See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/346566722

THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

Article in Jurnal Cakrawala Pendidikan · October 2020

DOI: 10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

CITATIONS READS

16 1,404

2 authors, including:

Nandang Hidayat
Universitas Pakuan
25 PUBLICATIONS 139 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nandang Hidayat on 11 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

THE IMPACT OF LEADERSHIP BEHAVIOR ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE

Nandang Hidayat*, Farida Wulandari

Universitas Pakuan, Indonesia
*e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract: Principal leadership is an important component that determines the direction and achievement
of school performance. The purpose of this study was to identify the behavior and formulate a theoretical
model of the Structural Equation Model (SEM) dimension of the principal leadership on school
performance. This study used a qualitative approach using the phenomenological method. Participants
in this study were 8 principals and 16 teachers from 8 private junior high schools in the Bogor City and
Regency. Data collection employed in-depth interview techniques, observation of work behavior, and
document review. Data validity was based on credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability
criteria during the data collection. Data analysis was carried out through the stages of organizing data,
sorting them into manageable units, searching and finding patterns, synthesizing, and drawing conclusions.
This research finds the following: 1) the leadership behavior of private secondary school principals
to achieve optimal school performance tends to be situational and conditional; 2) interrelation in the
form of direct or indirect causal relationships between the principal leadership behavior and the school
performance can be formulated in the form of the theoretical SEM consisting of a four-level dimension
of the principal leadership.

Keywords: leadership behavior, school performance, Structural Equation Model

DAMPAK PERILAKU KEPEMIMPINAN TERHADAP KINERJA SEKOLAH

Abstrak: Kepemimpinan kepala sekolah merupakan komponen penting yang menentukan jalannya
organisasi sekolah dan pencapaian kinerja sekolah. Tujuan penelitian ini adalah untuk mengidentifikasi
perilaku dan merumuskan model teoretis dimensi Structural Equation Model (SEM) kepemimpinan
kepala sekolah pada kinerja sekolah. Penelitian ini menggunakan pendekatan kualitatif dan metode
fenomenologis. Penelitian ini melibatkan partisipan sebanyak 8 Kepala Sekolah dan 16 Guru dari 8
Sekolah Menengah Pertama Swasta di Kota dan Kabupaten Bogor. Pengumpulan data menggunakan
teknik wawancara mendalam, observasi perilaku kerja, dan telaah dokumen. Keabsahan data didasarkan
pada kriteria kredibilitas, transferabilitas, dependabilitas, dan konfirmabilitas selama proses pengumpulan
data. Analisis data dilakukan melalui tahapan mengorganisasikan data, memilahnya menjadi satuan
yang dapat dikelola, mencari dan menemukan pola, mensintesis, dan menarik simpulan sesuai fokus
masalah yang diteliti. Penelitian ini menghasilkan simpulan: 1) perilaku kepemimpinan kepala sekolah
menengah pertama swasta untuk mencapai kinerja sekolah yang optimal cenderung bersifat situasional
dan kondisional; 2) interelasi dalam bentuk hubungan kausalitas langsung atau tidak langsung antara
faktor-faktor perilaku kepemimpinan kepala sekolah terhadap kinerja sekolah dapat dirumuskan dalam
bentuk SEM teoretik yang tersusun dalam empat level dimensi kepemimpinan kepala sekolah.

Kata Kunci: perilaku kepemimpinan, kinerja sekolah, Structural Equation Model

INTRODUCTION school performance by influencing in a process

The main function of a principal’s that determining the achievement of school
leadership is to influence and to facilitate the performance. In carrying out its functions,
effort of the educators and educational staff both school needs a leader as a captain in managing
individually and collectively so synergistically and utilizing all potential of the school. Principal
are able to conduct their tasks to achieve school acts as a manager, the principal takes a role
goals. As a leader, the principal is able to improve as a manager in managing the school, so he is

493
494

demanded to have qualified leadership abilities. organizational designs alternative, and different
The main character that must be possessed by distribution and assignment for each organization
a successful leader to achieve performance is chooses (Barclay & Osei-Bryson, 2010). From
an encouragement that includes achievement the description above it appears that there are so
motivation, ambition, energy, tenacity, initiative, many dimensions that can be used as reference
leadership motivation, honesty and integrity, for measuring organization performance.
confidence, cognitive ability, and business Performance achievement of an
knowledge (Malo, 2011). organization certainly depends on how
The principal leadership is the spirit the performance is managed. Performance
that becomes the driving force of the school management is a philosophy about managing
organization to achieve its goals. The principal’s human behavior that aims to facilitate and
leadership behavior must be able to encourage support the conformity of goal between
optimal performance of educators or teachers individual and organization goals in order
and other education personnel through a variety to produce organizational and financial
of mentoring processes, briefing, coaching, performance (Whitford & Coetsee, 2012).
supervision, evaluation, and reflection on the Performance management is a system where an
teachers and educational staff, both individually organization sets goals, determines performance
and as a group. Al principals’ leadership standard, appoints employees to do something
activities must be directed towards improving and evaluates it at the same time, gives feedback,
the quality of the school services to students as determine training and development needs
their main targets. In this case, the application and provide rewards to employees (Claus &
of instructional leadership strategies is one of Briscoe, 2009; Gotcheva, 2009). Performance
the keys to the success of school principals in management is a process that contributes
encouraging improvement in the performance to the effectiveness of individual and team
of educators, education personnel, student management in order to achieve very high level
achievements (Surachmi, 2015; Usman, 2015), of organizational performance (Terracciano,
and student character (Suriansyah & Aslamiah, 2017).
2015). In relation with school organization,
Organizational performance is one of school performance can be measured from the
the most important constructs in management effectiveness, quality, productivity, efficiency,
research (Richard, Devinney, Yip, & Johnson, innovation, quality of life, and work morale
2009). Organization performance measurement (Septiyani, Soegito, & Nurkolis, 2017), input,
is a management tool used to improve the process and outcomes (Hopkins, Day, Hadfield,
quality of decision making and accountability Hargreaves, & Chapman, 2003; Hoy & Miskel,
(Gregory & Whittaker, 2007), encourage the 2006). A school is an education unit that functions
achievement of organization goals and provide as a place for development of student through
feedback for continuous improvement efforts various activities in the process of educational
(Bastian & Muchlish, 2012). Performance is services. Students are the main target or center of
multidimensional so it must be measured based attention that get the service while the principal,
on comparison with various criteria or standards teachers, and other education personnel are
(Rauch, Wiklund, Lumpkin, & Frese, 2009). professionals who are required to carry out
Organization performance can be measured their duties and continuously innovating for the
through effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, and progress of the school to provide the best service
financial sustainability dimensions (Lusthaus, to students.
Adrien, Anderson, Carden, & Montalvan, 2002; The important goal in many studies
Lusthaus, Anderson, & Murphy, 2004). Jing about leadership is to identify the behavior
(2017) has conducted performance measurement aspect that explaining the leader’s influence to
by using six performance parameters, they are a team performance, work unit or organization.
financial results, staff and customers satisfaction, The leadership behaviors used in this research
productivity, retaining staff, and manager was refer to Yukl’s leadership theory that was
retention. Diversity as a result of different grouping the leadership behavior into three
alternative resource allocation, different meta-category hierarchies, namely task-oriented

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 495

behavior, relationship-oriented behavior, and improving school performance. From this point
change-oriented behavior (Yukl, Gary, Gordon, of view, one of the ways to improve school
& Taber, 2007). Based on the results of further performance is by correcting the weaknesses
studies, Yukl (2012) added a new leadership or mistakes of the principal in carrying out his
orientation category to become four categories. leadership function. This study tries to examine
The four categories and the taxonomic hierarchy the leadership behavior of the principal and
of their leadership behaviors are presented in identify weaknesses that should be of concern to
Table 1. the principal.
The final result of good principal leadership The purpose of this study is to explore
is achieving optimal school performance. the tendency of principals’ leadership behavior
However, the facts of the preliminary survey in dealing with a variety of situations during
results indicate a gap between expectations their leadership so that the performance of their
and reality. In this case, based on the results schools is optimal. In addition, this study also
of interviews with the principal obtained a aims to identify the dimensions and factors of
picture that the headmaster had tried to carry leadership and formulate a theoretical model
out leadership well, but the achievement of of Structural Equation Model (SEM) of the
the school’s performance was not optimal as leadership behavior of principals on school
expected. For example, the number of certified performance. The resulting theoretical SEM can
educators is still small, there are still students provide an overview of various factors at each
absent without a clear reason, the accreditation level of the principal’s leadership dimensions in
status achieved has not met expectations, and utilizing all school resources towards achieving
there is still a lack of achievement or appreciation school performance. This theoretical SEM can
received by students, schools, principals, and provide a comprehensive understanding of the
teachers both at the city/district level especially causal relationship either directly or indirectly
the national level. between the factors of principals’ leadership
One of the keys to the success of schools behavior at each level of leadership dimensions
in an effort to improve their performance is and their impact on school performance. The
the leadership behavior of the principal. In results of this study are expected to be used as
this case, what actions must be taken by the input and consideration for school principals and
principal in dealing with various situations in stakeholders in their efforts to improve school
order to have an impact on optimizing the use performance.
of all the resources owned so that it leads to
Table 1. Yukl’s Leadership Behavior Taxonomy
Leader Orientation Hierarchy Leader Behavior Taxonomy
Task-oriented Clarifying
Planning
Operation monitoring
Problem solving
Relationship-oriented Supporting
Developing
Identifying
Empowering
Change-oriented Advocating for change
Imagine change
Encouraging innovation
Facilitate collective learning
Eksternal Networking
External monitoring
Representing
Source: Yukl (2012)

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

496

METHODS indirect effect on school performance. Based

Research Design on the path analysis, a hypothetical Structural
This study uses a qualitative approach Equation Model (SEM) of school leadership
and the method or type of research used is the behavior towards school performance was
phenomenological method (Sammons, Gu, Day, formulated in the form of multilevel models
& Ko, 2011). This study explores data to find (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012).
meaning from the basic and essential things
of phenomena, reality, or events experienced Participant
by the principal as an object of research in This study involved 8 principals and 16
carrying out his leadership function. The main teachers from 8 private junior high schools in
informants in this study were the principal and Bogor city and Bogor district. The determination
the accompanying informant for triangulation of private junior high schools as the research
was the teacher. locus was carried out purposively by taking into
This study seeks to explore and interpret account school performance indicators in terms
the principals’ leadership behaviors as the focus of input, process, output, and outcomes in the
of the phenomenon under study and examine last three years. Some of the indicators used as
various subjective aspects of the principal’s the basis include the completeness of school
actions in relation to the achievement of school infrastructure, the number of certified educators,
performance. In-depth excavations were carried the presence of teachers and students, the status
out to identify the factors that underlie the of accreditation, and the achievement of students,
principal in carrying out each of his actions. The schools, principals and teachers. Demographic
factors identified are then grouped according data of study participants are presented in Table
to the level of leadership dimension. Then the 2.
pathway is analyzed to explore the direct or

Table 2. Research Participants

Principals Teachers
No. Demographic Aspects
(N = 8) (N = 16)
1. Gender M 4 9
F 4 7
2. Age ˂ 30 years - 2
30 – 40 years 1 12
40 – 50 years 7 2
3. Education S1 7 16
S2 1 -
4. Experience of being a ˂ 5 years 2 -
school principal 5 – 10 years 5 2
> 10 years 1 -
5. Teaching experience ˂ 5 years - 2
5 – 10 years 2 7
10 – 20 years 4 5
> 20 years 2 2

Data Collection by observing work behavior and reviewing

Data collection using in-depth interview related documents. Interviews with principals
technique as the main data collection technique. were conducted through face-to-face sessions at
Checking the validity of the interview data was schools. Interviews with teachers were conducted
carried out through triangulation of data sources in two ways, namely Focus Group Discussions
and different data collection techniques, namely (FGD) and one-on-one sessions. Interviews with

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 497

school principals and teachers were conducted The focus of data collection was grouped
repeatedly until the expected data were obtained into eleven situations faced by the principal in
in this study. Observation of work behavior carrying out his leadership duties. The same
includes all activities of school principals and focus was used for both the principal as the
teachers while in school. Document review main informant and the teacher to triangulate.
includes all documents relevant to the data to be The eleven situations that are the focus of data
collected in this study. collection are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Focus of Data Collection

No. Situasion Faced by the Principal Focus of Data Collection
1. Instilling teacher awareness of ethics, norm, The situasion faced and the actions of
standard, procedure, criteria, policy, and regulations the principal
2. Policy implementation, procedure, guidelines, or Examples of events and principal’s
other actions
3. Steps in the development of human resources in Steps taken by principal
school
4. Instilling trust in teachers/staff as credible leaders Steps and actions taken by principal

5. Teacher and staff performance improvement Examples of special procedures or

processes that are prepared or designed
6. Error in making decisions Action in dealing with this situation
and its results
7. Teacher performance is low or not in line with The causes and actions that are
expectations committed by principal
8. Have to make a decision in a difficult situation An example of situation as well as how
the principal behaves and acts
9. Teacher and staff behave not according to norms, Reaction, action, and effect on teacher/
ethics, and regulations staff behavior
10. Conflict of interest with teacher, staff, students, Action and reason for those actions
school committees, or other parties (stakeholders)
11. Work as part of a team Role and action taken so that the team
able to work optimally

Data Analysis FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Data analysis was carried out through Findings
the stages of reducing and organizing data from Principal’s Leadership Behavior
interviews, observation, and document review, The results of data analysis from interviews,
grouping into manageable units, presenting field observations, and documentation studies on
grouped data, searching and finding patterns, the leadership behavior of school principals in
synthesizing, and drawing conclusions. To various situations that are the focus of the study
ensure the quality of the results of data analysis in this study found a number of unique and
in this study, the analysis of interview data for distinctive patterns of behavior. The behavioral
each research focus was cross-checked with synthesis constituting the findings of this study
observation data and related document reviews. is presented in Table 4. Based on the behavior
To ensure the validity of the data generated, the of school principals as presented in Table 4, it
triangulation and iteration process was carried appears that the principal has tried to take the
out while maintaining credibility, transferability, best actions in order to encourage an increase
dependability and confirmability during data in the performance of educators and education
collection (Williamson, Given, & Scifleet, personnel so that it has an impact on school
2018). performance. However, through this research, it
was found that there were three weaknesses in

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

498

the behavior of school principals in carrying out increasing active teacher participation, such as
their roles as leaders, namely: 1) development of actively participating in seminars and workshops
collaborative networks with various parties, 2) related to the main duties and functions of
concrete efforts to improve teacher performance teachers.
in terms of professionalism as educators; 3)

Table 4. Principal’s Leadership Behavior in Various Situations

No. Focus of Data Collection Principal’s Leadership Behavior
1. Instilling teacher awareness Clarifying in writing through standard operating procedures or
of ethics, norm, standard, verbally delivered in a meeting at the end of the semester or in a
procedure, criteria, policy, routine meeting.
and regulations
2. Policy implementation, Preparation of program plans, activities, guidelines, etc. Involves
procedure, guidelines, or educators, educational staff, and school committee representatives.
other Supervising, guiding, and coaching in its implementation and
evaluating the results regularly.
3. Steps in the development Facilitating and requiring all teachers to be active in MGMP
of human resources in activities, attend seminars, training, workshops, or other scientific
school activities, provide scholarships for further education, hold training
or workshops at the end of each year at schools by inviting outside
experts, and facilitating teachers who are not yet certified to attend
Pendidikan Profesi Guru (PPG).
4. Instilling trust in teachers/ Implementing lifelong learning, always innovating, advocating
staff as credible leaders to educators and education personnel, responsive to criticism and
suggestions, and trying to recognize the characteristics of each
educator and educational staff, so that they understand the actions
needed to serve and meet their needs.
5. Teacher and staff Clarify every task that must be completed, jointly design programs
performance improvement and targets, conduct continuous supervision, coaching and
directing, and resolve problems that arise immediately.
6. Error in making decisions Each decision is discussed first by involving educators and
education personnel and before it is decided, it is consulted with
the organizing foundation.
7. Teacher performance is Evaluating performance objectively and transparently, conducting
low or not in line with one-one sessions, applying the principles of reward and punishment,
expectations fulfilling rights according to regulations, and opening career
opportunities according to achievement.
8. Have to make a decision in Consult each case with applicable regulations both from the
a difficult situation government and from schools / foundations, so that decisions taken
do not conflict with these rules.
9. Teacher and staff behave In general, principals use a problem-solving approach rather than
not according to norms, imposing sanctions.
ethics, and regulations
10 Conflict of interest with Taking personal approaches with conflicting parties and delaying
teacher, staff, students, conflict resolution time to calm their emotions. Conflict resolution
school committees, or is done by focusing on the problems that cause conflict and trying
other parties (stakeholders) not to touch personal problems. If the conflict cannot be resolved
internally at the school, then ask for help from the organizing
foundation.
11. Work as part of a team Disseminate the vision and mission of the school to all school
members in various ways, build a positive work culture, develop
information system management, and carry out activities that can
build a sense of togetherness on a regular basis.

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 499

Structural Equation Model Principal’s At the level 1 leadership dimension,

Leadership on School Performance two main factors or variables of headmaster
Actions taken in dealing with various leadership were identified, namely “school
situations and utilizing all resources owned by plans” and “school organization design”.
the school are basically the efforts of the principal From these two main variables, three other
to achieve optimal school performance. The variables can be identified that are suspected
consistency of the actions of the principal shows to be directly related, namely “human resource
the pattern of leadership behavior exhibited development”, “observation and supervision”,
by the principal. Every principal’s action is and “data utilization”. The causality relationship
certainly triggered by a number of factors or between the five variables forms a separate
variables. These factors are interrelated causally system. The first two variables, namely “school
and contribute either directly or indirectly to the plans” and “school organization design” interact
achievement of school performance. with each other and both directly affect three
In-depth interviews with principals, other variables, namely “human resource
teachers, and related document review are development”, “observation and supervision”,
conducted to explore and identify factors or and “data utilization”. Two other variables
variables within the scope of the principal’s outside the five variables work as exogenous
leadership dimensions which are predicted to variables, namely “the trust of the principal”
contribute to school performance. Rational and “the trust of the organizing foundation”. The
analysis with reference to the theory and results of variable “trust foundation organizers” operate
research that examines the relationship between through “principals’ trust” which functions as an
leadership variables with school performance is endogenous variable to the first two variables,
carried out to formulate the Structural Equation namely “school organization design” and
Model (SEM) of school leadership variables on “school planning”. Thus, at the level 1 leadership
school performance. For the purposes of SEM dimension, there are seven factors or variables
formulation, the factors that have been identified that form a structural model in the principal’s
are further grouped into four levels of leadership leadership practices.
dimensions as shown in Table 5. At the level 2 leadership dimension there
are five factors or variables, namely “division
Table 5. Distribution of Factors/Variables for of tasks”, “administration staff leadership”,
Each Level of Leadership Dimension “teacher collaboration through Musyawarah
Leadership
Factors/Variables Guru Mata Pelajaran (MGMP)”, “learning
Dimension quality”, and “teacher performance”. This
Level 1 1. School planning study shows that the “school trust” factor in
2. School organization design
3. Trust of the school organizing
the level 1 leadership dimension is thought to
foundation have a direct effect on five factors in the level
4. Principal trust 2 leadership dimension. The “school planning”
5. Observation and supervision and “school organization design” factors have an
6. Human resources depelopment indirect effect on “task division” and “leadership
7. Data utilization
administrative staff “which is operated through
Level 2 1. Division of task
2. Administrative staff leadership the” human resource development “factor as an
3. Teacher colaboration trough MGMP intermediate or endogenous variable. The factor
4. Learning quality of “division of leadership tasks” and “teacher
5. Teacher performance collaboration through MGMP” is thought to
Level 3 1. Improving school condition contribute and influence directly on “leadership
2. Assessment for feedback of administrative staff”. These factors are
3. Internal dan external colaboration
culture supported by the statement of school principals
4. Utilazation learning opportunity and teachers that “the division of leadership
Level 4 1. Increased student learning outcomes tasks” and “teacher collaboration through
2. Increased student attendance MGMP” will work well if they receive adequate
3. Motivation, enthusiasm, behaviour, support from the “leadership staff administrative
dan learning culture
4. School performance
factors”. Meanwhile it is suspected that “teacher

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

500

collaboration through MGMP” contributes other factors of the level 3 leadership dimension.
indirectly to “teacher performance” which Level 4 consists of four factors, they are
operates through “learning quality” as an “motivation, enthusiasm, behavior, and learning
intermediate or endogenous variable. This culture”, “increased of learning outcomes”,
fact shows that “teacher collaboration through “increasing in student attendance”, “school
MGMP” will have an impact on “teacher performance” factors. It was suspected that these
performance” if that factor can improve “learning four factors were interconnected both directly
quality”. and indirectly, thus it formed its own structural
At the level 3 leadership dimension there model. Factor of “motivation, enthusiasm,
are five factors or variables, namely “culture of behavior, and learning culture”, and “increasing
internal and external collaboration”, “utilization in student attendance” revealed that there was
of learning opportunity”, “assessment for direct or indirect relationship of the two factors
feedback”, and “improving school conditions”. with “school performance” where “the increasing
It was suspected that “school organization in learning outcomes” became an intermediate
design” factor of leadership dimension of level variable or endogenous. It was suspected that
1 has contributed on direct influence to “school factors of the level 3 leadership dimension had
condition improvement”. It was suspected that not direct relation with “school performance”,
“principal trust” factor did not influence directly but all factors worked through the first three in
to all factors or variables of level 3 leadership the level 4 leadership dimension, which were
dimension, but it worked through the level 2 “motivation, enthusiasm, behavior, and learning
leadership dimension factors as an intermediate culture”, “increased of learning outcomes”, and
variable or endogenous. Meanwhile, leadership “increasing in student attendance”. Meanwhile,
dimension factors of level 3 indicated relationship it was also found out that there were data which
of one and another dimension. In this case, lead to allegation that the factors of “division of
“internal and external collaboration culture” was leadership task” and “teacher performance” had
suspected to have direct relation with “utilization a direct influence on “the school performance”.
of learning opportunity” and “assessment for “School performance” factor was the dependent
feedback”, so it became an endogenous variable variable that became the final estuary of the
of “division of task”, “administrative staff alleged SEM in this study.
leadership”, and “teacher collaboration through The alleged SEM that resulting from
MGMP” factors. However, there was no data explorative research which was the initial
that lead to the alleged relationship between research of the mixed-method research was
“improving school condition” factor with three presented in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Alleged SEM of Leadership Dimension with School Performance

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 501

Discussion The principal leadership effect was weak but

Principal’s Leadership Behavior significant, but the teacher leadership effect was
One of the findings in this research was not significant. Both forms of leaderships were
that leadership developed by the principal mediated by many of the same elements of the
was more situational depending on the case school organization (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999).
or problem faced by the principal in carrying This study also found that school principals
out his leadership. It means, from the four had relatively high self-efficacy in deciding
tendencies of leadership orientation according what actions to take in various situations faced.
to Yukl (2012), there was no tendency of typical Although in making their decisions, they always
leadership orientation adopted by the principal. consult with the organizer of the foundation, but
This finding showed that during carrying out the final decision is in their hands. In order to
his leadership’s function, the principal did not support the principal’s effectiveness in carrying
fixate on one tendency leadership orientation out his leadership function, a principal must
(task-oriented, relationship, change, or external). pose high self-efficacy. Related to this matter,
Actions or leadership behavior which were a study found out that principal self-efficacy
exhibited by the principal were stressed more confidence was important because it guided
on the situation or problem facing, so the action action and leader’s behavior that affected
taken was more stressed on the needs of problem student expectation and teachers’ motivation
solving and effort to encourage the optimal and also school improvement process (Versland
school performance. & Erickson, 2017). It means the findings of
The findings were in line with result of this research were also support the need for a
the research by Bruner, Grennlee, & Somers- study about principal self-efficacy and various
Hill (2007) that stated school change requires operational efforts to improve it.
a metacognitive and reflective troubleshooter The results of this study also found that the
leader. It means, the principal that acted as a actions of school principals who were relatively
manager was required to be able to take an well turned out to be not directly in line with
appropriate action depend on the problem and the school performance achievements. However, a
condition facing that made him able to encourage number of studies have shown that the principal’s
the school organization performance in the leadership contributes to teacher performance
near future. In the relation with the principal’s (Apriani, Maria, & Yulianto, 2017; Octavia
leadership, all of the principal leadership & Savira, 2016), teacher work productivity
activities must be directed to encourage the (Lestari, Hidayat, & Putra, 2018) and students’
improvement of the school services to students outcomes (Pina, Cabral, & Alves, 2015). This
as the main target (Malo, 2011), principal must finding gives a clue that school performance is
supervise and monitor the progress of teachers in not only determined by the principal’s leadership
class (Ediger, 2014). variable, but there are a number of other variables.
These findings illustrated that the principal Therefore, an in-depth study needs to be carried
leadership through their actions in various out to identify other variables that contribute to
situations became variables that influenced school performance.
the effectiveness and efficiency of the teacher The study also found that school
and staff during carrying out their duty. These principals did not exhibit behaviors that lead
findings were supported by another research that to change-oriented leadership. There are no
showed a principal’s leadership was a variable principal actions that can be categorized into
that can be raised up teacher’s efficiency although change-oriented leadership. In fact, change-
it could also reduce this capacity whenever the oriented leadership behavior which in practice
school leadership was not effective (Soehner & is realized in the form of transformational
Ryan, 2012). As a leader, the principal guided leadership is very important to encourage
the school to teach and study better (Wallace improvement in school performance so that it
Foundation, 2013). Another research result becomes an effective school (Allen, Grigsby, &
were also showed a greater effect of principal Peters, 2015; Yang, 2014). Meanwhile, change
leadership if compared to the teacher leadership’s is a characteristic of life in the industrial era 4.0
sources in relation to student involvement. and the digital era which is currently happening

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

502

(Fitriyah & Santosa, 2020; Wening & Santosa, only based on increasing students’ academic
2020). Therefore, it is necessary to design achievement, but based on the students’ academic
training programs that can guide principals and non-academic achievement, national
to better understand and be able to implement examination results, educator achievements,
change-oriented or transformational leadership satisfaction of school residents, and public trust
in their schools. in schools.
Based on inter-relationship amongst
Structural Equation Model Principal’s the factors of school leadership which been
Leadership on School Performance formulated in conjectural SEM of principal’s
This research was also found out that there leadership behavior practice showed that this
were several dimension factors of principal’s practiced was not directly influenced to the
leadership and its interrelation with school school performance improvement. Principal’s
performance. Based on the results of a rational leadership practices through several actions or
study of these factors, they were then positioned his leadership behavior were indeed intended
as estrogen and endogen variable to increase to influence the positive change of the school
school performance and then were grouped into performance, but the changed was happened
four levels or stages of leadership dimension of through the operation effect of teacher’s
SEM principal leadership on school performance. performance, learning process quality, also
Level 1 leadership dimension consists of six development of a conductive climate and culture
factors, namely: 1) school planning, 2) school of school collaboration and emphasizing high
organization design, 3) principal trust, 4) expectation on academic and non-academic
observation and supervision, 5) human resources achievements of students, national examination
development, and 6) data utilization. Level 2 results, educator achievements, satisfaction
leadership dimension with five factors, namely: of school residents, and public trust in schools
1) division of leadership tasks, 2) administrative which were the main parameters of the school
leadership staff, 3) teachers collaboration performance. The changed was supported
through MGMP, 4) learning quality, and 5) by the research result which explained that
teacher performance. Level 3 leadership transformational instructional leadership which
dimension with four factors, namely: 1) internal took place in an integrated manner had an effect
and external collaboration culture, 2) utilization on school performance as measured by the
of learning opportunities, 3) assessment for quality of pedagogy and student achievement
feedback, and 4) school condition improvement. which was substantial (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Level 4 leadership dimension with four factors, Although the conjectural SEM produced
namely: 1) motivation, enthusiasm, behavior, in this research has not been empirically tested,
and learning culture, 2) improvement of but reminding the importance of the practice
student learning outcomes, 3) increased student model of principal leadership which was always:
attendance, and 4) school performance. 1) building a school climate in the form of
It was suspected that factors or variables of disciplined behavior, orderly, and adhere to
all four leadership levels were direct or indirectly the norms, values, and rules, 2) encouraging
had mutual influenced on each other to form learning motivation to all school residents, and
SEM of principal leadership behavior practice 3) developing collaboration culture, learning
toward school performance improvement that culture, utilizing feedback on the results of
could be seen in figure 4.4. Although there were assessments, and continually improving the
differences in several factors due to difference condition of the school environment. All of these
characteristic of schools under study, these variables were suspected to predict of positive
findings supported the results of research on change in student behavior and attendance as a
the impact of leadership on students’ outcomes midterm result which encouraged in improving
(Sammons et al., 2011). However, our research academic achievement and in turn encouraged
was different, because the focus of the research an increase in school performance.
was related to the tendency of the principal’s It was in-line with the result of other
leadership orientation. Moreover, the school relevant study about the principal’s leadership
performance parameters measured were not that showed that variations in classroom teaching

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 503

were linked to principals’ leadership through publish articles on the results of this study.
several channels. The strongest of which were
professional development quality and program REFERENCES
coherence (Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012). Allen, N., Grigsby, B., & Peters, M. L. (2015).
Although there was a relatively strong suitability Does leadership matter ? Examining the
with another relevant result research, this SEM relationship among transformational
was still conjecture that still needed empirical leadership, school climate, and student
testing through path analysis. Further research achievement. NCPEA International
was still needed to test whether the conjectural Journal of Educational Leadership
SEM was tested so that its structure could be Preparation, 10(2), 1-28. https://www.
maintained or needed revising and according to ncpeapublications.org/index.php/volume-
the results of path analysis. 10-number-2-fall-2015/689.

CONCLUSION Apriani, D., Maria, M. D., & Yulianto, A. R.

The leadership behavior of private (2017). Korelasi kepemimpinan dan
secondary school principals in carrying out perilaku etis kepala sekolah dengan
their leadership functions to achieve optimal motivasi kerja dan kinerja guru SMP
school performance tends to be situational and Pius Tegal. [Correlation of leadhership
conditional. However, there is no evidence of and head master’s ethical behavior
change oriented school principals’ behavior. towards teacher’s working motivation
SEM theoretical practices of principals’ and performance]. Cakrawala: Jurnal
leadership behavior towards school performance Pendidikan, 11(2), 115-124. https://doi.
can be formulated in four levels of leadership org/10.24905/cakrawala.v11i2.844.
dimensions, namely 1) Level 1 leadership
Barclay, C., & Osei-Bryson, K. M. (2010).
dimension with seven factors: trust of the
Project performance development
school organizing foundation, principal trust,
framework: An approach for developing
school planning, school organization design,
performance criteria & measures for
observation and supervision, human resources
information systems (IS) projects.
development, and data utilization; 2) Level 2
International Journal of Production
leadership dimension with five factors: division
Economics, 124(1), 272-292. https://doi.
of tasks, administrative staff leadership, teacher
org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2009.11.025.
collaboration through MGMP, learning quality,
and teacher performance; 3) Level 3 leadership Bastian, E., & Muchlish, M. (2012). Perceived
dimension with four factors: internal and environment uncertainty, business
external collaboration culture, utilization of strategy, performance measurement
learning opportunities, assessment for feedback, systems and organizational performance.
and improving school conditions; and 4) Level Procedia - Social and Behavioral
4 leadership dimension with four factors: Sciences, 65(1), 787-792. https://doi.
motivation, enthusiasm, learning behavior and org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.200.
culture, increased student learning outcomes,
increased student attendance, and school Bruner, D. Y., Grennlee, B. J., & Somers-Hill,
performance. M. (2007). The reality of leadership
preparation in a rapidly changing
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS context: Best practice vs. reality.
Our thanks to the Director and all Director Journal of Research on Leadership
Assistances of the Sekolah Pascasarjana Education, 2(1), 158-198. https://doi.
Universitas Pakuan for providing financial org/10.1177/194277510700200201.
support so that this research can be carried out.
Thank you to the review team who provided Claus, L., & Briscoe, D. (2009). Employee
input to revise the results of this study. Thank you performance management across borders:
to the Editor and Staff of the Jurnal Cakrawala A review of relevant academic literature.
Pendidikan for providing the opportunity to International Journal of Management

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

504

Reviews, 11(2), 175-196. https://doi. of leadership on student engagement

org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2008.00237.x. with school. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 35(5), 679-706. https://doi.
Ediger, M. (2014). The changing role of the org/10.1177/0013161X99355002.
school principal. College Student Journal,
48(2), 265-267. http://ezproxy.wingate. Lestari, A., Hidayat, N., & Putra, K. S. (2018).
edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost. Hubungan antara kepemimpinan
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&A transformasional dan iklim organisasi
N=97002779&site=ehost-live. dengan produktivitas kerja guru. [The
relationship between transformational
Fitriyah, I., & Santosa, A. B. (2020). leadership and organizational climate
Kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dalam with teacher work productivity]. Jurnal
menghadapi era revolusi industri 4.0 Manajemen Pendidikan, 6(2), 672-682.
untuk meningkatkan mutu sekolah. https://doi.org/10.33751/jmp.v6i2.794.
[Principal leadership in the era of the
Industrial Revolution 4.0 is to improve Lusthaus, C., Adrien, M.-H., Anderson, G.,
the quality of school]. Jurnal Manajemen, Carden, F., & Montalvan, P. (2002).
Kepemimpinan, dan Supervisi Pendidikan, Organizational assessment: A framework
5(1), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.31851/ for improving performance. Washington,
jmksp.v5i1.3538. DC: International Development Research
Centre. https://www.idrc.ca/sites/default/
Gotcheva, N. (2009). Book review: Dennis files/openebooks/998-4/index.html.
Briscoe, Randall Schuler and Lisbeth
Claus international human resource Lusthaus, C., Anderson, G., Murphy, E.,
management: Policies and practices Lusthaus, C., Anderson, G., & Murphy,
for multinational enterprises (3rd E. (2004). The basics of capacity,
ed). London: Routledge. https://doi. organizational capacity development,
org/10.1177/0950017009337067. and evaluation. Ottawa, ON: Institutional
Assessment a Framework for
Gregory, A., & Whittaker, J. (2007). Performance Strengthening Organizational Capacity
and performance persistence of “ethical” for IDRC’s Research Partners.
unit trusts in the UK. Journal of Business
Finance and Accounting, 34(7-8), 1327- Malo, R. (2011). Leadeship’s trait theories.
1344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- In Annals of Eftimie Murgu University
5957.2007.02006.x. Resita, Fascicle II, Economic Studies.
Massachusetts: EBSCO, pp. 215-220.
Harris, A., Hopkins, D., Day, C., Hadfield,
M., Hargreaves, A. and Chapman, C. Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003).
(2003). Effective leadership for school Principal leadership and school
improvement. London, UK: Routledge. performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional
Hoy, W. K. & Miskel, C. G. (2006). Contemporary leadership. Educational Administration
issues in educational policy and school Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397. https://doi.
outcomes. Greenwich, CT: Information org/10.1177/0013161X03253412.
Age.
Octavia, L.S & Savira, S. I. (2016). Gaya
Jing, F. F. (2017). Leadership paradigms and kepemimpinan kepala sekolah dalam
performance in small service firms. upaya meningkatkan kinerja guru
Journal of Management and Organization, dan tenaga kependidikan. [Principal
24(03), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1017/ leadership style in an effort to improve the
jmo.2017.44. performance of teachers and education
personnel]. Jurnal Dinamika Manajemen
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative
Pendidikan, 1(1), 7-14. https://doi.
effects of principal and teacher sources
org/10.26740/jdmp.v1n1.p7-14.

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

 505

Pina, R., Cabral, I., & Alves, J. M. (2015). Scholar-Practitioner Quarterly, 5(3),
Principal’s leadership on students’ 274-288. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
outcomes. Procedia - Social and EJ974355.pdf.
Behavioral Sciences, 197, 949-954. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.07.279. Surachmi, S. (2015). Efektivitas dimensi internal
kepala sekolah dalam kepemimpinan
Rauch, A., Wiklund, J., Lumpkin, G. T., & Frese, pembelajaran. [The effectiveness of
M. (2009). Entrepreneurial orientation the internal dimensions of the principal
and business performance: An assessment in learning leadership]. Cakrawala
of past research and suggestions for the Pendidikan, 30(3), 433-448. https://doi.
future. Entrepreneurship: Theory and org/10.21831/cp.v3i3.4206.
Practice, 33(3), 761-787. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00308.x. Suriansyah, A., & Aslamiah. (2015). Strategi
kepemimpinan kepala sekolah, guru, orang
Richard, P. J., Devinney, T. M., Yip, G. S., tua, dan masyarakat dalam membentuk
& Johnson, G. (2009). Measuring karakter siswa. [The leadership strategies
organizational performance: Towards of school principals, teachers, parents, and
methodological best practice. Journal of the communities in building the students’
Management, 35(3), 718-804. https://doi. character]. Cakrawala Pendidikan,
org/10.1177/0149206308330560. 34(2), 234-247. https://doi.org/10.21831/
cp.v2i2.4828.
Sammons, P., Gu, Q., Day, C., & Ko, J.
(2011). Exploring the impact of school Terracciano, N. (2017). Performance
leadership on pupil outcomes: Results management at the organizational
from a study of academically improved level. Annals of Spiru Haret University
and effective schools in England. Economic Series, 17(2), 19-28. https://
International Journal of Educational doi.org/10.26458/1722.
Management, 49(2), 82-103. https://doi.
org/10.1108/09513541111100134. Usman, H. (2015). Model kepemimpinan
instruksional kepala sekolah. [The school
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). principals’ instructional leadership
The influence of principal leadership model]. Cakrawala Pendidikan, 34(3),
on classroom instruction and student 322-333. https://doi.org/10.21831/
learning: A study of mediated pathways cp.v3i3.7338.
to learning. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 48(4), 626-663. https://doi. Versland, T. M., & Erickson, J. L. (2017).
org/10.1177/0013161X11436273. Leading by example: A case study of the
influence of principal self-efficacy on
Septiyani, L., Soegito, S., & Nurkolis, N. (2017). collective efficacy. Cogent Education,
Strategi peningkatan mutu pendidikan 4(1), 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311
melalui penerapan manajemen berbasis 86X.2017.1286765.
sekolah di SD Negeri 02 Bantarbolang
Kabupaten Pemalang. [The strategy Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school
for improving the quality of education principal as leader: Guiding schools to
through the implementation of school- better teaching and learning. perspective.
based management at SD Negeri 02 Washington, DC: Author. https://www.
Bantarbolang, Pemalang Regency]. wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/
Jurnal Manajemen Pendidikan (JMP), Documents/The-School-Principal-as-
5(1), 21-29 https://doi.org/10.26877/jmp. Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-
v5i1.1922. Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf.

Soehner, D., & Ryan, T. (2012). The Wening, M. H., & Santosa, A. B. (2020).
interdependence of principal school Strategi kepemimpinan kepala sekolah
leadership and student achievement. dalam menghadapi era digital 4.0.

The Impact of Leadership Behavior on School Performance

 506

[Principal leadership strategies in facing 7.00019-4.

the digital era 4.0]. Jurnal Manajemen,
Kepemimpinan, dan Supervisi Pendidikan, Yang, Y. (2014). Principals’ transformational
5(1), 56-64. https://doi.org/10.31851/ leadership in school improvement.
jmksp.v5i1.3537. International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(3), 279-288. https://doi.
Whitford, C. M., & Coetsee, W. J. (2012). A org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0063.
model of the underlying philosophy and
criteria for effective implementation of Yukl, G. (2012). Effective leadership behavior:
performance management. SA Journal What we know and what questions need
of Human Resource Management, 4(1), more attention. Academy of Management
63-73. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajhrm. Perspectives, 26(4), 66-85. https://doi.
v4i1.78. org/10.5465/amp.2012.0088.

Williamson, K., Given, L. M., & Scifleet, P. Yukl, Gary, Gordon, A., & Taber, T. (2007).
(2018). Qualitative data analysis. In A hierarchical taxonomy of leadership
K. Williamson, & G. Johanson (Eds.), behavior: Integrating a half century of
Research methods: Information, systems, behavior research. Journal of Leadership &
and contexts. Prahran, VIC: Tilde Organizational Studies, 9(1), 15-32. https://
University Press, pp. 417-439). https:// doi.org/10.1177/107179190200900102.
doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-102220-

Cakrawala Pendidikan, Vol. 39, No. 3, October 2020 doi:10.21831/cp.v39i3.31005

View publication stats