SCHOOL PRINCIPAL'S MANAGEMENT STYLE AND TEACHERS' WORK MOTIVATION

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v12i1.81

Keywords:

management style, school principal, work motivation, teacher motivation, leadership in education

Abstract

The effectiveness of the school system largely depends on the principal’s management style and its impact on teachers' work motivation. With the rapid changes in the educational sphere, school leaders must adapt their leadership approaches to maintain teachers' engagement, job satisfaction, and motivation. This study investigates the relationship between school principals’ management styles and teachers’ motivation, highlighting how various styles—authoritarian, democratic, and liberal—influence the level of motivation among teachers. The research was conducted across four schools in Armenia, utilizing quantitative and qualitative methods, including surveys and interviews. The findings indicate that teachers under democratic leadership exhibit higher creative motivation, while those under authoritarian leadership show lower intrinsic motivation but stronger compliance. The study contributes to the understanding of educational leadership psychology and provides practical recommendations for school management. This study empirically examines the correlation between school principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ work motivation, providing statistical validation of this relationship. Unlike predominantly theoretical studies, it integrates psychological assessment tools to ensure systematic analysis. The findings highlight leadership-motivation patterns and propose a hybrid leadership model for optimizing teacher engagement and job satisfaction.

References

Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. Free Press.

Fiedler, F. E. (1967). A theory of leadership effectiveness. McGraw-Hill.

Heifetz, R. A., Grashow, A., & Linsky, M. (2009). The practice of adaptive leadership: Tools and tactics for changing your organization and the world. Harvard Business Press.

Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R., & White, R. K. (1939). Patterns of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of Social Psychology, 10(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1939.9713366

Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. Harper & Row.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. Van Nostrand. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/14359-000

McGregor, D. (1957). The human side of enterprise. Management Review, 46(11), 22–28.

Smith, J., & Bell, R. (2021). Hybrid leadership in education: Balancing structure and participation for effective school management. Journal of Educational Leadership, 35(4), 215–230.

Solovyov, S. (n.d.). Methodology for personality motivation assessment. HR-Portal. Retrieved from [URL not available]

Stogdill, R. M. (1974). Handbook of leadership: A survey of theory and research. Free Press.

Zakharova, V. B., & Zhuravlev, A. L. (n.d.). Determination of leadership style. [Publisher not specified].

Fetiskin, N. P., Kozlov, V. V., & Manuilov, G. M. (2002). Social-psychological diagnostics of personality development and small groups (pp. 238–243). Institute of Psychotherapy. (Original work published in Russian)

Downloads

Published

26-04-2025

How to Cite

STEPANYAN, N., & GEGHAMYAN, E. (2025). SCHOOL PRINCIPAL’S MANAGEMENT STYLE AND TEACHERS’ WORK MOTIVATION. Main Issues Of Pedagogy And Psychology, 12(1), 80–93. https://doi.org/10.24234/miopap.v12i1.81