An Empirical Study of Principals' Leadership Styles with Faculty Commitment

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to explore the leadership styles of political school principals and the influence of leadership styles on faculty committees, as well as the influence of leadership styles on faculty-directed demographic variables. Methods/Analysis: This study uses a quantitative method to identify the leadership styles that exist in principals of political schools. The collected data is analyzed and processed in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0. The available test of Avolio and Bass to explore leadership styles, the test developed by Meyer and Allen is used to measure faculty commitment. Findings: Transformative leadership styles, transactional leadership styles, and laissez-faire leadership styles all have statistically significant positive correlations with faculty commitment. Novelty/Improvement: The laissez-faire leadership style had the strongest influence on faculty commitment, followed by the transformational leadership style. The least influential leadership style was the transactional leadership style. When lecturers have confidence and initiative, being able to make their own decisions and implement them, they will be more creative to achieve leadership performance. The research results are only shown within the provincial political schools of Vietnam. Future studies may select a broader sample of subjects in many educational institutions of a different kind.

Studies have tried to find leadership style gaps by experimenting with a combination of leadership styles, but there is no firm evidence that leadership performance will be improved in administrative agencies [8]. Several studies have extended the scope of research in determining the influence of leadership styles on the commitment of faculty at public universities [9]. Evidence has been confirmed that a leadership style has a strong relationship with the commitment of staff or faculty in universities, which means that the leader chooses the style. Appropriate leadership will contribute to increased faculty commitment [10]. Employees' intentions to leave the organization and their degree of commitment are all related to the use of an inappropriate leadership style or a combination of less effective leadership styles [11]. Therefore, the relationship between leadership style and employee work commitment has received wide research attention from academia [12]. The research focuses on finding and interpreting the impact of leadership styles on employee commitment, to find the optimal leadership style and the most appropriate aspects of the leadership styles to gather, build trust, and commit employees in the context that organizations, including the public and private sectors, have many strategies to find leadership talents [13]. The success of the organization is mainly dependent on the leadership style that the leader uses to influence the employees and bring about employee satisfaction and performance. Because the leader not only focuses on noting labor productivity but also emphasizing the human factor, employees are encouraged to have positive emotions, improve job satisfaction, and increase loyalty [14]. However, studies have mainly focused on the impact of transformational leadership, transactional leadership styles, and laissez-faire leadership styles on employee commitment, but not all organizations have these styles. This leadership style affects employee commitment equally.
The public sector is considered to be quite stable and slow to adapt to innovation, but when there are leaders with the right leadership style, this has been disproved. Each leadership style can create different levels of employee commitment. Different organizations always require leaders to be creative in how they apply transformational leadership styles. Transactional leadership and laissez-faire leadership styles are suitable for organizations. That's why research on leadership styles continues to expand to fill the gaps in organizations in terms of cooperation. Therefore, the study of leadership styles and employee work commitment helps leaders choose and practice the right leadership style that contributes to increased employee commitment and encourages employees to push their limits to achieve high performance. Therefore, exploring leadership styles and employee commitment in administrative agencies is important to finding effective leaders as well as promoting organizational growth and adapting well to the rapidly changing leadership landscape [12]. Up to now, in Vietnam, there have been several studies on this topic, but mainly in the private sector. Research conducted in administrative agencies at the provincial level still has gaps, especially research on the impact of the principal's leadership style on faculty commitment. Therefore, this study has focused on exploring the influence of leadership styles on the work commitment of lecturers at provincial political schools in Vietnam. On that basis, determine which leadership style of the principal is more effective on the commitment of lecturers at the provincial political school with the leadership style model proposed by Avolio & Bass [15] and commitment Work is determined based on the point of view of Meyer and Allen [16]. On the other hand, the results of this study will fill the gap regarding the relationship between transformational leadership styles, transactional leadership styles, laissez-faire leadership styles, and employee commitment in the public sector.
Researching on the influence of leadership style on employees' work commitment has focused mainly on the private sector [17] and the research is fairly well conducted on the influence of leadership style on the commitment of lecturers to work in higher education institutions [9]. Studies are fairly consistent when it comes to discovering that, among leadership styles, transformational leadership makes an important contribution to employee performance and commitment. Therefore, discoveries about the influence of leadership styles on employees' commitment to work in both the public and private sectors have received wide attention [4,8]. However, research on the impact of leadership style in schools in general as well as the influence of leadership style on the commitment of lecturers is not much [18][19][20], even the studies mainly focus on leader behavior with organizational performance. Therefore, research on leadership styles with faculty commitment in political schools has not been studied.
In Vietnam, there have been some studies on the impact of leadership style on employee performance and commitment, but mainly in private organizations [21,22]. This study will examine the influence of three leadership styles (transformational leadership, transactional leadership, and laissez-faire leadership) on the work commitment of lecturers at provincial political schools in Vietnam, at the same time, propose an empirical approach to explore the degree of manifestation of the principal's leadership styles as well as the influence of these leadership styles on the commitment of political school faculty. Identify the dominant leadership style of the principal and the commitment of the faculty members of the provincial political schools of Vietnam. Determining the influence of leadership style on the commitment of lecturers in the provincial political schools of Vietnam.

2-1-Leadership Style (LS)
Leadership style is considered an important factor for every leader as well as in the development strategy of the organization, with employees' commitment to work [8]. Research on the influence of leadership style has been continuously expanded, some studies mainly focus on serving leadership style [23], several group studies focus on transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles [24]. Mastering and effectively applying leadership style to the organization's leadership practice is extremely important, not only increasing the level of commitment of employees but also related to the strategy of each organization in responding to rapidly changing leadership contexts [14].

2-1-1-Transformational Leadership (TL)
The transformational leadership style has attracted the attention of many researchers, and before the overwhelming advantages in the experiments, the transformational leadership style is called the charismatic leadership style [25], holistic leadership style [26], multi-factor leadership style [27]. Transformational leaders always know how to encourage, inspire, and motivate employees to overcome their limitations, strive to work for the common good, and always accompany the success of the organization [28]. Transformational leaders proactively drive the organization's growth to higher goals by inspiring and motivating employees to change themselves and contribute to the organization by enhancing their values [29].
Transformational leaders are always seen as leaders with innovative ideas, creativity, ambition, and vision in the development strategy of the organization [30], and with employees as dedicated, guiding, committed leaders, employees can thus gather, increase employee commitment, moreover, the transformational leader's role model also creates dedicated employees and leaders in pursuit of a common goal [31]. Transformational leaders not only pay attention to employee performance, but proactive transformational leaders also elicit positive emotions, provide emotional support, and improve job satisfaction for employees who achieved better results [32].
Transformational leadership style also creates attraction by actively building and creating an image of a friendly, trustworthy and humane leader, thereby creating a positive psychological atmosphere in the organization, so many leaders tend to increasingly practice transformational leadership in leadership decision making [33]. When practicing a leadership style that transforms the leader into a role model for employees, promoting fairness and integrity, a spirit of cooperation, and a willingness to share a vision makes employees focus on the benefits [15]. Transformational leaders become trusted, responsible coaches for employees to follow, and transformational leaders respect differences, place their trust in employees and make employees feel trust so that they work voluntarily [34].

2-1-2-Transactional Leadership (TR)
Kuhnert and Lewis [35] consider transformational leadership to be transactional, and Jamalia et al. [9] gave another name for transactional leadership, exchange leadership. To date, the transactional leadership style is widely used in the public sector as well as the private sector [36]. Transactional leaders satisfy employees' needs as well as motivate employees with a reward mechanism with the hope that the reward will connect the leader with employees, the reward will increase work effort and dedication among employees to the organization [37]. Leaders judge the needs of employees based on which evokes positive emotions by offering rewards that employees will receive based on the level of task performance, which means that the benefits that the employee will achieve are commensurate with the job performance that the employee has completed [38].
Transactional leaders motivate employees by giving the latter rewards based on their job performance, and rewards are reduced or not given when performance does not meet the goals set by the leader, even the transactional leader sees rewards as punishment to motivate employees [39]. Employees who work with leaders deal primarily with the value of rewards, so there is little emotional connection between them, which means that employees can be quite isolated in their pursuit of responsibility due to a lack of accountability, needed leadership support [40]. Transactional leaders take the value of rewards as motivation to motivate employees, treat the value of rewards as inspiration and achievement they deserve, rewards as performance and loyalty, the dedication of employees [41]. Several studies support transactional leaders with the affirmation that transactional leadership style will improve employee performance, the rewards they receive will be an important motivation to maintain their efforts [42]. However, some studies do not support the transactional leader when emphasizing the reward factor, arguing that this leadership style is mainly suitable for traditional organizations with high stability. Leaders always need to be responsive, flexible, and creative, so in some cases, if employees do not achieve the expected performance they will not have the opportunity to be promoted or eliminated without cause on their part [24].
To increase the results of practicing transactional leadership style, rewards and punishments have been proposed, there are two types of rewards when employees perform tasks equally or exceed expectations, namely random rewards. Potential rewards are contingently punished when employees perform poorly [15].

2-1-3-Laissez-faire Leadership (LF)
Freelance leader initiators can promote the freedom for employees to make their own decisions instead of direction and push from the leader, through which employees express themselves. Before these challenges, competent employees will appear and they will express themselves most clearly, whereas the leader's role is often blurred [43]. When practicing the laissez-faire leadership style, the leadership role of the leader is weak, employees will be less active when they do not share the vision, so the way of working performance becomes poor and inevitably difficult to achieve the goal [44]. Moreover, employees rely entirely on self-discipline to pursue goals and actively seek support from other employees in the organization or other organizations, but not from the leader in the same organization [45].
The laissez-faire leadership style has been criticized by many researchers because when practicing the laissez-faire leadership style, the leader may lose the role of orientation, leading, the organization will lack strategy and employees will not be able to lead. With a clear mission orientation, the performance of the organization will hardly have positive results [46], so it will be difficult for employees in the organization to agree to perform the same tasks, thus it is difficult to achieve the goal, even the laissez-faire leadership style is considered negligent because strategic direction, the organization's mission without any interference from the leader, freedom can make employees lose direction and not, especially in organizations that lack clear working principles, the employee's sense of self-awareness is not high, the freedom can make the organization face many potential risks, adverse results, and employees inevitably feel insecure, negative emotions because effort goes unrecognized and commendation is not timely given [47]. In addition, the laissezfaire leadership style has many potential risks, easily leads to conflicts, the level of stress due to the appearance of negative emotions, hence the employee's job satisfaction is often low [9].
However, some advice is given to the freelance leader if the organization is highly qualified, employees have selfdiscipline and adhere to strict work principles, can be professionals with a sense of urgency and strong self-awareness. A laissez-faire leadership style leads to positive performance [47], so this style is suitable for leaders who do not want to stand out, employees who do not want to stand out. Having a creative way of working, loving freedom, they can develop themselves but should not let their freedom hang for too long [48].

2-2-Employee Commitment (EC)
Employee commitment is not only reflected in the motivation, the leader shares with employees but also can be related to many values such as the reward they receive or the satisfaction of the needs of the employees, as well as values and goals pursued by the organization [49]. Employee commitment is described as performance exceeding expectations [50], employee satisfaction with work [51]. Commitment to work also shows that employees reduce their intention to leave the organization by looking for alternative organizations [52]. Therefore, commitment is understood as the consensus among members of the same organization to carry out the mission and vision, with trust and effort, sharing responsibility, and dedicating to the development of the company and organization. Commitment can be defined as the agreement among the members of the organization to the mission and vision along with their willingness to continue serving and demonstrate strong loyalty to the organization [53].
Employee commitment can be assessed based on maintaining time with the organization, the level of engagement will indicate cooperation as well as the leader's shared vision, and is the basis for performance evaluation [54]. The higher the level of commitment is, the greater the employee's commitment and responsibility to the work become [55]. On the other hand, when the organization has exemplary, trustworthy, and responsible leaders for employees, always emphasizing the human factor as the foundation for the organization's development strategy, the level of commitment to the organization, with work becoming strong [56]. Based on the level of employee commitment, Meyer and Allen [16] identified three manifestations of commitment: (1) Emotional commitment, the relationship between employees and leaders, between employees and members in the organization is built on a positive psychological atmosphere, moreover, work performance is constantly improved as well as efforts are recognized, thereby forming positive emotions, employees consider the organization is an irreplaceable part. (2) Ongoing commitment, comparisons are made if the employee intends to leave the organization when there are no better options while in the current workplace the employee feels about the fit and well meet the goals of the organization that they are pursuing, their values are increased, creating incentives for employees to tend to be more determined in performing the common tasks of the organization, the intention to leave organizational is minimized. (3) Commitment to standards, principles, and standards of the organization are recognized and voluntarily implemented by employees, when they do not do it, they will feel guilty or may create a void if they leave the organization, and these will have negative consequences. Among employees' expressions of commitment, emotional commitment is quite durable, this mainly comes from and spreads positive emotions from the leader, the leader himself always tries to create a model, dedication, and loyalty for employees to follow [57].

2-3-The Relationship between Leadership Style and Employee Commitment
Leadership style and employee commitment always exist in an organic relationship, even this has been experimentally verified in many different cultures [58], leadership style also contributes to employee satisfaction [45]. The leader uses a leadership style that suits the needs and creates a trust of the employees, maintaining the benefits means the employee's commitment to work will increase [56]. Experimentally, several studies have confirmed that the transformational leadership style has outstanding advantages over other leadership styles in creating and maintaining employee commitment continuity, thereby can improve and continuously improving leadership performance [59,60]. Transformational leaders have a distinct advantage in retaining and increasing employee satisfaction and, in turn, significantly increase their level of commitment over transactional leaders [61]. Employees feel that they are respected and treated fairly, recognized by the leader, and constantly encouraged to achieve higher achievements, demonstrating that the leader chooses a leadership style that is suitable for the values that employees pursue, so employee commitment remains stable [62]. Through determining leadership style, it is possible to determine the level of employee commitment [63], because employees share a vision, led by a trusted leader, employees work harder, and when their efforts are appreciated, they become more passionate and inspired to work with a voluntary attitude towards the common goals of the organization [62]. In addition, when the organization is in turmoil, facing dangers or challenges that threaten its development, even when the organization faces difficulties, leaders can easily seek support and sympathy from their employees and they remain committed if the organization is led by a transformational leader [64]. Some experiments have shown that when combining transformational leadership style with laissez-faire leadership style, immediately commitment to work decreases rapidly, employees feel the motivation to work effort disappears, so the intention to quit and look for a new job emerges [65]. In contrast, as the level of work commitment increases, leaders can retain talent in the face of increasingly fierce strategic talent acquisition in public and private organizations [66].
Employee commitment is an important variable that not only assesses task performance but also has a strong relationship with leadership [67]. This is also verified through research by Ferine et al. [68] in the school environment when leaders are open and friendly to conflict in the school, and commitment increased significantly, which means that commitment has a fairly clear relationship with the leadership style of leaders in the school environment. In addition, transformational leaders and transactional leaders in public universities had a positive effect on faculty engagement, but faculty performance-free leadership styles performance is low or not up to expectations [69]. The results of this study are also reflected in the leadership context of public universities in Pakistan, with the laissez-faire leadership style of the faculty giving relatively weak commitment, but the transformational leadership style has a significant impact on faculty commitment [70].
In Vietnam, an emerging country that is experiencing a drastic change in leadership styles, the research results on the aforementioned leadership styles in other cultures have similarities, with the affirmation that transformational leadership style has a positive effect on employees as well as a commitment to the organization [22], whether this is true for provincial political schools, there is still very little research. Therefore, this study will explore the influence of leadership style on faculty commitment in provincial political schools in Vietnam.

3-Conceptual Framework and Hypotheses
The holistic leadership model of Avolio & Bass [15] is used in the research with the transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, and laissez-faire style and employee commitment model proposed by Meyer and Allen [16] proposal to build a cognitive framework is shown in Figure 1:

4-1-Research Design
In this study, the multifactor leadership questionnaire (MLQ) three leadership styles including transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, and laissez-faire leadership style based on the perspective of Avolio & Bass [15] with the name. Three leadership style measure includes 36 items, of which 20 items identify transformational leadership style, 12 items identify transactional leadership style, and 4 items identify leadership style. To measure the level of employee commitment, this study uses the Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) test tool proposed by Meyer and Allen [16] with 18 items.
Questionnaire on multi-factor leadership style developed by Avolio & Bass [15] in which 36 items on three leadership styles are evaluated on a 5-point Likert scale, with points given from 1 to 5, specifically: 1: Not at all; 2: Once in a while; 3: Sometimes; 4: Fairly often and 5: Frequently, if not always. The Organizational Commitment Questionnaire (OCQ) is also evaluated based on the scoring method corresponding to each item on the Likert scale, specifically: 1: Strongly disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Undecided; 4: Agree, and 5: Agree.

4-2-Data Collection
Quantitative research was conducted to find evidence from the survey of respondents in a questionnaire to evaluate three leadership styles including transformational leadership style, transactional leadership style, and transactional leadership style, developed by Avolio & Bass [15] and the faculty engagement questionnaire developed by Meyer and Allen [16] based on collecting the opinions of the respondents to the questionnaire to confirm or refute the research hypothesis. Data collected from two questionnaires will be coded and analyzed Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26.0, on that basis to determine the expression level of leadership styles, level of work commitment of staff, regression, the correlation between leadership styles and faculty commitment in terms of demographics.
The reliability of the multi-factor leadership style questionnaire indicates transformational leadership style with α = 0.83, transactional leadership style α = 0.81, laissez-faire leadership style α = 0.88, and the commitment of employee has coefficient α = 0.85. Cronbach's Alpha coefficient is significant when α is closer to 1, the higher the consistency of the measurement tool, and the closer it is to 0, the less reliable the instrument is. Therefore, the results of measuring the reliability of Cronbach's Alpha coefficient of MLQ and OCQ in this study have high consistency when α ≥ 0.7 [71].

5-1-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
Participants responded to the test according to demographic characteristics expressed in terms of gender, age, highest professional qualifications, responsibilities, and teaching experience, shown in Table 2: Demographic characteristics according to statistics in table 1 on the sex variable indicate that the number of respondents who are male (202 people, 56.9%) has a significant difference compared with the proportion of women (153 people, 43.1 people). %). In terms of age, they are divided into three groups, the group of respondents under the age of 30 (85 people, 23.94%), this group has a similar number and proportions with the group over 40 years old (94 people, 26.48%), while the age group from 30-40 accounts for the majority and proportion (176 people, 49.58%). In terms of education level, the highest degree of the respondents all have bachelor's and postgraduate degrees, in which the number of respondents with a university degree is 97 people (27.32%). The number of respondents with a postgraduate degree is superior in number and proportion, with 258 people (72.68%). Considering the duties of the respondents currently in charge, with the two positions being leaders and lecturers, in which the number of lecturers participating in the answer is 274 people (77.18%), the number of participants in the survey is 274 people (77.18%). Respondents are leaders with 81 people (22.82%). Considering the time of working, the number of respondents who have less than 5 years of teaching experience is 23 people (6.48%), this number is quite small, while the number of people with teaching experience from 6 to under 15 years is 150 people (42.25%), the number of respondents with teaching experience over 16 accounts for the majority and percentage, with 182 people (51.27%). The full graph of the demographic characteristics of the respondents is depicted below (Figure 3).

5-2-Correlation of Leadership Style with Faculty Commitment
The above demographic statistics show the diversity in terms of gender, age, education, responsibilities, and teaching experience. This makes an important contribution to provide a scientific basis for exploratory research on the effects of leadership style on faculty commitment as well as test results confirming the correlation between leadership style and commitment of the working relationship of lecturers in provincial political schools in Vietnam. The correlation results are shown in Table 3: There is a strong positive correlation between transformational leadership style and faculty commitment, r = 0.569* (p = 0.00<0.01). In addition, the correlation between transactional leadership style and faculty commitment is on average, r = 0.447* (p = 0.02 > 0.01) and the correlation coefficient between laissez-faire leadership style and commitment of 23 lecturers shows the dominant result, r = 0.728* (p = 0.00 < 0.01), which is a strongly correlated result. Besides, when the correlation coefficient from 0.5-0.7 is quite good, it means that the correlation between transformational leadership style and the commitment of lecturers is quite good (r = 0.569**) and the correlation between transactional leadership style and faculty commitment was average (r = 0.447*) [72]. In addition, the correlation between transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles is positively correlated with faculty commitment, and the results can confirm the hypotheses H1, H2, and H3, in which the dominant correlation was the correlation between laissez-faire leadership style and faculty commitment, then the transformational leadership style and faculty commitment, and finally the correlation between transactional leadership style and faculty commitment.

5-3-Regression of the Influence of Leadership Style on Faculty Commitment
Along with affirming the correlation between leadership style and lecturer's work commitment, the regression results between leadership style and lecturer's commitment are shown in Table 4: The degree of difference in the impact of leadership style on faculty commitment was determined based on the regression analysis of the set of numbers used. Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) have been included in the study to test and evaluate the degree of multicollinearity between the independent variables as well as determine VIFs in the results of three leadership styles, including leadership style; transformational leadership, transactional leadership style, and laissez-faire leadership style, the results are 1,671, 1,126, and 1,558, respectively. From these results, there is a scientific basis in the measurements indicating VIFs from the results of the expression of affirmative leadership styles. VIFs < 10. Thus, there is no multicollinearity in the predictive variables. On the other hand, the adjusted coefficient R2 with the result of 0.392, means that the difference in the commitment of lecturers of the provincial political schools in Vietnam can be explained with a change of 39.2% due to the effects caused by three leadership styles. Along with that, the F value = 7.187 and the correlation coefficient value p = 0.000 (p < 0.01). From these results, it can be confirmed that the significance of this model is consistent with the measurements, in all three leadership styles there is a positive influence on the commitment of specific lecturers in the transformational leadership style. β = 1.368, t = 6.693, p = 0.000, p < 0.01, transactional leadership style β = 1.117, t = 5.825, p = 0.000, p < 0.01, and laissez-faire leadership style β = 1.312, t = 4.912, p = 0.000, p < 0.01. These results are illustrated to confirm that the scientific basis of this study is consistent with the study examining the influence of leadership style on the commitment of teachers at provincial boarding schools in Vietnam, the regression results illustrated in Table 4.

5-4-Leadership Style Assessment Results by Demographic Characteristics
Evaluation of the expression level of leadership style based on demographic variables showed significant differences. Based on the gender variable indicated, women (M = 4.05b) evaluate the level of leadership style more clearly than men (M = 3.57a), (t = 3.72, p). = 0.02*, p < 0.05). According to the age variable, respondents under the age of 30 gave the results with the lowest score (M = 3.31a), then the age group 31-40 (M = 3.92b) and assessed the level of expression. Leadership style is strongest in the respondents aged 41 years and over with the highest score (M = 4.19c), (F = 7.25, p = .000**, p < 0.01). In terms of the variable of educational attainment, people with a university education rate the expression of leadership style (M = 3.46a) lower than those with the following educational qualifications. Postgraduate (M = 4.16b), (t = 5.13, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). As shown by the on-going task variable, those who hold leadership positions (M = 4.37b) assess the expression level of leadership style with stronger scores than those who are lecturers (M) = 3.25a), (t = 6.34, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). In terms of teaching experience variable, the rating of lecturers with less than 5 years of teaching experience is the lowest score (M = 3.12a), followed by the score of the group of 6 to 15 years of teaching experience (M = 3.96b) and the highest score belongs to the group with 16 years of teaching experience or more (M = 4.34c), (F = 6.83, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). The results of assessing the expression level of leadership styles based on demographic characteristics are shown in Table 5.  Table 6 shows that there are statistically significant differences in the commitment of lecturers according to the demographic variables of gender, age, education level, performance tasks, teaching seniority, all showing the level of commitment. There is a statistically significant difference between lecturers at provincial political schools. Specifically, female lecturers (M = 4.26b) have a higher level of commitment than male lecturers (M = 3.36a), (t = 4.87, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). According to the age variable, it seems that age clearly affects the level of commitment, the age group under 30 has the lowest level of commitment (M = 3.02a), followed by the age group 31-40 with (M = 4.12b) and the highest level of commitment belongs to the age group over 40 (M = 4.29c), (F = 4.45, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). By education, the group of respondents with a college education had a higher level of commitment to scores (M = 4.15b) than the group with a graduate education (M = 3.47a), (t = 4.63, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). Considering the performance task variable, the difference between the leader and the lecturer was not statistically significant (t = 0.793, p = 0.268 > 0.05). However, in terms of the teaching experience variable, the lowest level of commitment belongs to the group with less than 5 years of teaching experience (M= 3.14a), followed by the group with 5 to 15 years of teaching experience (M = 3.97b), the group with more than 15 years of teaching experience had the highest level of commitment, with scores (M = 4.32c), (F = 4.37, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01) ( Table 6).

5-6-Correlation between Leadership Style and Faculty Commitment by Demographic Characteristics
The evaluation scores in Table 7 indicate the relationship between leadership style and the commitment of lecturers expressed through demographic characteristics. In terms of gender, there is a statistically significant positive relationship between the two genders between leadership style and commitment of lecturers, in which commitment of men (r = 0.416, p = 0.002, p < 0.05), commitment of women (r = 0.715, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). However, in terms of age variable, the group under 30 years of age committed to work by lecturers did not have statistical significance (r = 0.142, p = 0.481, p > 0.05), but in the group of respondents aged 31-40 correlations were statistically significant (r = 0.474, p = 0.002, p < 0.05), notably the age group over 40 had a strong correlation (r = 0.729, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01). Regarding the degree variable, the group of university degrees has a strong correlation (r = 0.703, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01), while the group of graduate degrees has a moderate correlation (r = 0.493, p = 0.002*, p < 0.05). In terms of the assigned task, the correlation level of the leaders (r = 0.758, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01) was quite strong, but the correlation among the lecturers (r = 0.492, p = 0.002*, p < 0.05) is only average. In terms of teaching experience, there was no statistically significant correlation between respondents with less than 5 years of experience (r = 0.193, p = 0.372, p > 0.05), those with 5-15 years of experience has a moderate correlation (r = 0.493, p = 0.002, p < .05) and those with more than 15 years of teaching experience have a strong positive correlation (r = 0.726, p = 0.000**, p < 0.01).

6-Discussion
This study shows a significant difference in exploring the impact of leadership style on the work commitment of public sector employees with the results of several studies conducted in several cultures that have revealed that leaders who increase their use of a laissez-faire leadership style have very low engagement among public sector employees, even without commitment [9,12], even leadership style Freedom can become a barrier to achieving leadership goals [73]. Studies have emphasized that transformational leadership styles create leadership performance as well as outstanding employee commitment in achieving leadership goals [67]. However, in the leadership context of Vietnam, the impact of the leadership style of the principals of Vietnam's provincial political schools indicates not only a transformational leadership style but also a laissez-faire leadership style. The laissez-faire leadership style of the lecturers is preferred when they have the freedom, to be creative and have the right to take the initiative in performing professional tasks to achieve leadership goals, At the same time, the transformational leadership style, the laissez-faire leadership style is suitable for the leadership context in the political school in Vietnam [74]. According to Abasilim et al. (58) a laissez-faire leadership style, Freelance leader hardly interferes in employee decision-making, the leader's role is absent during the employee's task performance, but leadership goals can still be achieved with high self-discipline, this has been refuted in some previous studies but has confirmed the correctness of the leadership contest in the political school in Vietnam.
In addition, the influence of transformational leadership and transactional leadership styles, the findings of this study are consistent with previous research that explored the degree of commitment of faculty members to the principals of academic institutions school in developing a laissez-faire leadership style [75][76][77][78], in which transformational leadership style has a positive, positive influence on, However, the influence of transformational leadership style on faculty commitment is stronger than the influence of transactional leadership style on faculty commitment. On the other hand, the recommendations also made statements about how schools should develop transformational leaders [79]. However, in this study, it is recommended that Vietnam's provincial political schools simultaneously develop laissez-faire and transformational leaders, and recommends that principals increase the level of leadership style practice. Laissez-faire leadership and transformational leadership styles, to increase faculty commitment, so that leadership performance exceeds expectations.
The discovery in this study also points to the fact that each type of organization has its characteristics, which implies that do leaders in organizations need to pay attention to the unique characteristics and reality of this type of organization to adopt a leadership style. However, faculty leadership styles and commitments can change over time, so regular surveys are needed to help leaders establish leadership styles that are consistent with actual requirements to maintain leadership.
In terms of demographic variables, there is a statistically significant difference between the variables in terms of gender, age, education level, task performance, teaching seniority, which has a significant impact on the effect of demographic characteristics to the relationship between leadership style and faculty commitment. Regarding gender, both men and women commit to reporting statistical significance. In terms of age, the age group over 40 has the highest level of commitment, then the age group 31-40 and the group with the lowest level of commitment are those under 30 years old. In terms of teaching experience, the group with more than 15 years of experience has the highest commitment, followed by the group with 5-15 years of working experience, the lowest level of commitment in the group with less than 5 years of experience. There was no statistically significant difference between the group of leaders and trainers.
The results of this study will complement previous studies in public sector organizations in Vietnam that have provided some evidence that a transformational leadership style is considered the preferred style to increase the level of leadership implemented to increase employee commitment. However, in the provincial political schools in Vietnam, both the transformational leadership style and the laissez-faire leadership style have a positive influence on the commitment of the lecturers, contributing to the uniqueness of the practiced leadership style of the principals of Vietnam's provincial political schools with faculty commitment.

7-Conclusion
The research results are quite exploratory on the influence of the leadership style of the principals of the provincial political schools in Vietnam on the commitment of the lecturers as well as determining the influence of the leadership style of the principals of the main schools of provincial leadership in Vietnam on faculty commitment across demographic variables of gender, age, qualifications, performance duties, and teaching experience. The analytical results show that leadership style has a positive influence on the commitment of the lecturers, in which the laissez-faire leadership style has a strong influence on the commitment of the lecturers. Meanwhile, the transformational leadership style has a good degree of influence, and the influence of the transactional leadership style is only moderate. Through this study, the principals of provincial political schools in Vietnam will have more insights and practical evidence on exploring the influence of leadership style on faculty commitment. At the same time, the recommendations made on the school's development strategy should be re-examined in terms of the relationship between leadership style and faculty commitment, inappropriate or ineffective strategies will be effective. In turn, successful strategies need to encourage development, increase the level of commitment of teachers, and increase the quality of training in schools.
This study proposes some recommendations and directions for further research for principals of political schools. Principals of provincial political schools in Vietnam should pay attention to practicing a high degree of transformational leadership and laissez-faire leadership styles. The results of this study confirmed that when principals practice the laissezfaire leadership style and the transformational leadership style, the teachers have a relatively high level of commitment compared to when practicing the transactional leadership style. These results can provide practical evidence for Vietnam's provincial political schools in developing leaders with laissez-faire leadership styles and transformational leadership styles to increase the level of faculty commitment. However, since these results were studied in Vietnam's provincial political schools, these results should not be disseminated to educational institutions other than Vietnam's provincial political school system, as respondents' all opinions work at provincial political schools. Therefore, future follow-up studies should investigate the opinions of the respondents on a larger scale or possibly explore similar issues in other schools in Vietnam.

8-2-Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.