Content uploaded by Ali Çağatay Kılınç
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ali Çağatay Kılınç on Oct 08, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Mahmut Polatcan
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mahmut Polatcan on Mar 03, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
How transformational
leadership influences teachers’
commitment and innovative
practices: Understanding the
moderating role of trust in
principal
Ali Çag
atay Kılınç , Mahmut Polatcan ,
Gökhan Savaş, and Emre Er
Abstract
This study tested a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership’seffectson
teacher innovative practices, with teacher commitment as mediator and trust in principal
as moderator. Implementing a cross-sectional survey design and using data from 611 teachers
working in 56 schools in Turkey, we employed multilevel structural equation modelling with
Bayesian estimation to estimate the structural links between our variables. The results pro-
vided evidence of the indirect effects of transformational leadership on teacher innovative
practices through the significant mediator role of teacher commitment. We also found evi-
dence that trust in principal acted as a significant moderator of the indirect effect of trans-
formational leadership on teacher innovative practice through teacher commitment. This
study adds nuanced evidence to the global literature by concluding that the effect of transfor-
mational leadership on teacher commitment and innovative practice is contingent upon the
extent to which teachers trust their principals. We conclude with key implications for policy
and practice.
Keywords
Transformational leadership, teacher commitment, teacher innovative practices, trust in
principal
Corresponding author:
Mahmut Polatcan, Faculty of Letters, Karabuk University, 78050, Karabuk, Turkey.
Email: mahmutpolatcan78@gmail.com
Original Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
1–20
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17411432221082803
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
Introduction
Educational reformers and policymakers across the world have long sought ways to improve teachers’
instructional practice, after reaching a general agreement that high-quality teaching matters for improving
student learning outcomes (Marzano et al., 2001; Bryk et al., 2010; Leithwood et al., 2004). Although there
is little consensus about what constitutes high-quality teaching, the literature suggests that teacher innova-
tive practice is just one of the pieces of the puzzle (Hattie, 2008; Moolenaar et al., 2010). Teachers face
growing pressure to enhance learning conditions for their students and are therefore compelled to generate
and implement innovative ideas for teaching (Saavedra and Opfer, 2012; Thurlings et al., 2015). The ques-
tion of how to improve teachers’innovative practices has provoked a growing number of educational lea-
dership scholars to illuminate the relationship between school leadership and teacher practices (Heck and
Hallinger, 2014; Paletta et al., 2021; Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012).
Although previous research clearly supports the association between leadership and teaching (e.g.
Sebastian and Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz et al., 2010), a closer look at the literature demonstrates a three-
fold gap. First, we have limited knowledge of how school leaders establish an environment that encourages
teachers to revise their teaching practices. While the discourse among researchers, policymakers and practi-
tioners favours transformational leadership (TL) due to its specific focus on developing school capacity for
organizational change (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Marks and Printy, 2003), little research has been con-
ducted to empirically validate its effects on teacher innovative practices [TIP] (Moolenaar et al., 2010;
Vermeulen et al., 2020). Second, although influential educational leadership scholars have long lamented
the paucity of research on the contextual or institutional factors that may shape school leadership practices
(e.g. Hallinger, 2018; Harris and Jones, 2018; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2008), our knowledge is currently too
limited to draw strong conclusions about the importance of such factors. Thus, given its critical role in
school improvement research, we included trust in principal in our measurement model as a moderator
to test whether and to what extent it shapes the behaviours of school principals in their efforts to levy tea-
chers’commitment and implementation of innovative practices. Third, research on the interplay between
leadership and teaching largely comes from Western countries (e.g. Geijsel et al., 2009). Therefore, this
study offers an extension of the international literature by bringing evidence from a non-western educa-
tional context with a centralized education system where educational policymakers have recently been
grappling with school reforms. Addressing these gaps in the literature, we tested a moderated mediation
model of TL’s effects on TIP, including teacher commitment (TC) as mediator and trust in principal
(TiP) as moderator. This study addresses the following research questions:
1. What are the direct effects of TL on TC, and direct and indirect effects of TL on TIP?
2. Does TC mediate the effects of TL on TIP?
3. Does the level of TiP moderate the effects of TL on TIP through TC?
Context
This study was conducted in Turkey, whose education system functions in a highly centralized and
hierarchical fashion. The Ministry of National Education (MoNE) holds the primary responsibility
for running system-wide procedures (Sahin et al., 2017), including training and assigning teachers,
printing and disseminating textbooks, organizing the curriculum, and issuing regulations that
govern the roles and responsibilities of provincial and district officers alongside those of teachers,
school principals, and other staff. School principals are also appointed by the MoNE, without any
preparatory training for the position. Teachers who teach for a certain period of time can apply for
principalship positions if they pass written and oral exams (Kılınç et al., 2021).
2Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Turkey’s education system serves 19 million students and employs over one million teachers
(MoNE, 2020). In such a large system, it is vital that principals possess wide-ranging leadership
skills to ensure the success of educational reforms. Therefore, educational reformers have
focused attention on improving the capabilities and capacities of school principals over the last
two decades. For instance, in the early years of the new millennium, the MoNE (2005) stated
that, as a response to the long-standing criticism of the traditional teaching approach in which tea-
chers mainly act as transmitters of knowledge, all schools in Turkey would adopt a constructivist
approach. However, policymakers and practitioners also felt concerned that the school culture that
had developed over time within this hierarchical and centralized education setting might limit the
impact of such a change. Thus, in this political context, school principals are increasingly viewed as
key personnel charged with transforming their schools into dynamic learning environments for tea-
chers to better meet the learning needs of students. In parallel, subsequent years have witnessed a
series of reform initiatives that have placed a specific focus on improving the leadership capability
and capacity of school principals. In 2014, for instance, the MoNE delegated the evaluation of
teacher performance from national inspectors to school principals (Aslanargun and Tarku, 2014).
This policy initiative enabled principals to contribute to the realization of school goals by providing
professional support for teachers’efforts to develop new knowledge and skills. Additionally, the
ministry’s 2023 Education Vision embraced the ‘School Development Model’(MoNE, 2018),
which acknowledges that each school has contextual characteristics that shape the practices of prin-
cipals and teachers, requiring the implementation of specific school-based strategies to improve
teaching capacity. The model addresses, albeit implicitly, the TL practices of principals as a key
strategy to lead schools through reform. Consistent with the recent policy landscape, we believe
our study offers valuable information for policymakers and practitioners in Turkey, as a developing
country, as well as in other nations with similar features by providing insights into a fruitful school
environment that fosters TIP to levy student learning outcomes.
Conceptual framework
Our framework draws upon four decades of research that has investigated the theoretical and empir-
ical associations between school leadership and student learning and reached a variety of conclu-
sions on this link (Bossert et al., 1982; Hallinger and Heck, 1996; Leithwood et al., 2010;
Robinson et al., 2009). For instance, a group of researchers focused on the effects of school leader-
ship on student learning outcomes, adopting the ‘Mediated Effects Model’(e.g. Hallinger and
Heck, 1996; Thoonen et al., 2011). This body of research concluded that the effects of school lea-
dership on student learning are mostly achieved indirectly, through shaping organizational (e.g.
culture, climate) and teacher-related factors (e.g. attitudes, feelings and dispositions) (Heck and
Hallinger, 2014; Supovitz et al., 2010). Another vein of research scrutinized the effects of
various individual, cultural, contextual, and institutional factors on school leadership practices
(Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Dimmock, 2012). Scholars in
this area mainly use contingency theory to frame their research (Hallinger, 2003), suggesting
that principals’influence on teaching and learning is realized in a contextualized way, which
requires the adoption of the ‘moderated effect model’(Pitner, 1988). This research provides convin-
cing evidence that leadership is contingent on elements of school context such as safety, power dis-
tance, and teacher participation in decision making (Sebastian and Allensworth, 2019; Shengnan
and Hallinger, 2021). Addressing this latter line of inquiry, we aimed to extend prior research by
Kılınç et al. 3
examining the moderation effect of TiP on the relationship between TL and TIP, with the mediating
effect of TC. Figure 1 presents our conceptual framework.
The following section provides theoretical explanations of these constructs and offers rationales
for our hypotheses derived from the conceptual and empirical associations among them.
Teacher innovative practice
Although debate continues over the definition of innovative practice in the workplace, early scho-
larship in the field of organizational behaviour mostly associates the construct with the creation,
promotion, and realization of ideas that aim to improve the performance of any given employee,
thereby benefiting the employee, group or entire organization (Amabile, 1988; Thurlings et al.,
2015; West and Farr, 1989). Educational scholars have adapted the construct into school settings,
linking it with teachers’adoption of new methodologies, pedagogies, and assessments (Serdyukov,
2017), as well as efforts to modify curriculum and instructional practices to attune to the specific
learning needs of students (Wang et al., 2010). However, little research has specifically focused
on identifying the school- and teacher-level factors that influence teachers’engagement in innova-
tive practices (e.g. Vermeulen et al., 2020). The available literature also highlights the scale of tea-
chers’innovative practices, as they may target the processes and products of the whole organization
or smaller-scale ideas associated with teachers’daily instructional practices (Axtell et al., 2000;
Thurlings et al., 2015). The present study mostly adopts the latter perspective by defining the
Figure 1. Hypothetical model.
4Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
construct as teacher efforts to generate, promote, and implement ideas to leverage the quality of
instruction (Gkorezis, 2016).
Teacher commitment
Organizational commitment refers to ‘the individual’s psychological attachment to an organization
–the psychological bond linking the individual and the organization’(O’Reilly and Chatman,
1986: 492). A committed employee is expected to demonstrate strong engagement in and identifi-
cation with the objectives and values of an organization, which likely results in greater contribu-
tions to the realization of organizational goals (Cook and Wall, 1980). Our study conceptualized
TC under three dimensions: identification, involvement, and loyalty (Buchanan, 1974; Cook and
Wall, 1980). Identification refers to the process of internalization of the organization’s goals and
values, while involvement means satisfaction with the employee’s work or role in the organization.
Loyalty addresses an employee’s intention to stay in the organization, indicating a high sense of
belonging.
The construct of teacher commitment has garnered attention from educational scholars, who
have conceptualized it based on its roots in organizational behaviour research and linked it with
teacher endeavours to improve instructional practices (e.g. Ross and Gray, 2006). Recently, a con-
siderable amount of literature has emerged around the theme of TC, suggesting that when teachers
demonstrate a higher sense of commitment to their school and profession, they are more likely to
improve their content knowledge and teaching capabilities to leverage the quality of instruction
(Geijsel, 2009; Park, 2005). For instance, a recent study found that committed teachers are more
willing to engage in professional learning, which results in greater efforts to modify instructional
practices (Bellibaset. al. 2021). Although the existing literature has not generated a deep under-
standing of the direct link between TC and teacher endeavours to innovate instructional practices,
based on the results of previous studies, we hypothesized that TC will be positively related to TIP
(Hypothesis 1).
Transformational leadership
Rooted in organizational behaviour theory, TL refers to leaders’ability to inspire followers to move
beyond what is expected from them and invest in the development of their personal and profes-
sional capacity, with the ultimate purpose of achieving heightened organizational performance
(Bass, 1985; Bass and Avolio, 1994). Educational research has embraced the theory of TL since
the early 1990s thanks to its emphasis on transforming school culture to support reform and restruc-
turing initiatives (Leithwood, 1994; Marks and Printy, 2003). Thirty years of research on TL in edu-
cational settings has identified three core dimensions, which ground the current study: vision
building, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Geijsel et al., 2003, 2009;
Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Moolenaar et al., 2010). Vision building includes principals’endea-
vours to build a shared vision that promotes excitement and attachment and helps teachers identify
with school goals (Thoonen et al., 2011). Individualized consideration involves principals’efforts
to link organizational goals, values and objectives with teachers’individual needs (Geijsel et al.,
2009; Thoonen et al., 2011), while intellectual stimulation encompasses principals’encouragement
and support of teachers’professional development to better address the diverse learning needs of
students (Geijsel et al., 2003; Hallinger, 2003; Moolenaar et al., 2010).
Kılınç et al. 5
Transformational leaders possess key qualities that might contribute to TC. For instance, through
their ability to build a vision, they may elevate teachers’sense of belonging to the school and its
objectives (Marks and Printy, 2003; Ross and Gray, 2006). By promoting intellectual stimulation,
they could establish a school culture where mistakes are positively reframed as opportunities to
develop professionally. Schools with such cultures create support for new ideas to improve instruc-
tion, which could increase teachers’sense of commitment to the school vision and goals
(Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). Finally, through individual consideration, leaders demonstrate sen-
sitivity to teachers’individual needs and values, which could encourage teachers to move beyond
their formal job descriptions and potentially increase TC (Ross and Gray, 2006). This theoretical
background has found empirical support from both organizational psychology (e.g. Podsakoff
et al., 1996) and educational research (e.g. Khasawneh et al., 2012; Sayadi, 2016). Based on this
theoretical background and supporting evidence, we predict that TL will be positively related to
TC (Hypothesis 2).
The literature emphasizes that school leadership plays a crucial role in influencing teacher efforts
to engage in innovative endeavours to improve teaching practices (Gkorezis, 2016; Thurlings et al.,
2015). Among various leadership emphases, the existing research has highlighted the relevance of
TL in sparking innovation (Bass, 1985; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2020).
Transformational leaders closely consider followers’needs, thereby bridging the gap between indi-
vidual practices and the vision and goals of the organization (Bass and Avolio, 1994). They also
demonstrate respect for and confidence in followers’capacity to initiate and sustain innovative
endeavours (Bass, 1985). Regarding intellectual stimulation, transformational leaders centre their
efforts on encouraging followers to build their knowledge and skills to implement changes in
their practices (Bass and Avolio, 1994). Limited empirical research in the field of educational
administration has supported such theoretical links by suggesting that TL is positively associated
with teacher practice, although these studies typically report small effect sizes (Geijsel et al.,
2009; Moolenaar et al., 2010; Vermeulen et al., 2020). Based on this theoretical background and
accumulated evidence, we posit that TL is positively related to TIP (Hypothesis 3). Considering
Hypotheses 1–3 that TC is positively associated with TIP and that TL is positively and directly
related to TC and TIP, our conceptual model poses a fourth hypothesis: the effects of TL on TIP
are accrued indirectly, with the possible mediating function of TC (Hypothesis 4).
The moderating role of TiP
Previous research has recognized, as discussed above, the critical role played by TL in supporting
teachers’implementation of innovative practices (Geijsel et al., 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006).
However, it is important to note that making innovations in teaching can be a daunting task, which
includes a range of uncertainties and challenges to overcome and often requires substantial changes
in the way teachers produce, implement, and assess instructional practices (Elmore, 2004;
Thurlings et al., 2015). This heightens the need for a school climate marked by trusting relations
among teachers and their principal, resulting in open communication and meaningful collaboration
towards implementing innovations in instructional practices (Tschannen-Moran, 2009). In this
regard, we emphasize that principals’TL practices might not produce the desired impact on TC
and ultimately TIP in schools with a low level of TiP. In other words, we believe that TiP –
which we define as ‘the extent to which [the] school principal discusses educational issues with tea-
chers, develop[s] an atmosphere of caring and trust and gives teachers individual support to help
6Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
them improve their teaching practices’(Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008: 470) –might play a vital role
in shaping the effects of TL on teacher beliefs and practices.
Several studies in organizational behaviour literature have discussed the potential role of ‘trust in
the leader’as a moderator that could determine the conditions through which the effects of TL are
successfully achieved on the feelings or behaviours of followers (e.g. Goodwin et al., 2011).
Subsequent research in this field has also validated the key moderator role of trust in the leader
in the interplay of leadership and employee feelings and behaviours (e.g. Hwang et al., 2014;
Neeraj, 2009). However, few researchers in the field of educational leadership have investigated
whether and to what extent trusting relations between teachers and their principals could moderate
the impact of school leadership on teaching endeavours (e.g. Zhang et al., 2021). More is known
about how trust constitutes a significant precondition for principals to actively engage in instruc-
tional practices (e.g. Çoban et al., 2020), as well as how it mediates the effects of principal leader-
ship on teacher beliefs and practices (Sun and Leithwood, 2015). Thus, largely based on the
organizational behaviour literature, we pose that the relationship between TL and TC will be mod-
erated by TiP, such that the relationship will be stronger when teachers’perception of TiP is stron-
ger (Hypothesis 5). Considering Hypotheses 1–5 stating that TC is related to TIP and that the
association between TL and TC is moderated by TiP, we propose our final hypothesis as TL
will be related to TIP via conditional indirect effects, such that its association with TIP will be mod-
erated by TiP and mediated by TC (Hypothesis 6).
Method
This study employed a cross-sectional survey design. The following section identifies the sample,
data collection procedure, psychometric features of the measures, control variables and analytical
strategy.
Sample
This study gathered data from teachers working in lower secondary schools by employing a two-
stage sampling procedure. First, based on the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
(NUTS) that Turkey uses as a geocode standard, we selected one province from each of the coun-
try’s 12 regions that reflected the common features of the given region. Second, using a conveni-
ence sampling method, we contacted school principals in the regions with whom we were already
familiar and sent them a link to an online survey, which they then forwarded to teacher WhatsApp
groups within their schools. Maas and Hox (2005) suggest that data should be collected from at
least 30 schools at Level 2 for an accurate estimation of standard errors in multilevel modelling.
In our study, we aimed to collect data from at least 56 schools, and at least 15 teachers working
in each school. Consequently, a total of 611 teachers working in 56 schools participated in this
study, for a response rate of approximately 74%. A total of 63% (n=383) of the participants
were women, while 37% (n=228) were men. Most of the respondents (n=540, or 88%) held a
bachelor’s degree. The average participant age was 36.36 years (SD =8.12), while the average pro-
fessional experience of participants was 12.57 years (SD =7.97). The demographic features of the
participants correspond with the national distributions across Turkey (OECD, 2019).
Kılınç et al. 7
Data collection procedure
We used a web-based online survey method to collect data. Online surveys provide some advan-
tages over traditional paper-and-pencil, telephone or email methods, namely reducing time and
cost as well as minimizing data coding errors (Conway and Lance, 2010). However, collecting
data through online surveys can also raise concerns over data reliability and sample quality. We
took several measures to minimize these problems. First, to represent the national population,
we gathered data from twelve provinces across various regions of Turkey. Second, we prepared
easily readable and markable survey tools by using Google Forms (Frippiat and Marquis, 2010).
Finally, we included a cover page, which informed participants about the purpose of the study
and included a consent form requesting voluntary participation in the study (Frippiat and
Marquis, 2010). Some scholars have argued that the collection of data from the same respondents
could lead to a common bias problem, and have proposed several procedural remedies to minimize
the effects of this issue (e.g. Conway and Lance, 2010; MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012).
Accordingly, we changed the order of our variables as dependent, mediating, moderating and inde-
pendent, respectively. Moreover, not all the questions in the instrument asked for teachers’self-
reports on their own practices. Therefore, we were able to reduce the problem of ‘upward bias’
caused by social desirability (MacKenzie and Podsakoff, 2012).
Measures
We used five-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to
measure TL and TIP. However, we measured TiP on a six-point Likert scale (1 =strongly disagree,
6=strongly agree) and TC on a seven-point Likert scale (1 =strongly disagree, 7 =strongly agree).
In this study, we followed the steps suggested by Hambleton and Patsula (1998) to adapt the scales
of TC, TIP, and TiP into the Turkish educational context. After obtaining the necessary permis-
sions, we asked three bilingual scholars who had experience in developing scales in the field of edu-
cational leadership to translate each of the scales from English to Turkish. We checked the
translations and converted them into a single form. Then, we asked the three scholars to translate
the scales back into English. We then made revisions to minimize any errors that could lead to con-
fusion in meaning between the two languages. Finally, we conducted a pilot study to test the valid-
ity of the scales and performed multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) for the structural
validity of the items.
Transformational Leadership (TL). The scale used to assess TL was developed by Day et al.
(2016) and adapted into the Turkish language and culture by Balyer and Özcan (2012). The
18-item scale measures three dimensions: vision building, intellectual stimulation and individua-
lized consideration. One sample item is: ‘The principal of my school takes opinions of individual
teachers seriously’. To test the structural validity of the TL model, we performed MCFA. The
results showed a good fit of the three-factor structure (χ
2
/df =2.68, CFI =0.98, TLI =0.98,
RMSEA =0.04, SRMR
W
=0.01, SRMR
B
=0.01). Moreover, the Average Variance Extracted
(AVE) calculated for the validity of the model confirmed the construct both within (AVE =0.84)
and between levels (AVE =0.96). The Composite Reliability (CR) values calculated for the con-
vergent reliability of the model were also good for both between (ω=.98) and within (ω=.99)
levels.
Trust in Principal (TiP). The 5-item scale measuring TiP was developed by Wahlstrom and
Seashore (2008) and adapted into the Turkish language and culture by the research team for this
8Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
study. One sample item is: ‘I discuss instructional issues with my principal(s)’. According to fit
indices based on MCFA (χ
2
/df =1.98, CFI =0.99, TLI =0.98, RMSEA =0.04, SRMR
W
=0.04,
SRMR
B
=0.02), the adapted scale has a good fit in the Turkish educational setting. Moreover,
the AVE values calculated for the structure validity of the model were acceptable at both within
(AVE =0.76) and between (AVE =0.87) levels. Finally, the CR values calculated for the conver-
gent reliability of the model were acceptable for between (ω=.97) and within (ω=.88) levels.
Teacher Commitment (TC). This 9-item scale was developed by Cook and Wall (1980) and
revised by Mathews and Shepherd (2002). The researchers adapted the scale into the Turkish lan-
guage and culture for this study. The scale measures three dimensions: identification, involvement,
and loyalty. One sample item is: ‘I am a part of the school’. The results of the MCFA showed a
good fit to the data (χ
2
/df =2.13, CFI =0.98, TLI =0.97, RMSEA =0.05, SRMR
W
=0.03,
SRMR
B
=0.07). In addition, the AVE values of the scale were acceptable at both within (AVE=
0.83) and between (AVE =0.94) levels. Finally, the CR values were good for both between (ω=
.88) and within (ω=.98) levels.
Teacher Innovative Practices (TIP). This scale was developed by Welbourne et al. (1998) and
adapted to educational settings by Gkorezis (2016). We adapted the 4-item scale into the Turkish
language and culture for the purpose of the present study. One sample item is: ‘I am working to
implement new ideas’. The CFA results indicated a good fit(χ
2
/df =2.48, CFI =0.96, TLI =
0.95, RMSEA =0.06, SRMR
W
=0.02, SRMR
B
=0.04). The AVE values of the scale were accept-
able at both within (AVE =0.86) and between (AVE =0.95) levels. Additionally, the CR values
were good for both between (ω=.99) and within (ω=.96) levels.
Control Variables. We controlled for variables that might influence the associations between our
study variables, such as gender and professional experience. Although the majority of teachers
working in the Turkish school system are women, most of the principals are men (MoNE,
2020), which might affect principal–teacher relations. For instance, previous research found that
principal-teacher relations were at a higher level in schools where the principal and teacher
gender were the same (e.g. Berkovich, 2018). We also included teachers’professional experience
as a control variable in our analyses, in line with previous research suggesting that experienced tea-
chers are more likely to adopt innovative practices in teaching than those who have less teaching
experience (e.g. Ghaith and Yaghi, 1997).
Analytical strategy
We tested our hypotheses at both the teacher and school level by performing Multilevel Structural
Equation Modelling (MSEM) using Bayesian estimation in Mplus 8.7 (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–
2017). Before running the analysis, we applied Mahalanobis Distance to test for multivariate nor-
mality and excluded outliers from the analysis. Then, we calculated mean, standard deviation, and
zero-order correlations. We also examined aggregation for our school-level variables (TL and TiP)
by using within-group agreement (R
wg
) and intra-class correlations coefficient ICC(1) and ICC(2)
(Raykov et al., 2017). Accordingly, the R
wg
values of all our variables were over .70 (Lüdtke and
Robitzsch, 2009) and the within-group agreement of the variables was strong. Next, the intra-class
correlation coefficient (ICC) (1) for each measure was above .05, demonstrating the suitability of com-
bining teachers’scores into the school level. For assessing the reliability of the school level means, the
ICC (2) for each measure ranged from .57 to .85, demonstrating good indices (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979)
(see Table 1). Our sample was relatively small, consisting of 56 lower secondary schools. In such cases,
scholars recommend the use of Bayesian statistics in data analysis (i.e. N< 100) (e.g. Asparouhov and
Kılınç et al. 9
Muthén, 2020). Following this recommendation, we estimated the significance and strength of the
effects of the variables in our model with confidence interval (CI) coverage. We concluded that 95%
of the CI for each latent variable’s effects are significant when the CI does not include zero
(Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The Potential Scale Reduction (PSR) values performed for the fit
indices in the Bayesian method should be approximately 1 (iteration =10,000). We also examined
Chi-square/degree of freedom (χ
2
/df), Log-Likelihood (LL), Akaike Information Criterion (AIC),
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) and Standardized Bayesian Information Criterion (SABIC) by
performing the Wald Chi-square test for the quality of parameters (Nylund et al., 2007). Finally, we
estimated the conditional indirect effect of TL on TIP through TC at low (−2, −1SD),medium
(mean), and high ( +1, +2 SD) moderator levels to test the moderating effect of TiP.
Several common bias problems can arise in cross-sectional research. The literature usually sug-
gests Harman’s single-factor test to provide statistical remedies for these problems (MacKenzie and
Podsakoff, 2012). However, some scholars favour common latent factor (CLF) analysis as a more
powerful statistical operation (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Therefore, we employed CLF analysis
by incorporating a marker variable independent of the variables in our conceptual model into the
analysis (e.g. teacher enthusiasm). We found that the calculated variance square (38.7%) was
below the threshold of 50%, suggesting no common method bias problem in our model.
Results
Preliminary analysis
We analysed the means and standard deviations of all variables along with skewness and kurtosis
values and the correlations among study variables. As shown in Table 2, the mean values for our
variables were above the average: TL (M=4.19, SD =.75), TiP (M=4.81, SD =.76), TC (M=
5.54, SD =.74) and TIP (M=4.17, SD =.58). We found the skewness and kurtosis values of all
variables ranging between −2and +2 (George and Mallery, 2010), thus the normality assumption
was met. At the school level, TL was positively correlated with TC (r=0.647, p< 0.001) and TIP
(r=0.535, p< 0.001), and TC was positively associated with TIP (r=0.568, p< 0.001). In addition,
TiP was positively correlated with TC (r=0.554, p<0.001)andTIP(r=0.602, p< 0.001). Then we
tested the intercorrelation between our variables using MSEM Bayesian estimation. In multivariate
statistical analysis, tolerance index (TI > .20) and variance inflation factor (VIF < 5) were examined
for the diagnosis of a multicollinearity problem. Accordingly, TI values ranged from .27 to .91, and
VIF values ranged between 1.09 and 3.71, indicating no sign of multicollinearity problem. Therefore,
we reported the direct and indirect effects among variables (Hypotheses 1–4), along with the modera-
tion effect of TiP in the relationship between TL and TC (Hypothesis 5) and the moderating effect of
TiP on the relationship between TL and TIP through TC (Hypothesis 6).
Table 1. Interrater agreement and interrater reliability of variables.
Transformational
leadership
Trust in
principal
Teacher
commitment
Teacher innovative
practices
ICC1 .354 .272 .320 .133
ICC2 .855 .801 .835 .574
R
wg
.961 .984 .989 .841
ICC: intraclass correlation coefficient; R
wg
: within-group agreement.
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Model testing
We initiated our analyses by testing our first hypothesis, before incorporating other variables into
the analyses in Model 1. Then we examined the Bayesian fit indices of our final model. We
observed that the PSR value reached approximately 1 (PSR =1.384). Additionally, we conducted
the Wald Chi-square test for the quality of the parameters, which revealed that our data yielded a
good fit(χ
2
/df =4.176, p> 0.01). The information criteria of the first model were found to be
(−9485.260) for LL, (19655.985) for BIC, (19346.929) for AIC and (19433.750) for SABIC.
The LL (−8840.986), BIC (19252.878), AIC (18696.465) and SABIC (18852.744) values
decreased when we added variables into the final model. This suggests that our final model
bears a better fit (Nylund et al., 2007). Figure 2 summarizes the direct, indirect, and moderation
effects between our variables.
Testing the mediation model
At this stage, we tested Hypotheses 1–4. The effect of TC on TIP was positive and significant at both the
teacher (b1, γ=0.313, 95% CI [0.206, 0.416]) and school level (b2,γ=0.563, 95% CI [0.356, 0.864]),
supporting Hypotheses 1a and 1b. TL had positive and direct effects on TC (a1,γ=0.559, 95% CI [0.322,
0.731]), confirming Hypothesis 2. While the direct effect of TL on TIP was insignificant (c′,γ=0.084,
95% CI [−0.693, 0.208]), refuting Hypothesis 3, the indirect effect of TL on TIP was evident with the
significant mediating function of TC (a1b2,γ=0.161, 95% CI [0.082, 0.255]), supporting Hypothesis 4.
Testing the moderation model
We also aimed to assess how trust in principal moderated the effect of transformational leadership
on teacher commitment. We found that the interaction effect of TL and TiP on TC was significant
(a3,γ=−0.333, 95% CI [−0.778, −0.119]), confirming Hypothesis 5. A simple slope test
Table 2. Descriptive statistics and correlations between study variables.
MSD12 3 4 56 78
Teac her level (n =611)
1. TC –– –
2. TIP ––.476∗∗ –
3. Gender ––.045 .049 –
4. Exp. 12.57 7.97 .080∗
−.008 −.133∗∗ –
School level (n =56)
5.TC 5.54 .74 –
6. TIP 4.17 .58 568∗∗
7. TiP 4.81 .76 .554∗∗ 602∗∗ –
8. TL 4.19 .75 .647
∗∗
.535∗∗ 496∗∗ –
Skewness ––−.541 −.663 −.530 .541 −.541 −.663 .924 .726
Kurtosis ––.311 1.307 −1.730 −.262 .311 1.307 1.391 .910
Means (M), SD: standard deviation; ICC: intraclass correlation; TC: teacher commitment; TIP: teacher innovative practice;
TiP: Trust in Principal; TL: transformational leadership; Exp: experiences.
∗p< .01, ∗∗ p< .001.
Kılınç et al. 11
illustrated in Figure 3 shows that high TiP scores (+1SD) exhibited a stronger relationship between
TL and TC than low TiP scores (−1SD), providing support for Hypothesis 5.
Testing the moderated mediation model
In this final step, we aimed to examine whether and how TiP moderated our mediation model (±1
SD). The result demonstrated that the moderating effect of TiP was significant (a3b2,γ=0.283,
95% CI [0.182, 0.449]) (see Table 3). When TiP was at one standard deviation above the mean
(+1SD), the indirect effect of TL on TIP was significant (γ=0.177, 95% CI [0.099, 0.290]); other-
wise, the indirect effect of TL on TIP was not significant when TiP was one standard deviation
below the mean (−1SD)(γ=0.068, 95% CI [−0.028, 0.166]). Thus, our findings show that the
indirect effect of TL on TIP is stronger when the level of TiP is higher, confirming Hypothesis 6.
Discussion
This section provides the study limitations, interprets the study findings, and outlines implications
for policy, practice, and research.
Figure 2. Multilevel SEM analysis results.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Limitations and future research
This study has several limitations that warrant caution when interpreting the results. First, our
results only reflect principal and teacher practices across twelve provinces in Turkey, which
raises concerns about the generalisability of findings. Second, we relied on teacher self-reports
to measure our variables. This may have caused the teachers to be influenced by their personal
choices or social desirability. However, it should be noted that this study measured principals’
TL practices based on teachers’reports, as recommended by some scholars (e.g. Thoonen et al.,
2011) for generating nuanced information about the current status of school leadership practices.
Finally, our mediation and moderation hypotheses were not based on a particular intervention
that possibly resulted in variation in teachers’practices. Thus, the cross-sectional nature of our
Figure 3. Plot of the moderate effect of trust in principal.
Table 3. Conditional indirect effects of transformational leadership on teacher innovative practices at various
levels of trust in principal.
γSD 95% LLCI 95% ULCI
Moderated mediation index .283 .073 .182 .449
+2SD .232 .065 .134 .385
+1SD .177 .049 .099 .290
Mean .121 .042 .052 .218
−1SD .068 .049 −.028 .166
−2SD .015 .064 −.125 .130
LLCI: lower limit confidence interval; ULCI: upper limit confidence interval.
Kılınç et al. 13
data precludes us from providing causal explanations among the constructs we investigated in this
study.
Interpretation of findings
Our study sought to investigate the associations between TiP, TL, TC and TIP. More specifi-
cally,wefocusedonthemoderatingeffectofTiPontherelationshipbetweenTLandTIP
through TC. Our findings illustrate that TC is positively and significantly related to TIP.
Thus, our research provides supporting evidence that teacher commitment is a key factor
that influences teacher efforts to implement innovations in teaching practices. This finding cor-
responds with previous research highlighting the role of TC in enhancing teacher endeavours
to modify instructional practices (Bellibaset. al. 2021) and improve student learning outcomes
(Geijsel, 2009). Our research also illustrated that the influence of TL on TIP is mediated by
TC. This finding supports the premise that TL fosters teacher efforts to innovate instruction
by promoting teacher commitment, and thus should be a crucial element in school improve-
ment research. Our finding also confirms prior empirical research that validated the
second-order effect orientation of TL (e.g. Hallinger, 2003; Marks and Printy, 2003). Thus,
by providing evidence that TC acts as a high-value target for transformational leaders who
aim to promote teacher efforts to modify and innovate teaching, the current study adds evi-
dence to a growing body of research that examines how principals can levy school capacity
for teaching.
This study also found evidence for a significant moderation role of TiP in the effect of TL on TC.
This means that the effects of TL on TC are stronger when school principals establish a safe and
healthy school atmosphere where teachers can collaborate around instructional issues and feel
that their contributions to the school improvement process are valued and respected. This finding
provides empirical support for previous assertions that the effective operation of school leadership
practices is closely linked to the contextual features of the school (Hallinger, 2018; Leithwood and
Jantzi, 2006). Thus, our results add evidence to this knowledge base by suggesting that transforma-
tional principals who develop school capacity for change and innovation, alongside building a
school climate that fosters trusting relations among personnel, are more likely to improve
teacher identification with school goals and support their meaningful involvement in school
improvement endeavours.
The main finding of our study is that TiP played a significant moderator in the effect of TL on TC
and TIP. This means that the indirect effect of TL on TIP through TC depends on the extent to
which principals create a climate that emphasises caring and trusting relations among school
members. This finding reinforces the notion that school contextual factors play a significant role
in shaping leadership effects which, in turn, influence teacher beliefs and practices. The present
study provides nuanced evidence to a burgeoning line of research exploring the cultural and institu-
tional factors that might shape leadership practices (e.g. Sebastian and Allensworth, 2019;
Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021), by suggesting that transformational leaders may be more effective
in promoting teachers’sense of commitment, and thus buoying teacher efforts to innovate instruc-
tional practices when the school environment is marked by greater trust between principal and tea-
chers. Therefore, the main contribution of this study lies in providing new insights into how school
contextual factors promote or inhibit the effects of leaders’practices on teacher commitment and
innovation.
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Implications for practice and future research
We began this study with a mediation model of TL. Our results confirmed a full mediation model, in
which TL’s effect on TIP was accrued only indirectly, through TC. We also concluded that TiP
played a significant moderator role in the direct effects of TL on TC. However, the main contribu-
tion of this study is that it generates empirical evidence regarding how TiP moderates the effects of
TL on TIP through TC. Accordingly, we found that when TiP was rated higher by teachers in a
school, the positive indirect effects of TL on TIP through TC were strengthened. In contrast,
when the level of TiP perceived by teachers was lower, transformational leaders tended to have
no positive influence on TIP through TC.
This study yields several key implications for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers.
Many developing countries across the world have initiated substantial school reforms in recent
years. The development of principals’transformational leadership skills has been a persistent com-
ponent of such reforms due to its high emphasis on organizational change and restructuring (Marks
and Printy, 2003). Our findings support such reform initiatives by providing convincing evidence
that TL has considerable potential to enhance teachers’innovative practices through promoting TC.
In addition, our results take on particular importance for principals by concluding that teacher com-
mitment is a useful path through which they might influence the implementation of innovative
teaching practices. We thus encourage school principals to invest time and resources in establishing
a school environment where teachers feel more committed to the realization of school goals.
Most importantly, our study indicates that TL’s effects on TC and TIP are somewhat contingent
upon the extent to which trusting relationships are fostered among principals and teachers.
Therefore, another potential implication for policymakers and practitioners is that although TL
practices provide important leverage for promoting teachers’commitment and innovative practices,
it may not produce the desired effects unless school principals build caring and trusting bonds with
teachers to work around instructional issues. In a broader sense, our findings imply that, rather than
focusing solely on specific leadership practices, policymakers and practitioners should be aware of
the potential effects of contextual or institutional factors that may shape school leadership practices,
thus tailoring their interventions to the specific conditions of any given school (Wu and Shen,
2022).
Our results also hold particular importance for Turkey and other nations with highly centralized
and hierarchical education systems. On the one hand, the leadership capabilities of school principals
towards change and transformation are considered critical by policymakers in achieving the posi-
tive impact of school reforms on classroom teaching practices (e.g. Marks and Printy, 2003;
Moolenaar et al., 2010). On the other hand, due to its centralized structure, the education system
in Turkey has largely charged school principals with day-to-day managerial operations such as
logistics, budgets or infrastructure which must be operated in strict alignment with the MoNE’s
rules and principles, rather than focusing on improving the quality of teaching and learning.
Therefore, we invite policymakers to resolve this paradoxical situation by providing principals
with wider autonomy and discretion to maximize their influence on teacher beliefs and practices
that might lead to improved student outcomes. Considering also that the lack of professional stan-
dards or certificate programs for principals may impede effective school leadership (Bush, 2018),
we urgently advise policymakers in Turkey and nations with similar educational systems to develop
effective principal training programmes where principals learn to execute TL practices and build a
trusting school environment. Policymakers should also consider individuals’formal training around
these skills when selecting and appointing them for principal positions.
Kılınç et al. 15
This study has also several implications for research. To begin with, the literature would benefit
from further research that validates our findings in both local and international contexts, which
could provide opportunities for comparative analysis. Researchers might also conduct longitudinal
studies to explore the nature of teachers’innovative practices that have developed over time, as well
as to investigate the causal links between school leadership and teacher practices. In addition, the
present study could provide a stepping stone for further research that focuses on illuminating the
under-researched paths that link school leadership with teacher innovative practices, and ultimately
student achievement. Finally, employing a cultural perspective in school leadership research could
provide further insights into the roles of different constructs across various parts of the world. For
instance, treating cultural dimensions like power distance and uncertainty avoidance as potential
moderators that might influence school leadership practices could provide a distinct contribution
to the development of the global knowledge base on the interplay between school leadership and
teaching (e.g. Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021).
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Ali Çag
atay Kılınç https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9472-578X
Mahmut Polatcan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5181-0316
References
Amabile TM (1988) A model of creativity and innovation in organizations. In: Staw BM and Cummings LL
(eds) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT: JAI, Vol. 10, pp.187–209.
Aslanargun E and Tarku E (2014) Teachers’expectations about supervision and guidance roles of supervisors.
Educational Administration: Theory and Practice 20(3): 281–306.
Asparouhov T and Muthén B (2020) Bayesian estimation of single and multilevel models with latent variable
interactions. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 28(2): 314–328.
Axtell CM, Holman DJ, Unsworth KL, et al. (2000) Shopfloor innovation: facilitating the suggestion and
implementation of ideas. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 73(3): 265–285.
Balyer A and Özcan K (2012) Cultural adaptation of headmasters’transformational leadership scale and a
study on teachers’perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 49(1): 103–128.
Bass BM (1985) Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York: The Free Press.
Bass BM and Avolio BJ (1994) Improving Organizational Effectiveness Through Transformational
Leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
BellibasMS,Kılınç AÇ and Polatcan M (2021) The moderation role of transformational leadership in the
effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning and instructional practice: An integrated
leadership perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 57(5): 776–814. DOI: 10.1177/
0013161X211035079.
Berkovich I (2018) Effects of principal-teacher gender similarity on teacher’s trust and organizational commit-
ment. Sex Roles 78(7): 561–572.
Bossert ST, Dwyer DC, Rowan B, et al. (1982) The instructional management role of the principal.
Educational Administration Quarterly 18(3): 34–64.
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons from
Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Buchanan B (1974) Building organizational commitment: the socialization of managers in work organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly 19(4): 533–546.
Bush T (2018) Preparation and induction for school principals: global perspectives. Management in Education
32(2): 66–71.
Çoban Ö, Özdemir N and BellibasMS (2020) Trust in principals, leaders’focus on instruction, teacher col-
laboration, and teacher self-efficacy: testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/1741143220968170.
Conway JM and Lance CE (2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias
in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3): 325–334.
Cook J and Wall T (1980) New work attitude measures of trust, organizational commitment and personal need
non-fulfilment. Journal of Occupational Psychology 53: 39–52.
Day C, Gu Q and Sammons P (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school
leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration
Quarterly 52(2): 1–38.
Elmore RF (2004) School Reform from the Inside out: Policy, Practice, and Performance. Cambridge, Mass:
Harvard Education Press.
Frippiat D and Marquis N (2010) Web surveys in the social sciences an overview. Population 65(2): 285–312.
Geijsel FP, Sleegers P, Leithwood K, et al. (2003) Transformational leadership effects on teachers’commit-
ment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration 41(3): 228–256.
Geijsel FP, Sleegers PJC, Stoel RD, et al. (2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational
and leadership factors on teachers’professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary School Journal
109(4): 406–427.
George D and Mallery M (2010) SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference. Boston:
Pearson.
Ghaith G and Yaghi H (1997) Relationships among experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the
implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 13(4): 451–458.
Gkorezis P (2016) Principal empowering leadership and teacher innovative behavior: a moderated mediation
model. International Journal of Educational Management 30(6): 1030–1044.
Goodwin VL, Whittington JL, Murray B, et al. (2011) Moderator or mediator? Examining the role of trust in
the transformational leadership paradigm. Journal of Managerial Issues 23(4): 409–425.
Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transforma-
tional leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–352.
Hallinger P (2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical
research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.
Hambleton RK and Patsula L (1998) Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social
Indicators Research 45(1): 153–171.
Harris A and Jones M (2018) Leading schools as learning organizations. School Leadership & Management
38(4): 351–354.
Hattie J (2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Heck RH and Hallinger P (2014) Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learn-
ing. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 653–681.
Hwang HJ, Kang M and Youn MK (2014) The influence of a leader’s servant leadership on employees’per-
ception of customers’satisfaction with the service and employees’perception of customers’trust in the
service firm: the moderating role of employees’trust in the leader. Journal of Global Scholars of
Marketing Science 24(1): 65–76.
Kılınç et al. 17
Khasawneh S, Omari A and Abu-Tineh A (2012) The relationship between transformational leadership and
organizational commitment: the case for vocational teachers in Jordan. Educational Management
Administration and Leadership 40(4): 494–508.
Kılınç AÇ, Er E and Beyciog
lu K (2021) Mapping the Terrain of Training and Appointment of Educational
Leaders in the Turkish Context: An Historical Perspective. In: Samier E, Elkaleh ES and Hammad W
(eds) Internationalisation of Educational Administration and Leadership Curriculum. Emerald
Publishing Limited, 139–157.
Leithwood K (1994) Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration Quarterly 30(4): 498–518.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (2006) Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: effects on students,
teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 201–227.
Leithwood K, Patten S and Jantzi D (2010) Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 671–706.
Leithwood K, Seashore-Louis K, Anderson S, et al. (2004) How Leadership Influences Student Learning: A
Review of Research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: Wallace Foundation.
Lindell MK and Whitney DJ (2001) Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional research
designs. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 114–121.
Lüdtke O and Robitzsch A (2009) Assessing within-group agreement: a critical examination of a
random-group resampling approach. Organizational Research Methods 12(3): 461–487.
Maas CJ and Hox JJ (2005) Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology 1(3): 86–92.
MacKenzie SB and Podsakoff PM (2012) Common method bias in marketing: causes, mechanisms, and pro-
cedural remedies. Journal of Retailing 88(4): 542–555.
Marks HM and Printy SM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transforma-
tional and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.
Marzano RJ, Pickering DJ and Pollock JE (2001) Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based
Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Mathews BP and Shepherd JL (2002) Dimensionality of Cook and Wall’s (1980) British organizational com-
mitment scale revisited. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 75(3): 369–375.
Ministry of Education [MoNE] (2018) Turkey’s 2023 Education Vision. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/
2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf
Ministry of Education [MoNE] (2020) National education statistics formal education 2018/’19. Retrieved from
https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2019_09/30102730_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2018_2019.pdf
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2005) Basic education in Turkey-background report. Retrieved from
https://www.oecd.org/education/school/39642601.pdf (accessed date 15.10.2021)
Moolenaar NM, Daly AJ and Sleegers PJ (2010) Occupying the principal position: examining relationships
between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’innovative climate.
Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 623–670.
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2017) Mplus User’s Guide, 8.ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Neeraj P (2009) The impact of perceived leadership styles on job satisfaction and ethical intentions of employ-
ees: With trust as a moderator. Master’s Thesis, Ming Chuan University.
Nylund KL, Asparouhov T and Muthén BO (2007) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis
and growth mixture modeling: a Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal 14(4): 535–569.
OECD (2019) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners, TALIS.
Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
O’Reilly CA and Chatman J (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of
compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology 71(3):
492–499.
Paletta A, Alimehmeti G, Mazzetti G, et al. (2021) Educational leadership and innovative teaching practices: a
polynomial regression and response surface analysis. International Journal of Educational Management
35(4): 897–908.
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
Park I (2005) Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high schools.
Educational Research and Evaluation 11(5): 461–485.
Pitner NJ (1988) Leadership substitutes: their factorial validity in educational organizations. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 48(2): 307–315.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB and Bommer WH (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for
leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust, and organizational citizenship
behaviors. Journal of Management 22(2): 259–298.
Preacher KJ and Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect
effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.
Raykov T, Marcoulides GA and Akaeze HO (2017) Comparing between- and within-group variances in a two-
level study: a latent variable modeling approach to evaluating their relationship. Educational and
Psychological Measurement 77(2): 351–361.
Robinson V, Hohepa M and Lloyd C (2009) School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works
and why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration (BES). Auckland: The Ministry of New Zealand, 104–287.
Ross JA and Gray P (2006) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: the
mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 179–199.
Saavedra AR and Opfer VD (2012) Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan 94(2): 8–13.
Sahin I
, Kesik F and Beyciog
lu K (2017) Chaotic process in the assignment of school administrators and its
effects. Elementary Education Online 16(3): 1007–1021.
Sayadi M (2016) The effect of dimensions of transformational, transactional, and non-leadership on the job
satisfaction and organizational commitment of teachers in Iran. Management in Education 30(2): 57–65.
Sebastian J and Allensworth E (2012) The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and
student learning: a study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(4):
626–663.
Sebastian J and Allensworth E (2019) Linking principal leadership to organizational growth and student
achievement: a moderation mediation analysis. Teachers College Record 9: 1–32.
Serdyukov P (2017) Innovation in education: what works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it. Journal of
Research in Innovative Teaching and Learning 10(1): 4–33.
Shengnan L and Hallinger P (2021) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning
in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 214–233.
Shrout PE and Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin
86(2): 420–428.
Sun J and Leithwood K (2015) Leadership effects on student learning mediated by teacher emotions. Societies
5(3): 566–582.
Supovitz J, Sirinides P and May H (2010) How principals and peers influence teaching and learning.
Educational Administration Quarterly 46(1): 31–56.
Thoonen EE, Sleegers PJ, Oort FJ, et al. (2011) How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motiva-
tion, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(3): 496–
536.
Thurlings M, Evers AT and Vermeulen M (2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’innovative behavior:
a literature review. Review of Educational Research 85(3): 430–471.
Truong TD, Hallinger P and Sanga K (2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: exploring the
influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
45(1): 77–100.
Tschannen-Moran M (2009) Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: the role of leadership orientation
and trust Educational Administration Quarterly 45(2): 217–247.
Vermeulen M, Kreijns K and Evers AT (2020) Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and
school learning climate: impact on teachers’innovative behaviour in the Netherlands. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership:1–20. DOI: 10.1177/1741143220932582.
Kılınç et al. 19
Wahlstrom KL and Louis KS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional
community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–
495.
Walker AD and Dimmock C (2012) School Leadership and Administration: The Cultural Context. London:
Routledge.
Wang ZH, Wang KJ, You XQ, et al. (2010) Effects of teacher efficacy, work motivation, and mood on teaching
innovation. Psychological Science 5: 1254–1257.
Welbourne TM, Johnson DE and Erez A (1998) The role-based performance scale: validity analysis of a
theory-based measure. Academy of Management Journal 41: 540–555.
West MA and Farr JL (1989) Innovation at work: psychological perspectives. Social Behavior 4: 15–30.
Wu H and Shen J (2022) The association between principal leadership and student achievement: a multivariate
meta-meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 35: 1–17.
Zhang S, Bowers AJ and Mao Y (2021) Authentic leadership and teachers’voice behaviour: the mediating role
of psychological empowerment and moderating role of interpersonal trust. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 49(5): 768–785. DOI: 10.1177/1741143220915925.
Author biographies
Ali Cag
atay Kılınç¸ is an professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Karabuk
University, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division
of Educational Administration, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey in 2013. His research focus is
on educational leadership, school improvement, teacher learning, and practices.
Mahmut Polatcan is currently working as an associate professor in the Department of Educational
Sciences at Karabuk University, Turkey. He received his PhD in Educational Administration from
Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, Ankara in 2017. His research interests include
principals leadership, teacher effectiveness and teacher professional learning, and instructional
practices.
Gökhan Savasis a school principal at a secondary school in Kastamonu, Turkey. He received his
PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration,
Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey in 2021. His research focus is on organizational behaviour,
educational leadership, teacher leadership and teacher professional learning.
Emre Er received his Bachelor Degree from Gazi University Gazi Faculty of Education
Department of Chemistry Teaching in 2010. He earned MA in 2013 and received PhD degree in
Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences. He is currently employed as an Associate
Professor in Yıldız Technical University Faculty of Education Department of Educational
Sciences. His research interests are organizational change, social network theory, school develop-
ment and school change capacity.
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)
