Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies

This study examined how teachers and school leaders in schools under Thimphu Thromde, Bhutan, perceived the Royal Civil Service Commission's (RCSC) Leadership Feedback System (LFS), and how these perceptions were associated with perceived instructional leadership effectiveness and students' academic achievement. A pragmatic, mixed-methods, descriptive-correlational design with a sequential explanatory structure was used. Quantitative data were collected from 93 teachers and 19 school leaders using researcher-developed 5-point Likert questionnaires. Qualitative data were collected through 17 semi-structured interviews with a purposively selected subset of participants. Quantitative data were analysed using descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Pearson correlation, multiple linear regression, independent-samples t-tests, and one-way ANOVA. Qualitative data were analysed using Braun and Clarke's (2006) thematic analysis. Subscale reliability coefficients ranged from α = .76 to .79, indicating acceptable internal consistency. Both teachers and school leaders perceived the LFS positively overall (M ≈ 4.02). Teachers rated feedback regularity and specificity most highly, while constructive dialogue and multi-source perspectives received the lowest ratings. LFS perception was strongly associated with perceived achievement outcomes among leaders (r = .928, p < .001) and moderately to strongly associated among teachers (r = .680, p < .001). In the teacher regression model, structural and institutional support was the only significant predictor of perceived achievement link (b = 0.793, p < .001), whereas general LFS perception was not significant (b = −0.081, p = .275). The qualitative findings identified time and workload constraints (58%), lack of systematic follow-up (36%), and resource and professional-development gaps (31%) as the leading barriers. The findings suggest that the developmental value of the LFS depends substantially on what happens after feedback is collected, particularly structured follow-up, dialogue, and institutional support.