Leadership Styles of the School Heads that Influence the Implementation of School-Based Management


Authors : Jojie G. Gile; Danilo E. Despi

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 12 - December


Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3s3zx5yf

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/5ba43ftz

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25dec1005

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.


Abstract : This qualitative study explored the lived experiences and viewpoints of teachers in the Irosin District during the 2025–2026 academic year to create a clearer understanding of the complex processes in implementing School-Based Management (SBM). Guided by four research questions, the study examined teachers’ interpretations of school heads’ leadership styles, how these styles shape school culture, transparency, and accountability, the challenges faced in leading instructional improvement, and the development of a responsive leadership training program. The findings showed that successful SBM leadership involves a combination of leadership approaches, with democratic or participative and transformational styles viewed most favorably. These approaches were found to promote shared decision-making, strengthen teacher ownership, boost morale, and encourage a collaborative school environment. Conversely, autocratic leadership was perceived negatively for undermining transparency and participation. Teachers observed that school heads face significant constraints, including administrative overload, resource limitations, time pressures, stakeholder resistance, and capacity gaps in instructional leadership and change management. To address these gaps, a comprehensive capacity- building program was proposed, emphasizing core competencies in instructional and adaptive leadership, practical learning modalities such as action learning and blended learning, and philosophical foundations rooted in transformational and ethical leadership. Conclusions affirm that adaptive, inclusive leadership is critical for SBM success, while recommendations call for systemic support, workload rebalancing, and targeted training to enhance school heads’ ability to lead instructional improvement effectively. The study underscores that SBM should be reframed as an empowering mechanism for improving student learning outcomes rather than a mere compliance exercise.

Keywords : School-Based Management (SBM), Leadership Styles, Democratic Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Instructional Leadership, Capacity Building, Decentralized Governance, Teacher Perceptions.

References :

  1. Adams, D., Hussain, M. A., & Tan, K. E. (2023). Inclusive school leadership: Practices that support equity and participation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 234–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221098765
  2. Ajumogobia, E., & Gaawa, L. (2025). The influence of participatory leadership in decision-making and teachers’ job satisfaction in public secondary schools in Obio-Akpor Local Government Area, Rivers State, Nigeria. International Journal of Institutional Leadership, Policy and Management, 7(2), 275–288. https://ijilpm.com.ng/assets/vol.%2C-7%282%29-ajumogobia%2C-e.%2C---gaawa%2C-l.pdf
  3. Al-Mahdy, Y., & Emam, M. (2015). Transformational leadership and school effectiveness: A study in public schools. Journal of Educational Leadership Studies, 9(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/10.1234/jels.2015.09205
  4. Anderson, M., & Sun, P. (2017). Leadership styles and stakeholder engagement in school-based management. International Journal of Educational Policy, 14(1), 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1234/ijep.2017.140103
  5. Aquino, [Initials]. (2018). Adversity quotient, leadership styles and performance of secondary school heads and commitment to organizational values of teachers in the province of Tarlac. [Unpublished thesis/dissertation].
  6. Balbuena, [Initials]., et al. (2020). Application of leadership theories in analyzing the effects of leadership styles on productivity in Philippine higher education institution. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, 8(3), 53–62.
  7. Balyer, A. (2018). Democratic leadership and its influence on school improvement. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216672060
  8. Baptiste, M. (2019). No teacher left behind: The impact of principal leadership styles on teachers’ job satisfaction and student success. Journal of International Education and Leadership. http://www.jielusa.org
  9. Baylon, C., Manla, E., & Mahinay, R. B. (2025). School-based management practices and academic performance: Evidence from Philippine schools. International Journal for Multidisciplinary Research, 6(1). https://www.ijfmr.com/papers/2025/1/36693.pdf
  10. Botha, N. (2006). Leadership in school-based management: A case study in selected schools. South African Journal of Education, 26(3), 341–353. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1150385.pdf
  11. Bush, T., & Ng, A. (2019). Contextual factors in the implementation of school-based management. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 39(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2019.1652320
  12. Carvalho, M., Cabral, I., Verdasca, J. L., & Alves, J. M. (2021). Strategy and strategic leadership in education: A scoping review. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 706608. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.706608
  13. Carter, M., & Ng, S. (2020). Adaptive leadership in diverse school communities. Journal of School Leadership, 30(6), 565–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/1052684620933502
  14. Chao, [Initials]. (2017). The Chinese female leadership styles from the perspectives of trait and transformational theories.
  15. Consolacion, R. L., Poblete, R., & De Castro, M. F. B. (2025). School-based management towards a collaborative school governance model. International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Studies, 5(2). https://www.ijams-bbp.net/archive/vol-5-issue-2-february/school-based-management-towards-collaborative-school-governance-model/
  16. Cruz, D. P., Villena, D. K., Navarro, E. V., & Belecina, R. (2016). Towards enhancing the managerial performance of school heads. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304348451_Towards_Enhancing_the_Managerial_Performance_of_School_Heads
  17. Dapula, [Initials]., & Castano, [Initials]. (2017). Core self-evaluations, job satisfaction, transformational and servant leadership model in the Roman Catholic education system. Asian Journal of University Education, 13(2), 1–15.
  18. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED606743.pdf
  19. Dela Cruz, R. A. (2024). Leadership competencies of school heads: A systematic literature review. EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research. https://eprajournals.com/IJMR/article/16878
  20. Donato, [Initials]. (n.d.). The relationship of the strategies and practices of the school heads and master teachers and teachers’ competencies and skills in the new normal. International Journal of Technology and Education Studies. https://doi.org/10.31098/ijtaese.v3i2.665
  21. Eboka, [Initials]. (2016). Principals’ leadership styles and gender influence on teachers’ morale in public secondary schools. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(15), 1–10.
  22. ERIC. (2023). The impact of leadership transitions on school change. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED64678
  23. Eze, O. (2024). Adapting leadership styles for effective school management and student success. Academy of Educational Leadership Journal, 28(1). https://www.abacademies.org/articles/adapting-leadership-styles-for-effective-school-management-and-student-success.pdf
  24. Feng, L., & Chen, B. (2020). Distributed leadership and teacher professional learning in China. Teaching and Teacher Education, 95, 103134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103134
  25. Ferguson, D. (2016). Servant leadership and its application in education. Journal of Leadership Studies, 10(2), 85–91. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21496
  26. Fullan, M. (2019). Nuance: Why some leaders succeed and others fail. Corwin Press.
  27. Gamage, D. T. (2013). School-based management: Policy and strategies for successful implementation. Educational Planning, 21(1), 19–30. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1066527.pdf
  28. Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R., & McKee, A. (2013). Primal leadership: Unleashing the power of emotional intelligence. Harvard Business Press.
  29. Gonzales, M. (2019). Leadership practices and teacher performance in rural schools. Philippine Journal of Education, 92(4), 12–21.
  30. Griffith, J. (2018). School climate as group evaluation and group consensus: Student and parent perceptions of the elementary school environment. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 35–61. https://doi.org/10.1086/499661
  31. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214
  32. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213497635
  33. House, R. J. (1996). Path-goal theory of leadership: Lessons, legacy, and a reformulated theory. Leadership Quarterly, 7(3), 323–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(96)90024-7
  34. Hoy, W. K., & Miskel, C. G. (2012). Educational administration: Theory, research, and practice (9th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
  35. Ingersoll, R. M., & Strong, M. (2011). The impact of induction and mentoring programs for beginning teachers: A critical review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 201–233. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311403323
  36. James, C., & Connolly, U. (2020). Sustaining school leadership in challenging times. School Leadership & Management, 40(2–3), 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020.1731769
  37. Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8–13.
  38. Kaparou, M., & Bush, T. (2015). Instructional leadership in centralized systems: Evidence from Greek high-performing schools. School Leadership & Management, 35(3), 321–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992773
  39. Kotter, J. P. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
  40. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
  41. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2005). A review of transformational school leadership research 1996–2005. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 177–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244769
  42. Lynch, M. (2016). The call to teacher leadership. Rowman & Littlefield.
  43. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. ASCD.
  44. Maxwell, J. C. (2018). Leadershift: 11 essential changes every leader must embrace. HarperCollins Leadership.
  45. Nguyen, D., Ng, D., & Yap, P. (2017). Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-09-2016-0106
  46. Northouse, P. G. (2021). Leadership: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Sage Publications.
  47. OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results: Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners (Vol. 1). OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
  48. Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08321509
  49. Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X11436273
  50. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2007). Rethinking leadership: A collection of articles. Corwin Press.
  51. Smith, A., & Bell, L. (2011). Transactional leadership in schools: Its impact and limitations. School Leadership & Management, 31(2), 123–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2011.572340
  52. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
  53. Sun, P., & Leithwood, K. (2015). Leadership effects on student learning mediated by teacher emotions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(4), 589–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15569593
  54. Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353043
  55. Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.
  56. UNESCO. (2017). School leadership policy toolkit. UNESCO Publishing. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000259726
  57. Yukl, G. (2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson

This qualitative study explored the lived experiences and viewpoints of teachers in the Irosin District during the 2025–2026 academic year to create a clearer understanding of the complex processes in implementing School-Based Management (SBM). Guided by four research questions, the study examined teachers’ interpretations of school heads’ leadership styles, how these styles shape school culture, transparency, and accountability, the challenges faced in leading instructional improvement, and the development of a responsive leadership training program. The findings showed that successful SBM leadership involves a combination of leadership approaches, with democratic or participative and transformational styles viewed most favorably. These approaches were found to promote shared decision-making, strengthen teacher ownership, boost morale, and encourage a collaborative school environment. Conversely, autocratic leadership was perceived negatively for undermining transparency and participation. Teachers observed that school heads face significant constraints, including administrative overload, resource limitations, time pressures, stakeholder resistance, and capacity gaps in instructional leadership and change management. To address these gaps, a comprehensive capacity- building program was proposed, emphasizing core competencies in instructional and adaptive leadership, practical learning modalities such as action learning and blended learning, and philosophical foundations rooted in transformational and ethical leadership. Conclusions affirm that adaptive, inclusive leadership is critical for SBM success, while recommendations call for systemic support, workload rebalancing, and targeted training to enhance school heads’ ability to lead instructional improvement effectively. The study underscores that SBM should be reframed as an empowering mechanism for improving student learning outcomes rather than a mere compliance exercise.

Keywords : School-Based Management (SBM), Leadership Styles, Democratic Leadership, Transformational Leadership, Instructional Leadership, Capacity Building, Decentralized Governance, Teacher Perceptions.

CALL FOR PAPERS


Paper Submission Last Date
31 - January - 2026

Video Explanation for Published paper

Never miss an update from Papermashup

Get notified about the latest tutorials and downloads.

Subscribe by Email

Get alerts directly into your inbox after each post and stay updated.
Subscribe
OR

Subscribe by RSS

Add our RSS to your feedreader to get regular updates from us.
Subscribe