4), 1325–1333. https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere. v10i4.21518 Benson, A. (2023). Exploring leadership theories and practice: A review of Peter G. Northouse’s Leadership: Theory and Practice. LinkedIn. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ exploring-leadership-theories-practice-review-peter- g-benson Bonia, R., Alpureto, M., & Salese, L. (2020). School heads’ leadership styles of public schools. Bohol Multidisciplinary Research Journal, 8. University of Bohol Multidisciplinary Research Journal. https://orcid. org/0000-0002-7248-4230 Brown, M. L., & Jones, R. S. (2019). The effects of different leadership styles on teacher satisfaction and school performance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(1), 25–42. https://doi. org/10.1177/1234567890123456 Brown, T., & Miller, S. (2021). Age-related trends in leadership style and competence among school heads. Journal of Educational Leadership, 58(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2021.1234567 Budiongan, J., & Corpuz, G. (2024). School climate and teachers’ work engagement in Misamis Oriental: Basis for development plan. European Modern Studies Journal, 8(2), 129–162. https://doi.org/10.59573/ emsj.8(2).2024 Bwalya, H. (2023). Leadership styles. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 11(8), 181. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.23932113 Caballes, D., & Peligrino, L. (2021). School heads competence and qualifications: Its influence on the school performance. CiiT International Journal of Data Mining and Knowledge Engineering, 13(1). Cabigao, J. R. (2019). Professional competencies of school heads and their impact on school outcome, organizational culture, and principals’ performance. La Consolacion University Philippines. Calderón, M. (2023). Distributed leadership: School principals’ practices to promote teachers’ professional development for school improvement. Education Sciences, 13(7), 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/ educsci13070715 Carter, S. L., & Brown, E. M. (2021). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Empowering teachers through shared responsibility. Journal of School Leadership, 48(2), 142–159. https://doi.org/10 .1080/12345678.2021.1234567 Carter, S. M., & Lopez, R. E. (2019). Innovative leadership in education: Inspiring teacher growth and development. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 185–200. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02- 2019-0018 Chebonye, R., Okutu, A., & David, K. (2021). Influence of head teachers’ transactional leadership styles on teacher service delivery in primary schools in Nandi Central Sub-County of Nandi County, Kenya. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate. net/publication/353731494_Influence_of_Head_ Teachers’_Transactional_Leadership_Styles_on_ Teacher_Service_Delivery_in_PrimarySchools_in_ Nandi_Central_Subounty_of_Nandi_County_Kenya Clark, P. H., & Sanders, R. M. (2022). Efficiency in school leadership: Managing resources for optimal performance. Educational Management and Administration Journal, 50(1), 67–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345 678.2022.1234567 Davis, K., & Thompson, R. (2020). Emerging trends in leadership style and competence among younger school heads. Journal of Educational Leadership, 59(3), 289–306. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2020.1 234567 Dellomas, L., & Deri, R. (2022). Leadership practices of school heads in public schools. United International Journal for Research & Technology, 4(2). https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.1234567 Duraku, H., & Hoxha, L. (2021). Impact of transformational and transactional attributes of school principal leadership on teachers’ motivation for work. Frontiers in Education, 6, 659919. https://doi. org/10.3389/feduc.2021.659919 Ekpemogu, H., Nzokurum, J., & Uche, C. (2023). Principal’s leadership styles as predictors of teachers’ productivity in public senior secondary schools in Rivers State. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(1). http://www.ijrpr.com Ertem, H. (2020). Relationship of school leadership with school outcomes: A meta-analysis study. International Education Studies, 14(5). Canadian Center of Science and Education. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v14n5p1 Evans, R. L., & Carter, N. S. (2021). The effects of rule non-enforcement on school discipline and staff dynamics. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 62(2), 155–170. https://doi.org/10.1080/123 45678.2021.1234567 Galdames, M., Antúnez, A., Silva, P., & Liderazgo, K. (2023). Distribuido como práctica de los directivos escolares para la mejora escolar en Chile. In P. Rivera- Vargas, J. Muñoz-Saavedra, R. Morales-Olivares, & S. Butendieck (Eds.), Políticas públicas para la equidad social (Vol. 2, pp. 111–122). Colección Políticas Públicas. http://hdl.handle.net/2445/136061 Green, A. L., & Nelson, C. K. (2022). Leading people in education: Essential competencies for school heads. Journal of Educational Leadership, 70(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2022.1234567 Green, M. T., & Harris, J. L. (2022). Servant leadership in education: Impact on teacher satisfaction and school culture. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(2), 112–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10- 2021-0362 Green, R. J., & Thompson, D. K. (2022). Teaching experience and leadership competence: Insights from veteran educators. Journal of Educational Leadership, Pa ge 15 0 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 58(2), 200–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678. 2022.1234567 Geerts, D. (2024). Proposes a robust leading people, emphasizing evidence-based strategies to enhance return on investment (ROI). This framework identifies effective design, delivery, and evaluation methods to improve leadership programs. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Development. Gumus, E. (2019). Investigation of mentorship process and programs for professional development of school principals in the USA: The case of Georgia. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management, 7(1), 2–41. https://doi.org/10.17583/ ijelm.2019.3718 Hallo, L., Nguyen, T., Gorodd, A., & Tran, P. (2020). Effectiveness of leadership decision-making in complex systems. Systems, 8(1), 5. https://doi. org/10.3390/systems8010005 Jackson, L., & Smith, D. (2021). Veteran teachers’ perspectives on school leadership: Balancing experience with innovation. Journal of Educational Leadership, 60(2), 190–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 12345678.2021.1234567 Johannsen, M. (2020). Twelve types of leadership styles (and where to use each). Legacee Academy. https:// www.legacee.com/types-of-leaders Johnson, A., & Martinez, L. (2021). Teacher rank and perceptions of school leadership: Insights from Teacher III respondents. Journal of Educational Leadership, 60(2), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 12345678.2021.1234567 Johnson, A. B., & Smith, C. D. (2020). The impact of transformational leadership on teacher motivation and school performance. Journal of Educational Leadership, 56(2), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 02601370.2020.1810295 Johnson, E. R., & Martinez, A. B. (2023). Capacity building for understanding performance management systems: Effective leadership practices. Journal of Educational Leadership and Development, 70(2), 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2023.2234567 Johnson, M. R., & Green, A. B. (2020). The impact of transactional leadership on school management and teacher performance. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 163–177. https://doi.org/10.10 80/12345678.2020.1234567 Johnson, M. T., & Lee, S. J. (2022). Evaluating people performance management competencies: A summary of school head effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 652–668. https:// doi.org/10.1177/17411432211048963 Johnson, R. A., & Williams, P. B. (2020). Leadership competencies of school heads: Influence of profile characteristics. Journal of Educational Management, 67(2), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/10909878. 2020.1234567 Johnson, R. E., & Lee, K. A. (2021). Supporting teacher growth and well-being: The role of school leadership in enhancing professional development. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 64(1), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2021.1234567 Johnson, R. L., & Smith, M. J. (2020). Transformational leadership in education: Inspiring teacher motivation and performance. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 57(4), 425–440. https://doi.org/10.108 0/12345678.2020.1234567 Kanat-Maymon, Y., Elimelech, M., & Roth, G. (2020). Work motivations as antecedents and outcomes of leadership: Integrating self-determination theory and the full range leadership theory. European Management Journal, 38(4), 555–564. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. emj.2020.01.003 Kilag, O., Malbas, M., Diano, F., & Mnasueto, D. (2023). The role of servant leadership in creating a positive school climate. Science and Education Scientific Journal, 4(5). Kiral, E. (2020). Excellent leadership theory in education. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 4(1). Lee, J. H., & Thompson, M. A. (2022). Assessing school head competencies: A summary of leadership effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 512–529. https://doi. org/10.1177/17411432211012345 Lee, J. K., & Thompson, R. L. (2020). Influencing leadership in school settings: The role of data, examples, and emotional appeals. Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 58(4), 450–465. https://doi. org/10.1080/12345678.2020.1234567 Lee, S. M., & Adams, T. R. (2021). Advanced educational attainment and leadership competence in schools: A focus on master’s degree units. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 275–290. https://doi.org/10.10 80/12345678.2021.1234567 Lepardo, R., & Caingoy, M. (2021). Competency of school heads in leading people influences school performance. International Journal of Educational Policy Research and Review, 8(4), 126–131. https://www. journalissues.org/IJEPRR/ Llego, M. (2024). OPCRF of school heads and IPCRFs of teaching and non-teaching employees in schools. TeacherPH. https://www.teacherph. com/opcrfschool-heads-ipcrfs-teaching-non- teaching-employees-schools/#LEADERSHIP_ COMPETENCIES Martin, J. A., & Edwards, T. M. (2021). Competencies in people development: Key practices for effective school leadership. Journal of Educational Leadership and Development, 58(3), 210-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 12345678.2021.1234567 Martinez, L., & Lopez, M. (2019). Gender dynamics in evaluating leadership styles among school heads. Journal of Educational Leadership, 57(2), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2019.123456 Martinez, L. R., & Robinson, P. D. (2022). Competencies in people performance management among school leaders: A comparative analysis. Educational Leadership Pa ge 15 1 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 and Management Journal, 71(1), 105-120. https://doi.or g/10.1080/12345678.2022.1234567 Mendez, R. (2022). Leadership style of school heads and its moderating impact on work stress of teachers in a district. Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0. https://doi. org/10.5281/zenodo.7013134 Mi, L., Gan, X., Xu, T., Long, R., Qiao, L., & Zhu, H. (2019). A new perspective to promote organizational citizenship behaviour for the environment: The role of transformational leadership. Journal of Cleaner Production, 239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclepro.2019.118002 Miller, A. J., & Adams, L. E. (2022). Leadership autonomy and teacher empowerment: The impact of non- directive decision-making. Educational Leadership Review, 64(2), 220-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/123 45678.2022.1234567 Miller, R. A., & Johnson, T. E. (2020). The role of respect for teachers’ opinions in school leadership: Effects on job satisfaction and school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 567-584. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013161X20955858 Miller, R. C., & Johnson, P. T. (2022). Distributed leadership in schools: Effects on teacher performance and organizational effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(4), 567-583. https:// doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2022.1234567 Miller, T. J., & Roberts, A. L. (2022). Leadership priorities in education: Balancing personal ambitions with teacher management. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 305-321. https://doi. org/10.1177/0013161X22110567 Morallos, E. (2022). School head leadership qualities and school performance in the Pacific towns of Northern Samar. International Journal of Humanities and Innovation (IJHI), 5(2), 61-66. Naidoo, P. (2019). Perceptions of teachers and school management teams of the leadership roles of public school principals. South African Journal of Education, 39(2). https://doi.org/10.15700/saje.v39n2a1534 Nandasinghe, G. (2020). Leadership and organization performance: A review on theoretical and empirical perspectives. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 20(4-A). NFER. (2023). Reported that autonomy in professional development for teachers under effective leadership leads to improved job satisfaction and retention. School leaders who prioritize performance management systems that are developmental rather than punitive foster better morale and staff engagement. Nguyen, L. H., & Patel, R. K. (2022). Collaborative policy development and enforcement in schools: Implications for effective leadership and teacher adherence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 30(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.30.1234567 Northouse, P. (1980). Leadership: Theory and practice. SAGE. https://books.google.com.ph/books/about/ leadership.html?id=gX5ZDwAA Oco, R. M. (2022). Leadership styles of school heads and its relationship to school performance. Global Scientific Journal, 10(1). https://scholar.google.com Panaccio, A., Henderson, D. J., Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Cao, X. (2020). Toward an understanding of when and why servant leadership accounts for employee extra-role behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 30(4), 657–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869- 014-9388-z Parker, R. J., & Green, C. M. (2021). Leading people: A summary of school head competencies. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(2), 134–149. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2020-0205 Perkins, P. (2020). School climate and leadership of school administrators. Student Research Submissions, 368. https://scholar.umw.edu/student_research/368 Phuc, T. Q. B., Parveen, K., Tran, D. T. T., & Nguyen, D. T. A. (2021). The linkage between ethical leadership and lecturer job satisfaction at a private higher education institution in Vietnam. Journal of Social Science Advances, 2, 39–50. https://doi.org/10.52223/JSSA21-020202- 12 Roberts, H. J., & Wilson, G. L. (2023). The impact of doctoral education on school leadership and competence. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy, 61(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.202 3.1234567 Roberts, H. K., & Taylor, J. M. (2022). The impact of resource provision on teacher effectiveness and satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 370–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 12345678.2022.1234567 Robinson, K. L., & Adams, J. R. (2021). Collaborative problem-solving in school administration: The benefits of teacher involvement in non-emergency issues. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(3), 301– 316. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0193 Rodriguez, M. A., & Patel, V. (2021). Influencing shared ownership of educational goals: Strategies for effective school leadership. International Journal of School Leadership, 45(2), 189–204. https://doi.org/10 .1080/12345678.2021.1234567 Sahraee, F., Farhadi Rad, H., & Elhampour, H. (2021). The effects of distributive leadership style: Beyond teachers’ job satisfaction. Journal of School Administration, 9(3), 13–30. Salari, M., & Nastiezaie, N. (2020). The relationship between transformational leadership and organizational intimacy with mediating role of organizational empathy. International Journal of Psychology and Educational Studies, 7(1), 51–60. https:// doi.org/10.17220/ijpes.2020.01.005 Sanchez, J. E., Paul, J. M., & Thornton, B. W. (2020). Relationships among teachers’ perceptions of principal leadership and teachers’ perceptions of school climate in the high school setting. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–21. https://doi.or g/10.1080/13603124.2019.1708471 Pa ge 15 2 https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajahs Am. J. Arts Hum. Sci. 4(2) 130-152, 2025 Sarwar, U., Tariq, R., & Yong, Z. (2022). Principals’ leadership styles and its impact on teachers’ performance at college level. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.919693 Smith, J. A., & Brown, L. M. (2021). School heads’ leadership styles and their competencies: Implications for effective school management. Journal of Educational Leadership, 59(3), 340-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/1 0409878.2021.1234567 Sumabat, C. (2019). Secondary schools administrators’ leadership capability and performance competency: Basis for leadership capability policy guidelines. Ascendens Asia Journal of Multidisciplinary Research Abstracts / Articles, 3(2M). Supovitz, J. A., D’Auria, J., & Spillane, J. P. (2023). Meaningful & sustainable school improvement with distributed leadership (CPRE Research Report 2019, 1, 1–66). CPRE Research Reports. https://repository. upenn.edu/cpre_researchreports/112 Taylor, J. L., & Roberts, M. H. (2021). Laissez-faire leadership in educational settings: Implications for teacher autonomy and school effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(4), 543- 558. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220956321 Thompson, A. J., & Brooks, M. L. (2021). The impact of democratic leadership on school culture and teacher engagement. Journal of School Leadership, 54(1), 45-62. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2021.1234567 Torres, C. (2023). School heads’ leadership style to beginning teachers’ performance in the Schools Division of City of San Jose Del Monte. Asia Pacific Journal of Advanced Education and Technology, 2(4), 1-10. https://www.apjaet.com Tumbokon, E. (2023). Leadership competencies of public elementary school heads and its impact on job satisfaction of teachers in the District of Victoria, Division of Laguna. International Journal of Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology, 11(3). https:// doi.org/10.22214/ijraset.2023 Upendo, J., & Mkulu, D. (2020). Influence of school heads’ leadership styles on students’ academic performance in public secondary schools in Nyamagana District, Mwanza, Tanzania. International Journal of English Literature and Social Sciences, 5(6), 71-80. https://doi. org/10.22161/ijels.5.6.71 Verbo, R., Fernano, A., & Cabrera, W. (2023). Principals’ leadership style towards the implementation of decentralized school-based management in selected secondary public schools in Mandaluyong City, Philippines. International Journal of Economics Development Research, 4(1), 48-72. Wagbara, C. D. (2019). Principals’ leadership styles and administrative performance in public senior secondary schools in Rivers State [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Port Harcourt. White, J. L., & Thompson, K. R. (2021). Coaching and feedback in school leadership: Enhancing performance through technical assistance and action planning. Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 59(4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1080/1234 5678.2021.1234567 Wright, J. L., & Smith, K. R. (2021). The effects of leader recognition on teacher motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Leadership, 60(1), 85-102. https://doi.org/10.1080/12345678.2021.12 34567 Yariv, E., & Kass, E. (2019). Assisting struggling teachers effectively. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(2), 310-325. https://doi. org/10.1177/1741143217725323 Zaid, Z., Pettalongi, S. S., & Nurdin, N. (2022). Implementation of school-based management in improving the quality of State Islamic Junior High School. International Journal of Social Science and Human Research, 5(8), 3448-3455. Zagorsek, H., Dimovski, V., & Skerlavai, M. (2019). Transactional and transformational leadership impacts on organizational learning. Journal for East European Management Studies, 14(2), 144-160. Zalsos, E., & Corpuz, G. G. (2024). Academic Management and Instructional Practices of Higher Education Institutions in Lanao Del Norte: Basis for Faculty Development Plan. American Journal of Arts and Human Science, 3(2), 19–38. https://doi. org/10.54536/ajahs.v3i2.2649