Research Article: 2021 Vol: 24 Issue: 1S
Jose Luis Camarena-Mucha, Universidad César Vallejo
Isabel Menacho-Vargas, Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista
Hugo Neptali Cavero-Aybar, Universidad Andina Néstor Cáceres Velásquez
Yudy Yaneth Tapia-Centellas, Universidad Nacional del Altiplano
Elizabeth Grados-Zavala, Universidad César Vallejo
Irma Esperanza Aybar-Bellido, Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga
The objective of the study was to determine the impact of transformational leadership on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima in the year 2020. The research was non-experimental and cross-sectional with a quantitative approach, the population consisted of 106 individuals of whom 5 were managers and 101 teachers, being a small population, and the total population was used as a sample. To carry out the research, three self-administered questionnaires were used as instruments, one on teacher performance, and another on transformational leadership and an evaluation of teachers to managers. The instruments had a high reliability evaluated through Cronbach's Alpha statistic. To contrast the hypotheses, the non-parametric pseudo-R-squared statistic, model fit information and parameter estimations were used. According to the results obtained, which prove that transformational leadership significantly influences the variable institutional climate and teaching performance in an educational institution located in Lima, it is also concluded that intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration and idealized influence, significantly influence the institutional climate and teaching performance, demonstrated from the Nagelkerke value in which 0.364, 0.211, 0.318, 0.221 were obtained for each dimension, respectively.
intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation and pedagogical leadership.
The type of leadership exercised by the individual in charge of a group of people has a positive or negative influence on the attitudes of the team. In the pedagogical field, the principal is the leading figure of the teachers, and is responsible for the motivation of the staff, through the use of tools that help the achievement of the goals and objectives of the educational institution; committing the teachers to contribute and get involved in the achievement of these goals. In this sense, the principal must have the leadership to articulate and engage educational agents; and in this way, improve teaching practice, cooperate with the formation of students and create a positive institutional climate (Domingo, 2020). Leadership in the teaching field is associated with the principal's ability to influence his staff in order to obtain improvements in the use of pedagogical methods and techniques; the leadership process needs to be fed back, according to daily circumstances. This is why, in order to carry out the proposed educational reforms, the participation of the principals is required in order to develop successful and sustainable projects over time, thus improving the quality of education (Rosas, 2020).
Marina (2015) argues that a good educational outcome is the result of the quality of the teaching staff, so that students with high-performing teachers will be able to progress faster than students with teachers who do not have high performance. This is why the teacher plays an important role, since through practice he or she can achieve the intended objectives of both the student and the school. However, many times, teachers are not taken into account in the development of directives, objectives, among others, making the teacher just stick to the imposed guidelines. It should be considered that, teacher performance may be determined by their personal capacity, so their teaching practice would directly influence the learning of their students, which would also be due to factors such as the reality of the school, the effort of each student, the family, etc. (Hernández & Ceniceros, 2018). Currently, the government uses teacher performance evaluation as a tool for educational quality, however, there is controversy about its effectiveness, forms and conception (Dimaté, Tapiero, González, Rodríguez, & Arcila, 2016). The directives made by the leader - director of the educational institution, can create an eco-climate in the institution, so it is important that managers work on leadership, in order to engage the teaching staff and achieve the proposed achievements. At the local level, in the secondary school of the Manuel González Prada mixed educational institution, located on Andrés Avelino Cáceres de Huaycán Avenue in the district of Ate, it was observed that communication with teachers was carried out through directives and documents issued by the management, this being the only way to reach understandings, since teachers are divided into groups, questioning the changes made by the management. On the other hand, teachers are not very participative, unmotivated and tend to work year after year with the same grade, using the same programs.
On the other hand, the management does not have an assertive communication with the teaching staff, being weak the communicative connection. Teachers when listening to the principal's speech, show their dissatisfaction through complaints, questioning her managerial management capacity. The communication problems increased since the end of 2018 since by provision of the R.M Nº 667-2018 the I.E. provides more hours of Technical training, this caused the leave of absence of some teachers and with it a difficult position, in relation to that, the direction only issued documents in between to comply with the new directives. Under these considerations, the following general problem was formulated from the question: How does transformational leadership affect the institutional climate and teaching performance in an educational institution in Lima, for the year 2020? On the other hand, the specific problems included the determination of the incidence of the dimensions related to intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration and idealized influence on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution, Lima, 2020. The present research, from a practical perspective, provides a reference for the institution under study, allowing access to an updated diagnosis of the institutional situation at all levels, which will facilitate the making of important decisions, by making an introspection of the institution. In the methodological value, the information and methodology used in the study is clear and precise, so that the theoretical bases are cemented and will allow proposing solutions to the problems presented, giving the opportunity to continue with further research. Epistemologically, the study is justified since it has three substantial variables in the pedagogical sector, so this knowledge serves as a diagnostic tool of the institutional situation, contributing to better management; in addition, the study on leadership emphasizes that the leader collaborates with leading people to their own growth, thus making them competitive.
In view of the above, the objectives of this research were to determine the incidence of the dimensions of intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration and idealized influence on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima, Lima, 2020. The general hypothesis of the research proposes that transformational leadership has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020. The specific hypothesis proposes that the dimensions intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration and idealized influence have a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
De la Cruz (2019), in his study conducted at CEPRE of La Universidad del Centro in Peru, determined the influence of transformational leadership on teaching performance. The research was non-experimental of basic type, with a descriptive-correlational level. The study sample consisted of 50 teachers, and questionnaires were used as instruments. The result was 45 as the continuity correction value and 0.00 as the p-value, which leads to the conclusion that teaching performance is significantly influenced by transformational leadership.
Rosas (2020), in his study conducted at the Mariano Melgar educational institution, aimed to determine, from the students' perspective, the relationship between the principal's leadership and teaching performance. The study sample consisted of 110 students. The research had a descriptive correlational design. Two questionnaires were used as instruments, one on the principal's pedagogical leadership and the other on teacher performance. The study had a descriptive correlational design. From the results it was concluded that teacher performance and the principal's pedagogical leadership have a significant relationship. Orellana (2019), in his study aimed to determine whether the transformational, laissez faire and transactional dimensions influenced teacher performance. The study sample consisted of 105 teachers belonging to 9 schools in El Salvador. Two questionnaires were used as instruments: a multifactorial questionnaire and a teacher self-evaluation questionnaire. Multiple regressions were used to analyze the results. According to the results, it was observed that transactional leadership had a positive correlation with teacher performance.
Casas (2019), in his research conducted in the educational institution María Parado de Bellido, located in Lima; aimed to determine the relationship between the principal's pedagogical leadership and performance. The research design was cross-sectional correlational and quantitative in approach. The study sample consisted of 280 students, 3 principals and 44 teachers. A survey was used as an instrument that was validated through expert judgment and the reliability obtained through the Cronbach's Alpha test was 92%. Pearson's correlation coefficient statistic was used to contrast the hypothesis, giving a correlation result of 0.897 for the variables, which leads to the conclusion that good leadership by the principal results in good teaching performance.
Calderon, Chávarry & Chanduví (2016) aimed to determine the influence of transformational leadership on teacher performance in an educational institution located in Pacora, Lambayeque. The study sample consisted of 17 teachers who attended the transformational program. The type of design was test and post-test. The survey was used as an instrument, which was validated by expert judgment and the reliability obtained through the Cronbach's Alpha test was 0.856. The Student's T statistic was used to prove that teacher performance increased due to the transformational leadership program, since the average before the program was 0.59 and after the program was 2.53, which indicates a satisfactory performance. Castañeda (2018) determined the link between teacher performance evaluation and academic performance in undergraduate students at the University of Zacapa, Guatemala. The study was descriptive and correlational, the sample comprised 270 students and 23 teachers. Questionnaires were used as an instrument to collect information. The results concluded that there were indices of 92.26% and 93.07% for teaching performance and academic performance, respectively; therefore, it is concluded that there is a significant relationship between these variables.
Theories of the Study Variables
Leadership is the influence that the leader has on individuals through behaviors and/or skills that favor motivation, orientation and help the person or groups to achieve the objectives set as a whole (Madrigal, 2011). Studies on leadership range from the business area to the academic context and are focused on the leader's behaviors in circumstances where he/she has to demonstrate leadership to his/her group or subordinates (López, Slater, & García, 2010). In the pedagogical area, managerial leadership is one of the most relevant aspects of student learning (Leithwood, 2004). Marzano, Waters & McNulty (2005), highlight the positive impact that management teams can have on schools and student learning. This impact is indirect through the establishment of organizational conditions set by managers. In addition, the quality of teaching is enhanced by management leaders, which benefits the work climate and educational policy (Stoll & Temperley, 2009).
In the pedagogical area, the principal influences the education of students and involves parents in school activities, which is done together with the teaching staff. This improves the competencies and motivation of teachers and improves the work climate (MINEDU, 2018). With respect to transformational leadership, the leader can show different patterns to follow according to the given circumstances and what they require. In this sense, the leader motivates his team to strive to achieve the objectives set for the collective benefit (Avolio and Bass, 2004). Transformational leadership is a positive process of transformation in subordinates or followers, prioritizing the transformation to others and mutual help, this increases the motivation and performance of the team (Velasquez, 2006).
According to Avolio and Bass (2004), in order to implement organizational leadership in the organization, the following factors should be included:
The factor of individual consideration takes into account the care and empathy to propose challenges to the team. The leader is interested in each of his followers and provides opportunities in which the team can learn and communicate in a bidirectional way, delegating and providing support. Intellectual stimulation, which is the empowerment that the leader produces in the team so that they can develop their intellectual abilities, contributing ideas and helping to come up with creative solutions. The motivation factor, which deals with the leader's ability to motivate his team in order to achieve a better organizational climate, achieving the fulfillment of the proposed objectives. Idealized influence is a factor that indicates that the leader influences his team in an idealized way and provides a sense of purpose to the team. Finally, the psychological tolerance factor implies the solution of conflicts in the organization, in an assertive manner, involving the team in the management of difficult moments such as conflicts or criticisms.
According to Bernard Bass' transformational leadership theory, transformational leadership proposes four dimensions; the first dimension is intellectual stimulation, which drives creativity and innovation, promoting and encouraging the development of the team's intellectual potential; the second dimension is inspirational motivation, which involves the leader's ability to transmit the objectives that involve the team; the third dimension is individual consideration, which implies the importance of the leader towards the members of his team, observing his collective commitment through listening, empathy, attention, among others; the fourth dimension is idealized influence, which considers the leader's ability to motivate and make the team identify with his ideals and capture his admiration (Bass, 1985).
With respect to the institutional climate variable, Brow & Moberg (1990) specify it as the set of characteristics of the work environment, which is collaterally or naturally shaped by teachers and influences their behavior. Briones (2017) defines the institutional climate of the educational center as the space that has been created in the institution and that is influenced by the interaction between members, communication and the type of administration, when this climate is positive it helps to achieve the objectives and facilitates coexistence within the institution.
According to Martín (2000), there are three dimensions of institutional climate: Communication, which encompasses respect and the speed with which the message is conveyed to the members; participation, that refers to how much teachers are involved in school activities and how they promote; motivation, this dimension determines the teacher's complacency in their center; planning, oriented to solve problems; leadership, is a construction impressed by a leader that process of a technical, interpretative and transformative nature; creativity, implies openness to change and learning.
Regarding the teaching performance variable, according to Fernandez (2008), this is the set of components that make up the teaching work, such as project management, meetings with parents, development of teaching materials, among others. The evaluation of teaching performance implies an organizational review of processes, methodologies, learning products, in order to make improvements and corrections. This offers the opportunity to find new alternatives that facilitate the teacher's teaching (Rodriguez, 1999).
Based on Hernández et al. (2014), the research approach is quantitative, since it will collect data and test hypotheses based on statistical analysis and numerical measurement, thus testing theories and establishing behavioral patterns. It is of a basic, cross-sectional type since data collection was carried out at a set time (Briones, 2017). The level of research was explanatory since it seeks the why of the phenomena studied (Bernal, 2011). The study was carried out with independent groups, consequently, the applied design was non-experimental, since no experimental variable was considered, so the information was collected using questionnaires as instruments for the variables. As non-experimental research, the given phenomena will be observed in their natural context for subsequent analysis (Hernández, Fernández & Baptista, 2014). The population consisted of 106 individuals of which 5 were managers (3 males and 2 females) and 101 teachers (45 males and 56 females). The group had the characteristic of being appointed or hired, of the Manuel González Prada de Huaycán mixed educational institution, and that, throughout the year 2020, excluding the personnel who had temporary leaves of absence of less than one academic year. With respect to the study sample, being a small population, the total population was taken into account.
To carry out the research, three self-administered questionnaires were used as an instrument, answered directly without mediation (Hernández, Fernández, & Baptista, 2014), these questionnaires were conducted remotely and were delivered via WhatsApp and were registered in Google Forms; this due to the social distancing caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. Regarding the three questionnaires, the teacher performance questionnaire consisted of 25 items for the teachers' self-evaluation; the transformational leadership questionnaire consisted of 22 items and consisted of the teachers' evaluation of their managers; the institutional climate questionnaire was addressed to both managers and teachers and consisted of 29 items.
The questionnaires were designed according to Likert scaling, which consists of a set of affirmatively worded items to collect the respondent's perception based on response alternatives, such as: always, almost always, sometimes, almost never and never (Hernández, Fernández & Baptista, 2014). The validity of the instruments was based on Aiken's theory, which indicates that an instrument is valid when the coefficients are greater than 0.70; on the other hand, the questionnaires were also validated through the judgment of experts, whose results in the criteria of coherence, pertinence and clarity were positive and applicable to the study sample. The reliability of the instruments was carried out by means of Cronbach's Alpha statistic, obtaining values of 0.830, 0.799 and 0.788; for transformational leadership, institutional climate and teaching performance respectively, with high reliability in all cases.
On the results, three statistical models were performed for the general hypothesis and the four specific hypotheses: Pseudo R-squared, model fit information and parameter estimates.
The results are presented below in three tables according to each statistical model:
| Table 1 Pseudo R-Squared For General And Specific Hypothesis |
||
|---|---|---|
| Pseudo R square | ||
| General Hypothesis | Cox and Snell | ,039 |
| Nagelkerke | ,321 | |
| McFadden | ,291 | |
| Specific Hypothesis 1 | Cox and Snell | ,048 |
| Nagelkerke | ,364 | |
| McFadden | ,355 | |
| Specific Hypothesis 2 | Cox and Snell | ,030 |
| Nagelkerke | ,211 | |
| McFadden | ,195 | |
| Specific Hypothesis 3 | Cox and Snell | ,049 |
| Nagelkerke | ,318 | |
| McFadden | ,316 | |
| Specific Hypothesis 4 | Cox and Snell | ,029 |
| Nagelkerke | ,221 | |
| McFadden | ,192 | |
The Nagelkerke value for the general hypothesis indicates that the variability of the institutional climate and academic performance variables is 32.1% dependent on the leadership variable.
With respect to the specific hypotheses, specific hypothesis 1, according to Nagelkerke's value, indicates that 36.4% of the intellectual stimulation dimension has an impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution, Lima, 2020.
For hypothesis 2, the Nagelkerke value indicates that 21.1% of the variability of the variables in the inspirational motivation dimension affects the institutional climate and performance.
For hypothesis 3, the Nagelkerke value is 0.318, which indicates that 31.8% of the variability of the variables institutional climate and work performance is explained by the individual consideration dimension.
For specific hypothesis 4, the Nagelkerke value of 0.221 indicates that 22.1% of the variability of the variables work climate and teacher performance is explained by the idealized influence dimension.
Model Fit Information
| Table 2 Model Fit Information |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | Logarithm of the likelihood -2 | Chi-Square | gl | Sig. | |
| General Hypothesis | Intersection only | 7,701 | 3,117 | 1 | ,037 |
| Final | 4,584 | ||||
| Specific Hypothesis 1 | Intersection only | 10,200 | 5,209 | 3 | ,016 |
| Final | 4,991 | ||||
| Specific Hypothesis 2 | Intersection only | 7,820 | 3,236 | 2 | ,020 |
| Final | 4,584 | ||||
| Specific Hypothesis 3 | Intersection only | 9,677 | 5,335 | 3 | ,015 |
| Final | 4,342 | ||||
| Specific Hypothesis 4 | Intersection only | 9,294 | 3,117 | 2 | ,020 |
| Final | 6,177 | ||||
Regarding the model fit information in all cases, the null hypothesis is rejected in both the general hypothesis and the four specific hypotheses, which indicates for the general hypothesis, that transformational leadership has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
For the specific hypothesis 1, it is accepted that the intellectual stimulation dimension has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
For the specific hypothesis 2, it is accepted that the inspirational motivation dimension has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
For specific hypothesis 3, it is accepted that the individual consideration dimension has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance of an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
The idealized influence dimension has a significant impact on the institutional climate and teaching performance in an educational institution in Lima for the year 2020.
Parameter Estimates
| Table 3 Parameter Estimates For The General Hypothesis And The Specific Hypotheses |
|||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate | Error | Wald | gl | Sig. | Lower limit | 95% confidence interval | |||
| General Hypothesis | Threshold | [desemp-docente = Sufficient] | -,693 | 1,225 | ,520 | 1 | ,571 | Threshold | |
| Location | [Climate=sufficient]. | 2,813 | 1,358 | 4,294 | 1 | ,038 | Location | ||
| [weather=highlight] | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | ||||
| [Leadership=Suf. | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | ||||
| Specific Hypothesis 1 | Threshold | [desemp-docente = Sufficient]. | ,894 | 1,784 | ,451 | 1 | ,0617 | -2,604 | 4,391 |
| Location | [Climate=sufficient] | 1,787 | 1,741 | 7,054 | 1 | ,0305 | -1,625 | 5,200 | |
| [weather=highlight] | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | . | |||
| [Leadership=Suf. | 19,398 | ,000 | . | 1 | . | 19,398 | 19,398 | ||
| Specific Hypothesis 2 | Threshold | [desemp-docente = Sufficient]. | -16,002 | 1,225 | 170,701 | 1 | ,000 | -18,402 | -13,601 |
| Location | [Climate=sufficient] | 2,793 | 1,358 | 4,232 | 1 | ,040 | ,132 | 5,454 | |
| [weather=highlight] | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | . | |||
| [Leadership=Suf. | -15,308 | ,000 | . | 1 | . | -15,308 | -15,308 | ||
| Specific Hypothesis 3 | Threshold | [desemp-docente = Sufficient]. | -14,487 | 1,414 | 104,933 | 1 | ,000 | -17,259 | -11,715 |
| Location | [Climate=sufficient] | 3,308 | 1,532 | 4,666 | 1 | ,031 | ,306 | 6,310 | |
| [weather=highlight] | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | ||
| [Leadership=Suf. | ,511 | 1418,256 | ,000 | 1 | 1,000 | -2779,219 | 2780,241 | ||
| Specific Hypothesis 4 | Threshold | [desemp-docente = Sufficient]. | -,723 | 1,745 | 4,117 | 1 | ,0679 | -4,143 | 2,697 |
| Location | [Climate=sufficient]. | 2,803 | 1,420 | 4,900 | 1 | ,048 | ,021 | 5,586 | |
| [weather=highlight] | 0a | . | . | 0 | . | . | . | ||
| [Leadership=Suf. | -,030 | 1,243 | ,001 | 1 | ,981 | -2,466 | 2,406 | ||
According to the parameter estimates for the general hypothesis, the leadership variable, the predictor variable, significantly influences the variables teaching performance and work climate. The Wald coefficient was 0.571 and 0.038 for teaching performance and institutional climate, respectively, indicating significance at the sufficient level in both cases.
For specific hypothesis 1, the predictor dimension, intellectual stimulation, has a significant influence on the work climate and teaching performance variables. The Wald coefficient was 0.061 and 0.30 for teaching performance and institutional climate, respectively, indicating significance at the sufficient level in both cases.
For specific hypothesis 2, inspirational motivation, the predictor dimension has a significant impact on the work climate and teaching performance variables. The Wald coefficient is 0.00 and 0.40 for teaching performance and institutional climate respectively, which indicates significance at the sufficient level in both cases.
For specific hypothesis 3, the predictor dimension, individual consideration, has a significant influence on the work climate and teaching performance variables. The Wald coefficient is 0.00 and 0.31 for teaching performance and institutional climate respectively, which indicates significance at the sufficient level in both cases.
For specific hypothesis 4, the predictor dimension, individual consideration, has a significant influence on the work climate and teaching performance variables. The Wald coefficients are 0.0679 and 0.048 for teaching performance and institutional climate respectively, indicating significance at the sufficient level in both cases.
With respect to the results of the present study, it was evidenced that transformational leadership significantly influences the work climate and teaching performance, agreeing with the contributions of De la Cruz (2019), who in his study concluded that teaching performance is significantly influenced by transformational leadership. On the other hand, the results also coincide with Rosas (2020) who in his research determined, from the students' perspective, the relationship between the principal's leadership and teaching performance, obtaining that teaching performance and the principal's pedagogical leadership have a significant relationship.
Orellana (2019) studied how teacher performance is influenced by the dimensions of managerial leadership. This research allowed the review of the literature and contributed in establishing the dimensions of managerial leadership that were used in the research. Casas (2019), in his research conducted in the educational institution María Parado de Bellido, determined the relationship between the principal's pedagogical leadership and teaching performance. The author concludes that good leadership of the principal results in good teaching performance. Also, this study allowed observing the methodology and instruments use. In addition, considering that it is a study conducted in an educational institution in Peru, it is necessary to have research that allows knowing the profiles in different parts of the country. Also, the results of Castañeda (2018) allowed inferring lines of research and thematic areas to be considered, since the author determined the link between teacher performance evaluation and academic performance in undergraduate students at the University of Zacapa, Guatemala.
According to the results obtained, which prove that transformational leadership significantly influences the variable institutional climate and teacher performance in an educational institution located in Lima, for the specific hypotheses, with respect to the dimensions intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation, individual consideration and idealized influence, it is concluded that these have a significant influence on the institutional climate and teaching performance, as demonstrated by the Nagelkerke value in which 0.364, 0.211, 0.318, 0.221 were obtained for each dimension, respectively.