This study examined the impact of principals’ leadership styles on the academic achievement of students as measured by the Mississippi Curriculum Test, Second Edition (MCT2). The 2013-2014 school year MCT2 mathematics and language arts scores were used as measures of student achievement and high-stakes testing. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ5x) was distributed to 420 principals. However, because of incomplete information given by the principals on the questionnaire, and the fact that the Mississippi Department of Education (MDE) did not report MCT2 scores for particular schools, some of the principals’ information was not useful; thus leaving the researcher with a sample size of n = 110 participants. This study was guided by 2 research questions. Relationships were analyzed using the Multivariate test for Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) in which the variable of socioeconomic status was used as a covariate because it was found to result statistically different scores across group means. The research questions sought to determine what type of principal leadership style resulted in higher student achievement in mathematics and language arts. The findings of this study indicated that there were no statistically significant differences among the transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant leadership styles. It is imperative that principals draw from all leadership approaches (i.e. transformational, transactional, and passive avoidant approach) in their practice instead of focusing on just one type of leadership style. This is true especially in schools that serve a large percentage of students that come from families with low socioeconomic status since this study found that socioeconomic status had a statistical significant effect on student achievement. Only through the utilization of research-based practices will schools be able to raise the bar of student achievement by revamping the leadership style of the school’s ultimate instructional leader, the principal.

Universiẗat, Diss., 2000--Bonn.

abstract: This dissertation examines the intellectual debate over the concept of laissez faire in American political thought, which took place between 1880 and 1914. It presents an account of how the concept of laissez faire rose to prominence in American political thought during the Gilded Age as well as an account of how critics responded. The Gilded Age was a period of revolutionary economic change which prompted a renewed debate over the proper role of government. Much of the existing scholarship devoted to this period takes the form of historical overview or extensive focus on a particular thinker. My own analysis focuses on the specific arguments of three particular thinkers: Henry Demarest Lloyd, Thorstein Veblen, and Herbert Croly. In order to explain the various features of this intellectual debate, I present a conceptual analysis of laissez faire and identify its key components. I also provide a critical comparison of the competing economic visions of Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton to illustrate the relationship between laissez faire thinking and the American Founding. I then present the laissez faire arguments of nineteenth-century thinkers, particularly the Social Darwinists. Finally, I critically appraise the arguments presented by Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly in order to show how the prevailing notions about the proper role of government were changing. In this research, I show that the debate over laissez faire was about more than identifying the appropriate economic policy for the United States. It centered upon competing theories of society, human nature, and economic progress. In criticizing laissez faire, Lloyd, Veblen, and Croly also challenged the traditional American commitment to individualism, and in so doing, they laid the intellectual groundwork for a more affirmative government and the emergence of the welfare state in the twentieth century. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Political Science 2014

No description available.

The problem of this study is to make an appraisal of laissez-faire, and its aims, methods, and accomplishments in its rise to pinnacle heights, its philosophy, and finally its decline in the maelstrom of society demanding more security, today, than ever before, in our standards of economy and living.

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between job satisfaction and leadership style as well as participants' perceived leadership style and job satisfaction. Sixty-two participants answered a questionnaire containing 56 questions regarding perceived leadership style and job satisfaction. The leadership styles examined in the study was transformative, transactional and laissez-faire leadership. The results showed a relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and job satisfaction but not with laissez-faire leadership. The results also showed that employees experienced a laissez-faire leadership. The study's results are considered important for the reason that the understanding of the relationship between leadership style and job satisfaction can contribute to helping the organization to develop strategies to improve job satisfaction, thereby increasing productivity and quality of work and quality of life for employees. / Syftet med studien var att undersöka sambandet mellan arbetstillfredsställelse och ledarskapsstil samt deltagarnas upplevda ledarskapsstil och arbetstillfredsställelse. Sextiotvå deltagare besvarade en enkät innehållande 56 frågor rörande upplevd ledarskapsstil och arbetstillfredsställelse. De ledarskapsstilar som undersöktes i studien var det transformativa, transaktionella och laissez faire ledarskapet. Resultatet visade att samband fanns mellan det transformativa och transaktionella ledarskapet och arbetstillfredsställelse men inte med laissez faire ledarskapet. Resultatet visade också att medarbetarna huvudsakligen upplevde laissez faire ledarskap. Studiens resultat anses viktigt av den anledningen att förståelsen för sambandet mellan ledarskapsstil och arbetstillfredsställelse kan bidra till att hjälpa organisationen att utveckla strategier för att förbättra arbetstillfredsställelsen och därmed öka produktiviteten och kvalitén på arbetet samt livskvalitén för medarbetaren.

The purpose of this study is not to offer any new political measures for consideration or to suggest any radical departures from the present plans of our government. Nor does it propose to advocate any new ideology, but to study trends in economic policies, and to suggest a philosophic approach to the appraisal of these trends.

No description available.

The aim of this study was to see if there existed any differences between male and female superiors. The theoretical framework was based on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leaderships styles. The sample was employees in three companys (n=24). Three hypothesis were formulated: (1) female superiors are more transformational than male, (2) male superiors are more transactional than female and (3) male superiors are more laissez-faire than felmale. The method of measurement was a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The findings of the study did not confirm any differences between female and male superiors in the components of transformational and transactional leadership styles. The result of the hypothes that male superiors are more laissez-faire than female was confirmed. Male superiors applied behavios of the laissez-faire style more than female superiors. The findings were also related to previously research. It is important to point out that the findings of this study can not be generalized based on a smal sample.

<p>The aim of this study was to see if there existed any differences between male and female superiors. The theoretical framework was based on transformational, transactional and laissez-faire leaderships styles. The sample was employees in three companys (n=24). Three hypothesis were formulated: (1) female superiors are more transformational than male, (2) male superiors are more transactional than female and (3) male superiors are more laissez-faire than felmale. The method of measurement was a modified version of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. The findings of the study did not confirm any differences between female and male superiors in the components of transformational and transactional leadership styles. The result of the hypothes that male superiors are more laissez-faire than female was confirmed. Male superiors applied behavios of the laissez-faire style more than female superiors. The findings were also related to previously research. It is important to point out that the findings of this study can not be generalized based on a smal sample.</p>