Effectiveness of Teachers in Relation to Leadership of Principals in Bhutan: A Case of Secondary Schools from Trashigang District

Abstract

The present study has been conducted with the purpose to explore the relationship between occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers and transformational leadership behavior of secondary school principals of Trashigang district in Eastern Bhutan. The study was descriptive in nature and constitute the sample of purposively selected 126 secondary school teachers and 12 secondary school principals. Published Ocupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES) developed by Sanjyot Pethe, Sushma Chaudhari and Upinder Dhar, (1999), and Transformational Leadership Scale, TLS-Form L-(Leader) Form developed by Dr, Surendra Nath Dubey have been used to collect the data. Investigator has computed percentage analysis, t’ test, One-Way ANOVA & Chi square to test the formulated hypotheses. The findings of the study revealed that occupational self-efficacy do not correlate with transformational leadership and male and female teachers do not differ in their occupational self-efficacy. The high and lower secondary school teachers differ in their levels of occupational self-efficacy. The study also revealed that there exists no significance difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to years of experience.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Bhutan is a small, entirely mountainous nation, popularly known as the land of Gross National Happiness (GNH). Bhutan opened its doors to modernization in the early 1960s with the formulation of the First Five Plan from 1961 to1966. This plan involved the construction of roadways; building of hospitals, schools and post offices; establishing international relations with other nations and joining the United Nations. Beginning in 2009, Bhutan has taken GNH beyond an intellectual discourse and infused its values into all subjects of the school curriculum and school activities. Having done this, one of the challenging tasks that the philosophy of GNH now encounters is to look at the provision of the type of education that prepares Bhutanese youth for gainful employment and living economically contented lives. In early days, during 17th century, the education was based on traditional Buddhist values and culture. Although modern education in Bhutan started with the establishment of two schools in the first quarter of the twentieth century, now as of 2022, Bhutan has a total of 570 public schools and 39 private schools with 158287 public students and 12438 private students. The system of education in Bhutan constitutes seven years of primary education, two years of lower secondary education, two years of middle secondary education, and two years of higher secondary education. By the 1960’s, both the curriculum and teachers were imported from India and Hindi, the national language of India was extensively used as the medium of instruction. But this was replaced by English in the 1960s when the third King of Bhutan decided to go for English Medium Schools. Today English continues to be the medium of instruction in schools in Bhutan although historically, some students were sent to India for higher studies. In the 1970s, two teacher-training institutes were established to meet the need for appropriately trained teachers due to the growing number of schools (Chhetri, 2015). Now scenario has changed, but it is found that teacher-training institutes offered very less courses or even failed to address important aspects of administration and management. Even pre-service teachers or new teachers revealed that they were not adequately prepared during their education on management and leadership issues coming up in schools. In Bhutan three types of education is prevalent; monastic education, which still plays a central role in the lives of the people today and will continue to do so in the future; modern education; and non-formal and continuing education. Imparting of education largely take place in schools. School as a formal agent of education comprises of human and nonhuman resources. The human resources of the school basically are principals, teachers, non-teaching staffs and the students. Out of these, principals and teachers are the imperative parts of the process. The principal is the guardian of the school. S/he looks after the daily running/governance of the school. A principal looks after both the academic and non-academic activities of the school. A principal is both an administrator and an instructor.

S/he with his/her own leadership behavior steers the teachers, non-teaching staffs and the students towards fulfilling aims, objectives, goals and vision of the school in line with the national goals and vision. Principal is a mover as s/he motivates and transforms her/his subordinates to performance. A principal is a transformational leader. Teachers with proper training become competent. They are always competent in drawing out the best in the child. The skilled teachers occupies a strategic place in the education system. A teacher’s role is very essential in shaping the personalities and careers of learners. S/he handles several responsibilities which determine the effectiveness of her/his teaching. Teaching literally is an occupation of a teacher. Teachers’ occupation constitute managing the class well, controlling disruptive behavior, motivating the uninspired learners, using interesting and effective teaching strategies, modeling a perfect behavior, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the students, respecting his/her feelings, motives and drives, providing him/her the right environment and boosting up his/her morale and self-esteem. The role of a teacher is immense. Handling these responsibilities requires a good sense of Occupational Self-Efficacy. The available literature revealed that teachers can build self-efficacy within themselves. Teachers’ talents and self-efficacy can heavily influence the creation of an environment that’s conducive to learning (Bandura, 1993). Accordingly, when the learning environment is favorable, the learning outcomes of students are relatively high. This idea is further reinforced by Gibson and Dembo (1984), who found that teachers who possessed high levels of self-efficacy were keen to apply their knowledge in academic teaching for the betterment of students.

So the study aimed to help the educational planners to support school system through understanding of teacher’s occupational self-efficacy in relation to transformational leadership behavior of principals.

A. Occupational Self-Efficacy (OSE)

According to Pajares (2002) it was psychologist Albert Bandura who used the concept of self-efficacy. It was first used in his publication self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change in 1973. In this publication, Albert Bandura made an emphasis on one very important element of behavior, i.e., self-beliefs. In earlier studies, social cognitive theory of Miller & Dollard (1941) and Bandura & Walter (1963), the element of self-efficacy belief was missing. Since then psychologist used the term self-efficacy to refer to person’s faith in his/her own ability to do a job well. Sometimes, self-efficacy is also referred to as one’s persistence, affects that one brings in others and self. Basically self-efficacy relates to motivation, ability to control over self and making tough situations into better and comfortable one. As human can’t stand alone and must behave in a way to suit the norms of the society. The behavior must always focused on up keeping others and self in the society. Self-efficacy as a belief affects every aspect of human endeavor. Occupation as one kind of human behavior must be performed well. Whether one performs with high or low standard all depends on the beliefs, abilities, control that people have for the task. Generally many people use the following terms; self-esteem, self-confidence, self-concept and self-efficacy interchangeably in their day today communications. But these terms constructed on self have different meaning in the field of psychology. The word self is an identity of an individual whereas efficacy is defined as the belief on one’s capacity or capability. The widely used synonym of the term efficacy includes effectiveness, productiveness and efficaciousness (Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, 2006). It implies that self-efficacy is a mindful consciousness of person’s capability to be effective in any situation. Ormord (2006) describes self-efficacy as an individual’s degree of competence to complete everyday jobs and reach goals. Self-efficacy is also the confidence that humans have in their competencies to complete an assigned task successfully. If a person feels confident that he has the ability to do a task effectively, then he attempts that task. However, if the person perceives that the task is too difficult for him to accomplish, then he avoids the task. (Bandura, 1986 and 1997).

Self-Efficacy is the situation of a person in which he/she knows how to make the right decision as per his/her judgments, knowledge, experiences and norms of the society. Self-Efficacy is also the level of effectiveness that a person demonstrates while performing the task. Bandura (1994) also pointed out that self-efficacy is human’s beliefs about their abilities to produce desired level of accomplishment by controlling events those influences their lives. Self-efficacy in addition is the intrinsic value of a person. The person relies on that intrinsic value to perform the task effectively. Jain (2014) states that self-efficacy is the sense of belief of a teacher that he can change the lives of children he teaches. Efficacy of a teachers are set of believes. These believes are expected to guide them in showing acceptable behaviours. The self-efficacy belief also leads to motivation with regards to teaching. Teachers with high self-efficacy belief have willingness to invoke specific strategies to work efficiently. Self-efficacy beliefs empower a person to systematically take actions. In turn it can help produce good results. It is a belief in individual’s ability to capability to coordinate and carry out the actions which are necessary for producing achievements. The problem of self-efficacy is with judging what a person can do in given situations. One cannot be specific about what an individual will do with his/her skills and abilities. A person’s sense of efficacy affects the way a person believes and feels and the amount of efforts that he puts in to complete that task. People with higher efficacy possess better ability to direct their time, energies, skills and abilities to accomplish desired results. Gibson and Dembo (1984) states that people who have low self-efficacy give up faster than people with high self-efficacy. Their aspirations for achieving a particular task is also low. People with low self-efficacy are anxious, stressed and burnout. On the other hand Gist & Mitcell (1992) describes self-efficacy as the belief that one holds on to when getting the things right concerning an individual’s job. The concept given by Gist & Mitchell (1992) is fully dependent on various factors, like competency, skills, ability, qualification, experience and the type of person one is considering to judge the level of self-efficacy. According to Pajares (2002) self-efficacy is also the basis of human motivation. In addition to motivation, self-efficacy is also the foundation of human well-being and personal achievement. In addition Pajares is also of the view that when people are aware of the incentives that they are going to get in times of adversaries; people are highly efficacious. Self-efficacy beliefs are an essential aspect of human life. It comprises human inspiration and conduct which influences how an individual live his life. In regards to self- efficacy, Bandura (1995) clarifies that it refers to beliefs in one’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to manage perspective situations. Individuals who possess a high level of self-efficacy attempt difficult task. They give more emphasis on solving challenging tasks. When a person with high level of self-efficacy fails, he/ she attributes the outcome to a lack of effort and an adverse environment. If an individual with high level of self-efficacy succeeds, they attribute their success to their abilities.(Bandura, 1986). In short, self- efficacy is an individual’s belief on himself that he can do the task well, complete it with his skills and abilities under certain conditions. Self- efficacy has been understood to be a task- specific form of self- esteem (Lunenburg, 2011). The main principle behind self- efficacy theory is that people engage more in those activities which they feel that they have high level of self- efficacy. In contrast people do not engage in activities where their self- efficacy is low. (Van der Bijl & Shortridge-Baggett, 2002). Self-efficacy functions as self- predictor of what is going to result of his task. Self-efficacy influences people’s level of learning. It also influences people’s motivation and way they perform. People perform with highest level of success on those tasks which they believe they will be able to accomplish (Lunenburg, 2011). Individual with high self- efficacy feel highly motivated, work hard and it results in excellence.

Efficacy beliefs vary from individual to individual and also fluctuate within an individual for different tasks. Self-efficacy affects the way people accept new challenges. Since self-efficacy also relates to thought processes and conduct; it contributes to performance.(Bandura, 1997). Bandura (1986) mentioned that level of self-efficacy will differ from individuals to individuals depending on time and circumstances.

Bandura (1994) listed four factors that play a significant role in the development of self-efficacy. These four factors are; i) Enactive mastery experience (performance accomplishment), 2) social persuasion, 3) vicarious learning and 4) emotional state. The utmost important factor is enactive mastery experience. This refers to individual’s experiences with success or failure in past situations. Information gathered from these experiences are then internalized. If the person has succeeded in the past. It raises the self-efficacy of the person. Wherein, the self-efficacy lowers if the person has failed repeatedly. (Bandura, 1986 & 1997). Mastery experience is also called as performance accomplishments or success. It has the highest possibility of levitating self-efficacy beliefs. It involves the individual and fruitful completion of the job.

Vicarious experiences influence the efficacy of a person when he/she sees somebody else finishing a task with success. They also believe that they too can successfully finish the task like the other person did. When one person sees similar person succeed by sustained effort, it raises the belief of one who sees and increases the belief in oneself that they too possess the capabilities like the other. Basically, in vicarious experience, people compare themselves to peers. People especially make comparisons with individuals whose ability and intelligence are similar to their own. Observing friends doing well at tasks increases individual’s self-efficacy. When one sees their peers failing in a task, it lowers the self-efficacy of that person. Level of self-efficacy increases when an individual interacts with large numbers of popular role models. So, interacting with successful people help boost the self- efficacy of a person. (Bandura, 1986 & 1997).

Verbal persuasion or the social persuasion lets a person to takeover doubt on themselves. This usually happens when others express their beliefs in the person’s capability. However, self-efficacy which arises as the result of verbal persuasion doesn’t last for long duration. The self-efficacy of the individual’s weaken as a consequence of failures and difficulties in individual’s daily life. Therefore, verbal persuasion is an act of convincing individuals who are in conflict with self. It is a way of reconfirming those doubtful individuals that they have skills required for carrying out an assigned task. In the classrooms, or in a school, verbal persuasion initiated by teachers are often in the form of oral feedback, evaluation, and encouragement. Verbal persuasion should be truthful and from a reliable source. If people are not verbally persuaded accurately, it can have negative affects on their self-efficacy. (Bandura, 1986).

The last of the four factors is the emotional arousal. Emotional arousal is a means of changing self-beliefs of efficacy. It reduces human’s stressed reactions and change their undesirable emotional inclinations and confusions of their physical states. Emotional arousal engages the individual’s anxiety. It directs the individual away from feeling of avoidance. It has been seen that people having low level of self-efficacy beliefs permit negative experiences to deteriorate their self-efficacy resulting in failure to accomplish goals. In contrast, people with strong self- efficacy beliefs continue to endeavor for achievement through problems and difficulties. (Bandura, 1986, 1997).

Self-efficacy is normally measured in terms of three key skills: magnitude, strength, and generality.

• Self- efficacy magnitude- it measures whether the feeling of individual while performing certain task is easy, moderate or hard. (Van der Bijl & Shortridge- Baggett, 2002).
• Self- efficacy strength-it denotes the extent of belief a person has about executing effectively at different levels of difficulty (Van dar Bijl & Shortridge- Baggett, 2002).
• Generality of self- efficacy- it means the “degree to which the expectation is generalized across situations” (Lunenburg, 2011).

According to Social learning theory people learn from each other through observation, imitation, and modeling. Likewise, self-efficacy is also a replication of this social learning theory because an individual with high or low level of self-efficacy observes, imitates and models individual’s understanding of what skills he/she can offer in a group setting.

1. Self-efficacy and Human Performance

An individual avoids task when his/her self-efficacy is low. It is learnt that people accept tasks where level of self-efficacy is high. When the level of self-efficacy is beyond real capability. It leads to over estimation of the ability to finish the work. However, if the self-efficacy is lower than the ability, it discourages growth and development of skills. High level of self-efficacy can disturb motivation in both good and bad ways. Individuals with high level of self-efficacy put extra efforts to accomplish a task. They also endure more in those efforts, than those with low level of self-efficacy. Hence, the higher the level of self-efficacy, the more vibrant the efforts become. The effects of self-efficacy are as follows:

• Low level of self-efficacy leads a person to believe that the task is tougher than they actually are. This usually end in weak planning and increased stress.
• An individual with low level of self-efficacy commits error and he is irregular when is assigned a task.
• A person having high level of self-efficacy thinks broadly about a task in order to make an efficient plan to perform that task.
• Obstacles regularly inspire people with high level of self-efficacy. While people with low level of self-efficacy are discouraged and believe in giving up the task.
• An individual with high level of self-efficacy considers failure happens because of external factors, whereas, an individual with low self-efficacy blames low skills and ability.

Self-efficacy in the work context is termed as occupational self-efficacy. Though occupational self – efficacy is a fairly unexplored concept, the concept of occupational self-efficacy has several effects for organizations. Empirical study tells that occupational self-efficacy is positively related with many organizationally relevant variables, such as organizational commitment, job satisfaction, and preparedness for organizational change. It is the proper understanding of the self, internal character, work knowledge, do’s and don’ts in the profession which leads to strong sense of competence and capability to fruitfully complete the intricate task involved in an individual’s job. In educational scenario, occupational self-efficacy refers to teachers’ beliefs about their skills and abilities to produce set levels of performance that exercise influence over the efforts they put in to make the teaching learning process successful and effective. It is imperative for teachers to have high levels of occupational self-efficacy. For instance, teachers who have high level of occupational self-efficacy works on the belief that difficult students can be taught with additional determination and proper skills. They also believe that they can gain parents support and control harmful community influences. It is basically a combination of a sense of confidence, command, adaptability, personal effectiveness, positive attitude and individuality. It can be rightly callled as teacher’s judgment about their capability to bring about the desired outcomes of instruction. The responsibility of generating favorable learning environments depends on the abilities and occupational self-efficacy of teachers. Teachers with high understanding of efficacy about their occupation can motivate students. They can also help students improve their cognitive development. Pethe, Chaudhari, & Dhar (1999) pointed out that occupational self-efficacy has six dimensions. These are confidence, command, adaptability, personal effectiveness, positive attitude, and individuality.

These help the person to make decisions and set high standards of performance. Like wise a teacher with good occupational self-efficacy belief shows positive attitudes towards the school activities and set more challenging goals. Performance and production are two key components of an organization. For better performance, occupational self-efficacy as an agent is necessary for individuals working in an organization. Occupational self-efficacy is not stable but can be influenced by training and the motivation. The efficacy level of a person may differ from another person depending upon his/her beliefs and the complexity of the task in hand. Maurer (2001) also states that occupational self-efficacy is an individual trait that is flexible. Occupational self-efficacy can be reformed and enhanced with the assistance of organizational intentions. Occupational self-efficacy can have substantial implications for the management of people at work. In schools Occupational efficacy basically affects the professional effectiveness of the teacher or an individual. Self- efficacy enables the teacher to work at her/his best level. The situation of the school; leadership styles also changes the beliefs and abilities of the teachers towards completing the work and changing the life of the students as in education system.

2. Review of Related Literature

There is a very less or almost negligible Bhutanese literature specifically focusing on the occupational self-efficacy and transformational leadership. So researcher is extensively using the researches conducted in other countries and is trying to bring out the relevance in Bhutanese education system.

Grau, Salanova and Peiro (2001) conducted a study, which analyzed self-efficacy as a moderator in the occupational stress process. The study also analyzed the complementarily between two-self-efficacy measures namely; generalized and professional. The data was collected from 140 workers who used technologies in their jobs. The investigators found that self-efficacy controls the stress-strain relationship in general. It was also concluded that low levels of self-efficacy relates to high levels of occupational stress. Furthermore, the study found that professional self-efficacy has more interactional effect. Workers with low levels of generalized self-efficacy were found to have more emotional exhaustion. It can be concluded that high levels of self-efficacy or self-beliefs, skills and competencies reduces the occupational stress and somewhere leads to better occupational self-efficacy.

Rathi and Rastogi (2009) explored the relationship among emotional intelligence, occupational self-efficacy, and organizational commitment. The data for the study was collected from 120 employees from various organizations in India. It was observed that there is significant relationship between emotional intelligence and occupational self-efficacy, and no significant positive relationship was found between emotional intelligence and organizational commitment. The investigators found low positive associations between occupational self-efficacy and organizational commitment. Further, they came out with the results that emotional intelligence and occupational self-efficacy were related to organizational desirable outcomes. From this study, it can be concluded that a thorough understanding of different levels of emotional intelligence and occupational self-efficacy will help conducting programs like training and workshops to improve the quality among the employees.

Klassen & Chiu (2010) conducted a study, which examined the relationships among teachers’ experience, characteristics, and domains of self-efficacy, job stress and job satisfaction. The investigators took 1430 samples of working teachers. The results of the study indicated that number of years of teachers’ experience didn’t show relations with self-efficacy factors. The investigators also found that teachers with high classroom management and self-efficacy had higher job satisfaction. So, experience has nothing to do with self-efficacy and even newly appointed teachers can exhibits high levels of self-efficacy.

Ozder (2011) conducted a study, which studied the beginner teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs and their performance in the classroom. The data for the study was collected from novice teachers. The investigator mainly focused on their performance in the classroom. The investigator focused on quantitative and qualitative data analysis. It was found that teacher-self-efficacy beliefs of the novice teachers were at a standard level. The novice teachers were found to be using the latest concepts, skills and facilities in the classroom.

Chaudhary, Rangnekar & Barua (2012) conducted a study, which analyzed the effect of occupational self-efficacy and its factors on employee engagement. The data was collected from seventy eight middle and senior executives from both private and public sectors in India. The result of the study confirmed that occupational self-efficacy is correlated positively and is significant predictor of employee engagement. The investigators found that occupational self-efficacy is important in enhancing the employee engagement.

Whereas, Percy (2012) conducted a study on concept thresholds, the key to self-efficacy and effective teaching in higher education, which sought to decide whether self- efficacy beliefs of higher education lecturers determined effective teaching practices or not. It was suggested that lecturers should have a strong sense of self-efficacy. If there is strong sense of self-efficacy in the lecturers, there will be positive influence on students’ learning. The investigator also suggested that good sense of self-efficacy beliefs bring an impact on lecturer’s teaching behavior.

Wright (2013) conducted study to investigate if collective sense of teaching efficacy, general sense of teaching efficacy, or personal sense of teacher efficacy influenced teacher attitude toward inclusive classroom settings. The study found that teacher sense of efficacy and primary student disability had a direct influence on teacher attitude toward inclusive classroom setting.

Jain (2014) studied the effect of job value on occupational self-efficacy of 220 secondary school teachers from 30 secondary schools in Agra City. The study found that there is moderate positive relations between job value and occupational self-efficacy of secondary teachers.

B. Transformational Leadership (TLB)

Leadership is one of the most significant and cherished characteristic in administration and management of any venture and school leadership is considered as the success key for the effective and smooth functioning of any school organization. Many traditional and contemporary theories have been given on leadership like trait-based theories, situational theories, behavioral theories, and transactional leadership, transformational leadership, educative leadership, organizational leadership, and teacher Leadership theories. Each theory has its own characteristics. Leader alone can’t make an organization successful. In order to lead a successful organization, the most important part of leadership is the relationship among the leaders and workers. In the last decade, transformational leadership has become very popular. The key goals of transformational leadership are to intensify team’s level of motivation, and morality to support a common purpose. Transformational leadership is also venturing into developing major social changes (Burn, 1978). Transformational leadership behavior is one of the leadership approaches that bring change in people and social system. It enables positive change in the employee. It is an approach which is basically considered for molding an individual to become leaders. Transformational leader boosts motivation, morale and performance skills of the employees. It uses techniques like linking the employee’s sense of identity to organization’s vision and mission. Transformational leadership behavior is all about being role models to the employees, inspiring the employees, encouraging employees to be accountable of what they do. More important is to identify and understand strengths and weaknesses of the employees in an organizational context and teachers in a school context and offering remedial measures to optimize the performances. As a transformational leader one should always focus in bringing change in others and the system that we are living in. Leaders make the working atmosphere conducive by using various leadership styles as per the need of the people and the demand of the situation. Transformational leadership behavior as an idea was first pointed out by Downton in 1973 in his sociological study titled, Rebel Leadership: Commitment and Charishma in the revolutionary process. Later Burns (1978) also used the idea of transformational leadership in his book Leadership (1978).Transformational leadership behavior is a practice in which leaders and subordinates assists each other to progress to higher level of morale and motivation. Burns notion was that a significant change in the lives of people and organization can be possible through transformational leadership. Transformational leaders promoted the standard of an organization by attracting to superior ideals and values of employees. Cohen (2009) opined that transformation is a transformative process leading to changes or reorganization of relationships or structures within a working environment in an effort to improve effectiveness or usefulness. Further, Eyal & Roth, 2010 (as cited in Bolthouse, 2012) described leadership as the capability to motivate others through application of ability and resources. Leadership can be regarded as an approach in which influence and support is managed to stimulate strengths and efforts of one or others. Transformational leaders motivates staff to put more effort for inspiring goals that go beyond immediate self-interests. Transformational leaders consider good and right as very vital. Transformational leaders move employees to surpass their own self-interests for the benefit of the team, organization, and country. Leaders with transformational leadership behavior motivate employees and other constituents to perform more than what is expected from them (Burns, 1978). Furthermore, there are very important components of transformational leadership. These components are related to each other however, they can be also represented as single unique component. Bass (1997), who was also a follower of Burns described transformational leadership as a level to which the leader affects followers and confirms idealized influenced (charisma), inspirational motivation, intellectual simulation, and individualized consideration as components or dimensions of transformational leadership behavior. In idealized influenced (Charisma), transformational leaders show belief; give emphasis to trust; support on difficult issues; present their essential values; and lay emphasis on the importance of purpose, commitment, and the virtuous conclusions of decisions. These types of leader have a compelling attractiveness or charm. With compelling attractiveness and charm, they are admired and looked upon as role models by the followers. In inspirational motivation, transformational leaders are able to inspire the employees to do their best. They also encourage followers to face challenges and to achieve success. These types of leaders communicate vision of change in their followers. They are usually optimistic with enthusiasm. They offer reassurance and motives for what requires to be done. In intellectual simulation the transformational leaders questions old conducts, principles, and opinions.

They encourage their followers to come up with new ideas and reasons. They also support new perspectives and ways of doing things. In individualized consideration, transformational leaders consider a person as an individual. They consider the needs, abilities, and aspirations of an individual employee. They listen to their followers’ considerately. They guide, impart and coach for further development of the follower. The followers according to Bass are intended to trust, admire and respect the leader with transformational leadership behavior (Covey, 2007). Bass recognized three ways which leaders can apply to transform followers. These are; increasing their awareness of task importance and value, getting them to focus first on team or organizational goals, rather than their own interests, and activating their higher-order needs. Much of the studies conducted earlier on transformational leadership indicates its use in business management only. With the development of education as a private enterprise, it is very important to accept the applicability of the concept of transformational leadership in educational management. Transformational principals can be attributed to teachers’ commitment, loyalty, involvement and higher degree of satisfaction. In a school scenario, a principal’s motivation and inspiration on teachers will direct the teachers to school goals. As transformational leaders create trust and loyalty; it will help in development of self-efficacy beliefs in teachers. Teachers will contribute wholeheartedly in the task assigned to them. A transformational leader uses respect and confidence in teachers as key to high attainment of teachers’ task. Therefore, it has become necessary to study at what level a principal’s transformational leadership behavior influences the occupational self-efficacy belief of secondary teachers in education system.

1. Review of related literature

Mesterova, Prochazka, Vaculik and Smutny (2015) made an attempt to study the relationship between self-efficacy, transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness. A total of 32 leaders and 604 subordinates from two Czech universities participated in the three month long investigation. The study was focused on the self-efficacy of transformational leadership. The findings suggested that there is no strong relationship between self-efficacy and transformational leadership.

Ross and Gray (2004) conducted a study on transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. The sample comprised of 3,074 teachers from 218 elementary schools in Canada. The findings of the study was that transformational leadership had an impact on the collective teacher efficacy of the school. The study also showed that transformational leadership had direct effects on teacher commitment and independent beliefs. The study also concluded that collective teacher efficacy is a partial rather than a complete mediator of the effects of transformation leadership on teacher commitment to organizational values.

Singh and Lokotsch (2005) examined the impact of transformational styles of leadership on (HRM) human resource management in primary schools. They employed transformational leadership model to conduct the research and interviewed ten educators in two primary schools using semi-structured interviews. The findings indicated a movement towards an integrated use of leadership styles in the quest for transformational leadership. Interesting to note was that the principal as the leader of the school has to play a vital role in shifting from autocratic to a more democratic, transformational type of leadership. The study suggested that the educators, including principals, must appreciate the value of human resources. The success of the organization fully depended on the support and commitment of these resources.

Demir (2008) conducted a research on transformational leadership and collective efficacy: the moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. The sample for the study were 66 elementary schools in the province of Edirne, Turkey. 218 teachers participated in the study. Transformational leadership, collective efficacy, self-efficacy, and collaboration climate constructs of 218 teachers were measured. The study indicated that the transformational leadership behaviors of principals have a significant relationship with the collaborative school culture. The transformational leader dedicates personal attention to followers based on the individual’s needs for achievement and growth. The study also states that in order to give personal attention, the leader takes the role of a mentor or coach. By doing this the leader develops highest level of collaborative culture and potential in followers.

Sagnak (2010) investigated the relationship between transformational school leadership and ethical climate. The study was carried out on 764 elementary teachers from 50 schools in Nigde. Two scales were used for the purpose of the research. 1) The Principal Leadership Style Inventory developed by Leithwood and Jantzi (1991) was used to find out principals’ transformational leadership style. 2) Ethical Climate Questionnaire developed by Victor and Cullen (1988) was used to determine the ethical climate. It was found that among leadership dimensions, fostering group goals was most prevalent among principals and holding high performance expectations was the least. The result further revealed that all dimensions of transformational leadership were related to caring, law and code, and rules of ethical climate. However, the study concluded that school transformational leadership was the strong predictor of ethical school climate.

Cemaloglu et al. (2012) carried out a study, examining the relationships between school principals’ transformational and transactional leadership styles and teachers’ organizational commitment. The sample size was 237 primary school teachers employed in Ankara. To collect data, the investigators used two questionnaires 1) The Multi-Factor Leadership Questionnaire developed by Bass and Avolio (1995) and 2) Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Allen and Meyer (1990). Results showed that school principals were more likely to perform transformational leadership style than transactional leadership styles. The result also indicated significant relationships between transformational and transactional leadership styles of principals and organizational commitment of teachers. In addition to the above it was also found that motivation by inspiration and individualized consideration predicted affective commitment significantly.

Hauserman and Stick (2013) conducted a study to investigate teachers’ perception of transformational leadership qualities among principals. The qualitative interpretation of the results supported the importance of components of the transformational leadership i.e. idealized influence, individual consideration, inspirational motivation, and intellectual stimulation. Idealized influence behaviors included maintaining and creating visibility, developing rapport, holding students and teachers accountable, having high expectations, having a best-practices emphasis, leading by example, mentoring, showing consistent fairness, making ethical decisions, and building leadership capacity. Individual consideration behaviors included collaborating on decisions, listening and caring, consulting involved parties, being consistent, and making decisions that were best for children. Inspirational motivation behaviors were demonstrated by showing encouragement and support, promoting teamwork, celebrating successes, and using humour effectively. Intellectual stimulation was illustrated by asking questions and challenging the status quo, explaining decisions, using current research, trusting staff to take risks, focusing on a collaborative vision, being a proactive problem solver, and providing creative solutions. Teachers who worked with highly transformational principals were effusive in their comments and praised the positive organizational culture at their school. In contrast, teachers who worked with principals evidencing low levels of transformational qualities were frustrated with the behaviors of their respective principals and the attendant negative implications for the school’s culture.

Koustelios et.al. (2014) conducted a study on the impact of principals’ transformational leadership on Teachers’ satisfaction in Greece. They concluded that principals with transformational characteristics improve their relationship with other principals, students and teachers. In addition, a transformational principal may affect teachers working conditions creating an appropriate educational environment. They further suggested that school’s principal must be an example for the teachers, assist teachers to work together toward common goals, indicates respect and concern about teachers personal feelings and needs. Principals should expect high and quality and expecting only quality output on part of teachers.

From the review of literature it can be concluded that there is negative relationship between self-efficacy and occupational stress (Grau, Salanova and Peiro, 2001) whereas emotional intelligence and occupational self-efficacy correlates positively with each other (Rathi and Rastogi, 2009). The experience or age has nothing to do with self-efficacy and even newly appointed teachers can exhibits high levels of self-efficacy (Klassen & Chiu, 2010) and occupational self-efficacy is important in enhancing the employee engagement (Chaudhary, Rangnekar & Barua, 2012). Mesterova, Prochazka, Vaculik and Smutny (2015) found no strong relationship between self-efficacy and transformational leadership. Whereas, Ross and Gray (2004) concluded that transformational leadership had an impact on the collective teacher efficacy of the school. It is concluded that transformational leadership behaviors of principals have a significant relationship with the collaborative school culture (Demir, 2008) and school ethical climate (Sagnak, 2010).

C. Significance of The Problem

The researcher has identified to work on the above topic as a result of unpublished and undocumented experiences and concerns expressed by teachers and of researchers own professional experiences encountered while working as a vice principal in a school. With limited experience in administration, the researcher himself faced many challenges in the beginning. There were times when teachers find it hard to work in collaborations and in coordination with the principals. The researcher also identified to work on the above topic taking into account the value it has provided for the interest of the nation in terms of providing quality education to children through capacity building of teachers and principals. As far as the Bhutanese Secondary Schools (Class VII-Class XII) scenario is concerned; teachers take up almost all the holistic responsibilities apart from regular teaching in the classroom. In a situation where teachers are overloaded with heavy schedules of both academic and non-academic, it has become imperative to develop, understand, check and balance the ability of teachers. Teacher as an educator needs to have a strong sense of belief in his/her capabilities in bringing changes in the learner for the benefit of the nation. Principals may be equally responsible for strengthening the skills, strategies, abilities and capacities of the teachers through positive implementation of policies and his/her own style of leadership.

When the world of knowledge is changing rapidly and new skills and technologies are emerging daily, we need to work together in collaborations to enjoy each other’s success. The investigator himself experienced that the research on occupational self-efficacy of secondary teacher in relation to the transformational leadership behavior of the principals viable in the context of his working scenario in three aspects. Firstly, the study will give the investigator a platform to find out factors that bind teachers and principals and help to work together as one for the organization/school. Secondly, recent issue of Bhutan’s teacher attrition rate has been an emphasis. The causes cited for the attrition are always financial issues and looking out for greener pasture in Australia or the US. Perhaps the attention that we need to pay is on the abilities and beliefs of the teacher in the occupational context rather than predicting it on in pursuit of better financial avenues. Secondary teachers are in need of better training resources, innovative programs, and overall conducive working environment. It has been sometimes experienced that there are instances where the principal’s leadership doesn’t suit the expectations of the teachers and the teachers’ feelings towards the task have become artificial due to the leadership behavior of the principal. Due to the differences between what principals want from teachers and what teachers expect from the principal, the academic standard of children deteriorates. This study will recommend solutions which both principals and teachers can consider best for working together. Thirdly, after analyzing the above two aspects for this particular study, this study will provide some suggestions to the Ministry of Education to strengthen the status of principals with transformational leadership behavior. Also the study is significant because it will look into finding out solutions to teachers’ dissatisfaction to their task. By having this in place, the study will also assist the planners at the school and district level to plan and propose programs focusing on the development of teachers’ ability development and principals’ transformational leadership behavior. It will help the ministry to approve and also create various professional development programs after clearly understanding the pros and cons of occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers and the transformational leadership behavior of principals. It is only possible when one fully understands teachers attitude; his/her relationship with the authority, peers, students and society. A new society demands the complex knowledge and every child deserves a quality and competent teacher. In this fast changing world of education, occupational self-efficacy of teachers is required more than ever. The study will help teachers develop the ability and skills that would last at least for 5-10 years without change to help learners to learn. This study will also help in instilling good beliefs and efficacy in the task of secondary school teachers of Bhutan. The study will also help principals to treat each individual teacher as a special person with different abilities and beliefs for his/her task. It will encourage principals to adopt transformational leadership behavior which will lead to dynamic school climate with high academic and non-academic achievements.

Finally, for Bhutan the study itself is a unique one as not many similar studies have been conducted. It will give directions to other investigators to carry on the research process further.

D. Statement

The statement of the problem is, ‘Effectiveness of Teachers in Relation to Leadership of Principals in Bhutan: A Case of Secondary Schools from Trashigang District’.

E. Operational Definitions

Occupational self-efficacy refers to the effectiveness and competence that an individual feels regarding ability to successfully fulfill the tasks involved in his or her job. For this study, occupational self-efficacy refers to teacher’s effective independent decision making based on his/her confidence in performing a particular task with strong command over the situation.

Transformational leadership is a type of leadership in which the leaders pay attention to individual employee, broaden and elevate their interests, generate awareness and acceptance of the purposes and mission of the group, and motivate their followers to look beyond their own self-interest through idealized influence and inspiration for the good of the group. For this research work transformational leadership behavior of principals will be an ability of a principal to infuse in others a desire to change, work cooperatively by means of motivation and innovation for the common gain of the school.

F. Objectives

The objectives of the study were;

1. To find out the level of occupational self-efficacy among teachers in secondary schools.
2. To find out the level of transformational leadership behavior among secondary school principals.
3. To find out the relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of secondary school principals.
4. To find out the difference among occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under the principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior.
5. To find out the difference among occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to the type of school.
6. To find out the difference among transformational leadership behavior of principals with respect to the type of school.
7. To find out the difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to years of experience.

G. Hypotheses

The hypotheses of the study were:

1. There exists no significant relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals in secondary schools.
2. There exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior.
3. There exists no significance difference among occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to the type of schools.
4. There exists no significant difference among transformational leadership behavior of principals with the type of schools.
5. There exists no significance difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to years of experience.

H. Delimitations

The following were the delimitations of the study;

1. This study was delimited to Trashigang district of Bhutan.
2. The study was conducted on principals and teachers of secondary schools only.
3. The present study was delimited to 12 secondary schools only.

II. METHODOLOGY

The study was descriptive in nature and descriptive survey method has been used by the investigator to collect the relevant information. The investigator used the descriptive survey method as it enabled to obtain the existing and precise information relating to the problem. The proposed problem was intended to find out the level of occupational self-efficacy among secondary school teachers and its relationship with the transformational leadership behavior of the principals in the current scenario. So, descriptive survey method was justified for the study.

Descriptive survey method enhanced the investigator to draw valid conclusions from the collected information. As descriptive studies usually allow the investigator to do more than collection of data. Descriptive method in this study lead to measurements, classification, analysis, comparison and interpretation of data. So based on the information collected from the principals and teachers of secondary school teachers, this study focused on the study of occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers in relation to transformational leadership behavior of principals.

Population of the study constituted the government secondary schools principals and teachers in Bhutan. As Bhutan has twenty districts, the investigator purposively selected Trashigang district of Bhutan. Further investigator randomly selected 12 government secondary schools and this ultimately lead to the selection of required sample of teachers and principals. In total 12 government secondary school principals and 126 government secondary school teachers has been selected by the investigator. All the schools selected for this study were government schools which had classes ranging from class VII- class XII.

The investigator used the following tools for data collection:

1. Ocupational Self-Efficacy Scale (OSES) by Sanjyot Pethe, Sushma Chaudhari and Upinder Dhar, (1999) to find out the level of occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers.
2. Transformational Leadership Scale, TLS-Form L-(Leader) Form by Dr, Surendra Nath Dubey to find out the transformational leadership behavior of secondary school principals.

The occupational self-efficacy scale contains 19 items and there is no right or wrong answers in the scale. The Ocupational Self-efficacy Scale (OSES) was constructed by Sanjyot Pethe, Sushma Chaudhari and Upinder Dhar, (1999).

The OSES has been designed in English to measure the level of occupational self-efficacy. The present inventory of 19 statements was developed from 67 items. Each item was transferred on a card. A panel of 50 judges with postgraduate education and more than ten years of experience in their various fields was prepared. The cards were placed before each judge who was contacted individually. The choice for categorization of each card was noted and the frequency of choice was calculated. The items which were chosen 75% or more times were spotted out. The final form of the scale constituted nineteen items.

The transformational leadership scale contains 16 items. TLS: Form L is for the leaders to describe and rate their leadership styles themselves. The transformational leadership scale was developed by Dr. Surendra Nath Dubey.

For this particular study, keeping in main focus the research problem, objectives, hypotheses and availability of tools for data collection, the investigator opted for descriptive survey method. The researcher conducted study on 12 secondary school principals and 126 secondary school teachers of Trashigang district in East Bhutan to check the relation between occupational self-efficacy (effectiveness) of teachers and transformational leadership (leadership) behavior of school principals. For conducting the same schools were selected purposively.

To have easy access to the sample for data collection, firstly, the investigator submitted the topic to the District Committee, the district committee submitted the approved topic to the Ministry of Education, Human Resource Committee. The topic was approved on August 23, 2022 during 354th HRC meeting of the Ministry of Education. After that the investigator approached the principals and the teachers of 12 secondary schools. The basic concept, items in the tools and the purpose of the study were described to them. They were given enough time to think and respond to the scales provided to them. Important information and responses from the samples were strictly kept confidential and used only for the purpose of the study. Finally, the investigator collected the filled scales for further interpretations and findings.

A. Statistical Techniques

Percentages, quartiles, chi square statistics, One way ANOVA, t’ test was calculated to find out the results. Percentage calculations were calculated to analyze the levels of occupational self-efficacy of teachers. Quartiles were formed to establish the levels of transformational leadership behavior of principals. Chi statistics was used to drawing out the relationship between occupational self- efficacy of secondary school teachers and the transformational leadership behavior of principals. The single factor ANOVA was employed to find the difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior and also to find out the differences among occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals with respect to type of schools. t’ value was calculated to find the difference in occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers falling in above average years of experience and in below average years of experience.

III. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Level of Occupational self-efficacy Among Secondary school Teachers

One of the objectives of the study was to find out the level of occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers of Trashigang district in East Bhutan. After the collection of the data and scoring process, the investigator used the total raw occupational self-efficacy scores to determine the level of occupational self-efficacy. The raw scores have been interpreted with reference to the norms for interpretation of raw scores given in manual for OSE Scale. There were total 126 secondary school teachers, out of which 24 % of secondary school teachers have high level of occupational self-efficacy, 73 % of teachers from secondary schools have average level of occupational self- efficacy and 3 % of teachers working in secondary schools have low level of occupational self-efficacy. The table 31 given below is the result pertaining to the teachers level of occupational self-efficacy.

Table 1 Percentage of secondary teachers in different levels of occupational self-efficacy

B. Level of Occupational self-efficacy with Respect to Gender

Based on obtained raw scores of occupational self-efficacy, the investigator calculated the levels of occupational self-efficacy of teachers from secondary schools with respect to their gender. The obtained results are presented in table 2 given below.

Table 2 Levels of occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers with respect to gender

Table 2 shows the comparative data of level of occupational self-efficacy of male and female secondary school teachers of Trashigang district in Bhutan. It was found that 24 % of male and 23 % of female secondary school teachers have high level of occupational self-efficacy, 72 % of male and 75 % of female secondary school teachers have average level of occupational self-efficacy. Whereas 4 % male and 2 % female secondary school teachers have low level of occupational self-efficacy.

It shows that more male and female secondary school teachers of Trashigang district in Bhutan have average level of occupational self-efficacy compared to the high and low level of occupational self-efficacy. Thus, it can be clearly interpreted that secondary school teachers of Trashigang district of Eastern Bhutan has average level of occupational self-efficacy.

C. Transformational Leadership Behavior Among Principals Of Secondary Schools

In order to study the level of transformational leadership behavior among secondary school principals of Trashigang district in eastern Bhutan, the total raw transformational leadership scale score was calculated. In order to interpret it correctly, quartile has been formed during the data analysis to categorize the respondents into having high, average and low transformational leadership behavior. The result is presented in the table 3

Table 3 Percentage of principals in different levels of TLB

Table 3 shows the results of level of transformational leadership behavior of principals working in secondary schools of Trashigang district in Eastern Bhutan. 41.7 % of principals working in secondary schools showed high level of transformational leadership behavior. 25 % of secondary school principals show average level of transformational leadership behavior while 33.3 % of secondary school principals show low level of transformational leadership behavior.

41.7 % of principals working in secondary schools showed high transformational leadership behavior scored high in all factors of transformational leadership behavior. In general 25 % of secondary school principals who showed average level of transformational leadership behavior scored low in behavioral factor. 33.3 % of principals showed low behavior of idealized influence, behavioral and individualized considerations.

D. Relationship Between Occupational Self-Efficacy Of Teachers And Transformational Leadership Behavior Of Principals

One of the objectives of the study was to find out the relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals. To find out the relationship, chi square value has been calculated. The results for which are presented in the table 4 given below.

Table 4 Relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals

*Not significant at both the levels of significance

From table 4 it is clear that 11 teachers with high level of OSE are working under principals with high level of TLB and 12 with high level of OSE are working under principals with low level of TLB. Thirty two teachers with average level of OSE are working under principals with high level of TLB and 31 with average level of OSE are working under principals with low level of TLB. Similarly, there is no teacher with low level of OSE working under principals with high level of TLB and 4 teachers with low level of OSE are working under principals with low level of TLB.

From table 4 it is clear that the calculated chi square statistics is 4.30 and the table value is 5.991 at 2 degrees of freedom (df). The calculated chi square statistics is less than the table value at both 0.01 and 0.05 levels of significance. So the relation is insignificant. Therefore, it signifies that there exists no significant relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals.

Thus, the hypothesis there exists no significance relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals is accepted. It can be interpreted that the occupational self-efficacy of teachers cannot be forced through the transformational leadership behavior of principals. Similar results has been found by Mesterova, Prochazka, Vaculik and Smutny (2015) in their study on relationship between self-efficacy, transformational leadership and leadership effectiveness where they concluded that there is no strong relationship between self-efficacy and transformational leadership.

E. Difference In Occupational Self-Efficacy Of Teachers Working Under The Principals With Different Levels Of Transformational Leadership Behavior

Another important objective was to find out the difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under the principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior in Trashigang district of Bhutan. The hypothesis framed was there exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under the principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior. To test the hypothesis one way ANOVA was calculated as shown in tables 5 & 6 given below.

Table 5 Number, mean & variance in OSE of teachers working under principals with different levels of TLB

Table 6 Summary of One-way ANOVA for OSE of teachers working under principals with different levels of TLB

*Not significant at both the levels of significance

From table 6 it is clear that the computed F-value is 0.14 and the degree of freedom is df (2,123). Since the obtained F-value of 0.14 is less than the table values (3.07 at 0.05 level and 4.78 at 0.01 level), the hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, it can be concluded that there exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under the principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior. Thus, the hypothesis there exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior is accepted.

F. Difference Among Occupational Self-Efficacy Of Teachers With Respect To The Type Of School

In order to study the difference among occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers with respect to the type of school in Trashigang district in Bhutan, the occupational self-efficacy scores of teachers were grouped within respective schools. To get the result F-statistics (one way ANOVA) was calculated. The summary of analysis of variance is as in the below given Table 7 & 8.

Table 7 Number, mean and variance of occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to the type of school

Table 8 Summary of One-way ANOVA for OSE of teachers working in different types of school

*Significant at 0.05 level

From table 8 it is clear that F is 4.40 and the degree of freedom are df (2,123). The table value for df (2,123) are 4.78 and 3.07 at 0.01 and 0.05 levels of significance respectively. The obtained F value is 4.40, which is less than table value 4.78 at 0.01 level of significance. The obtained value of 4.40 is greater than table value 3.07 at 0.05 level of significance. Therefore, F of 4.40 is significant at 0.01 level and F of 4.40 is insignificant at 0.05 level. Thus, the null hypothesis there exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers with type of school is rejected at 0.05 level of significance.

To find out the significance difference in means of OSE of teachers with respect to their type of school t’ test has been computed pair wise and the results are given in table 9 given below.

Table 9 Significance of difference between means of occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to the type of school

*Significant at 0.01 & 0.05 levels of significance

From table 9 it is clear that the means of OSE of teachers in HSS and MSS are 80.12 & 77.84 respectively and their respective standard deviations are 6.02 & 6.73. The t’ value comes out to be 1.51 which is insignificant at both the levels of significance. So, it can be concluded that the secondary teachers working in HSS & MSS do not differ significantly from each other in their occupational self-efficacy.

The means of OSE of teachers in MSS and LSS are 77.84 & 75.63respectively and their respective standard deviations are 6.73 & 6.11. The t’ value comes out to be 1.72 which is insignificant at both the levels of significance. So, it can be concluded that the secondary teachers working in MSS & LSS do not differ significantly from each other in their occupational self-efficacy.

The means of OSE of teachers in LSS and HSS are 75.63 & 80.12 respectively and their respective standard deviations are 6.11 & 6.02. The t’ value comes out to be 3.05 which is significant at both the levels of significance. So, it can be concluded that the secondary teachers working in LSS & HSS differ significantly from each other in their occupational self-efficacy. From table 9 it is evident that the mean of OSE of HSS teachers is higher than that of MSS teachers. So teachers working in higher schools have high OSE than teachers working in lower secondary schools. Thus, the difference in occupational self-efficacy lies in between lower secondary school teachers and higher secondary school teachers of Trashigang district in Eastern Bhutan.

G. Difference Among Transformational Leadership Behavior Of Principals With Respect To The Type Of School

In order to find out the difference among transformational leadership behavior of secondary school principals working in different types of school, One way ANOVA was applied and the result is presented in table 10 and 11 given below.

Table 10 Number, mean and variance among transformational leadership behavior of principals with respect to the type of school

The table 10 given above represents the summary of analysis of variance among transformational leadership behaviors of principals in three different types of secondary schools in Trashigang district of Eastern Bhutan.

Table 11 Summary of One-way ANOVA for TLB of principals working in different types of school

*Not significant at both the levels of significance

From the table 11, it is clear that the computer F-ratio is 2.07 and the df1 is 2 and df 2 is 9. Since the obtained F value of 2.07 is less than the table values (8.02 at 0.05 level and 4.26 at 0.01 level), the null hypothesis is accepted and therefore it can be concluded that there exists no significant difference in transformational leadership behavior of secondary school principals with respect to the type of school. Thus, the hypothesis there exists no significant difference in transformational leadership behavior of principals is accepted.

H. Difference In Occupational Self-Efficacy Of Teachers With Respect To Their Years Of Experience

Another objective for this study was to find out the difference in occupational self-efficacy between teachers with respect to their years of experience. For this the hypothesis framed was there exists no significance difference in occupational self-efficacy between teachers with respect to their years of experience. To test the hypothesis two groups were formed on the basis of their experience. One group has secondary teachers with years of experience less than equal to five years and second group has secondary teachers with years of experience greater than five years. To get the result t’ value was calculated and the result is shown in the table 12 given below.

Table 12 Difference in OSE of teachers with respect to their years of experience

*insignificant at both levels of significance

Table 12 shows that the calculated t’ ratio is 0.68. The critical values of t’ are 1.98 and 2.62 at 0.05 and 0.01 levels of significance. The calculated value 0.68 is less than 1.98 and 2.62 at both levels of significance. Since the calculated value is less, it is insignificant at both the levels. Therefore it can be interpreted that there is no significant difference in the occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers with years of experience less than equal to five years and years of experience greater than five years. Thus, the hypothesis, there exist no difference in occupational self-efficacy between teachers with respect to their years of experience is accepted.

The M and SD of teachers with ≤ 5 years of experience and teachers with ≥ 5 years of experience. So it can be concluded that occupational self-efficacy has nothing to do with teacher’s experience. A similar kind of study has been conducted by Klassen & Chiu (2010) which concluded that teachers’ years of experience do not have any relationship with factors of self-efficacy and a new teachers can also exhibit high level of self-efficacy.

IV. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I thank Dr. Dinesh Kumar, Professor, School of Education, Lovely Professional University for supervision. I also express my deep gratitude to all the faculty members, librarians and other people of Lovely School of Education who have directly or indirectly provided me help in completing this work. I am thankful to the Secondary School Principals, Vice Principals and Teachers of Trashigang District of Bhutan who assisted me to gather the required information without which the research would not have been completed.

Conclusion

In the light of the procedures, analysis and interpretations of the present study, the main findings of the study are given below: 1) There exists no significant relationship between occupational self-efficacy of teachers and transformational leadership behavior of principals in secondary schools. 2) There exists no significant difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers working under principals with different levels of transformational leadership behavior. 3) There exists a significance difference in occupational self-efficacy of higher and lower secondary school teachers. Whereas middle and higher, middle and lower secondary school teachers do not differ in their level of occupational self-efficacy. 4) There exists no significant difference among transformational leadership behavior of principals with the type of schools. 5) There exists no significance difference in occupational self-efficacy of teachers with respect to their years of experience. The limitations in completion of study were: a) Time period of data collection posed a major limitation to the researcher. It took longer period than expected and planned by the investigator. b) The other limitations was that there was negligible amount of literature from Bhutan on transformational leadership behavior and occupational self-efficacy. The study proposes following recommendations for the future deliberations: • As occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teachers is not determined by the principal, type of school, and years of experience. Pre-service teacher trainees should be offered those programs which leads to development of occupational self-efficacy. The two teacher education colleges in Bhutan; Paro College of Education and Samtse College of Education may include those courses in their program of study. • National, district, cluster and school level professional development programs should be conducted for teachers focusing on the knowledge about occupational self-efficacy. • Teachers with highest ability should be recognized and encouraged to share their expertise and experience with others. • Occupational self-efficacy also means the ability to perform tasks better with low interference from others. So, teachers should be empowered to take curricula related decisions. A clear ethical vision based autonomy should be granted to the teachers for upbringing of their abilities. The concept of academic freedom for teachers should be practiced in all the schools of Bhutan. • A program to orient principals on different style of leadership behavior, specifically emphasizing on transformational leadership behavior should be proposed at the national level. With the change and never ending developmental activities around, investigators can always look for new possible ways and means to solve the issues pertaining to the topic of study. After careful study the investigator clearly understands the further likely situations and needs that would help carry out similar study in the future. Based on the experience from the present study, the following points are suggested for further research in the future: ? The present study was delimited to Trashigang district of East Bhutan. The future study can be carried out at in two districts for comparison. ? Similar study can also be conducted at national level considering all twenty districts. ? The study can be conducted with large sample which can be applicable to whole population. ? The present study was delimited to government secondary schools in Trashigang district of Bhutan. Future studies can be focused on all types and levels of schools in Bhutan. ? Further research can be carried out on teachers in relation to the geographical situation (rural and urban) of the school.

References

[1] Afshari, M., Ghavifekr, S., Siraj, S., & Ab. Samad, R. S. (2012). Transformational leadership role of principals in implementing informational and communication technologies in schools. Life Science Journal, 9(1), 281-284. [2] Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy Mechanisms in Human Agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122-147. [3] Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. [4] Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. [5] Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V.S Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 77-81) New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Retrieved from http://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Bandura/Bandura1994EHB.pdf on 16 November 2015. [6] Bandura, A. (1995). Exercise of Personal And Collective Efficacy in Changing Societies. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1-45). [7] Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman and Company. [8] Bass, B. M. (1997). Does the transactional-transformational leadership paradigm transcend organizational and national boundaries? American Psychologist, 52(2), 130-139. [9] Bolthouse, J. E. (2013, December 2). Transformational leadership: Efforts of culture creation in the K-8 school setting. Retrieved 11 16, 2015, from https://www.nmu.edu/education/sites/DrupalEducation/files/UserFiles/Bolthouse_Jade_MP.pdf [10] Cemaloglu, N., Sezgin, F., & Kilinc, A. C. (2012). Examining the relationship between school principals\' transformational and transactional leadership styles and teachers\' organizational commitment. TOJNED : The Online Journal Of New Horizons In Education, 2(2), 53-64. [11] Chaudhary, R., Rangnekar, S., & Barua, M. K. (2012). Engaged versus disengaged: the role of occupational self-efficacy. Asian Academy of Management Journal, 18(1), 91-108. [12] Chhetri, K. K. (2015). Investigating teachers’ concerns and experiences in teaching children with special educational needs in Bhutan. (Master Thesis, Queensland University of Technology). Retrieved from http://eprints.qut.edu.au/84747/1/Kishore%20Kumar_Chhetri_Thesis.pdf on 21/11/2015 [13] Covey, S. (2007). The transformational leadership report. Retrieved from http://www.transformationalleadership.net/products/TransformationalLeadershipReport.pdf on 09 October 2015 [14] Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of collaborative culture and teachers\' self- efficacy. Egitim Arastirmalari, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 33, 93-112 [15] Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of educational psychology, 76(4), 569. [16] Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management review, 17(2), 183-211. [17] Grau, R., Salanova, M., & Peiro, J. M. (2001). Moderator effects of self-efficacy in occupational stress. Psychology in Spain, 5. (1), 63-74. [18] Hauserman, C. P., & Stick, S. L. (2013). The leadership teachers want from principals: Transformational. Canadian Journal of Education, 36(3), 185-203. [19] Jain, N. (2015). The effect of job value on occupational self-efficacy of secondary school teacher. Scholarly Research journal for interdisciplinary studies, 3 (19), 7. [20] Klassen, R. M., & Chiu, M. M. (2010). Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Teacher gender, years of experience, and job Stress. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 741-756. [21] Koustelios, A., Gkolia, A., & Belias, D. (2014). The impact of principals\' transformational leadership on teachers\' satisfaction: Evidence from Greece. European Journal of Business and Social Sciences, 3(6), 69-80. [22] Lunenburg, F. (2011). Self-efficacy in the Workplace: implications for motivation and performance. International Journal of Management, Business, And Administration, 14 (1) Retrieved from http://www.national forum.com/Electronic Journal Volumes/Lunenburg. [23] Manhas, C., & Bakshi, A. (2010). Relating occupational self -efficacy to team effectiveness. European Journal of Business and Management. [24] Merwe, L. V. (2012). Occupational self-efficacy as a mediator between strength- and deficiency-based approaches and work engagement in a sample of South African employees.North-West University, South Africa. Retrieved on 09 October 2105 from http://dspace.nwu.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10394/9198/Van_der_Merwe_L.pdf?sequence=1 [25] Mesterova, J., Prochazka, J., & Vaculik, M. (2015). Relationship between self-efficacy, transformational leadership and leader effectiveness. Journal of Advanced Management Science, 3(2), 109-122 [26] Okcu, V. (2014). Relation between secondary school administrators’ transformational and transactional leadership style and skills to diversity management in the School. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 14(6), 2162-2174. [27] Ormrod, J. E. (2006). Educational psychology: Developing learners (5th Ed.) Upper saddle river, N.J.: Pearson/ Merrill Prentice Hall, 5, 53-35. [28] Ozder, H. (2011). Self-Efficacy beliefs of novice teachers and their performance in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher education, 36(5), 1-15. [29] Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and self-efficacy. Retrieved from http://people.wku.edu/richard.miller/banduratheory.pdf on 16 November 2015. [30] Percy, B. (2012). Concept thresholds: The key to self-efficacy and effective teaching in higher education. New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work, 9(2), 119-123. [31] Pethe, S., Chaudhari, S., & Dhar, U. (1999). Manual for occupational self-efficacy scale. National Psycgological Corporation. Agra. [32] Pokharel, B. (2014). Principal as transformational leader: Getting to know new dimension in school. American International Journal of Social Science, 3(6), 61-66. [33] Rathi, N., & Rastogi, R. (2009). Assessing the relationship between emotional intelligence, occupational self-efficacy and organizational commitment. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(Special Issue), 93-102. [34] Chaudhary et.al (2012). Impact of occupational self-efficacy on employee engagement: An Indian perspective. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 38(2), 329-338. [35] Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadesrship and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. American Educationa Research Association, 1-30. [36] Sagnak, M. (2010). The relationship between transformational school leadership and ethical climate. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 10(2), 1135-1152. [37] Schyns, B., & Moldzio, T. (2009). The value of occupational self-efficacy in selection and development. Retrieved from http://www.moldzio.com/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen/Value_of_occupational_self-efficacy.pdf on 10, 09, 2015. [38] Simic, I. (1998). Transformational leadership: The key to successful management of transformational organizational changes. The Scientific journal Facta Universitatis, 1(6), 49-55. [39] Singh, P., & Lokotsch, K. (2005). Effects of transformational leadership on human resources management in primary schools. South African Journal of Education, 25(4), 279-286. [40] Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248. [41] Van der Bijl, J. J., & Shortridge- Baggett, L.M. (2002). The theory and Measurement of the Self-efficacy Construct. In E. A. Lentz & L. M. Shortridge-Baggett (Eds.), Self-efficacy in nursing: Research and measurement perspectives (pp. 9-28) New York: Springer. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?id=j6ujWyh_4_gC [42] Wright, H. D. (2013). The relation between high school teacher sense of teaching efficacy and self-reported attitudes toward the inclusive classroom settings. Liberty University. Retrieved on 07 October 2015 from http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1702&context=doctoral [43] Zimmerman, B. J. (1995). Self-efficacy and educational development. Self-efficacy in changing societies, 202-231. [44] Zulkosky, K. (2009,). Self-efficacy: A concept analysis. In Nursing Forum, 44(2), pp. 93-102. Blackwell Publishing I

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Ngawang Drukda. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.