Educare 4-11.indb

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

School Principals Leadership and
Teachers’ Stress Level in Malaysian

Primary Schools

Najeemah Mohd Yusof1

ABSTRACT: Teaching is a profession that needs knowledge and the practice of psychological
knowledge because this career relates directly to human. It is said that a long condition of stress could
cause an individual to retreat from his/her work whether in physical or psychological way. Thus,
a step to control the emotion was necessary for every individual. The purpose of this research was
to investigate the leadership style of principals in relation to the stress level of teachers. The Leader
Behaviour Description Questionnaire (LBDQ) measuring instrument was applied to measure the
dimensions of principals’ leadership style, initiating structure, and consideration. The teachers’
stress measuring instrument was used to measure the stress level of teachers based on principal
leadership style. Sample consists of 200 teachers from Primary Schools in Malaysia. The data
was analysed based on descriptive and inferential statistics. The findings showed that teachers
had high opinion of principals. Moreover, there was a significant relationship between teachers’
stress level and the structural and consideration dimensions of the principals’ leadership style. It
was also discovered that the teacher’s stress level had an influence with the style of headmaster’s
leadership. The factor that was identified as the main factor for work stress among the respondents
was the discipline problem among student, this was followed by the factors of the restriction of
time and source, appreciation factor, and interpersonal factor.
KEY WORDS: School principal leadership, teachers, stress level, school leadership management,
and human capital development.

Introduction

Education is an important asset to all individuals and very crucial in the
development of a country. Human capital development becomes a main drive
for the success of a country. Creating a well-balanced human capital in facing
the globalisation effect requires a suitable leadership that meet with the current
needs. A human capital that is being developed must be balanced from physical,
emotion, spiritual, intellect, and social. Therefore, the style of leadership of the
headmaster is a foundation to the development of students through the teacher’s
educating under his/her leadership. The teacher’s responsibility is becoming more
challenging not only from the education world itself but also from the society that
has put great expectations on the headmaster and teacher. Emotional stability is

Najeemah Mohd Yusof is a Lecturer at the School of Educational Studies USM (Science University
of Malaysia), USM Campus, 1180 Minden, Pulau Penang, Malaysia. She can be reached at:
najineen@usm.my

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

needed in executing all the responsibilities that are given. A good quality of school
leader becomes a main drive for the excellent schools. The leader should be able to
arrange a strategy according to the intent of the National Education Philosophy,
Education Development Objective, 2001-2010, and further paralleled with the desire
into the direction of realisation of Vision or Wawasan 2020 in Malaysia.

In this context, the leadership of teaching which involves the element of
knowledge and the process of conveying knowledge in teaching and learning,
translation, and operational curriculum, staff development, observation process,
and supervising, curriculum development and group development is being
understood and practiced by every party that is involved especially the leadership
level in the school (Haron Md Isa, 2002). In developing the world-class education
system, there are many changes and upgrades that should be done by the Ministry
of Education to strengthen the education in this country. The seriousness in
pioneering and designing to strengthen the available education system will bring
the direct or indirect affect to the main driver of the education world that is the
teacher. The positive aspect will give spirit to the teachers. Whereas, the negative
aspect will bring to the existence of negative phenomena to the teacher him/
herself. This state will contribute to the anxiety of mental health, especially the
stress among teachers.

The human life in this century is seen as the challenging and complex conditions.
The diversity of attractive and challenging life is to satisfy the needs of human. This
state has catalysed the emerging of stress phenomenon that needs special attention
to be understood. Now, stress is a phenomenon that is frequently mentioned as a
big threat to the multi-dimensional that has strong influence towards human life
(Hatta Sidi & Mohamed Hatta Shaharom, 2002). Accordingly, R. Bloona (2000)
showed that this phenomenon is now at everywhere. It has become an element in
the life journey of every individual. Besides that, stress phenomenon among the
teachers has enclosed all aspects of teacher’s life. It must be related to the cause of
individual stress, symptoms that are shown and how a teacher handles the stress
in his/her life according L.A. Slavin et al. (1991).

Background of the Study

The study about stress that is experienced by teachers was given attention.
According to Mohd Taib Dora and Hamdan Abd Kadir (2006), from the study that
was conducted by University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology
discovered that the teacher’s occupation has a high stress rate, at scale 6.2 from
the stress scale 0 until 10. This high level of teacher’s stress is contributed by the

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

change and competition of education world in facing the globalisation era. The
teachers feel compelled to carry out the duty to fulfil the expectation from many
parties such as school organisation, headmaster, the Office of District Education,
Department of State Education, Ministry of Education, and also the expectation
from students, parents, society, and country. The possibility for the style of
headmaster’s leadership in school indirectly caused the teacher’s work stress can
be measured whether high or low. There are many types of style of headmaster’s
leadership that used different approach and theory such as characteristic approach,
habit, contingency, and contemporary theory.

The style of headmaster’s leadership follows the habit theory can be seen from
the study made by Ohio State University, Michigan University, and management
grid. The study of Ohio State University found out that the style of headmaster’s
leadership from two dimensions: structural dimension and considerate dimension.
The study of Michigan University discovered that the habit of headmaster’s
leadership was producing oriented – duty. Whereas, the management grid by Robert
T. Blake and Jane Mouton (1999) concerned on human and producing.

Headmaster plays an important role at Primary School because his/her
leadership style can influence the teachers at school. The success of a headmaster
in guiding the teachers can be differentiated in style theory or leadership-oriented.
This theory can be applied by the headmaster to identify whether his/her leadership
at school is based on considerate style or concerning the structural duty. The
study of Ohio State University found out that the style of headmaster’s leadership
from two dimensions: structural dimension and considerate dimension. The style
of considerate dimension displayed that a leader should has a good relationship
with his/her workers. The leader should also confident with his/her worker’s
ability, respecting ideas, listening to other’s views, and giving attention towards
the feeling of workers. The style of concerning the structural duty emphasised
on how a leader defines his/her role and structures his/her duty and how is the
duties being handled.

Apart from the style of headmaster’s leadership, in West countries are very
concerned with works stress among the teachers where the problem has been given
attention since two decades ago. This matter can be proved by a lot of stress studies
that were conducted on the teachers (Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1978 and 1979). In this
context, C. Kyriacou and J. Sutcliffe (1978 and 1979) emphasised that over-period
stress can weaken the mental and physical and also able to significantly weaken
the teacher’s career and the performance of student because stress is said that can
harm the quality of teaching and teacher’s commitment. Whereas in Malaysia,
the study about work stress among teachers has attracted many researchers such as
Siti Radziah (1982), Ahmad Shakri (1998), and Helen Malaka et al. (2005). Thus,
it is hope that this study about the relationship between the style of headmaster’s
leadership and teacher’s stress can be done with details so that it can be used as a
reference in the future.

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

Evidences from the study of teacher’s stress showed that this problem is at a level
that needs an attention. The teachers are well aware that small stress, that is given
in executing their duty, will give benefit and affect the performance of work. But,
excessive amount of stress will reduce the performance of work and harm the health,
especially from the mental and physical of a teacher. Besides that, the decreasing in
the work satisfaction of the teachers also causes the deteriorating in work quality,
increasing in psychological confusion and work stress among the teachers (Simon,
1978). These aspects can influence the spirit, motivation, and willingness of the
teachers to maximise their teaching potential (Borget & Fazlon, 1991).

The negative effect from the stress is not only a personal problem that must be
endured by the worker him/herself, but stress is a problem to employer, organisation
or government, and also harms the mental and physical health of this group (Hassan
bin Hashim, 1994). From the relation aspect, stress and the style of headmaster’s
leadership have compensation relationship. In teaching profession, teachers reported
that a high level of work stress causes a low level of work satisfaction (Simon, 1978;
and Kyriacou & Sutcliffe, 1979). The personality influence towards work stress
can be seen through many models that put the personality as main prediction or
indicator for work stress. These models stated that the interaction between many
personality traits and types of occupation can create work stress (Feidler, 1994).
According to R. Bloona (2000), personality trait has genetic element that create
the individual difference in facing the psychological reaction.

Objectives, Research Questions, Hypothesis,
and Purpose of the Study

The objectives of this study are: (1) to identify the style of headmaster’s leadership
through the teacher’s view; (2) to identify the level of teacher’s stress; and (3) to
identify whether there is a significant relationship between the style of headmaster’s
leadership and teacher’s stress.

The research questions of this study that are need to be answered are: (1) What
is the style of headmaster’s leadership through the teacher’s view?; (2) What is the
level of stress?; and (3) Is there any relationship between the style of headmaster’s
leadership and teacher’s stress?

The hypotheses of this study are: (1) Ho 1 = There is no significant relationship
between the style of headmaster’s leadership and the level of teacher’s stress; (2)
Ho 1.1 = There is no significant relationship between the style of headmaster’s
leadership or structural dimension and the level of teacher’s stress; and (3) Ho 1.2
= There is no significant relationship between the style of headmaster’s leadership
or considerate dimension between the level of teacher’s stress.

Finally, the purpose of this research was to study about teacher’s stress towards
the style of headmaster’s leadership at eight schools in the West Coast of Malaysia.
This researcher also wanted to find a strong relationship between the style of
headmaster’s leadership and teacher’s stress at school. For understanding and

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

supporting the purpose in this research, the diagram on framework for the concept
of study is as follows:

Literature Review

On the Leadership Styles. According to F.E. Feidler (1994), the style of leadership
is a structural need that motivates the leader’s behaviour in many different of
leadership situations. Ainon Mohd (2005) also said that the difference in the
style of leadership has an important impact on the productivity of the individuals
that is lead. Therefore, the knowledge about the style of leadership enables a
leader to become more confident and expert in management, administration, and
leadership.

The style of autocracy, democracy, and laissez faire were introduced by K. Lewin,
R. Lippit & R.K. White (1994). The characteristics for autocratic, democratic, and
laissez-faire style as the following:

First, Characteristics of autocratic style are: (1) the leader determines all
the policies; (2) the techniques and steps to achieve the goal are directed by the
leader, there is one goal only from one moment of time until future which always
uncertain; and (3) the tasks and colleagues are determined by the leader; (4) the
leader is personal in giving a praise or critic towards the work of every member
without giving any objective reason. He/she does not involve in group activities
unless when showing something.

Second, Characteristics of democratic style are: (1) all policies are determined
by a group of people that is formed and supported by the leader; (2) all activities
that will be noticed by the members, will understand from the explanation given
about the common steps in first discussion. If the group needs a technical advice,
the leader will give two or three alternative procedure that can be chosen by the
group; (3) the groups are free to work with anybody they like and the division of
task is handed over to the group; and (4) the leader tries to behave with objective
in giving a praise and critic. He/she involves in the group activities with high spirit
and also does not intervene in the work matter.

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

Third, Characteristics of laissez faire style are: (1) the leader gives an autonomy
in the way of working; and (2) the leader only intervenes when an opinion is
asked.

The style of autocracy, democracy, and laissez faire are differentiated by the
level and role of a leader on his workers. The leader with autocratic style is more
likely to give a command, task-oriented, and centred to the leader. The leader with
democratic style allows the chief and his/her workers to move and work together
in making decision. The leader with laissez-faire style shows that there no role for a
leader in an organisation. Style for concerning the structural task explains how far
a leader defines his/her role in determining the structure towards his/her task. The
headmaster also arranges the work of his/her staff. This type of headmaster always
orders group activities, makes a work list of his staff and tries new ideas. These
measurements create work satisfaction. The considerate style explains how far a
headmaster has a good relationship with his/her staff and teachers. This style needs
the headmaster to feel confident on the ability of teachers. The headmaster should
be concerned, respecting ideas, hearing opinions, and considering towards the
feeling of teachers and staff. These measurements need two-way communications
and can produce work satisfaction. These two dimensions, when is combined,
will form four types of behavioural style that contain whether high or low in both
dimensions or whether high or low in one of the dimensions.

On the Definition and Concept of Stress. TCCDT (Times Chambers Combine
Dictionary Thesaurus) in Times Language Dictionary (1995) defined stress as anxious
feeling that is experienced by a person that is caused by certain events that happen
in life. Stress is also an individual reaction whether from physical or emotional
aspect or both aspects that can cause disturbance not only to psychology but also
physical. It means that stress can cause a negative effect to a person.

The word stress actually originated from the word eustres that carry the meaning
for adapting ourselves or stress build-up. This word also originated from the word
“distress” that means cannot adapt or can harm ourselves. Thus, stress is a situation
that disturbs or builds our daily life. Stress, from the view of language, also carries
the meaning for the pressure where it is a nature of life (Harunsani Zakaria, 2006).
Stress is a frequent phenomenon that is mentioned as a big threat towards the
mental health of universal human.

As a unique human group, stress among the teachers should be viewed from
occupation aspect and personal life overall. A teacher that has his/her own personal
life is different with other careers. Stress that exists in this profession will also affect
the teacher’s life. The same thing also happens to the performance of work when
the personal life of a teacher is affected by stress. This statement is supported by
Hans Selye (1990) who shows that it is very difficult for a person to forget family
problem at home when working. And also if there is a problem at workplace, it
is not difficult for that individual to think about the problem when he is together
with his family.

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

Diagram 1:
Several Types of Pressure that is Faced by Human.

(Source: Hans Selye, 1990)

On the Factors for Teacher Stress and Stress Theory. The behaviour and
personality of a person will decide his/her ability to confront with stress. However,
the ways of confronting or handling the stress cannot be applied effectively without
knowing the factors that cause the stress problem. In the teaching profession,
stress is an inevitable problem that will be confronted by to those who are called
teacher. This profession contains a lot of work situation elements that can cause
stress problem especially when the person needs to face with lots of students all
day (Noorazifah bt Md Suandi, 2008).

Among the factors that cause teacher’s stress are depersonalisation, self
success, lacks of emotion, heavy workload, interpersonal relationship, and work
environment. Depersonalisation is referred to the state of emotional of a teacher
such as the way of communicating with student and how a teacher overcomes his/
her student’s problem. Self success is referred to the way of a teacher achieves the
success in making his/her students achieves a good result in examination. Lack of
emotion is referred to the strong feeling of a teacher in carrying out his/her duty
without feeling angry, sad, and sentimental. Work environment such as condition
of class environment and study facilities also affects the teachers in carrying out
their duty.

Harun Arrasyid Haji Tuskan (2006) said that stress problem is caused by the
physical and psychological state. The physical state that is dirty, noisy, crowded
whether at house or workplace and physical disease that is experienced contributes
to the feeling of pressure to an individual. Stress that is caused by psychological
factor exists if the change needed an adaptation such as: (1) A change at workplace
such as employer, colleague, or a new environment; (2) Starting a marriage; (3)
Losing of beloved person or property; and (4) Feeling afraid or threatened. For
example, coming late to workplace, feeling guilty to the things that has been done,
or fail to fulfil the target.

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

According to Mohd Azhar Abd Hamid (2004), the elements that cause the
stress problem in human life are: (1) Stress factor that is self external factor and
self inner factor. Self external factor of an individual consists of organisation or
employer factor, occupation, career, and social relationship. Self internal factor is
disappointment, anxiety, losing, loneliness, failure, and lack of source; (2) Building
of behaviour; and (3) Individual reaction and the meaning of his relationship with
stress factor.

Meanwhile, according to Dr. Hans Selye, the founder of stress theory, stress is
a reaction symptom that is not specified by an individual towards the burden that
comes in the anxiety shape, that is caused by a challenge, threat, or change that
needs a response (Selye, 1980).

There are four theories from Mohd Salleh Lebar (1994) that related with the
concept of life pressure, namely: (1) Stress from the angle of psychodynamic theory;
(2) View of behaviourism about stress; (3) Mind and stress; and (4) Biological
influence towards stress.

On the stress from the angle of psychodynamic theory, Sigmund Freud
introduced the theory of psychodynamic that relates the anxiety with stress that
is experienced by human. A person that experiences the stress will also experience
psychodynamic, a disease that is related to mental-emotion disturbance and physical
pain. The signs of this disease are asthma, migraine, high blood pressure, and
pale. Meanwhile, about view of behaviourism towards stress, according the view
of behaviourism, human that confronts the stress will have several behaviour like
does not perform the job with systematic, smokes heavily or increase the intake of
alcohol, taking a lot medications to cure the stress, easy to forget about something,
grasp in fist without any intention, increase or decrease in appetite, and biting the
nail or pluck out the hair.

Variable and Instrument of Study

In this study, there are two variables: dependent variable and independent variable.
The dependent variable of this study is the level of teacher’s stress. The level of
teacher’s stress is given in a level whether it is low, moderate, or high. The decision
for the teacher’s stress level is made based on the min score of the respondent
towards stress level that is felt from the style of headmaster’s leadership. The
independent variable of this study is the factors of respondent’s demography such
as sex, age, teaching experience, and marital status. These independent variables
will affect to the dependent variable.

According to Mohamad Najib Ghafar (1998), the instrument in the form of
inquiry was easy to handle after well built and the data was easy to be processed
for analysing. The instrument of this study was divided into three part: Part A
(demography), Part B (inquiry about the style of headmaster’s leadership), and
Part C (inquiry about the level of teacher’s stress).

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Diagram 2:
The Relationship between Independent Variable and Dependent Variable

Part C represented an inquiry about the level of teacher’s stress that was built by
researcher with the way of modifying all items in Part B and it was adjusted with
the level of teacher’s stress. Part C contained items to get the information about
teacher’s stress level according to the item for the style of headmaster’s leadership
that was practiced whether it was structural or considerate dimension. This inquiry
contained 30 items to measure the level of teacher’s stress in confronting the style
of headmaster’s leadership based on two dimensional leaderships given. Every
item contained five optional answers that had the degree of agreeing in the form
five-point scale. The position of the scales were 1 (no pressure), 2 (slight pressure),
3 (fair pressure), 4 (absolute pressure), and 5 (extreme pressure). The negative
items were coded back in the form of positive and the mark was given as follows:
1 (extreme pressure), 2 (absolute pressure), 3 (fair pressure), 4 (slight pressure),
and 5 (no pressure).

Table 1:
Total Score for Teacher’s Stress Level

Stress Level Point Min
Highest Score 150 5

Lowest Score 30 1

Table 2:
Answer Scale for the Teacher’s Stress Level Enquiry

Work Pressure Level
Point

Positive Question Negative Question
No Pressure 1 5

Slight Pressure 2 4

Fair Pressure 3 3

Absolute Pressure 4 2

Extreme Pressure 5 1

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

The determination of teacher’s stress level can be seen from the min obtained.
The minimum score is determined by calculation method. Every item had 1 until
5 points. The total minimum score for the teacher’s work pressure is 30 points (30
items x 1 point). The total minimum score is used to determine the teacher’s work
pressure level either the highest or the lowest.

Findings of the Study

On the descriptive analysis of level of the headmaster’s leadership style or structural
dimension is able to be seen in the table as follows:

Table 3:
Descriptive Analysis of Level of the Headmaster’s Leadership Style or Structural Dimension

Item
Number

Description
Frequency & Percentage (%)

Min
TP JJ SS KK S

1.
He ensured that his
attitude was easy to be
understood by teacher.

0 0 66 134 0
4.33

0.0 0.0 33.0 67.0 0.0

4.
He was easy to try new
ideas with teacher.

0 1 4 134 61
4.28

0 0.5 2.0 67.0 30.5

6.
He administered with
compulsion.

2 4 3 131 60
4.22

1.0 2.0 1.5 65.5 30.0

8.
He criticised the works
of teacher that was not
good enough.

0 4 3 122 71
4.30

0 2.0 1.5 61.0 35.5

9.
He spoke in the
way that cannot be
questioned.

1 1 1 128 69
4.32

0.5 0.5 0.5 64.0 34.5

12.
He decided certain
tasks for every teacher.

0 0 2 109 89
4.44

0 0 1.0 54.5 44.5

13.
He decided the work
schedule that was need
to be executed.

0 0 1 116 83
4.41

0 0 0.5 58.0 41.5

14.
He maintained a
regular achievement.

0 1 1 121 77
4.37

0 0.5 0.5 60.5 38.5

18.

He concerned the all
works that were given
must be met with
deadline.

1 4 0 121 74
4.32

0.5 2.0 0 60.5 37.0

20.
He encouraged teacher
to use a same work
procedure.

0 2 3 123 72
4.33

0 1.0 1.5 61.5 36.0

22.
He made sure that all
teachers understood
his role in school.

1 0 3 117 79
4.37

0.5 0 1.5 58.5 39.5

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

24.

He asked teacher to
follow all the rules and
work conditions that
had been fixed.

1 0 1 115 83

4.40
0.5 0 0.5 57.5 41.5

26.
He explained to
all teachers his
expectations.

1 0 2 121 76
4.36

0.5 0 1.0 60.5 38.0

28.

He decided that all
teachers must perform
their duty with full
commitment.

0 0 2 114 84
4.41

0 0 1 .0 57.0 42.0

30.
He made sure that all
teachers’ tasks were
adjusted.

1 1 1 97 100
4.47

0.5 0.5 0.5 48.5 50.0

Overall Min 4.35

Table 3 above shows that the distribution of respondents’ perception towards
the style of the headmaster’s leadership according to structural dimension. The
result of analysis shows that all items displayed min value at a high level. From the
analysis, it is discovered that the min value of every statement is from 4.22 until
4.47. The overall min value of item for structural dimension is 4.35 which was a
high level. It pictures that all the headmasters of school from this study practices
a high style of headmaster’s leadership with structural dimension. From the result
of study, it is known that a high style of headmaster’s leadership can cause the
teachers in school to be pressured and indirectly affect the performance of teacher
during teaching in class.

Table 4:
Descriptive Analysis of the Style of Headmaster’s Leadership or Considerate Dimension

Item
Number

Statement
Frequency & Percentage (%)

Min
TP JJ SS KK S

1.
He offered personal help to
teachers.

8 14 53 104 21
3.58

4.0 7.0 26.5 52.0 10.5

3.
He did several works to make
himself comfortable as a
member of school society.

3 14 45 109 29
3.74

1.5 7.0 22.5 54.5 14.5

5.
He was easy to be
understood.

7 18 58 79 38
3.62

3.5 9.0 29.0 39.50 19.0

7.
He was willing to spend
time to give an attention to
teacher.

7 21 46 91 35
3.63

3.5 10.5 23.0 45.5 17.5

10. He loved to be alone.
26 31 33 84 26

3.27
13.0 15.5 16.5 42.0 17.5

11.
He cared about the welfare of
teacher.

7 13 47 100 33
3.70

3.5 6.5 23.5 50.0 16.5

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

15.
He was unwilling to explain
all his actions.

16 31 41 85 27
3.38

8.0 15.5 20.5 42.5 13.5

16.
He acted without negotiating
with teacher.

10 28 39 91 32
3.54

5.0 14.0 19.5 45.5 16.0

17.
He supported all teachers’
action.

3 22 49 91 35
3.67

1.5 11.0 24.5 45.5 17.5

19.
He assumed that all teachers
were same level with him.

12 24 50 79 35
3.51

6.0 12.0 25.0 39.5 17.5

21.
He was ready to make a big
change.

3 15 39 94 49
3.86

1.5 7.5 19.5 47.0 24.5

23.
He was very warm and
friendly to all teachers.

10 10 45 103 32
3.69

5.0 5.0 22.5 51.5 16.0

25.
The teachers were
comfortable when discussing
with him.

5 19 52 90 34
3.65

2.5 9.5 26.0 45.0 17.0

27.
He executed the suggestions
that were put forward by
teachers.

6 14 57 89 34
3.66

3.0 7.0 28.5 44.5 17.0

29.
He got a permission from the
teachers first before continuing
an important work.

5 27 47 63 58
3.71

2.5 13.5 23.5 31.5 29.0

Overall Min 3.58

Table 4 above shows the distribution of respondent’s perception towards the style
of headmaster’s leadership according to considerate dimension. The result of this
analysis shows that all items displayed a high min value. From the analysis also, it
is found out that every min value of the statement is around 3.27 until 3.86. The
overall min of item for considerate dimension is 3.57 which is a high value. In the
style of headmaster’s leadership, considerate dimension aspect with teacher is very
important. A headmaster that is caring for each teacher’s welfare and becomes a
good listener to the teachers especially in helping the teacher’s problem will create
a more effective learning environment.

Table 5:
Descriptive Analysis of Teacher’s Stress Level

Item
Number

Statement
Frequency & Percentage (%)

Min
NH LP FP AP EP

1.
He did not offer any personal
help to the teachers.

2 80 74 43 1
3.20

1.0 40.0 37.0 21.5 0.5

2.
He did not ensure that his
attitude to be understood by
the teachers.

6 102 56 31 5
3.37

3.0 51.0 28.0 15.5 2.5

3.
He did several works to make
himself comfortable as a
member of school society.

18 97 63 19 3
3.54

9.0 48.5 31.5 9.5 1.5

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

4.
He was proactive in
trying new ideas in his
administration.

11 107 39 37 6
3.40

5.5 53.5 19.5 18.5 3.0

5.
He was hard to be
understood.

11 80 45 48 16
3.11

5.5 40.0 22.5 24.0 8.0

6.
He administered with
compulsion.

17 77 35 40 31
3.05

8.5 38.5 17.5 20.0 15.5

7.
He did not spend any time
to give an attention towards
teacher.

16 80 50 46 8
3.25

8.0 40.0 25.0 23.0 4.0

8.
He criticised the works of
teacher that is not good
enough.

11 85 40 47 17
3.13

5.5 42.5 20.0 23.5 8.5

9.
He spoke in the way that
cannot be questioned.

11 84 40 38 27
3.07

5.5 42.0 20.0 19.0 13.5

10.
He did not like to mix with
the school society.

13 90 39 39 19
3.20

6.5 45.0 19.5 19.5 6.5

11.
He did not care about the
welfare of the teachers as an
individual.

17 92 39 39 19
3.31

8.5 46.0 19.5 19.5 6.5

12.
He did not decide certain
tasks for every teacher.

18 89 49 37 7
3.37

9.0 44.5 24.5 18.5 3.5

13.
He did not decide the work
schedule that is need to be
executed.

23 81 50 40 6
3.38

11.5 40.5 25.0 20.0 3.0

14.
He did not maintain a
regular achievement.

10 89 52 44 5
3.28

5.0 44.5 26.0 22.0 2.5

15.
He was unwilling to explain
all his actions.

11 73 46 55 15
3.05

5.5 36.5 23.0 27.5 9.5

16.
He acted without negotiating
with the teachers.

7 83 36 55 19
3.02

3.5 41.5 18.0 27.5 9.5

17.
He did not support all the
actions that had been done
by the teachers.

6 88 41 45 20
3.08

3.0 44.0 20.5 22.5 10.0

18.
He did not concern all the
works that were given must
be met with the deadline.

14 95 39 40 12
3.30

7.0 47.5 19.5 20.0 6.0

19.
He assumed that all teachers
were not at same level with
himself.

12 72 71 35 10
3.21

6.0 36.0 35.5 17.5 5.0

20.
He did not encourage all
teachers practiced the same
work procedure.

10 84 44 58 4
3.19

5.0 42.0 22.0 29.0 2.0

21.
He did not ready to make a
big change.

16 80 48 51 5
3.49

8.0 40.0 24.0 25.5 2.5

22.
He ensured that all teachers
understood his role at school.

23 89 54 31 3
3.49

11.5 44.5 27.0 15.5 1.5

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

23.
He was not friendly and
warm.

3 80 47 47 23
2.97

1.5 40.0 23.5 23.5 11.5

24.

He asked teacher to follow
all the rules and work
conditions that had been
fixed.

15 83 36 50 16

3.16
7.5 41.5 18.0 25.0 8.0

25.
He was not easy to discuss
with teacher.

14 70 42 47 27
2.99

7.0 35.0 21.0 23.5 13.5

26.
He did not explain to teacher
his expectations.

10 90 46 44 10
3.23

5.0 45.0 23.0 22.0 5.0

27.
He did not execute all the
plans that is bring forward by
the teachers.

9 74 60 52 5
3.15

4.5 37.0 30.0 26.0 2.5

28.
He did not make sure that all
teachers performed the duty
with commitment.

11 85 56 42 6
3.27

5.5 42.5 28.0 21.0 3.0

29.

He did not get a permission
from the teachers before
continuing an important
work.

9 76 50 49 16

3.27
5.5 42.5 28.0 21.0 3.0

30.
He did not adjust the
teacher’s task.

10 76 57 40 17
3.11

5.0 38.0 28.5 20.0 8.5

Overall Min 3.20

Table 5 above shows the distribution of respondent’s perception to the teacher’s
stress level in school organisation. The result of analysis shows that all items
displayed an average level of min value. From the analysis, it is found out that
every min value of the statement is around 2.97 until 3.54. The overall min of item
for teacher’s stress level is 3.20 which is a moderate level. This shows that not all
teachers can handle the pressure when there is a change at school. The result of
analysis showed that every teacher had a medium preparation for preparing any
pressure that has to be faced. Therefore, teacher’s stress still exists if the school
party, like the headmaster that is stressed, will cause an emotional problem among
the teachers at school.

Table 6:
Analysis of Result for the Level of Style of Headmaster’s Leadership and Teacher’s Stress at School

(Findings of Descriptive Analysis)

Variable Average Min Level

The Style of Headmaster’s Leadership (Structural Dimension) 4.35 High

The Style of Headmaster’s Leadership (Considerate Dimension) 3.58 High

Teacher’s Stress Level 3.20 Moderate

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

Table 7:
The Scale of Stress Level (Findings of Descriptive Analysis)

Scale Category
1.00 – 2.33 Slight Pressure/Low

2.34 – 3.66 Fair Pressure/Moderate

3.67 – 5.00 Absolute Pressure/High

From the overall analysis above, it is found out that the level for the style of
headmaster’s leadership in structural dimension and considerate dimension are at
a higher level as shown in the table 6. Only teacher’s stress level is at a moderate
level or fair pressure as shown in table 7.

On the other sides, inference analysis was used to obtain a result of hypothesis
experiment that was built by researcher. One of the statistics that was used was
Pearson Correlation. Results are shown in table below.

Table 8:
Analysis of Result for the Relationship between the Style of Headmaster’s Leadership with Teacher’s

Stress

Variable Stress P Definition

Style of Headmaster’s Leadership 0.455 0.000
Moderate correlation, the
connection is strong and firm.

Style of Headmaster’s Leadership
(Structural Dimension) 0.433 0.000

Moderate correlation, the
connection is strong and firm.

Style of Headmaster’s Leadership
(Considerate Dimension) 0.413 0.000

Moderate correlation, the
connection is strong and firm.

*Significant at level p≤0.05

Table 8 above showed that there is a significance relationship between teacher’s
stress with the style of headmaster’s leadership (structural and considerate
dimension), that is every relationship shows its own significant value 0.000 which
is less than the level of significant (0.05). Based on the table above, it is discovered
that a connection between teacher’s stress and the style of headmaster’s leadership
(structural and considerate dimension) has a moderate correlation value, strong
and firm connection. And also the connection between teacher’s stress and the
style of headmaster’s leadership has a moderate correlation value, strong and firm
connection.

Discussion, Implication, and Conclusion of the Study

The first objective of this study was to identify the style of headmaster’s leadership
from the teacher’s view whether structural or considerate style. The result of this
study found out that the style of headmaster’s leadership from the view of 200
respondents among the teacher’s was a high level at structural style (min = 4.35)
and considerate style (min = 3.58). This result is supported by the study that was

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

conducted by Suaidah Ahmad (1983) who had found out that the percentage of
headmasters that practiced the act of consideration and structural main drive was
high.

While the second objective was to identify the level of teacher’s stress. The
result of this study discovered that the level of teacher’s stress according to the
view of 200 respondents among the teachers was at a moderate level or absolute
pressure (min = 3.20). The third objective of this study was to identify whether
there was a significant relationship between the styles of headmaster’s leadership
with teacher’s stress. Therefore, there was a relationship between the styles of
headmaster’s leadership with teacher’s stress. According to Rowntree, as cited in
Mohamad Najib Ghafar (1998), this value showed a moderate relationship. The
result of this study supported Sadri Hj Kormin’s study (1998) who had found out
that the headmasters tend to have a positive relationship with the teacher’s work
pressure.

Suaidah Ahmad (1983) also discovered that the behaviour for structural
main drive was related to the pressure in a positive way. The level for the style
of headmaster’s leadership (structural and considerate dimension) was at a high
level. Only the level of teacher’s stress at a moderate level. The result for the
hypothesis experiment that was conducted discovered that all hypotheses for
this experiment were rejected. The result of this study showed that there was a
significant relationship between the style of headmaster’s leadership (structural
and considerate dimension) with teacher’s stress.

This study was conducted as an effort to increase and expand more knowledge
about the style of headmaster’s leadership from the dimension that emphasised on
structure and consideration and its relationship with the level of teacher’s stress
according to the style of headmaster’s leadership. This matter needs to be known
to observe the level of teacher’s stress according to the style of headmaster’s
leadership through the view of teacher. This matter is necessary for the party
that is related with education program whether school, district education office,
state or ministry to plan a preventing program so that the teacher’s stress is in a
controlled situation.

This part will discuss the implication and conclusion of the study. Based on
the study, it was discovered that the style of headmaster’s leadership in both
dimensions, structural and considerate was high according from the teacher’s view.
Some of the items in both dimensions have min. value around 3.00 until 4.00. This
showed that the headmaster in schools, that are studied, had practiced a high style
of headmaster’s leadership in both dimensions.

This study also found out that there was a significant relationship between
the style of headmaster’s leadership (structural dimension) with the teacher’s
stress level (r = 0.433 and p = 0.000). This relationship was at a high level which
meant the higher the style of headmaster’s leadership (structural dimension), the
higher the teacher’s stress level. However, the level of teacher’s stress was different
according to the items in the inquiry form since the relationship was at a moderate
correlation only.

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

This study discovered that there was a significant relationship between the styles
of headmaster’s leadership (considerate dimension) with the teacher’s stress level.
The result of this study found out that whatever the style of headmaster’s leadership,
there is must for a teacher feels an extreme pressure. This was shown by the result
of study that showed a high level (r = 0.413 and p = 0.000). The relationship was
a moderate correlation and had strong and firm connection. It explained that why
the relationship between the styles of leadership for both dimensions with teacher’s
stress level was at a high level and there was a significant relationship. According
to the study that was conducted by Azizi Yahya Shahrin Hashim et al. (2007), it
was discovered that the teacher’s stress level had an influence with the style of
headmaster’s leadership. The factor that was identified as the main factor for work
stress among the respondents was the discipline problem among students (min =
3.43). This was followed by the factor of the restriction of time and source (min =
2.97), appreciation factor (min = 2.90), and interpersonal factor (min = 2.85).

Teaching is a profession that needs knowledge and the practice of psychological
knowledge because this career relates directly to human. Watts and Short, as cited
by Noorazifah bt Md Suandi (2008), said that a long condition of stress could cause
an individual to retreat from his/her work whether in physical or psychological
way. Thus, a step to control the emotion was necessary for every individual.

According to Mohd Azhar Abd Hamid (2004), the first step in adapting to
the stress was to identify the level of pressure that was experienced. This step
can be done by understanding the process and effect of pressure, identifying the
main causes of pressure, identifying and knowing when the pressure occurs or
will occur, creating several ways to overcome the pressure, training ourselves to
overcome the pressure with the way that is already determined, and knowing the
form of pressure that can help us to expand our potential. An individual needs to
know him/herself first so that he/she can handle the pressure that is faced. The
ability to know ourselves and handling the pressure will make an individual can
overcome any form of pressure in the state of stable emotion.

References

Ahmad Shakri. (1998). “Tinjauan Tahap dan Punca Stres di Kalangan Guru-guru Sekolah
Menengah di Negeri Perlis, Malaysia”. Unpublished Research Report. Johor, Malaysia: Projek
Sarjana Muda Teknologi Serta Pendidikan UTM [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

Ainon Mohd. (2005). Teori dan Teknik Kepimpinan: Panduan Aplikasi di Tempat Kerja. Pahang: PTS
Profesional.

Aizat Mohd Nasurdin, Intan Osman & Zainal Ariffin Ahmad. (2006). Pengantar Pengurusan. Kuala
Lumpur: Utusan Publication & Distributors.

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

Aminudin Moh Yusof. (1990). Siri Analisis Psikologi: Kepimpinan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa
dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Anthony Yeo. (1985). A Helping Hand: Coping with Personal Problem. Singapore: Time Books
International.

Azizi bin Hj Yahya Mazeni bt Ismail. (2004). “Faktor-faktor yang Mempengaruhi Stres di Kalangan
Guru-guru Sekolah Menengah di Empat Buah Negeri di Malaysia”. Paper presented in the
Seminar Antarabangsa Nilai dalam Komuniti Pascamodenisme at Hotel City Bayview,
Langkawi, Malaysia: 4-6 September.

Azizi Yahya Shahrin Hashim et al. (2007). Menguasai Penyelidikan dalam Pendidikan: Teori, Analisis
& Interpretasi Data. Kuala Lumpur: PTS Profesional Sdn.Bhd.

Bahari Fazli. (2003). “Work Stress Level amongst Secondary School Teachers in the State of
Malacca: Implications to Human Resource Development”. Unpublished Master Thesis. Sintok,
Kedah: UUM [Universiti Utara Malaysia].

Bartol, Kathryn M. & David C. Martin. (2006). “Management” in Aizzat Mohd Nasurdin,
Intan Osman & Zainal Ariffin Ahmad [eds]. Pengantar Pengurusan. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan
Publication & Distributors.

Blake, T. Robert & Jane Mouton. (1999). “Evaluating Social Science Research: An Introduction”
in Mohd Najib Abd Ghafar [ed]. Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Johor Baru: UTM [Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia].

Bloona, R. (2000). Coping with Stress in a Changing World. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Borg, Walter R. & Meredith D. Gall. (1983). Educational Research: An Introduction. New York:

Longman.
Borget, M.G. & J.M. Fazlon. (1991). “Sources of Teachers Stress in Maltese Primary’s School” in

Research in Education, Vol.4, pp.44-49.
Bradford et al. (1984). Meaning for Excellence: The Guide for Developing High Performance in Contemporary

Organization. New York: John Wiley.
Crow & Crow. (1983). Psikologi Pendidikan untuk Perguruan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan

Pustaka, Translated by Habibah Elias.
Feidler, F.E. (1994). “A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness” in Aminuddin Mohd Yusof [ed].

Kepimpinan, Motivasi, dan Prestasi: Model Guru dan Tentera. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan
Pustaka.

Fleishman, E.A. (1990). “Twenty Years of Consideration and Structure” in Aminudin Mohd
Yusof [ed]. Siri Analisis Psikologi: Kepimpinan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka,
Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Hamdiah Othman. (1996). “Correlates of Stress among Secondary School Teachers in Penang”.
Unpublished Master Thesis. Sintok, Kedah: UUM [Universiti Utara Malaysia].

Haron Md Isa. (2002). “Kepimpinan Instruksional Pengetua”. Paper presented in the Seminar
Nasional ke-11, Institut Aminuddin Baki.

Harun Arrasyid Haji Tuskan. (2006). Menangani Konflik Emosi Menurut Pandangan Islam. Selangor
D.E., Malaysia: Edusystem Sdn.Bhd.

Harunsani Zakaria. (2006). “Stres Mengikut Pandangan Islam” in Mohd Taib Dora & Hamdan
Abd Kadir [ed]. Mengurus Stres. Selangor D.E., Malaysia: PTS Profesional.

Hassan bin Hashim. (1994). “Pengurusan Stres dan Kesan Terhadap Kualiti Kerja” in Buletin
PKPSM Perak, 1(3), pp.15-17.

Hatta Sidi & Mohamed Hatta Shaharom. (2002). Mengurus Stres: Pendekatan yang Praktikal. Kuala
Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka.

Helen Malaka et al. (2005). “Hubungan Punca Stres dengan Tahap Stres di Kalangan Guru-guru
Sekolah Menengah Agama Johor Baru”. Paper presented in the National Seminar at Fakulti
Pendidikan UTM [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia], 15 October.

Herzberg, F. (1966). “How Do You Motivate Employees?” in Harvard Business Review I, 46.
Hussein Mahmood. (1993). Kepimpinan dan Keberkesanan Sekolah. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa

dan Pustaka.
Krejcie, R.V. & D.W. Morgan. (1970). “Determining Size for Research Activities” in Educational

and Psychological Measurement, 30, pp.607-610.

EDUCARE:
International Journal for Educational Studies, 4(1) 2011

Kyriacou, C. & J. Sutcliffe. (1978). “A Model of Teacher Stress” in Educational Studies, 4(1), pp.1-6.
Kyriacou, C. & J. Sutcliffe. (1979). “Teacher Stress and Satisfaction” in Education Research, 21,

pp.89-96.
Lewin K., R. Lippit & R.K. White. (1994). “Pattern of Aggressive Behaviour in Experimentally

Created Social Climates” in Aminuddin Mohd Yusof [ed]. Kepimpinan, Motivasi, dan Prestasi:
Model Guru dan Tentera. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pendidikan
Malaysia.

Mahmood Nazar Mohamed. (1990). Pengantar Psikologi: Satu Pengenalan Asas kepada Jiwa dan
Tingkah-Laku Manusia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pendidikan
Malaysia.

McGregor, D. (1990). “Leadership and Motivation” in Aminuddin Mohd Yusof [ed]. Siri Analisis
Psikologi: Kepimpinan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pendidikan
Malaysia.

Mohamad Najib Ghafar. (1998). Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Skudai: Fakulti Pendidikan UTM
[Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

Mohd Azhar Abd Hamid. (2004). EQ: Panduan Meningkatkan Kecerdasan Emosi. Pahang: PTS
Publication & Distributors.

Mohd Majid Konting. (1990). Kaedah Penyelidikan Pendidikan. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan Bahasa &
Pustaka.

Mohd Salleh Lebar. (1994). Asas Psikologi Perkembangan. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publication &
Distributor.

Mohd Taib Dora & Hamdan Abd Kadir. (2006). Mengurus Stres. Selangor D.E., Malaysia: PTS
Profesional.

Mohd Tajuddin Md Safian. (2007). “Kesan Aspek Kesihatan terhadap Produktiviti Kerja dalam
Kalangan Pensyarah Maktab Perguruan”. Unpublished Master Thesis. Pulau Penang: USM
[Universiti Sains Malaysia].

Noorazifah bt Md Suandi. (2008). Kajian Terhadap Stres di Kalangan Guru Sekolah Rendah di Zon
Permas Jaya, Johor Baru, Malaysia dari Aspek Personaliti. Johor Baru: Fakulti Pendidikan UTM
[Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

Omardin Ashaari. (1931). Pengurusan Sekolah. Kuala Lumpur: Utusan Publications & Distributors
Sdn.Bhd.

Rahimah, A. & F.H. Tie [eds]. (2004). Kepengetuaan dan Kepimpinan Sekolah: Perspektif Pengamal.
Kuala Lumpur: Institut Pengetua UM [Universiti Malaya].

Sadri Hj Kormin. (1998). “Tingkah-Laku Kepimpinan Pengetua dan Hubungannya Dengan
Kepuasan, Tekanan, dan Prestasi Kerja Guru-guru Sekolah Menengah Daerah Bera”.
Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Skudai: UTM [Universiti Teknologi Malaysia].

Sala, F. (2002). Emotional Competence Inventory (ECI): Technical Manual. New York: Hay Group,
McClelland Center Research and Innovation.

Selye, Hans. (1990). “The Stress Concept Today” in Mahmood Nazar Mohamed [ed]. Pengantar
Psikologi: Satu Pengenalan Asas Kepada Jiwa dan Tingkah-Laku Manusia. Kuala Lumpur: Dewan
Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia.

Simon. (1978). “Teacher Stress and Burnout” in Organizing Systems to Support Competent Social
Behavior in Children and Youth, Volume III. New York: Longman.

Siti Radziah. (1982). Stress and Mental Health in Society. Singapore: Heinemann Publishers Asia
Pt.Ltd.

Slavin, L.A. et al. (1991). “Toward a Multicultural Model of the Stress Process” in Journal of
Counselling & Development, 70, pp.156-162.

Suaidah Ahmad. (1983). “Tingkah-Laku Kepimpinan Guru Besar dan Hubungannya dengan
Kepuasan, Tekanan, dan Prestasi Kerja Guru”. Unpublished BA.Hons. Academic Exercise. Bangi,
Selangor D.E.: Fakulti Pendidikan UKM [Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia].

TCCDT [Times Chambers Combine Dictionary Thesaurus]. (1995). Times Language Dictionary.
Singapore: Federal Publications.

NAJEEMAH MOHD YUSOF,
School Principals Leadership and Teachers’ Stress Level

Teaching is a profession that needs knowledge and the practice of psychological knowledge because this
career relates directly to human. It is said that a long condition of stress could cause an individual to
retreat from his/her work whether in physical or psychological way. Thus, a step to control the emotion

was necessary for every individual.