School leadership calls for certain characteristics, demands, and roles which are performed, based on individual styles and beliefs. The school leader, for example, acts as an instructional leader to manage the nature of teaching and learning in the school; as a curriculum implementer to ensure the attainment of suitable standards; as a relational expert when it comes to dealing with teachers, parents, and students; and still supervising administration and management of scanty resources (Amunga, Were, & Ashioya, 2020). According to Lambrecht, Lenkeit, Hartmann, Ehlert, Knigge and Spörer (2022), school leadership goes beyond organizational leadership, since school leadership demands individualized styles.

Leadership practices or behaviors exhibited by the leader in the course of playing his role as the school leader can be described as his style. Such leadership styles could be democratic, laissez-faire, autocratic or situational, transformational, and transactional (if you are talking about behaviors) as some people describe them. The leadership styles employed by the headteacher go a long way to determining the level of improvement of schools. For instance, many scholars agree that the type of leadership style or leadership behavior that goes with transformational leadership will help schools to change positively (Edwards & Aboagye, 2015). However, a leader may practice two, three, or more styles in his or her leadership functions, depending on situations and the kind of relationship existing between him or her and the staff, particularly, the teachers. Whatever styles a leader exhibits may be influenced by his/her socio-cultural practice.

If there is a culture of trust in terms of relationship between and among the headteacher, the teachers and other staff members, there is likely to be school success. This is so because there is the belief that school success depends on the commitment level of all stakeholders of the school, which invariably affects the atmosphere for teachers and other staff to commit to their respective roles and performances. Teacher commitment, in this respect, is crucial, considering the influence it exerts on teaching and learning.

Most studies, in talking about teacher commitment, dwell mostly on teacher absenteeism, lateness, contact hours, learners’ support, etc. In most cases, however, the teacher performs multi-dimensional functions to keep the learning atmosphere conducive. These multi-dimensional functions include, attending to immediacy, unpredictability, and simultaneity in classroom management (Arends, 1994). In this context, the teacher’s ability to manage instructional delivery in a conducive, learning environment may result from how leadership performs in the school system.

The effort of the headteacher in creating a conducive learning environment, in most cases, is aimed at not only eliciting an appreciable level of teacher commitment but also improving the academic performance of students. Studies have shown that teacher commitment and conditions for academic performance will depend on the style of leadership for change (Roesminingsih & Trihantoyo, 2022). In other words, headteachers’ leadership is responsible for creating the conditions for appropriate teacher commitment and academic performance. Such a conducive school environment promotes teaching and learning and encourages teacher commitment.

Data from the GES/Statistics Services indicate that there is a great concern for schools to raise academic performance, particularly in certain subject areas, such as Mathematics, Science, and Technology. Anamuah-Mensah and colleagues raised the alarm in a nationwide report (Ghana, 2014) on poor performance in Integrated Science and Core Mathematics with about 60% obtaining poor grades. The same report pointed out that second-year students at Junior High School (JHS2) performed poorly in international assessments such as, Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Many concerned citizens of Ejisu Municipality have expressed a similar situation regarding education outcomes in the area. Stakeholders of education within the Ejisu Municipality, in particular, are interested in following the trends in education, concerning teacher commitment. In this respect, gathering the views of headteachers and teachers on the relationship between leadership styles of headteachers, teacher commitment, and academic performance of students within the Ejisu Municipality in this study could be deemed as important. The study had the objectives of:

Finding out the influence of headteachers’ leadership styles on teacher commitment, and

The following research questions guided the study:

What is the influence of headteachers’ leadership styles on teacher commitment?

In terms of significance, the study primarily sought to add to the wealth of knowledge on the practice of school leadership. Through the research, recommendations could be made to the leaders and other stakeholders of education concerning the need for improved teacher commitment on their various campuses. Other information that might come up through the research will provide a useful guide for future research on leadership styles, teacher commitment, and academic performance. Significantly, the study will contribute to educational reforms and policy-making decisions at the basic level. Finally, it will contribute to the scholarly literature on African educational systems, especially in the area of school leadership.

All formal organizations are established for purposes, and owners of such organizations desire that the purposes of those organizations are attained at reduced costs and with much ease (Lammers, 2019). In ensuring that the purposes of organizations stay within attainable limits, goals have to be followed and it is through effective leadership that goals can stay focused with little or no deviations (Nawaz & Khan, 2016).

Leadership ought to acquire the necessary skills, methods, and styles needed to handle various individuals within various organizations. (Berkey, 2004) is of the view that leadership is a craft that must be administered to achieve the mission of the organization.

Leadership styles such as democratic, transactional, autocratic, situational, and laissez-faire significantly influenced teacher commitment in the schools selected for the study. However, laissez-faire leadership style had a negative influence on teacher commitment. However, democratic and transactional leadership styles had a positive effect on academic performance and it was statistically significant.

This is the type of leadership style, which is open to members of the organization for their contribution towards the running of that organization. It is worth recognizing, however, that despite this openness in democratic leadership, the leader helps his staff to operate as colleagues, collaborators, a team, and partners. Here, healthy discussions lead to group decisions. This style of leadership, according to (Afful-Broni, 2004), is characterized by responses of co-operation, enthusiasm, acceptance of more responsibility, and recognition of the worth of each worker. To Afful-Broni, the leader, here, considers himself or herself as first among equals.

The leader who practices a democratic leadership style might have his beliefs stemming from Douglas McGregor’s Theory Y, which shows a lot of respect to the average human being. Theory Y assumptions include the fact that people by nature: have integrity; work hard towards objectives to which they are committed; assume responsibility within commitments; desire to achieve; are capable of directing their own behavior; want their organization to succeed; are not passive and submissive; are not stupid; and will make decisions within their commitments.

This type of leadership style is the direct opposite of democratic leadership in the sense that the leader here is quite domineering in his actions and decisions (Harms, Wood, Landay, Lester & Lester, 2018). With this style of leadership, the leader seems to be the only dreamer whose dreams have to be forced into reality. For the realization of his dreams, according to Harms et al., (2018) the autocratic leader determines and sets out the policies within the organization. Nawaz and Khan (2016) believe that members of the organization are assigned duties without their consent.

Under autocratic leadership, the leader does not entertain suggestions or initiatives from subordinates. There is little or no room for consultation. According to (Afful-Broni, 2004), communication is virtually non-existent, or if it exists at all in the organization, it hangs up precariously in a manner where its benefits can hardly be realized. When the leader issues directives, no individual or groups have the audacity to question but must carry out the directives. Even experts can be ignored before vital decisions are taken. This style of leadership, to (Afful-Broni, 2004), is characterized by threats, warnings, dismissals and coercion. Views expressed contrary to those of the leader are seen as attempts to undermine or sabotage the leader. Members within an organization where this leadership style operates, live in fear and intimidation. The presence and absence of the leader dictate the behavior of members of the organization put on. There is the view that the sense of fear, doubt, and disregard shown through this leadership style has received it other names such as authoritarian, dictatorial, military, “master says” leadership, and others. (Samuel, Jophus, & Francis, 2019).

Psychologists are of the view that this kind of leadership style has its roots in leaders’ sense of fear and feelings of insecurity (Beatty, 2013). Not much is achieved, in the absence of such leaders. Such leaders’ style of leadership might stem from their entrenched belief in McGregor’s Theory X, which derides people as naturally: lacking honesty; being essentially lazy and eager to work as little as possible; dodging duty; not being interested in achievements; being incapable of directing their behavior; being indifferent to organizational needs; preferring to be directed by others; not being very bright; and avoiding making decisions whenever possible (Samuel et al., 2019).

What is said about democratic and autocratic leadership lends credence to the fact that the two leadership styles are at the extreme, opposing ends of the field of play for leadership styles (Ahmed & Simha, 2023). Between the two extreme styles could lay other leadership styles. However, lying directly in the middle of democratic and autocratic leadership styles is the type of leadership tagged, among the francophone nomenclature, as laissez-faire which means “let them do what they wish” (Afful-Broni, 2004), an expression which seems to emanate directly from the leader who, for reasons best known to him or her, practices this style. A person may be in a leadership position without providing clear direction, leaving the group to choose its path in achieving aims (Tannenbaum & Schmidt, 2017). Subordinates are given a free hand in deciding their policies and methods of achieving the goals of such policies. In this leadership style, there are no particular rules and regulations. Absolute freedom and autonomy are bestowed on members of the organization.

There are certain behaviors that leadership will put on, depending on the circumstances and the desired purpose for achievement. In this respect, mention can be made of leadership behaviors or types like Transformational leadership, Transactional leadership, Situational leadership, etc.

The emotional relationship between a leader and his followers is the basis of transactional leadership. Hamstra, Van Yperen, Wisse, & Sassenberg, (2014) and Burns (1978) stated that the relations of most leaders and followers are transactional – leaders approach followers with an eye to exchanging one thing for another. Decuypere & Schaufeli (2020) and Chemers (1997), explains transactional theory of leadership as being focused on motivating follower through fair exchanges and by clarifying mutual responsibilities and benefits. Chemers sees this theory as implying that levels of influence rest solely on the followers’ perceptions of authority and its legitimacy.

In his 1990 study conducted for the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, Bass offers that transactional leadership can provide stability, structure and readiness during times of crisis or urgency (Bass, 1990). Transactional leadership simply focuses on the transactions between leaders, colleagues, and followers (Bass, 1990). This exchange is based on the leader discussing with others what is required and specifying the conditions and rewards. These, others will receive if they fulfill those requirements (Bass, 1990).

Contrarily, transformational leadership focuses on the intellectual perceptions of the leader. (Burns, 1978) introduced transformational leadership by identifying intellectual leaders; he explained that intellectual leaders seek to change their social milieus.

He contended that the concept of intellectual leadership brings in the role of conscious purpose drawn from values. Intellectual leadership, therefore, leads us to the discovery of transforming leadership. Out of the varying motives of people, out of the combat and competition between groups and between persons, out of the making of countless choices and the sharpening and steeling of purpose, arise the elevating forces of leadership and the achievement of intended change (Bass, 1990). Transformational leadership can be seen as transactional leadership expanded to the extent that transformational leaders motivate others to do more than they originally intended and often even more than they thought possible. They set expectations that are more challenging and typically achieve higher performances (Bass, 1990).

(Yulk, 2013) recognized the feelings of trust, respect, and admiration towards the leader as a product of transformational leadership. He identifies three avenues of transforming and motivating followers: (1) making them more aware of the importance of task outcomes; (2) inducing them to transcend their self-interest for the sake of the organization or team; (3) activating their higher-order needs. Yukl describes the discovery of higher-order needs as a product of transformational leadership contrasts with the exchange, compliance product of transactional leadership. In his view, enthusiasm and commitment are common attributes of transformational leadership while transactional leadership will often provide nothing more than compliance with leader requests.

In this section, a review of the synthesis of leadership styles defined as situational theory was conducted to illustrate the flexibility of the principal’s choices. The use of a combination of leadership styles creates a myriad of tools for the leader. Situational leadership theory presents the principal with the transformational and transactional tools to proceed in the best interest of the school that is focused on teacher effectiveness (Blase, 1999).

Teacher relationships with administrators are of low consideration until an internal change is implemented which requires authoritative monitoring and accountability (Raza & Sikandar, 2018, Blanchard & Hersey, 1979). As purveyors of situational leadership, Blanchard and Hersey depict situational leadership as less dependent on the level of management and more dependent on the maturity of the teachers supervised.

Teacher perception of school leadership as researched by (Blase, 1999) is determined by the situation presented. Their 1999 qualitative study focused on the analysis of the administrative leadership styles as related to teacher perception. Their pragmatic presentation of analytical data leads the reader toward an understanding of the role of the principal in a teacher-focused school environment.

Hallinger and Heck presented a caution present in situational leadership theory through their findings in a meta-analysis of 42 studies. Only after the principal establishes a culture of accountability and control, should the level of engagement change toward the transfer of leadership (Hallinger, P., & Heck. R., 1998). Nevertheless, the authors found no positive results in a school leader’s push for increasing student achievement without seeking to improve teacher capacity.

The quality of an education system and the profession of educators within a system depend mainly on the teachers who guide and carry out most of the tasks and activities of education that take place within the schools and institutions in the system (Pedaste, Leijen, Poom-Valickis & Eisenschmidt, 2019). Moreover, the teachers play a very significant role in supplying, supporting and promoting instruction and learning of high quality. Working in both classrooms and other groups, teachers are under pressure to provide for and sustain high levels of performance, attitude and behavior in those whom they teach.

Many studies have shown that the quality of teaching was a major influence on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Moreover, Coubergs, Struyven, Vanthournout, and Engels, (2017) identified quality of instruction as a key variable in his model of school learning alongside opportunity to learn, both of which were dependent on the teacher. It is not surprising that teachers and their commitment to their work are exposed to scrutiny and sometimes, critical comments from politicians, policy makers, employers, parents, students and other stakeholders (Coubergs et al., 2017).

Quality education cannot be achieved without the efforts of dedicated and highly committed teachers. Committed teachers must inculcate and nurture values that will guide the subsequent use of the learning of both knowledge and skills in the wider world outside the classroom and lecture theatre. Wang, Strong, Zhang & Liu, (2021) advanced two strong reasons why teacher commitment should be emphasized in the field of education. First, commitment was an internal force coming from within teachers themselves who had needs for greater responsibility, variety, and challenge in their work as their level of participation in education had grown. Second, external forces were directing both reform and development in education and seeking higher standards and greater accountability that were dependent upon each teacher’s combined efforts, as well as the sustained efforts of the teachers within each school or institutional group.

There is no question that much is expected from our educational system in terms of preparing future citizens, workers, and leaders. To that end, schools are expected to influence students’ learning, socialization, and even vocational preparedness. The educational system in Ghana is largely examination oriented. The quality of education tends to be evaluated in terms of the number of students passing national examinations (Sekyere, 2010).

Despite the attention paid to a broad definition of educational outcomes, however, academic performance remains central.

It is an academic performance that is central to the efforts of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 to make schools accountable for assessing and improving student performance annually (Linn, Baker, & Betebenner, 2002). Furthermore, limitations in academic performance represent the primary implication for most students receiving special education services, and those limitations, if left unaddressed, constrain students’ ability to pursue further education and get well-paid employment after schooling.

Although the importance of academic performance is rarely questioned, unanimity regarding its measurement has been elusive. The measurement of academic performance continues to be a controversial topic among policymakers, measurement experts, and educators (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2024).

Measuring academic performance can occur at multiple levels and serve multiple purposes. For example, classroom teachers often conduct formative and summative tests to evaluate students’ mastery of course content and provide grades for students. State tests are designed primarily to measure progress at the school level. In particular, graduation tests are used to determine whether a student has mastered the minimum content and competencies required to receive further education or certificate (Nawaz & Khan, 2016).

Although performance on standardized tests receives the greatest attention in discussions of students’ academic performance, teachers’ evaluations of performance as indicated in course grades represent a common metric of student performance that often is more directly tied to the day-to-day business of teaching and learning than are annual standardized test scores. Grades serve a number of important functions. They communicate to students and parents, information about students’ mastery of course content. In high school, a passing grade also is the criterion for a course’s contribution to accumulated credit for graduation. Finally, grades provide information for consideration in college admissions (Sekyere, 2010).

However, as a measure of academic performance, teacher-given grades have well-known limitations. Grades are composite measures that account not only for students’ content mastery but often for other factors, such as their class participation, attitudes, progress over time, and attendance. Both general and special educators are known to consider these various factors when grading, but to emphasize different factors. For example, special education teachers are less likely than general educators, to consider homework or attendance to be important in grading student performance, but are more likely to consider in-class participation to be important (Berkey, 2004). Moreover, substantial variations in grading practices occur across teachers and schools. Despite these complicating factors, student grades still are an important indicator within the academic performance outcome domain for students because they indicate success by a teacher’s standards and success relative to other students in a given classroom.

Educators and the public have repeatedly, expressed concern over factors that influence students’ performance in examinations. The most outstanding factor has to do with the organizational management of schools. For instance, Linn et al. (2002) noted that to improve students’ performance head teachers are required first to improve the management of the schools. This can be done by setting a clear vision for the schools and communicate this vision to students, supporting its achievement by giving instructional leadership, provision of resources, and being visible in every part of the institution.

Lack of vision in the management of schools often leads to an imbalance in the allocation and use of resources. This is why Sergiovanni (2001) pointed out that poor results in education are related to the resources allocated to it. If this parameter is not recognized, it becomes very difficult to understand why school continues to perform poorly in national examinations. For example, in schools where parents are doing their best in providing school facilities, such as science equipment, textbooks, and physical structures, the blame for poor performance is shifted to teachers. One of the core functions of schools is to take human raw materials (students) and convert them into something more valuable as employable adults. Of paramount importance, therefore, is the proper management of teachers, for their absence will invariably lead to low productivity on the part of the teachers.

Independent T-test analysis (headteachers)

The independent T-test was conducted, in respect of the headteachers, with the intention of highlighting the differences among demographic groups with regard to the study variables, particularly with gender groups. The results were found in Table 1.

Table 1

Independent t-test statistical scores for headteachers.

Research Question 1: do headteachers’ leadership styles significantly influence teacher commitment within the Ejisu Municipality?

Regression estimates for the association between leadership style and teacher commitment.

Table 2

Regression estimates between leadership style and teacher commitment.

Test of hypotheses

Research Question 2: does teacher commitment significantly influence academic performance within the Ejisu Municipality?

Regression estimates for the association between leadership style and academic performance.

Table 3

Regression estimates between leadership style and academic performance.

Research Question 3: does teacher commitment relate significantly with academic performance of students within the Ejisu Municipality?

Regression estimates for the association between leadership style and academic performance.

Table 4

Regression estimates between leadership style and academic performance.