The Effects of Transformational, Transactional, and Laissez-Faire

Leadership on Principal’s Self-Efficacy

RIDWAN RIDWAN1, SUDJARWO SUDJARWO1, SULPAKAR SULPAKAR1, HASAN HARIRI1,

RIAS TUSIANAH2, USASTIAWATY C.A.S ISNAINY3, M. ARIFKI ZAINARO3,

HERDIAN HERDIAN4, BUJANG RAHMAN4

1Educational Doctorate Program, FKIP Universitas Lampung, Bandar Lampung City, 35141,

INDONESIA

2SMP Negeri 1 Seputih Agung, Central Lampung Regency INDONESIA

3Department of Nursing Management, Universitas Malahayati Bandar Lampung City, INDONESIA

4Educational Doctorate Program, FKIP Universitas Lampung, Bandar Lampung City, 35141,

INDONESIA

Abstract: - Many people fail to reach the pinnacle of their careers because they experience a crisis of self-

efficacy. Self-efficacy plays an important role in the success of a job mission. However, self-efficacy is a

variable that has been influenced and other times it can influence other variables. This study aims to analyze

how transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership interact with self-efficacy. This research is a

survey and data obtained from respondents as many as 140 high school teachers in the form of self-reports, and

the data is collected using SEM Amos Version 22. The results of Amos processing show that Transformational

and laissez-faire leadership styles negatively affect self-efficacy. Only transactional leadership style positively

affects self-efficacy. The research concludes that only transactional leadership has a positive effect on self-

efficacy because followers (teachers) have different backgrounds and motivations and the majority of followers

(teachers) have not yet reached the level of self-actualization.

Key-Words: Effect, Transformational, Transactional, Laissez-Faire, Self-Efficacy, And Motivation

Received: June 18, 2021. Revised: January 15, 2022. Accepted: February 22, 2022. Published: March 26, 2022.

1 Introduction

People often fail to start something or reach a career

stage because of a self-efficacy deficit. On the other

hand, people who succeed in reaching the stage of

being a leader and succeed in leadership because

they have self-confidence. Many studies reveal that

self-confidence is a good predictor of their career

success. However, self-efficacy does not come by

itself. It will be with those self-efficacy builders,

such as the mastery of knowledge they encounter.

Just as a literature study on cervical health found the

cause of the patient's self-confidence to ask for and

be given treatment assistance. It was found that

having knowledge about cervical cancer, shame on

others, fear of the pain of screening, fear of finding

abnormal conditions, and wrong attitude towards

women's screening process [1, 2]. Including the lack

of awareness and perceive the unimportance of

cervical cancer screening are the factors [3]. In

addition, some women do not realize the importance

of screening, do not receive news and information

from health workers, preventing women from

learning to develop self-efficacy, which can help

them decide on cervical cancer screening [4]. Thus,

medical experts face difficulties in providing

assistance for cervical cancer treatment. In this

regard, the world will face many problems related to

improving the quality of life, especially in the health

sector. This shows that self-efficacy becomes very

important.

Assessment of perceived self-efficacy includes three

dimensions [5], such as 1) Strength dimension is an

assessment of actions that make women confident,

2) The generality dimension emphasizes self-

assessment to build self-confidence, and 3) the

Magnitude dimension aims to have self-expectations

that can lead to success. Women have high degrees

in all three dimensions because women have the

determination to succeed [6]. Self-efficacy can

indeed affect but self-efficacy can also be

influenced [7]. A good leader will pay attention to

and develop a sense of followers' efficacy. On the

other hand, a leader who does not want to develop

his followers and intends to break the relationship

simply destroys his followers’ efficacy. When self-

efficacy collapses, everything collapses. Followers

will not survive and continue to grow. Followers

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

will find a new comfortable place for themselves

[8].

To be able to develop follower self-efficacy, a

leader must have a good management and

leadership system. For example, in the health sector,

having an occupational health and safety

management system does not fully guarantee the

creation of a safe working environment and the

reduction of work accidents. In addition to the

management system, there is a need for leadership

in occupational safety to carry out operations and

ensure the continuity of occupational health and

safety activities. The conceptualization of safety

leadership plays an important role in explaining how

to implement an occupational health and safety

management system and improve an organization's

safety performance. In this regard, contemporary

leadership theory introduces three approaches. The

theories that contribute to the development of safety

leadership are as follows: “Transformational

Leadership Theory”, “Transactional Leadership

Theory” and “Delegative Leadership Style”

(Laissez-Faire). In addition, the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was formed to

define leadership behaviors [9].

It has been proven that “Leadership” is the most

strategic component in what is known as an

organizational system, consisting of various

elements, such as structure, goals, relationships,

rewards, procedures, and organizational policies,

always depending on the needs for the flexibility

created by external factors. Transformational

Leadership plays a dominant role in contemporary

leadership theory, which is confirmed by surveys to

be highly correlated with the full specter of

organizational outcomes, such as effectiveness,

motivation, innovation, job engagement,

satisfaction, learning, etc. [10-12]. This hypothetical

relationship between Transformational Leadership

and organizational outcomes is empirically

demonstrated by research that proves the effect of

this type of leadership practice on variables referred

to as leadership outcomes namely, followers

perceived leadership effectiveness and follower job

satisfaction [13, 14].

The apparent effect of Transformational Leadership

on these independent variables, compared with the

effects of Transactional and Laissez-faire

Leadership, explains the distinct status of this type

of leadership and its strong influence on various

organizational outcomes. At the same time, this fact

forms empirical evidence of the validity of Bass's

Multifactor Leadership Theory, as the most

comprehensive and reliable model that describes

modern leadership [15, 16]. The biggest challenge

in this research is the verification of the application

of this leadership model in the reality of Indonesian

organizations, especially the detection of

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire

leadership characteristics in Lampung public

administration of education (SMA level).

The purpose of this study is to highlight the effect of

modern leadership types, under the Multifactor

Leadership Theory, namely Transformational,

Transactional, and Laissez-Faire Leadership types.

The aim of the study focuses on the effects of the

three leadership styles on the followers' perceived

leadership outcomes on namely principals’' self-

efficacy.

This research was conducted because the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was

stated to have a very strong influence on other

variables such as job satisfaction, organizational

commitment, and others. As a reference is a study

on research that intends to analyze the effect of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and

the results show that Transformational Leadership

was found to strongly and positively determine such

as follower perceived leadership effectiveness and

follower job satisfaction, while the positive impact

of Transactional Leadership on these two criteria

proved to be less strong, followed by a very strong

negative effect of Laissez-faire Leadership. The

conclusions drawn can be applied in public sector

organizations with high performance standards. This

study intends to analyze the influence of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) on the

efficacy of high school principals. While the item of

principals’ efficacy taken from Tschannen‐Moran

& Gareis [17, 18]. To achieve this, this research was

guided by the following research questions:

1. What leadership has the positive influence

on self-efficacy?

2. What leadership has the negative influence

on self-efficacy?

2 Literature Review

2.1 Multifactor Leadership

When including a subsection you must use, for its

heading, small letters, 12pt, left justified, bold,

Times New Roman as here. While the term safe has

been in use for a long time, job safety is a recent

term that has been introduced to the agenda and is

used with industrialization. In a broad sense,

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

salvation refers to a legal order in society in which

people can live without shared. Occupational safety

is related to employees doing work naturally and it

expresses the protection of safety of employees in

the workplace against the dangers arising from the

work they do [19]

A number of surveys have shown that leadership

serves as a catalyst for optimizing organizational

outcomes. Motivation, commitment, satisfaction,

training, and opportunities for learning, creativity,

innovation, high efficiency and effectiveness of

employees and organizations are highly dependent

on the role and practice of leadership strengths [20,

21]. For many elements of the impact of leadership

on organizations and employees, some researchers

suggest that it would be difficult, if not impossible,

to measure accurately [22-24].

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire and

application of the Multifactor Leadership Theory

facilitate valid and reliable estimation of the two

key-dependent variables, referred to as leadership

results, such as leadership effectiveness and job

satisfaction [13, 25]. After the introduction of the

questionnaire, an assessment of this dimension in

the empirical study was carried out through

employee imagery, thus creating an anthropocentric

estimate of this dimension based on their perception

of "following" the instructions and suggestions of

the leader. It means follower centric perception [22,

23, 26, 27].

Multifactor leadership is used as the dependent

variable, becoming popular because it represents the

two classic dimensions of leadership orientation:

confident leadership, job-oriented leadership

expressed through the variable Perceived

Leadership by Followers" and "Human relations-

oriented leadership expressed through the variable

like follower job satisfaction. It is empirically

accepted that leadership, to be judged as functional

for an organization, must exert a multiple and equal

positive effect on the two dependent variables [13,

14, 28].

Thus, in the context of this Multifactor Leadership

Theory, which emphasizes the balanced impact of

leadership on tasks and employees, it is empirically

proven that when employees perceive their

leadership to be effective, they state that they are

satisfied with their work. Likewise, when employees

express satisfaction with their jobs, they see their

leadership as effective, precisely because effective

leadership and job satisfaction are two interrelated

facts of successful organizations [12, 20, 22, 23,

26].

2.2 Multifactor Leadership Theory and

Leadership Outcomes

Given the above-mentioned model, the special

effects applied by Transformational Leadership on

the dependent variables mentioned above can be

measured and assessed empirically compared to the

respective effects applied by Transactional

Leadership and Laissez-faire Leadership on the

same dependent variable. At the same time,

empirical verification of the effects and different

responses performed by each leadership type on the

two dependent variables (criteria) was used as

strong evidence for the construct validity of the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire mentioned

above. This fact consequently highlights the value

of the appropriate Multifactor Leadership Theory as

a tool for interpreting and assessing modern

leadership and its influence on modern

organizations [22, 27, 29].

2.3 Transformational Leadership

Until recently traditional leadership theory had

focused primarily on the assignment of tasks and

their fulfillment by employees (referred to as

"followers" by Bass), in exchange for possible

rewards or sanctions by the leader. This version of

“compromised” leadership is limited to basic

“transactions” between leaders and members. Bass

identified the need to develop a new leadership

model that would be able to encourage and motivate

members to go beyond their personal interests, in

search of the greater good for the team and the

organization, through achieving optimal levels of

performance. This type of leadership is identified as

“Transformational Leadership”. It was developed

mainly in the 1990s, but remains up-to-date as it

appears to be the most relevant and modern

approach to the concept of "leadership" and the

results this concept produces [13, 24, 27, 30].

Transformational Leadership motivates and inspires

(“transforms”) followers to achieve results beyond

expectations. It envisions followers' concerns,

preoccupations, and needs, it alters ("transforms")

their perception of organizational problems, prompts

them to tackle old problems in new ways and focus

on team success and not individual success.

“Transformational Leaders”, taking into account the

skills and shortcomings of followers, relate

delegated tasks to goals and procedures that require

the highest possible efficiency and benefit to the

organization [13, 20, 22, 30]. “Transformational

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

Leadership” improves the motivation, morale and

performance of followers, through a variety of

instruments. “Transformational Leaders” link

personal identity and the concept of individual

benefit with the perspectives of organizational

collective identity and team benefits. A

Transformational Leader, embodying the role

described in this model, inspires and challenges his

followers to demonstrate a greater level of self-

reflection on their work and organization [12, 20,

22, 29, 30]. Transformational Leadership has been

shaped theoretically which consists of four

important qualities (factors):

a) Charisma or Idealized Influence that creates

and advances the vision and mission, instilling

virtue, respect, and mutual trust.

Transformational leaders act in beautiful and

innovative ways, exhibit attitudes and values

that exert maximum influence on others

(followers), to seek their self-reflection with

these leaders. [20, 22, 30].

b) Inspiration or Inspiration Motivation that

communicates high expectations, uses symbols

that focus on efforts, and expresses the end goal

in a simple way. Transformational leaders are

visionaries who inspire and motivate others,

instilling the idea that they can achieve beyond

expectations [20, 22, 30].

c) Intellectual stimulation that demands

intelligence, logic, and wise decision making in

solving problems. Transformational leaders

show others new ways of thinking, new ways to

seize opportunities, focus on creativity,

development and innovation [20, 22, 30].

Individualized Considerations that target each

follower individually, guide, advise, and empower

them. Transformational leaders express personal

responsibility and serve as mentors to others. Such a

leader respects the personality and contribution of

each individual to the overall effort and assigns

tasks according to the talents and interests of each

employee [20, 22, 30].

2.4 Transactional Leadership

Transactional Leadership is the process of

transactions between leaders and followers. It is

based on the fulfillment of contractual obligations

arising from their duties, in return for the leader's

attention to full oversight of the process of achieving

goals and rewards for those who comply.

Transactional leaders define the roles and

responsibilities of each worker/employee

individually and they also reward, either financially,

with a raise, or morally, with recognition and

promotion, workers/employees who have achieved

their goals [10, 15, 30].

Unlike transformational leadership, transactional

leaders do not focus on a vision of the future, but

they insist on current practices, asking followers to

formally abide by the rules. Transactional leaders

are committed to existing procedures, ignoring the

need to develop ideas to improve organizational

efficiency and effectiveness. They focus on the

personal motives and interests of others rather than

the common interests of the team and the

organization [20, 24, 30, 31].

2.5 Laissez-Faire Leadership

Transactional Leadership refers to the lower needs

of people, in needs theory terms [32], whereas

Transformational Leadership is concerned with

higher needs. However, the two types of leadership,

despite their differences, do not contradict each

other, but act as complementary, mutually

reinforcing ideas of leaders. Clearly, the

characteristics of transformational leadership lead to

better outcomes for organizations, if these elements

coexist with transactional leadership, according to

Bass' so-called "augmentation hypothesis" [24, 30,

31]. Transactional Leadership” has been established

theoretically which consists of three important

qualities:

a) Contingent Rewards which includes accepting

exchange payments in return for effort,

promising to reward good performance, and

compensating for achievements. Employees

who have not succeeded as expected are

"penalized" in the form of sanctions. The

entire relationship between leader and follower

is governed by the established transaction

principle, which is the reward for good

performance and adverse consequences in

return for poor performance [20, 22, 30].

b) Management by exception-active assumes that

the leader keeps others constantly guided by

him, identifies deviations from the rules and

makes the best corrective action [20, 22, 30].

c) Management by passive-exception considers

that the leader intervenes only in extreme cases

where standards are not respected (basically

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

one step under Laissez-Faire Leadership [20,

22, 30].

Transformational and Transactional Leadership

Types, although different, do not compete with each

other, but are complementary forms of leadership.

These two leadership styles can coexist in the same

leader but at different levels. Leaders, for example,

may exhibit both transformational and transactional

features, but they manifest these features in varying

amounts and intensity so that one style appears more

distinct than another. Empirical studies aimed at

testing the validity of Bass's Multifactor Leadership

Theory have shown a strong positive correlation that

exists between Transformational and Transactional

Leadership Types [10, 16, 22, 23, 33, 34].

This type of leadership is non-existent and non-

existent leadership that avoids decision-making,

does not exercise power, and denies responsibility.

Laissez-faire leaders are not informed of their

duties, they do not decide, do not guide, and do not

intervene if problems arise. They let other people do

their job any way they want, regardless of the results

that come with it [20, 22, 30].

Laissez-faire leadership is a negative component of

the Multifactor Leadership model. Several empirical

studies studying this kind of leader behavior have

shown a strong negative correlation that exists

between Laissez-faire Leadership and the other two

types of Leadership [15, 16, 20, 22].

2.6 Self-Efficacy

Self-efficacy is a person's perspective on his ability

to direct and carry out a number of actions to

achieve a certain level of performance [35-39]. In

other words, it is a holistic view of the individual

about his or her believed capacity to perform a task.

For example, a math teacher's belief that he or she

can successfully teach calculus to a class of twelfth

graders is an efficacy assessment. Similarly,

principals with high self-efficacy may believe that

they can have a positive effect on student

achievement or they may increase the emphasis on

academic learning in schools. Perception of self-

efficacy is oriented towards the future to be able to

achieve a certain level of performance.

Belief in efficacy is not a fixed character in the

individual, but belief in efficacy is an active belief

system and can be developed based on what is

experienced in context [35]. Therefore, self-efficacy

is changeable and may vary depending on the

context and specificity of the task. So that self-

efficacy varies in existence. There are individual

self-efficacy, group efficacy, and efficacy in an

organization. In the school context, teacher self-

efficacy beliefs can be defined as individual

teachers' beliefs in their ability to perform certain

teaching tasks at a certain level of quality in certain

situations [40].

In an attempt to clarify some misconceptions about

the definition of teacher self-efficacy, it is stated

that self-efficacy beliefs are task and situation-

specific, in the sense that efficacy beliefs are not

believed to be individual traits [41], but rather an

active and learned belief system. experienced in

context [40]

2.6.1 Teacher Self Efficacy and Teacher

Collective Efficacy

As defined by Bandura that self-efficacy is

perceived as belief in one's ability to organize and

carry out the course of action required to produce a

given achievement or personal belief that one is

capable of doing what is required to complete a task.

at a certain level of quality [42]. Teacher self-

efficacy is defined as teachers' individual beliefs in

their ability to perform certain teaching tasks at a

certain level of quality in certain situations [40].

Collective teacher efficacy is a particular form of

self-efficacy in which the target of belief is the

organization to which the individual belongs. It is

the perception of teachers in schools that overall

faculty efforts will have a positive effect on students

[43]. Collective teacher efficacy is linked to

teachers' influence over school decisions [44] and

inspires teachers' willingness to help one another to

meet school goals [45].

A study on Principal Leadership and Teacher

Efficacy involving 328 participants was conducted

“to examine the relationship between principals'

instructional leadership behaviors with teacher self-

efficacy and collective efficacy, and also to observe

the direct and indirect effects, through teachers' self-

efficacy, on instructional leadership on the

collective efficacy of teachers [46]. The principal's

instructional leadership behavior has a positive and

significant effect on teacher self-efficacy. This study

reveals that instructional leadership affects

collective efficacy indirectly through teacher self-

efficacy [46].

A study involving 366 teachers who were grouped

into four based on years of service: 0-3 years, 4-7

years, 8-14 years, and >15 years concluded that

three of the eleven principal behaviors had a

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

relationship which is significant with teacher

efficacy. The three behaviors are: (a) modeling

instructional expectations, (b) communication, and

years of teaching, modeling instructional

expectations predict teacher efficacy; for those aged

4-7 years, modeling of instructional and

communication expectations predicts teacher

efficacy; for those aged 8-14, it is communication,

consideration, and modeling of instructional

expectations in this order that influences their

success, and for those over 15 it is an inspiring

teacher. The study concludes that building teacher

efficacy should be approached in different ways

when working with teachers at different levels of

teaching experience. [47, 48].

The results showed that the contribution of

transformational leadership style to the explanation

of personal teacher efficacy was not statistically

significant when work-related variables were

controlled for in the Pearson Test of English (PTE)

analysis. The main conclusion is that the

relationship between personal teacher efficacy and

principal's leadership style is somewhat

complicated, but is demonstrated by teacher

satisfaction on the job. These findings do not verify

causation but rather suggest positive work

experiences that increase teacher satisfaction may

contribute to increased PTE. Transformational

leaders are more likely to form the types of work

circumstances that allow for individual satisfaction

and, therefore, allow PTE to thrive [48].

2.6.2 School Leadership, Teacher Efficacy, and

Student Achievement

Research on teacher efficacy and student

achievement shows that a teacher who exhibits high

self-efficacy, is organized, open to new ideas that

relate to student needs, is less cursing when students

make mistakes, is more confident in their teaching

and is more likely to use strategic strategies.

affirmative class management [49-51]. Other studies

have linked teacher efficacy to student outcomes,

showing that students perform better on

standardized tests than their peers when taught by a

teacher with a high score on self-efficacy compared

to when taught by a teacher with lower efficacy

scores [49, 52, 53].

Previous studies have linked school leadership style

to teacher efficacy. Ross and Gray [54] claims that

by setting worthy goals, clarifying standards, and

actions of teacher layers of student outcomes, a

principal influences teacher self-assessment which

contributes to success. The principal understands the

existence of teachers and students as followers to be

able to increase efficacy in order to achieve school

goals.

Teacher efficacy, defined as teachers' belief in their

ability to have a positive effect on student learning,

has been associated with student achievement,

student motivation, and teacher classroom

management strategies [55]. Further research

provided evidence that principals significantly

influence teachers' experiences in their work and

impact teachers' efforts [56, 57]. Support is needed

for the idea that principals' leadership style may be a

significant influencing factor on teachers' personal

self-efficacy [58]. There is evidence in research that

effective principals improve student achievement

and also that there is a positive relationship between

high levels of teacher self-efficacy and increased

student achievement [47, 59].

3 Methods

3.1 Research Design

This survey is an ex-post facto descriptive study on

the effect of multifactor leadership on self-efficacy.

The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was used

as a research tool through a five-point Likert scale.

Transformational (TRASF), Transactional

(TRANSC), and Laissez-faire (LF) Leadership

Types were measured by the MLQ/6S form of Bass

and Avolio [60], while self-efficacy was measured

by the principal's self-efficacy from

Tschannen‐Moran, Gareis SE1 was Management

self-efficacy, SE2 was Learning Leadership, SE3

was Moral Leadership self-efficacy [61].

3.2 Population and Sample

The sample is part of a number of characteristics in

the population to be studied. It can be concluded

that the sample is part of the population to be

studied and represents the characteristics of the

population. The sample in this study amounted to

140 teachers in Pesawaran Regency, Lampung

Province.

3.3 Data Analysis

The data of this research is Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA) data. CFA is part of SEM

(Structural Equation Modeling) to test how a

measured variable or indicator is good in describing

or representing a number of a factor. In CFA factors

are also known as constructs. Measurement theory is

used to determine how variables are measured,

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

systematically and logically describe a construct that

is displayed in a model [62].

Determining whether an indicator is valid or not can

use the magnitude of the correlation coefficient

between the indicator/construct score and the total

score. This score indicates the magnitude of the

factor load. A good construct is if it has a load factor

of at least 0.30. So, if the value of 0.30, it is said to

be a valid indicator [63, 64]

After the measurement model is formulated, the

next step is to determine the loading factor of each

variable. Determining factor loading in confirmatory

factor analysis is the same as determining factor

loading in exploratory factor analysis. The trick is

the Maximum Likelihood Estimation (MLE)

method. After obtaining the loading factor, the next

stage is testing the measurement model which is

seen based on the goodness of fit value obtained by

the model.

Schumacker and Lomax [65] suggested that in using

CFA, at least 3 factors must be determined and the

latent construct relationship was based on a

theoretical basis. The model must be identifiable

and have a unique value to facilitate estimation. The

measurement of the model with CFA is determined

by the difference between the indicators and the

construct and the specification of the relationship

between the observed and the variable whether it is

reflexive or formative. In order for estimates to be

accurate and unbiased, data normality and the

amount of asymptotic data are required [66].

3.4 Model-fit Criteria

Determining model fit in CFA requires examining

several goodness-of-fit indices. One of the criteria is

the model fit summary (CMIN/DF) test, the

Likelihood Ratio Test statistic which is expressed as

a chi-square statistic (χ2). Large sample sizes often

result in chi-square statistics resulting in statistically

significant differences between the sample data and

the hypothesized model. Because CFA is a large

sample statistic, the chi-square statistic is often a

poor measure of model fit. Marsh and Hocevar [67]

recommend the Likelihood Ratio Test Statistic to be

in the 2-5 range to show a reasonable fit.

Given the limitations of chi-squared for measuring

model fit, statistics and other indices were used to

evaluate model fit. The Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation (RMSEA) measures how well the

hypothesized model will fit the population

covariance matrix. RMSEA value < .05 indicates a

good fit and value < .08 indicates a reasonable

approximation error in the population [68].

Reporting the 90% confidence interval RMSEA

helps in interpreting the model fit, as well as the

closeness of the fit measured by the probability

value, PCLOSE, where a value >.05 indicates a

good fit with the population [68]. Standardized Root

Mean Square Residual (SRMR) represents the mean

residual between the hypothesized model and the

sample data, and the smaller the SRMR value the

better with 0 indicating a perfect fit, < .05 reflecting

a model fit [68], and < .08 is recognized as a good

match [69]. The Comparative Fit Index (CFI) takes

into account sample size and provides a complete

measure of data covariance, with values ranging

from 0 to 1.00. Hu and Bentler [69] recommend that

a cutoff value of 0.95 is a better indicator of fit. The

Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI), which returns a value

between 0 and 1.00, shows a good match when the

value is also close to 0.95 [69].

Table 1. Goodness of Fit Model

Criteria of Goodness of Fit Model

Score

Decision

1. Marsh and Hocevar [67] recommend the Likelihood Ratio

Test statistic to be in the 2-5 range to show a reasonable

fit.

2.077

Fit

2. Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) : <

.05 shows a good fit and a value of <.08 indicates a

reasonable approximation error in the population [68, 70]

.088

Fit

3. Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)

represents the mean residual between the hypothesized

model and the sample data, and the smaller the SRMR

value the better with 0 indicating a perfect fit, < 0.05

reflecting a model fit [68], and < 0.08 is recognized as a

good match [69].

.690

Fit

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

4. Comparative Fit Index (CFI) takes sample size into

account and provides a complete measure of data

covariance, with values ranging from 0 to 1.00. Hu and

Bentler [69] recommend that a cut-off value of 0.95 is a

better indicator of fit.

.817

Fit

5. Tucker-Lewis Index (TFI), which yields a value between 0

and 1.00, indicating a good match when the value is also

close to 0.95. [69].

.803

Fit

4 Results and Discussion

4.1 Results

In this section, the researcher presents research data

which includes demographic data, Regression

Weights, Standardized Regression Weights, Total

Effects and Direct Effects, and Standardized Total

Effects and Standardized Direct Effects.

Tabel 2. Demographic Data

Data

Total

Data

Total

Gender

Years of service

Males

1 - 5 year

Famales

6 - 10 year

Total

140

100

11 - 15 year

Educatiaon

> 16 year

120

Total

140

100

Working with the

present principal

Total

140

100

Ages

6 months

< 30 years

1 years

31 - 35

2 years

36 - 40

3 years

41 - 45

4 years

46 - 50

> 5 years

51 - 55

Total

140

100

> 56

Total

140

100

Table 2 shows demographic data consisting of

gender, education, age, years of service, and length

of service with the current principal. There are more

female respondents (66%) than male respondents.

The educational background of the respondents is

dominated by S1 degrees (86%) compared to S2.

The age of the respondents ranged from < 30 to > 56

years and the distribution was relatively balanced,

but the largest number of respondents was in the age

range of 31-35 (26%). The number of years of

service of respondents is also relatively evenly

distributed with the highest number in the range of

11-15 years, 41 respondents (29%). The last is the

length of work with the current principal who has

worked at most for 1 year, 96 respondents (69%).

Tabel 3. Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate

S.E.

C.R.

Label

SE1 (Management)

<---

TRASF

-1,071

,527

-2,033

,042

par_1

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

TRASF

-1,678

,742

-2,262

,024

par_2

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

TRASF

-1,065

,530

-2,008

,045

par_3

SE1 (Management)

<---

TRANSC

1,599

,571

2,802

,005

par_4

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

TRANSC

2,893

,756

3,828

***

par_5

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

Estimate

S.E.

C.R.

Label

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

TRANSC

2,241

,551

4,065

***

par_6

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

-,659

,209

-3,146

,002

par_7

SE1 (Management)

<---

-,230

,135

-1,710

,087

par_8

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

-,342

,144

-2,371

,018

par_9

Table 3 shows the effect of the three leadership

styles combined in the multifactor leadership style:

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire.

Transformational and laissez-faire leadership styles

negatively affect self-efficacy. Only transactional

leadership style positively affects self-efficacy.

Tabel 4. Standardized Regression Weights: (Group number 1 - Default model)

Estimate

SE1 (Management)

<---

TRASF

-1,311

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

TRASF

-1,321

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

TRASF

-,826

SE1 (Management)

<---

TRANSC

2,131

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

TRANSC

2,479

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

TRANSC

1,894

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

<---

-,615

SE1 (Management)

<---

-,334

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

<---

-,315

Table 4 shows the effect of the three leadership

styles combined in the multifactor leadership style:

transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire, on

the computational model. The transformational

leadership style has a negative effect of -1,311 on

management self-efficacy. In other words,

transformational affects management self-efficacy

by 1.311%, and 98.68% is influenced by other

factors. Transformational and laissez-faire

leadership styles negatively affect self-efficacy.

Only transactional leadership style positively affects

self-efficacy.

Tabel 5. Total Effects and Direct Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

TRANSC

TRASF

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

-,342

2,241

-1,065

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

-,659

2,893

-1,678

SE1 (Management)

-,230

1,599

-1,071

Table 5 shows the total and direct effect of the three

leadership styles combined in the multifactor

leadership style: transformational, transactional, and

laissez-faire. It is only transactional leadership has

positive effect on elf-efficacy.

Tabel 6. Standardized Total Effects and Standardized Direct Effects (Group number 1 - Default model)

TRANSC

TRASF

SE3 (Moral Leadership)

-,315

1,894

-,826

SE2 (Learning Leadership)

-,615

2,479

-1,321

SE1 (Management)

-,334

2,131

-1,311

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

Table 6 shows the total and direct effects. LF and

Transformational affect self-efficacy negatively and

only transactional leadership style affects self-

efficacy positively.

4.2 Discussion

Regarding to question number 1what leadership has

the most positive influence on self-efficacy?

Refers to all autput Amos data, it is only trasactional

leadership effects positively to principal self-

efficacy. Reffeing to Standardized Total Effects and

Standardized Direct Effects, descendingly the

effects are transactional to learning leadership is

2.479, to management is 2,131, and to moral is

1,894.

Transactional leaders motivate followers by

exchanging rewards for services rendered—for

example, principals provide new teaching materials

or increase planning time for teachers so they can

institute new curricular programs. When

subordinates do their jobs in organizations such as

schools, transactional leaders recognize what

followers want from work and try to give them what

they want. They exchange rewards and promises of

reward for effort and respond to followers' self-

interest directly. Transactional leaders pursue cost-

benefit, economic trade-offs to satisfy current

followers' material and psychological needs in

exchange for contracted services rendered by

subordinates [71].

Transactional leadership is considered to have three

components. Contingent reward leadership refers to

leader behavior that focuses on clarifying roles and

task requirements and providing followers with

rewards contingent on follower performance [23]. In

other words, this subtype of leadership behavior

gives followers what they want in exchange for

what the leader wants [24]. Management by active

exception means that leaders maintain a high level

of vigilance to ensure that standards are met. That

is, leaders actively monitor performance and take

corrective action when problems become apparent.

Management by passive exception means that

leaders fail to intervene until the problem becomes

serious. These leaders wait to take action until an

error or other performance issue occurs and is called

in for attention. However, this study uses a 6S

questionnaire where passive management-by-

exception aspiration agrees with laissez-faire [72,

73].

Regarding question 2 what leadership has the

negative influence on self-efficacy?

a. Transformational leadership

All output Amos calculation show that

transformational leadership negatively effects the

three kinds of self-efficacy. Referring to

Standardized Total Effects and Standardized Direct

Effects the scores effect descendingly are -1,321 for

instructional leadership, -1,311 management, and -

,826 for moral leadership.

Leithwood, Jantzi [75] builds ideas using

transformational and transactional leadership

concepts to formulate an eight-dimensional model

for an educational setting-builds a school vision,

sets school goals, provides intellectual stimulation,

offers individualized support, models best practices,

and important organizational values, demonstrates

performance expectations higher education, creating

a productive school culture, and developing

structures to encourage participation in school

decisions. The framework is based on two

generalizations. First, transformational leadership in

schools directly affects school outcomes such as

teachers' perceptions of student achievement and

student grades. Second, transformational leadership

indirectly influenced these outcomes by influencing

three critical psychological characteristics of staff—

perceived school characteristics, teacher

commitment to change, and organizational

learning—which in turn influenced outcomes. Based

on the findings of the four-year study the school

made a variety of structural changes. So it can be

concluded that transformational leadership depends

on paying attention to all aspects of the model,

requires a unique formulation in schools on the basis

of individual considerations, and represents a

contingency approach [76].

To be successful it is necessary to extend their

model and call it a core practice of successful

leadership. Basically, they have created an open

social system model that includes input, throughput,

and outcome variables with transformational

leadership being the key process [77, 78].

A number of educational researchers on

transformational leadership have found that

transformational leaders have a greater positive

effect on their educational organizations than

transactional leaders [79-81]. Marks and Printy [82]

found that transformational and school-wide

instructional leadership was positively related to

high-quality pedagogy, and that high-level student

performance was also evident. This means that

transformational leadership cannot be run alone.

Moolenaar, Daly [83] found that the centrality of

principals in social networks enabled

transformational leadership to develop a positive

climate of innovation. More generally, Leithwood

and Jantzi [84] reviewed research in the educational

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

environment and drew four conclusions about the

effects of transformational leadership: 1) Its effect

on perceived organizational effectiveness is

significant and large. 2) The effect on objective and

independent indicators of organizational

effectiveness is positive and significant, but small in

size. 3) The effect on student outcomes measured

independently is promising but limited in number.

4) Its effect on student engagement in schools is

modest but uniformly positive.

In a more recent study of the effects of

transformational leadership in schools, Leithwood

and Sun [85] concluded that the new study should

broaden the range of mediating and moderating

variables studied and urge qualitative researchers to

refine the most productive forms of transactional

leadership. in schools.

Transformational leadership is being used widely

and is generally supported by various research

studies. The good news is that transformational

leadership models can provide intellectual capital

for educational leaders as they face the challenges of

modernizing their school organizations. As has been

explained in many books about making fundamental

changes it is usually fraught with ambiguity and

resistance. But transformational leadership offers

some promise in overcoming these difficulties. To

lead a transformational initiative, however, requires

a wide range of abilities, skills, and behaviors that

can be developed, taught, and learned [86].

Some evidence supports the hypothesis that

transformational leadership can be enhanced

through formal training [87]. Therefore, current and

future leaders should consider whether the training

program will increase their capacity to transform

schools. However, transformational negatively

affects perceptions of self-efficacy. Therefore, the

application of transformational leadership must be

carried out carefully and needs a lot of

consideration, especially with regard to the level of

motivation of followers. It is proven that

transformational leadership negatively affects self-

efficacy.

Most transactional leadership situations can be very

effective. Contingent reward behavior in particular

provides a solid foundation for effective leadership.

However, increased effort, effectiveness, and job

satisfaction result when transactional leadership is

coupled with transformational leadership [74].

b. Laissezz-Faire Leadership

All output Amos calculation show that laissez-faire

leadership negatively effects the three kinds of self-

efficacy. Referring to Standardized Total Effects

and Standardized Direct Effects the scores effect

descendingly are -,615 for instructional leadership,

-,334 management, and -,315 for moral leadership.

Laissez-faire leadership characterizes this type of

leadership as non-transactional with followers. For

example, laissez-faire leaders avoid expressing their

views or taking action on important issues, failing to

make or at least delaying decisions, ignoring

responsibilities, not providing feedback, and

allowing the authority to remain dormant. It is

essentially avoidance or lack of leadership, and the

result is the most passive and the least effective.

Examples are principals who stay in the office,

involve teachers and students as little as possible,

show minimal attention to student learning and

development or teacher needs, and allow school

structures and processes to continue in the same way

[86].

Laissez-faire leaders offer little or no guidance to

group members and leave decision-making to group

members [88]. However, we need to examine the

behavior of leaders who delegate tasks to followers.

Delegating behavior is identical to laissez-faire

leadership behavior. Delegation is a leadership

behavior that researchers and practitioners

champion as a useful management tool. Delegation

can inadvertently trigger subordinates' perceptions

of ineffective laissez-faire, depending on the gender

of the subordinates and their perception of the

competence of the trustworthy manager [89].

Not all followers dislike laissez-faire leadership.

Research shows that seven out of ten children prefer

a laissez-faire leader to an autocratic just as much as

they prefer confusion and disorganization to the

strictness and rigidity that exists in an autocratic

style. Children under the laissez-faire leadership

style displayed more aggressive, hostile, and

different behavior as compared to their peers under

other leaderships. They also display hostility or

jokes that create cracks in the work environment and

hostility towards others. Those in the democratic

style of leadership showed less aggressiveness and

behaved differently when brought under the

influence of the autocratic style leader. Even under a

laissez-faire leadership style, children act more

aggressively than under a democratic style [88].

Children who like laissez-faire are characterized by

high self-efficacy. They have a passion, passion, and

energy that seems limitless. Children with high

efficacy generally also have good self-regulation as

well. For a person like this, it fits under leadership

that gives little direction. This is because self-

efficacy contributes to motivation by determining

what goals individuals set for themselves, how

much effort they expend, how long they persist in

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

the face of adversity, and their resilience to failure

[90] .

In the general organization and management

literature, empirical studies of self-efficacy have

yielded consistent results. Self-efficacy is associated

with work-related performance such as productivity,

coping with difficult tasks, career choice, learning

and achievement, and the ability to adapt to new

technologies [91]. Similar results are seen in

educational settings. Self-efficacy research in

schools tends to focus on one of two areas or

approaches. The first study group examined the

effect of student and teacher self-efficacy on various

indicators of motivation and achievement. The

general finding is that self-efficacy is positively

related to student achievement [92], course grades

[93], motivasi siswa [94], adoption of innovation by

teachers [95, 96], supervisory teacher competency

rating [97], teacher class management strategy [98],

and is a strong predictor of behavior in general [99].

In addition, experimental studies consistently find

that changing self-efficacy beliefs can lead to better

use of cognitive strategies and higher levels of

academic achievement for math, reading, and

writing tasks [100].

To summarize, self-efficacy is an important

motivational factor that influences a number of

behavioral and performance outcomes. Self-efficacy

is learned through various experiences and is

dynamic; it can change over time as new

information and experiences are gained: 1)

Individuals who have stronger beliefs about their

abilities are more successful and persistent in their

efforts; 2) Individuals tend to avoid tasks and

situations that exceed their capacity; 3) Individuals

seek activities that they value they are capable of

handling; 4) Individuals develop self-efficacy

through the experience of mastery, modeling,

persuasion, and physiological arousal. Building

teacher efficacy should be approached in different

ways based on the motivational characteristics of

followers [100].

5 Conclusion

A person's leadership style is influenced by the

majority of his followers. Transformational

leadership places more emphasis on motivation and

inspiration, transactional leadership emphasizes

more on transactions, and laissez-faire on

delegation. Only transactional leadership that

positively affects self-efficacy shows that the

principal thinks and acts on the basis of the

transaction: "I do what and what will I get".

Referring to Maslow's theory of motivation, it

means that principals work a lot with teachers who

are at the stage of security needs. Referring to

McClelland's theory of motivation, it is still at the

level of material needs for achievement. Referring

to Herzberg's motivation theory, it is still at the level

of hygiene factor. Referring to Alderfer's theory of

motivation (ERG) it is still at a lower level of

counseling needs. Meanwhile, transformational

leadership is more about inspiring and motivating.

To achieve the practice of delegated leadership will

be much more complicated. Delegative or laissez-

faire leadership emphasizes “I get something as a

logical consequence because I do something”.

While transactional leadership puts forward "I do

something to get something".

Implication

1. The laissez-faire leadership style is suitable for

followers who are at the top level (5 self-

actualization or self-fulfillment to achieve

maximum potential for self-development,

creativity, and self-expression) according to

Maslow's hierarchy of needs theory; at the level

of recognition and achievement according to

Herzberg's hygiene-motivation theory; at level 5

(from the bottom) namely the level of self-

actualization according to Alderfer's theory of

motivation (ERG); and at the level of

achievement (getting done) according to the

theory of motivational needs obtained from

McClelland.

2. Transformational leadership style is suitable for

followers who are at levels three and four

according to Maslow's hierarchy of needs

theory, at the level of achievement, recognition,

and the work itself, responsibility, and progress

according to Herzberg's theory; at the level of

relatedness needs related to the importance of

maintaining interpersonal relationships. These

needs are based on social interaction with others

and are aligned with the level of needs related to

love/possession (such as friendship, family, and

sexual intimacy) and needs related to self-

esteem (earning respect from others) according

to Alderfer's theory of motivation ( ERG); and

at the level of power (having influence over

others) according to the theory of motivational

needs obtained from McClelland.

3. Transactional leadership style is suitable for

followers who are at Level 2: safety and

security protection against danger and threats

Freedom from fear, anxiety, and chaos needs for

structure, order, law, boundaries, and stability

Level 1: Physiological Needs according to

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

Theory Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs; at the

level of hygiene: interpersonal relations (with

subordinates): interpersonal relations (with

colleagues), supervision (technical), policies

and administration, working conditions,

personal life, and job security and salary

according to Herzberg's hygiene-motivation

theory; at level Level 1 (from below):

psychological level Level 2 (from below):

safety level according to Alderfer's Motivation

Theory (ERG); and at the level of Affiliation

(have a good relationship) according to the

Theory of Motivation of Needs Obtained from

McClelland.

References:

[1] Gatumo, M., et al., Women’s knowledge and

attitudes related to cervical cancer and

cervical cancer screening in Isiolo and

Tharaka Nithi counties, Kenya: a cross-

sectional study. BMC cancer, 2018. 18(1): p. 1-

[2] Rimande-Joel, R. and G.O. Ekenedo,

Knowledge, Belief and practice of cervical

cancer screening and prevention among women

of Taraba, North-East Nigeria. Asian Pacific

journal of cancer prevention: APJCP, 2019.

20(11): p. 3291.

[3] Chosamata, M.S., S. Hong, and S. Tiraphat,

Determinants of cervical cancer screening

utilization among women aged 30-45 years in

Blantyre district, Malawi. Journal of public

health and development, 2015. 13(3): p. 19-34.

[4] Alnafisah, R.A., et al., Saudi women’s

knowledge and attitude toward cervical cancer

screening, treatment, and prevention: A cross-

sectional study in Qassim Region (2018-2019).

Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention:

APJCP, 2019. 20(10): p. 2965.

[5] Bandura, A., Self-efficacy: toward a unifying

theory of behavioral change. Psychological

review, 1977. 84(2): p. 191.

[6] Sidabutar, S., et al., Factors Influencing

Decisionsto Conduct Early Detection of

Cervical Cancer. Health Notions, 2018. 2(6): p.

630-636.

[7] Puja Kesuma, T.A.R., et al., Influence and

Influenced Between Self-Efficacy and Principal

Leadership: A Systematic Review.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF

EDUCATION AND INFORMATION

TECHNOLOGIES, 2021. 15: p. 157-166.

[8] Tusianah, R., et al., An Integrative Review of

Self-efficacy: What Factors Enhance and

Impair It? WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on

BUSINESS and ECONOMICS, 2021. 18: p.

1057-1072.

[9] Çalış, Ç. and B.Y. Büyükakıncı, Leadership

approach in occupational safety: Taiwan

sample. Procedia Computer Science, 2019.

158: p. 1052-1057.

[10] Odumeru, J.A. and I.G. Ogbonna,

Transformational vs. transactional leadership

theories: Evidence in literature. International

review of management and business research,

2013. 2(2): p. 355.

[11] Khan, M.J., N. Aslam, and M.N. Riaz,

Leadership styles as predictors of innovative

work behavior. Pakistan Journal of Social and

Clinical Psychology, 2012. 9(2): p. 17-22.

[12] Podsakoff, P.M., S.B. MacKenzie, and W.H.

Bommer, Transformational leader behaviors

and substitutes for leadership as determinants

of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust,

and organizational citizenship behaviors.

Journal of management, 1996. 22(2): p. 259-

298.

[13] Bass, B. and B. Avolio, Multifactor Leadership

Questionnaire (MLQ) form 6S. Redwood City,

CA: Mined Garden. 1992, Inc.

[14] Bass, B. and B. Avolio, Multifactor leadership

questionnaire: Manual and sampler set. Mind

Garden Inc., Redwood City, CA, 2004.

[15] Hinkin, T.R. and C.A. Schriesheim, A

theoretical and empirical examination of the

transactional and non-leadership dimensions of

the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire

(MLQ). The Leadership Quarterly, 2008. 19(5):

p. 501-513.

[16] Tejeda, M.J., T.A. Scandura, and R. Pillai, The

MLQ revisited: Psychometric properties and

recommendations. The leadership quarterly,

2001. 12(1): p. 31-52.

[17] Tschannen‐Moran, M. and C.R. Gareis,

Principals' sense of efficacy. Journal of

Educational administration, 2004.

[18] Lovell, C.W., "Principal Efficacy: An

Investigation of School Principals' Sense of

Efficacy and Indicators of School

Effectiveness" (2009). Dissertations. 1087.

2009.

[19] Çiçek, Ö. and M. Öçal, Dünyada ve Türkiye’de

İş Sağliği ve İş Güvenliğinin Tarihsel Gelişimi.

Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi,

2016. 5(11): p. 106-129.

[20] Day, D.V. and J. Antonakis, The future of

leadership. The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of

the psychology of leadership, change, and

organizational development, 2013: p. 221-235.

WSEAS TRANSACTIONS on ADVANCES in ENGINEERING EDUCATION

DOI: 10.37394/232010.2022.19.5

Ridwan Ridwan, Sudjarwo Sudjarwo,

Sulpakar Sulpakar, Hasan Hariri,

Rias Tusianah, Usastiawaty C.A.S Isnainy,

M. Arifki Zainaro, Herdian Herdian, Bujang Rahman

E-ISSN: 2224-3410

Volume 19, 2022

[21] Van Seters, D.A. and R.H. Field, The evolution

of leadership theory. Journal of organizational

change management, 1990.

[22] Antonakis, J., The validity of the

transformational, transactional, and laissez-

faire leadership model as measured by the

Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ

5X). 2001: Walden University.

[23] Antonakis, J., B.J. Avolio, and N.

Sivasubramaniam, Context and leadership: An

examination of the nine-factor full-range

leadership theory using the Multifactor

Leadership Questionnaire. The leadership

quarterly, 2003. 14(3): p. 261-295.

[24] Kuhnert, K.W. and P. Lewis, Transactional

and transformational leadership: A

constructive/developmental analysis. Academy

of Management review, 1987. 12(4): p. 648-

657.

[25] Bass, B.M., Theory of transformational

leadership redux. The Leadership Quarterly,

1995. 6(4): p. 463-478.

[26] Yadav, V. and N. Misra, Effect of perceived

leadership and organizational commitment on

turnover intention of semi-skilled workers in

small scale industries. International Journal of

Research in Business Studies and Management,

2015. 2(8): p. 8-16.

[27] Yammarino, F.J. and B.M. Bass,

Transformational leadership and multiple

levels of analysis. Human relations, 1990.

43(10): p. 975-995.

[28] Derue, D.S., et al., Trait and behavioral

theories of leadership: An integration and