Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Punggawa Global Research Punggawa Social Inquiry: Journal of Crime, Culture, and Social Dynamics
Syawal Kurnia Putra
Universitas Tomakaka

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
Principal Leadership Style and Teacher Performance in Improving Learning Quality Syawal Kurnia Putra
Punggawa Global Research: Jurnal Multidisiplin Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Punggawa Global Research
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.67707/pgr.v1i1.10

Abstract

School improvement efforts often failed to translate policy expectations into consistent classroom practice, making leadership style a practical concern for learning quality. This study examined how principal leadership styles related to teacher performance and how that relationship supported the improvement of learning quality. A qualitative library-based design was used, relying on secondary sources from peer-reviewed scholarship on instructional leadership, transformational leadership, accountability practices, supervision and feedback, professional development, and school climate. The analysis synthesized recurring mechanisms that connected leadership to teacher work and classroom processes. The findings indicated that leadership influenced learning quality primarily through teacher performance by clarifying instructional direction, strengthening supervision and feedback, supporting professional capacity, and shaping a school climate that encouraged accountability and collaboration. Instructional leadership provided the most direct pathway to improving teaching practice, while transformational and democratic elements strengthened motivation and shared commitment when aligned with clear standards. Transactional elements supported baseline discipline but were insufficient as a dominant approach for instructional improvement. The study concluded that a balanced leadership profile anchored in instructional priorities was most consistent with sustained improvements in learning quality.
Why Do Organizations Remain Silent? Leadership Failure, Organizational Audibility, and the Concealment of Workplace Harm Syawal Kurnia Putra
Punggawa Social Inquiry: Journal of Crime, Culture, and Social Dynamics Vol. 1 No. 1 (2026): Punggawa Social Inquiry
Publisher : Punggawa Legacy Center

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

Research on organizational silence has explained why employees withhold information more extensively than how reports that have already been raised lose credibility, context, and practical force inside organizations. This study aims to explain how leadership failure turns knowledge of workplace harm into silence, concealment, and recurring harm. A literature-based conceptual review was conducted by comparing arguments and findings on employee voice, organizational silence, leadership, retaliation, underreporting, normalization of deviance, and institutional betrayal. The analysis shows that employee voice does not necessarily produce organizational audibility, defined as the organizational capacity to keep information open to examination, credible, traceable, and connected to actors with authority to act. Leadership failure weakens audibility when reports are separated from their context, reporters are discredited before their claims are examined, or procedures continue without a clear route to decision. Concealment does not always require an explicit order to suppress facts; it can develop through retaliation, fragmented case handling, managerial inaction, and data reduction that removes patterns of harm. These responses cultivate learned futility, shape how other employees assess the costs of speaking, and allow repeated deviations to appear normal. The article develops the Leadership-Mediated Silence–Concealment Spiral and the silence-as-safety fallacy to explain how low reporting figures may be misread as evidence of safety even when they are partly produced by declining trust in the organization.
Co-Authors