PRINCIPAL-TEACHER RELATIONSHIP, TEACHING EFFECTIVENESS AND TEACHERS’

MORALE IN LAGOS STATE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOLS, NIGERIA

BY

Dr Abari, Ayodeji Olasunkanmi

Department of Educational Management, Lagos State university,Ojo.
E-mail: [email protected]
Ibikunle, Ganiyu Abiona (Corresponding Author)
Department of Educational Management, Lagos State university,Ojo.
E-mail:[email protected]

Animashaun, Olamide Mistura

Department of Educational Management, University of Illorin,Tanke.
E-mail: [email protected]

Oguntuga, Adeyinka Adebisi

Department of Educational Management, Lagos State University, Ojo.
E-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
This study examined the principal-teacher relationship, teaching effectiveness and teachers’ morale as
correlates for functional education in Lagos state senior secondary schools, Nigeria. The study adopted a
descriptive and co-relational design type. Simple random sampling technique was used to select 360
respondents comprising teachers from schools in the six educational districts 60 from three schools per
district in Lagos state. Three research hypotheses were formulated to guide the study. A self constructed
Questionnaire titled Teachers’ Questionnaire on Principal-Teacher Relationship and Teaching Effectiveness
(TQPTRATE) was used to collect relevant data. The instrument was validated by experts in the field of
research. The reliability coefficient of 0.75 was obtained using split-half reliability method to test the reliability
of the questionnaire. Pearson’s product-moment correlation statistics was used with the aid of SPSS (version
20) to test all the null hypotheses at 0.05 significance level. However, out of the 360 distributed questionnaire
copies, 300 were recovered and used in the analyses. The findings of the study showed that there is significant
relationship between both wide and narrow principal-teacher relationship and teaching effectiveness; and
teachers’ morale. Consequently, it was recommended that school principals should adopt a combination of
democratic and participative leadership style in administering schools. Furthermore, School management in
particular and, the state government in general, should create an enabling environment for the cultivation of
wide-positive superior-subordinate working relationship. Trust is an essential ingredient of participative
management and shared decision making necessary to create a disciplined-friendly relationship in an
organization. Hence efforts must be made by all actors of a school setting in building trust.

Key Words: Functional education, Principal-Teacher relationship, Teaching effectiveness, Trust and Participative
Management.

1
Introduction
Persistent change and challenges of the past two decades in the field of education have resulted in an increasing
workload for teachers and administrators. As schools work to meet standards to implement reform initiatives,
principals and teachers face mounting expectations. Keiser (2007) asserted that school reform initiatives have
the potential to compel individuals to modify their beliefs and perceptions with respect to norms and values.
Ultimately, the implementation of these reform initiatives becomes the responsibility of the school principal.
The principal occupies a germane position in the school structure. As the leader of a multitude of professionals,
certified teachers, and the manager of a cadre of classified personnel, the principal should establish important
relationships with his or her staff. If education is the major foundation for the future strength of a country, then,
teachers, as they come from various backgrounds must be the cornerstone. Likewise, as schools continue to
evolve and as shifts in the demographics of populations continue to occur nationally, there is a need and a call
for different relationship paradigms to assist in the proper guidance of those placed in the classrooms. These
new paradigms will be marked with servant leaders who empower as opposed to delegate; build trust rather than
demand loyalty; and instead of just hearing and leading from the head, seek to understand and lead from the
heart (DeSpain, 2000).
Principal-teacher relationships vary greatly among schools and even among teachers in the same school.
Furthermore, those relationships affect student achievement (Walsh, 2005). This phenomenon occurs because
teachers who see principals as facilitators, supporters, and reinforcers for the jointly determined school mission
rather than as guides, directors, and leaders of their own personal agenda are far more likely to feel personally
accountable for student learning (McEwan, 2003). For instance, across America, both principals and teachers
alike have to contend with matters such as student discipline. The principal is endlessly involved in dealing with
discipline problems, but his role is somewhat different from that of the teacher. Yet in many respects, the
teacher and the principal work as a team on major discipline problems(Kritsonis, 2000). Parental issues are
another area of great concern, especially during these times when parents demand that schools should
adequately prepare their children (Cotton &Wikelund, 2001). It is important for principals and various staff
groups, that is, teachers to work together for mutual support. In addition, the manner in which staff members
worked together as a group significantly influences student outcomes in schools (Wheelan& Kesselring, 2005).
Staff groups working together in healthy social environments substantiate the need for relationship development
in their school environment. Relationships have many components, both individual and group in nature, which
help to sustain them and add value. One of the most important of all the relational components is that of trust. It
is essential that school leaders develop the trust factor necessary for teachers to follow and support their efforts.

2
The building and sustaining of one-to-one relationships with teachers via communicative and supportive
behaviours is the overarching trust-promoting behaviour of the principal (Gimbel, 2003).
Daily interpersonal interactions of a principal are necessary to garner trust and support from teachers. In
schools, this means that, instead of worrying constantly about setting the direction and then engaging teachers
and others in a successful march (often known as planning, organizing, leading, motivating, and controlling),
the “leader” can focus more on removing obstacles, providing material and emotional support, taking care of the
management details that make any journey easier, sharing in the comradeship of the march and in the
celebration when the journey is completed, and identifying a new, worthwhile destination for the next march
(Sergiovanni, 1992). Essential to keep in mind is the notion that principals are the instructional leaders of their
schools. All effective schools have this as a quality and principals must fulfill this role (Effective Schools,
2001). And, even though shared decision making attributes are present, there are certain leader-imposed and or
leader-directed activities that need to take place. Of these, promoting trust and building relationships in an effort
to ultimately achieve student success should be first and foremost in a nation’s schools. Student achievement
enters into the realm of accountability (Albritten, Mainzer & Ziegler , 2004). If a school is devoid of successful
scores per the established accountability system, principals quickly recognize the urgent need to achieve,
sometimes outside of traditional academic standards, success in such a high stake game. When school climate
become cold and teachers perceive principals as suspicious and negative, a reformation has to occur before
teachers are willing to modify instruction. But how can principals ever hope to motivate their teaching staff to
expand their repertoires of pedagogical skills unless some fundamental relational components have been
established (Gimbel, 2003).
While many reform reports have not addressed this issue, a central question requiring further analysis is how,
exactly, do principals influence the instructional work of their schools for functional education thereby
increasing student achievement? By examining the full range of cultural blends, the principal can become a
strong support for effective instruction in a school. Cultural linkages include the system of collectively accepted
meanings, beliefs, values, and assumptions that organizational members (teachers) use to guide their regular,
daily actions and interpret their surroundings.
Principals can influence the working patterns of teachers by rearranging physical space and free time to promote
norms of collegiality and experimentation. Effective collaboration is a key to ensuring teaching effectiveness in
schools and functional education as a derivative though not always easy. It brings with it a measure of difficulty
and even of discomfort on occasions. Effective collaborations operate in the world of ideas, examining existing
practices critically, seeking better alternatives and working hard together at bringing about improvements and
assessing their worth as a change initiative. The single factor common to every change initiative is that
relationships improve, if relationships improve, things get better. If they remain the same or get worse, ground

3
is lost. Thus leaders must be consummate relationship builders with diverse people and groups, especially with
people different than themselves. Effective leaders constantly foster purposeful interaction and problem solving,
and are wary of easy consensus (Fullan, 2001). Clark (2003), Disney’s 2000 Outstanding Teacher of the Year,
says life is all about experiences, the ones you make for yourself and the ones you make for others. As he refers
to all students, he continues: guide them as they grow, show them in every way possible that they are cared for,
and make special moments for them that will add magic to their lives, motivate them to make a difference in the
lives of others, and most important, teach them to love life. If that kind of relationship is being asked of
America’s teachers in respect to their students, then principals should lead by example and show the same
enthusiasm for their teachers. The most successful students are the ones in environments described by Clark.
Similarly, the most successful teachers may be the ones inspired by the beautiful relationships developed with
their principals, motivating them to do their very best, improving their morale and job performance leading to
effective teaching measured by the resultant effect of high students’ academic achievement. Do these kinds of
relationship exist in Nigerian schools? The answer calls for investigation and in-depth research as regards.

Statement of the Problem

In Nigeria, public discussion, most often than not, borders on falling standard of education and poor academic
performance of students, in most especially the West African Senior School Certificate Examination on a yearly
basis. The students’ outcomes seem not commensurate with the huge investment by both parents and
government on Education. This calls for a great concern among all actors and stakeholders to ascertain the
causal factors for this negative occurrence. To some, it is questionable whether the teachers in the system are
capable and competent to teach effectively or not. To others, the issue is about the trend of teachers’
lackadaisical attitude to work and lack of empowerment and motivation intrinsically from concerned authorities
and the school head. The unknown element of this poser is the direct relationship that exists between teachers
and principals towards the actualization of educational objectives. Certain effective principal skills are critical
in the attainment of desired levels of teacher participation. Current reform initiatives have identified
empowerment and teachers participation in decision making as elements of teachers’ success; however,
bureaucracy that has driven reform in recent years has led to teachers feeling disempowered and hence
becoming lackadaisical. Principals who attempt to assume the burden alone and try to manage reform and
change from a downward perspective may create more distance between teachers and administrators, resulting
in further disempowerment, ineffectiveness, poor job performance, poor students’ academic achievement
leading to non-functional education.

4
Purpose of the Study

The main purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the Principal-Teacher relationship affects
teaching effectiveness and students’ academic performance for functional education in Lagos State Senior
Secondary School. This is expressed in the following specific objectives as follows:
i. To examine different types of Principal-Teacher relationships existing in senior secondary schools in
Lagos State.
ii. To examine the effect of wide Principal-Teacher relationship on teaching effectiveness in Lagos State
Senior Secondary School
iii. To examine the effect of narrow Principal-Teacher relationship on teaching to actualize functional
education in Lagos state secondary school.
iv. To investigate if there exists an effect of principal-teacher relationship on teachers’ morale.

Review of Related Literature

There have been several literatures on theories and studies that address the role of the principal in providing
school leadership. An emerging body of literature, though, is re-focusing on the importance of principal-teacher
relationships, rather than merely on leadership styles or behaviours (Walsh, 2005). Principals have the ability to
improve teachers’ overall perceptions by simply attending to fundamental components inherent in quality
relationships. As teachers begin to feel better about themselves and what their collective missions are as a result
of significant interactions with their principals, they become more effective in the classroom. This section,
therefore, looked into related works of authors on Principal-Teacher Relationship in secondary schools.
The Concept of Principal-Teacher Relationship
Principal-Teacher relationship is the degree of affinity, connection and cordial interpersonal association
between the school administrator and the teachers under his or her administration. This relationship depicts the
extent of team spirit and group work for mutual support to actualize set educational goals. Regular cordial
interpersonal relationship of a school principal is germane to gaining trust and support from teachers towards
academic goals achievements. Principal-Teacher relationship varies dynamically among schools. The
relationship level might be wide in some schools, while in others it might be narrowed. The relational level
between a principal and the subordinating teachers is a function of the type of leadership style the principal, as
the administrator adopted in running the school. Consequently, Wheelan and Kesselring (2005), opined that the
manner in which staff members work together as a group significantly influence student outcomes in schools.
Existing researches concluded that some aspects of school social environment clearly make a difference in the
academic achievement of schools (Brookover et al, 1978).Teaching effectiveness, also, moves in this direction.
5
Leadership Theories and Principal-Teacher Relationship in the School Setting
Among the various theories of leadership and motivation relating to principal-teacher relationship, teaching
efficiency and functional education, perhaps the most prominent is the transformational-transactional theory of
leadership. As explained in saowalux and Peng (2007), Burns (1978), conceptualizes two factors to differentiate
“ordinary” from “extraordinary” leadership: transactional and transformational leadership. Transactional
leadership is based on conventional exchange relationship in which followers’ compliance (effort, productivity,
and loyalty) is exchanged for expected rewards. Transactional leadership involves an exchange process that
results in follower compliance with leader request but not likely to generate enthusiasm and commitment to task
objective. The leader focuses on having internal actors perform the tasks required for the organization to reach
its desired goals (Boehnke, Bontis, Distefano & Distefano, 2003). In contrast, transformational (extraordinary)
leaders raise followers’ consciousness levels about the importance and value of designated outcomes and ways
of achieving them. They also motivate followers to transcend their own immediate self-interest for the sake of
the mission and vision of the organization.For transformational leadership style, the follower feels trust,
admiration, loyalty and respect towards the leader, and is motivated to do more than what was originally
expected to do (Bass, 1985). The transformational leader motivates by making follower more aware of the
importance of task outcomes, inducing them to transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization
or team and activating their higher-order needs. He encourages followers to think critically and seek new ways
to approach their jobs, resulting in intellectual stimulation (Bass & Avolio, 1994). As a result, there is an
increase in their level of performance, satisfaction, and commitment to the goals of their organization
(Podsakoff et al, 1996). As such, Ibukun, (1997) argued that the main task of the principal is to create a
conducive atmosphere for the teachers to be able to achieve desired changes in students. Supporting this
argument, Ijaiya (2000) remarked that teachers in Nigeria express a desire for more participation in decision-
making. The way the principal relates with his or her staff could contribute immensely to the latter’s
effectiveness or otherwise.
Participatory Decision-Making in Schools
Participatory Decision-Making describes the involvement of teachers in school management. However,
participatory decision-making is conceived in just one aspect of shared leadership, and the idea of involving
teachers in school-level decision-making is known by many names. Because of the similarities of various
conceptions of teacher participation, this review includes related literature in the areas of teacher leadership,
teacher empowerment, and shared governance. Teacher empowerment ,as cited by Duke (2005), is a concept
that is related to teacher participation in decision-making. Teacher empowerment represents an internal
perception of teachers by having increased authority in their positions. Another closely related concept is
teacher leadership which includes teacher participation in decision-making as part of a broader leadership role

6
both within and outside the classroom. Scorro (2008) quoting Oreta (2003), emphasizes that democratic
consultation should be observed in the decision making process involving shared goals at appropriate levels.
Operations shall be the responsibility of the operating officer concerned. Feedback mechanism shall be
established to ensure coordination and open communication. Moreover, better decision and greater efficiency
are reached since issues are discussed extensively via open communication among people having varying
viewpoints involved in participative set-ups. Another noteworthy impact of participatory management is that
participants tend to have a sense of ownership of change initiatives and eventually extend stronger support to
realize the goals of such efforts. Anderson (2002) strongly believed that one reason for teacher participation in
decision-making is meaningful teacher empowerment. Teacher empowerment requires investing teachers with
the right to participate in the determination of school goals and policies, as well as right to exercise professional
judgment about the content of the curriculum and means of instruction.

Teachers’ Morale
Morale may be defined as an intangible concept that refers to how positive and supportive a group feels toward
the organisation to which it belongs and the special feelings members of the group share with others, such as
trust, self-worth, purpose, pride in one’s achievement, and faith in the leadership and organisational success
(Haddock 2010). According to Ewton (2007), in Ngambi (2011), morale is regarded to be the fuel that drives an
organisation forward or the fuel that feeds the fires of employee discontent and poor performance. Millet (2010)
gives six reasons why staff morale is important: improved productivity; improved performance and creativity;
reduced number of leave days; higher attention to detail; a safe workplace; and increased quality of work.
Ngambi (2011) quoting Mazin (2010), further posits that high employee morale leads to people coming to work
on time, improved communication, less time wasted on gossip, improved recruitment and retention and more
creativity. Another study by Millet (2010) revealed that low morale can gradually destroy employee’s
commitment, adversely affect the productivity or service they offer and alienate the clients and customers they
serve .Morale is a state of mind and spirit, affecting willingness to work, which in turn affects organizational
and individual objectives which may range from very high to very low. It is not an absolute phenomenon but
subject to change, depending upon the management’s plans and practices.The simple definition emphasizes
willingness to work. This is important. A person contented with one’s lot may do only enough to get by.
Another person works hard because of dissatisfaction and wants to achieve betterment. Good morale would
scarcely be a condition of the former person; it could well be of the latter. Dissatisfaction of a group need not be
a sign of poor morale when it is associated with a desire to improve through cooperation with organizational
goals. Dissatisfaction with management could, however, well be a sign of poor morale. The foregoing implies
that morale is a group manifestation. A particular person may have a favourable attitude toward her own work

7
and supervisor. But the group with whom she works may take a very unfavourable stand against certain
company practices and the group reaction may well offset the effect of the employees’ personal opinions.
Teachers’ morale is determined by physical, emotional and attitudinal factors. Emotional and physical illness
leads to reduced teachers’ morale, absenteeism, mental and physical withdrawal and detachment, increased inter
and intra individual conflict and a general reduction in individual and ultimately college performance.
The lists of factors devised by Mendel Herzberg, according to Mendel (1987), which can give satisfaction and
raise morale include:
Achievement: Teachers often speak of their pleasure at seeing the progress a particular pupil makes as a way in
which their morale is raised.
Recognition: This might be from society at large, from the government recognizing the school, as with making
it a Beacon School, or from one's superiors or the parents.
Responsibility: This can raise morale especially where the teacher feels that he or she is about to use that
responsibility in order to make improvements in the teaching and learning in the school.
Promotion: This is a particularly interesting thought, since it seems that it is not the pay rise of promotion that
increases morale, but the recognition granted in offering the promotion itself that is the biggest boost to morale.

Ways of Boosting Teachers’ Morale

According to Napodia (2011),teachers’ moral can be boosted in the following ways:
Opening the lines of communication: Each administrator needs to let the rank-and-file staff members know
the issues facing the school. It will be surprising that faculties often have a reasonable solution to many of the
problems facing a campus if they are just given the opportunity to comment. Try soliciting inputs or feedbacks
to your suggestions from the staff.
Stay visible: Look for opportunities to be seen in your campus as much as possible. This can enhance morale,
especially if you cheerfully greet those staff members you encounter and pause to chat with them as one human
being to another.
Develop and clearly define a sound faculty reward system: Look for ways to develop a sound staff pay
schedule that is not overly influenced by market conditions at the expense of equality. Also look for 'non-
traditional staff rewards such as providing extra clerical support, granting travel or staff development allowance.
Thank everyone for every good work: Let your staff members and others within the college know you
appreciate the work the faculty is doing. Send personal thank you notes. Finally, during times of financial
difficulty let the faculty know that you think they are productive and thank them for helping you identify ways
to address budget concerns.
Treatment of new faculty member: Whenever you hire a new staff member, always remember to pay as much
attention to the new faculty member's colleagues as you do to the old faculty member.
8
Develop consistent procedures: Whenever you have a major budget or curriculum decision to be made, be
sure to seek staff input. Nothing will affect morale more, than if the faculty hears that you are considering a
change in evaluation processes, reducing faculty health care benefits, or increasing the teaching load without
consulting with them. While most teachers dread serving on committees, most want to provide accurate
feedback when the issues hit close to home.

Research Hypotheses
The following null hypotheses were formulated to guide the study:
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between wide Principal-teacher relationship and teaching
effectiveness in Lagos state senior secondary schools.
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between narrow Principal-teacher relationship and teaching
effectiveness in Lagos state senior secondary schools.
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between Principal-teacher relationship and teachers’ morale in Lagos
state senior secondary schools.

Research Methodology
The design employed in this study was basically a descriptive survey design of a correlational type which
attempted to relate the independent variable, principal-teacher relationship, to the dependent variables, teaching
effectiveness and teachers’ morale in public senior secondary schools in Lagos State. The population for this
study consisted of all teachers in the public senior secondary schools in the six educational districts of Lagos
state. Consequently, three schools were sampled from each education district with the use of simple random
sampling technique to select twenty (20) teachers per sampled school totaling 360 study participants for this
research work. A self-structured questionnaire validated through comments and criticisms (content and face
validity) of experts in school administration and with Guttman split-half coefficient index of 0.75 was used to
collect data for testing the stated hypotheses.

Results and findings

Data collected were subjected to and analyzed using Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient
Analysis with the aid of Statistical Product and Service Solution (SPSS). The hypotheses formulated were tested
at 0.05 level of significance. The results of the analyses are presented in Table 1, 2 and 3.

Ho1: There is no significant relationship between wide Principal-teacher relationship and teaching
Effectiveness in Lagos state senior secondary school.

9
Table 1: Wide Principal-Teacher Relationship and Teaching Effectiveness

Wide Teacher Teaching

-Principal relation effectiveness

Pearson Correlation 1 .425

Wide Teacher- Principal relation Sig. (2-tailed) .008
N 300 300
Pearson Correlation .425 1
Teaching Effectiveness Sig. (2-tailed) .008
N 300 300

The Pearson correlation co-efficient of 0.425 in Table 1 shows that there is a moderate positive relationship
between wide principal-teacher relationship and teaching effectiveness. The significance level of 0.008 in the
Table is less than 0.05,(r=0.425, N=300, p<0.05, two-tailed). This shows that H 1 is accepted at the expense of
H0. In this wise, there is significant relationship between wide principal-teacher relation and teaching
effectiveness. This finding is supported by Gamage, et al (2006), that practising participatory management
which is a constituent of Wide Principal-Teacher relationship has been long acknowledge as an essential
ingredient in the quest for better schools. Cheng, (2003) also stressed that effort to enhance organizational
effectiveness since 1990s have featured Wide Principal-Teacher relationship and participative management. Lee
and Chuang (2009) also explained that the excellent leader not only inspires subordinate’s potential to enhance
efficiency but also meets their requirements in the process of achieving organizational goals, the latter also
being a feature of wide principal-teacher relationship. In line with the foregoing, the researcher emphasizes that
democratic consultation should be observed in the decision making process involving shared goals at
appropriate levels so that feedback mechanism can be established to ensure coordination and open
communication to actualise set organizational goals.

Ho2: There is no significant relationship between narrow Principal-teacher relationship and teaching
effectiveness in Lagos state senior secondary schools.

Table 2: Narrow Principal-Teacher Relationship and Teaching effectiveness

10
 Narrow Teacher Teaching
-Principal relation effectiveness

Pearson Correlation 1 .371

Wide Teacher- Principal relation Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 300 300
Pearson Correlation .371 1
Teaching Effectiveness Sig. (2-tailed) .003
N 300 300

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.371 in Table 2 shows that there is low and positive relationship
between narrow principal-teacher relationship and teaching effectiveness. The significance level of .001 in the
above table is less than 0.05(r=0.371, N=300, p<0.05, two-tailed). This shows that H 1 is accepted at the expense
of H0. In this wise, there is significant relationship between narrow principal-teacher relation and teaching
effectiveness. This finding is supported by Wheelan& Kesselring (2005) who asserted that it is important for
principals and various staff groups, that is, teachers, to work together for mutual support. In addition, the
manner in which staff members worked together as a group significantly influence teaching effectiveness and
student outcomes in schools. Staff groups working together in healthy social environments substantiate the need
for relationship development in their school environment. Relationships have many components, both
individual and group in nature, which help to sustain them and add value. One of the most important of all the
relational components is that of trust. It is essential that school leaders develop the trust factor necessary for
teachers to follow and support their efforts. The building and sustaining of one-to-one relationships with
teachers via communicative and supportive behaviours is the overarching trust-promoting behaviour of the
principal (Gimbel, 2003). Daily interpersonal interactions of a principal are necessary to garner trust and
support from teachers. Bateman (1999) suggested, “If teachers perceive they are engaged in meaningless work
with no authority to change rigid bureaucratic policies, then productivity and commitment will be adversely
affected, and the teachers’ leadership capabilities will be ignored” Hence if the relational level is too narrowed
inefficiency will set in , vice versa.

Ho3: There is no significant relationship between Principal-teacher relationship and teachers’ morale in Lagos
state senior secondary schools.

Table 3: Relationship between Principal-Teacher Relationship and Teachers’ Morale

11
 Teacher -Principal Teachers’ Morale
relation

Pearson Correlation 1 .798

Teacher -Principal relation
Sig. (2-tailed) .004
N 300 300
Pearson Correlation .798 1
Teachers’ Morale
Sig. (2-tailed) .004
N 300 300

The Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.798 in table 3 shows that there is strong and positive relationship
between principal-teacher relation and teacher morale. The significance level of .004 in the above table is less
than 0.05(r=0.798, N=300, p<0.05, two-tailed), which shows that H1 is accepted against H0. In this wise, there is
significant relationship between principal-teacher relationship and teachers’ morale. Ewton (2007) in Ngambi
(2011), supported this finding by referring to morale as the fuel that drives an organisation forward or the fuel
that feeds the fires of employee discontent and poor performance which is a function of the level or type of
relationship that exist in an organisation. Ngambi (2011) quoting Mazin (2010) further posits that high
employee morale leads to people coming to work on time, improved communication, less time wasted on
gossip, improved recruitment and retention and more creativity. Another study by Millet (2010) revealed that
narrow relationship in an organisation creates low morale which gradually destroy employee’s commitment,
adversely affect the productivity or service they offer and alienate the clients and customers they serve. The
researcher moreover supported this finding by positing in line with the foregoing that “ a healthy school
environment with wide relationship level boost teachers’ morale to a level so high that they feel good about
each other and at the same time, feel a sense of accomplishment from their jobs”.

Conclusions
From the result of the findings, it can be concluded that the kind and level of relationships that teachers have
with their principals do affect their teaching effectiveness and teachers’ morale. Teachers’ job performance is
more enhanced if the school principals adopt a wide relationship within the school environment rather than
narrow relationship which breeds inefficiency, mistakes and lack of trust and expertise. High teachers’ morale
that leads to greater productivity, enhanced students’ academic achievement and derivative functional education
is associated with wide positive relationship and vice versa.

12
Recommendations
In line with the conclusion drawn from this study, the following recommendations are made:
1. School principals should adopt a combination of democratic and participative leadership style in
administering the schools.
2. Principals should note the importance of helping teachers when they are approached in time of need and
distress. The tone or climate of the school must be friendly, cordial and cooperative.
3. Team spirit and the principle of e spirit de corps should be adopted between and among teachers at top,
middle and lower level cadres.
4. School management in particular, and the state government should create an enabling environment for
the cultivation of wide-positive and superior-subordinate working relationship.
5. The Ministry of Education should as a way of exhibiting leadership by example bring issues of public
interest to an assemblage of teachers for shared decision making so as to create a sense of belonging for
high morale and enhanced productivity.
6. Wide positive relationship should not be limited between teachers and principals alone but should be
extended to the students and all actors or agents in the educational paraphernalia as posited by Sofoluwe
(2000) cited in Akinloye (2013), that the general education of the learner within the school system could
be attributed to the learner, the teacher and the school administrator.
7. Trust is an essential ingredient of participative management and shared decision making necessary to
create a disciplined-friendly relationship in an organization. Hence efforts must be made by all actors of
a school setting to building it.

References
13
Akinloye, G.M. (2013). Teacher Demographic and Behavioural Indicators as Correlates of Student Learning Outcomes in Secondary
Schools in Southwest,Nigeria. PhD Thesis. Nigeria: University of Ibadan.
Allbritten, D., Mainzer, R., & Ziegler D. (2004). Will Students With Disabilities Be Scapegoats for School Failures? Teaching
Exceptional Children, 36(3), 74-75.
Anderson, K. (2002). Why teachers participate in decision-making and the Third Continuum. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy. http://www.umanitoba.capublications.cjeaparticlesanderson.html.htm.

Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational Effectiveness through Transformational Leadership. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York, Free Press.

Boehnke, K., Bontis, N. Distefano, J., & Distefano, A. (2003). Transformational Leadership: An Examination of Cross-national
Differences and Similarities. Leadership and Organization Development Journal, 24(1/2), 5-17.

Bateman, C. (1999). Relationships among empowerment, organizational health, and principal effectiveness. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Missouri.
Blase, J., and Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership:Teachers' perspectives on how principals promote teaching and
learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 130-141.

Bitsa, M.B. &Glasman, N.S. (1998). Principals’ approaches to leadership, their antecedents and student outcomes. Journal of School
Leadership 8(2), 109-136.
Brewer. H. (2001).Ten Steps to Success. Journal of Staff Development. 22(1), 30-31.
Brookover, W., Schweitzer J., Schneider J., & Beady, C. (2005). Elementary school social climate and school achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 15. Retrieved September 12, 2005, from http://links.jstor.org/sici.

Clark, R. (2003). The Essential 55. 1st ed. New York: Hyperion.

Cotton, K., &Wikelund, K. (2001). Parent involvement in education. Retrieved Nov. 10, 2005, from School Improvement Research
Series (SIRS) Web site:http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/3/cu6.html.
Davies, B., Ellison, L. & Bowring-Carr, C. (2005). School Leadership in the 21st Century: Developing a Strategic Approach. London:
Routledge Falmer.

Davis, S., Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., &Meyerson, D.(2005). School Leadership Study: Developing Successful Principals
(Review of Research). Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Educational leadership Institute.

DeSpain, B. (2000). The leader is the servant. Nebraska 199. Col.Nápoles, Méx.:Grupo Editorial Iberoamerica.

Drake, N. M. (1992). The association between principal influence on teachers and student achievement. Doctoral dissertation,
Washington State University, 1992). UMI ProQuest AAT 9321022.

Effective Schools Products, Ltd., (2001). Effective schools primer.Retrieved Dec. 10, 2005, from Revolutionary and Evolutionary:
The Effective Schools Movement Web site: http://www.effectiveschools.com.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco:Jossey Bass.

Gimbel, P. (2003). Solutions for promoting principal-teacher trust. Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.

Gamage, D. (2006). Effective participatory School Administration, leadership, and management: Does it Affect the trust Levels of
Stakeholders?

Haddock P 2010. Importance of Morale. From < http:/ /www.ehow.com> (Retrieved 21 December, 2011).

Ibukun, W.O., 1997. Educational Management: Theory and Practice. Lagos Greenland Publishers.

Ijaiya, N.Y., 2000. Failing schools’ and national development: Time for reappraisal of school effectiveness in Nigeria.
14
 Nigerian J. Edu. Res. Eva., 2(2): 42.

Keiser, C. M. (2007). The relationship between teacher empowerment and organizational commitment. Doctoral Dissertation,
University of Virginia.

Kritsonis, W. (2000). School Discipline: The Art of Survival. Mansfield, OH: BookMasters, Inc.

Lee and Chuang (2009). The Impact of Leadership Styles on Job Stress and Turnover Intention: Taiwan Insurance Industry as an
Example. [email protected].

McEwan, E. (2003). 7 steps to effective instructional leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.

Mendel, P. C. (1987). An Investigation of Factors That Influence Teacher Morale and Satisfaction with Work Conditions. Doctoral
dissertation. Eugene, Oregon: Division of Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon, 1987. 106 pages.

Millet T 2010. 6 Reasons Why Staff Morale is Important. From < http://EzineArticles.com> (Retrieved 16 December, 2011).

Napodia E.D. (2011). Influence of Teachers' Participation in Decision Making on Their Morale in Secondary Schools in Abraka
Metropolis Of Delta State, Nigeria. Journal of Sociology, Psychology and Anthropology in Practice Vol 3, No. 2.

Ngambi HC 2011. The relationship between leadership and employee morale in Higher Education. African Journal of Business
Management, 5 (3): 762-776.

Podsakoff, P. M., McKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (1996). Transformational Leader Behavior and Substitutes for Leadership as
Determinants of Employee Satisfaction, Commitment, Trust, and Organizational Citizenship Behaviors. Journal of
Management,
22(2), 259-298.

Saowalux, P. & Peng, C. (2007). Impact of Leadership Style on Performance: A Study of Six Sigma Professionals in Thailand.
International DSI/Asia and Pacific DSI, July, 2007.

Scorro,P.C. (2008). Participatory Decision making vis- a- vis Teachers’ morale and Students’ Achievement in Public Secondary
Schools in Zamboanga City. Doctoral Thesis,Western Mindanao State University.

Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: getting to the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing willingness to participate. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 14(1), 56-67.

Walsh, J. T. (2005). The nature of principal-teacher relationships at North Carolina Title I elementary schools of distinction. Doctoral
dissertation, East Carolina University. UMI ProQuest AAT 3169123 189.

Wheelan, S., & Kesselring, J. (2005). Link between faculty group development and elementary student performance on standardized
tests. Journal of EducationalResearch, 98(6), 323-330.

15