×
Home Current Archive Editorial board
News Contact
Review paper

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE QUALITY OF LEADERSHIP AMONG IMAMS AND RELIGION TEACHERS

By
Derviš Vrešlija ,
Safet Beganović
Safet Beganović

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to make a comparative analysis of the quality of leadership among imams and religion teachers, i.e. based on the attitudes of imams and religion teachers to conclude whether there is a difference in the frequency of application of different leadership styles. We used a method of theoretical analysis, a descriptive-analytical survey method, and a technique of survey data collection. The research instruments were a Background Data Questionnaire and a Leadership Behavior Questionnaire - Leadership Styles (Pearce & Sims, 2002). The research sample consisted of 100 imams and 100 religion teachers coming from the Zenica-Doboj Canton. Our findings showed that the leadership by imams is statistically significantly more characterized by: intimidation, reprimand, setting goals, instructions and commands, providing material and personal rewards, disagreement with the current situation and vision. On the other hand, the leadership by religion teachers is statistically significantly characterized more by: the team's functional efficiency, the qualitative efficiency of the team, efficiency of introducing changes, efficiency of organization and planning, interpersonal efficiency, efficiency evaluation, and overall efficiency. The following styles were found to be common to both imams and religion teachers: idealism, inspirational communication, intellectual stimulation, support to the reward system, encouraging independent actions, support to thinking and support to personal progress.

Citation

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. 

Article metrics

Google scholar: See link

The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.