View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Multilevel Impact of Transformational Leadership on Teacher Commitment: Cognitive and Motivational Pathways

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Multilevel Impact of Transformational Leadership on Teacher Commitment: Cognitive and Motivational Pathways
Language: English
Authors: Dumay, Xavier, Galand, Benoit
Source: British Educational Research Journal. 2012 38(5):703-729.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2012
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Elementary Secondary Education
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Elementary School Teachers, Teacher Motivation, Self Efficacy, Principals, School Culture, Transformational Leadership, Statistical Analysis, Questionnaires, Predictor Variables, Organizational Climate, Work Environment, Teacher Persistence, Hierarchical Linear Modeling, French
Geographic Terms: Belgium
DOI: 10.1080/01411926.2011.577889
ISSN: 0141-1926
Abstract: A growing body of research indicates that transformational leadership affects teachers' commitment to their school. The present study aims to investigate the processes explaining this effect at the organisational level. Using a sample of 660 teachers within 50 primary French-speaking Belgian schools, the authors test a model hypothesising that the impact of the school principal's transformational leadership (as an organisational-level construct) on teacher commitment to school is mediated by school culture strength (cognitive pathway) and teacher collective efficacy beliefs (motivational pathway). Results of multilevel analyses largely support the theoretical model, but show that schools have a limited impact on teacher commitment. (Contains 5 tables and 1 figure.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 67
Entry Date: 2012
Accession Number: EJ979862
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFHyqiOZLmCShSugQGxa9txAAAA4TCB3gYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHQMIHNAgEAMIHHBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDD5Yc-4hpCJu55VLNQIBEICBmZqOw7ccIHNlZVL7ccMx1EdvnPEZa1-8LakWygmST39H74x5objYijEifC5Fw_-4HTold-TEAaFauGnbVlC_ps3hHX5V-gdXHgLeH7fPb3oLxjb0dry--39AYNioh5b1hquXBn4bQmjhbqG1zEsoJnsj9z7ZJNgFIBN3F6UgsTmbJCL72b0rt8rm6kKNT_OMf8rsDvn5A75X8g==
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0080139662;bed01oct.12;2019May30.12:22;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0080139662-1">The multilevel impact of transformational leadership on teacher commitment: cognitive and motivational pathways. </title> <p>A growing body of research indicates that transformational leadership affects teachers' commitment to their school. The present study aims to investigate the processes explaining this effect at the organisational level. Using a sample of 660 teachers within 50 primary French‐speaking Belgian schools, the authors test a model hypothesising that the impact of the school principal's transformational leadership (as an organisational‐level construct) on teacher commitment to school is mediated by school culture strength (cognitive pathway) and teacher collective efficacy beliefs (motivational pathway). Results of multilevel analyses largely support the theoretical model, but show that schools have a limited impact on teacher commitment.</p> <p>Organisational commitment (OC) has emerged as a central concept in the field of organisational psychology during the past three decades ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref3">9</reflink>]). This topic has been the subject of rigorous research in different organisational settings, particularly in schools (see [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref4">51</reflink>]). OC is described as a psychological bond between the organisational members and the organisation and a set of strong positive attitudes toward the organisation manifested by dedication to goals and shared sense of values. According to ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref5">46</reflink>], p. 36), 'OC develops as a result of some combination of work experiences, perceptions of the organisation and personal characteristics, which lead to positive feelings about an organisation which in turn becomes commitment'.</p> <p>Understanding the processes through which teachers commit to their school is important for at least two reasons. First, teacher commitment to school can be important for student achievement ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref6">54</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref7">44</reflink>]). As stated by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref8">55</reflink>], p. 422), 'when people experience low internal motivation and commitment, they feel dissatisfied and subsequently they engage in a variety of work behaviours that only reinforce task failure'. This hypothesis was supported by [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref9">44</reflink>], who found that teacher commitment to school affects pedagogical quality and student academic performance. In other words, it seems that teacher quality is not only related to ability and knowledge, but also to commitment. This suggests the importance of investigating the conditions that affect teacher commitment ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref10">24</reflink>]). Second, organisational social psychologists have shown that employees' commitment is an important predictor of the intention to quit and actual turnover. According to [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref11">9</reflink>], employee commitment is the 'attitude component' most strongly associated with these two variables. Moreover, the contribution of organisational commitment to these variables appears to be independent from the contribution of other work attitudes such as job satisfaction ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref12">2</reflink>]). Consequently, teachers' OC was defined as a key mechanism of teacher retention and as such has been the focus of several policies during the last few decades ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref13">29</reflink>]). It has also been suggested that a lack of commitment to school could be an obstacle to implementation of interventions or reforms ([<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref14">59</reflink>]).</p> <p>Within the education field, numerous studies have explored the predictors of teacher commitment. Various teacher and school factors have been under scrutiny. In this article, our aim is to extend the research on the impact of organisational processes on teachers' OC in two ways. First, we extend this research by investigating the effect of principals' leadership on teacher commitment using a multilevel framework, as recommended by many leadership researchers ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref15">35</reflink>]). In most previous studies, organisational variables are considered either at the teacher level or at the school level. Organisational practices are therefore considered either as individual perceptions in a given organisational context or as de facto homogeneous organisational practices. Second, we extend the research of organisational effects on teachers' OC by proposing a theoretical model that explores the reasons why principals' transformational leadership may influence teachers' OC. The transformational leadership theory ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref16">8</reflink>]) offers a full‐range model that describes the quality of communication and exchanges between the leader and the team members. Previous research has consistently shown that transformational leadership has a large effect on OC ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref17">19</reflink>]) and singularly that principals' transformational leadership influences significantly teachers' OC ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref18">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref19">56</reflink>]). However, very few studies have explored the socio‐psychological mechanisms underlying this effect ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref20">56</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the first section of this article, we review briefly the main predictors of the teachers' OC, by distinguishing between teachers and school predictors. Second, we present the theoretical model tested in this article. This model is articulated around the contribution of the principal's leadership in the emergence and the development of teachers' collective efficacy beliefs (motivational pathway) and culture strength (cognitive pathway). Third, multilevel analyses are used to test the model. Finally, we discuss the results and draw the main implications.</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-2">2. Predictors of teacher commitment: a brief review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0080139662-3">2.1. Teacher predictors</hd> <p>Three kinds of teacher characteristics have been examined in the literature: teachers' exogenous characteristics (e.g. gender and age), endogenous characteristics (e.g. level of experience or employment status), and finally teachers' beliefs about their job or their school.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref21">17</reflink>] underlined that the study of gender did not produce consistent findings. However, meta‐analyses of teacher attrition and retention predictors ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref22">29</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref23">12</reflink>]) tend to show that female teachers have consistently higher attrition rates than male teachers. It seems that female teachers' decision to leave their job is not so much linked to their commitment to their job or their school, and rather associated with exogenous reasons, like pregnancy or child‐rearing (see [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref24">37</reflink>]). The impact of age on teacher commitment is not well documented in the literature, making it difficult to make any conclusions about its effect.</p> <p>Findings about the impact of teacher experience are more abundant and provide a clearer pattern of results, at least when teaching experience is measured as a categorical variable: it appears that teachers at the beginning of their career (first five years) or at the end of it (near retirement) are less committed to their job and their school, producing a U‐shaped pattern of commitment and attrition with respect to experience ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref25">29</reflink>]). This pattern of results could explain why studies considering teacher experience as a continuous variable produce contradictory findings ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref26">23</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref27">43</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref28">17</reflink>]). Few studies took into account teacher employment status and qualifications. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref29">43</reflink>] found that part‐time permanent teachers are less committed to their job than part‐time temporary teachers, but found no differences in teachers' commitment between full‐time temporary or full‐time permanent compared to part‐time temporary teachers.</p> <p>According to [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref30">17</reflink>], the teacher variable that provides the most consistent results in predicting commitment is self‐efficacy beliefs. Several studies support the idea that the confidence of teachers in their ability to bring students to learn is an important predictor of their commitment and satisfaction. This finding appears to be consistent despite the different operational definitions and measures of teacher efficacy.</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-4">2.2. School predictors</hd> <p>Since the seminal work of [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref31">55</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref32">22</reflink>], some studies have paid attention to the influence of the school environment on teacher commitment. The rationale of this line of research is that work motivation and commitment have less to do with the personal qualities people bring to the workplace than with the design and management of tasks within schools ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref33">33</reflink>]). According to [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref34">55</reflink>], school social organisation and patterns of interactions between the principal and teachers may affect teacher commitment to school, by encouraging teacher professional growth and making substantial contributions to student learning.</p> <p>Many organisational variables have been examined to understand the processes through which teacher commitment develops: the principal's leadership, teachers' interactions, empowerment and involvement in decision‐making, organisational control and autonomy, culture strength, and collective efficacy beliefs. Globally, these studies have supported the hypotheses set by [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref35">55</reflink>]. From a methodological point of view, we can distinguish between two sets of studies: on one hand, studies considering organisational variables as individual perceptions of the school environment, and on the other hand, studies considering organisational variables as aggregated perceptions of the school environment.</p> <p>At the individual level, positive association has been found between teacher commitment and perceptions of teamwork ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref36">19</reflink>]), perceptions of professional interest and staff freedom ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref37">32</reflink>]), perceived opportunities of professional growth ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref38">10</reflink>]), or perceived administration control and organisational culture ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref39">43</reflink>]). Chan and colleagues (2008) pointed out that the positive impact of reflexive dialogue on teacher commitment is mediated by teachers' social identification and self‐efficacy. The role of principal leadership has also been explored by several studies. Using regression analyses on a sample of 170 teachers, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>] found that teachers who work under a principal regarded positively in the areas of instructional leadership, school advocacy, decision making and relations with students and staff are more committed to teaching. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref41">38</reflink>] showed that transformational leadership has significant add‐on effects to transactional leadership in the prediction of organisational commitment.</p> <p>At the aggregated level, [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref42">57</reflink>] also suggested that the culture strength, defined as the level of cultural norm sharedness, is related to employees' attitudes and behaviours. They found a positive and significant relationship between culture strength in human resources management practices (at the department level) and affective commitment to the organisation (at the employee level). No studies, however, tested this hypothesis in the educational field. Finally, collective efficacy beliefs were also found to be related to teacher commitment in some studies. Using multilevel structural equation modeling analyses, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref43">15</reflink>] corroborated a conceptual model in which individual and collective efficacy beliefs are proximal and distal determinants of teachers' job commitment. These results are consistent with those of [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref45">56</reflink>], and [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref46">64</reflink>].</p> <p>Nevertheless, except for the two studies mentioned above, very few studies have used the appropriate multilevel framework to study the impact of organisational characteristics (higher level variable) on teacher commitment (lower level variable). Multilevel analyses have several advantages over the individual or aggregated approaches presented above. First, it makes it possible to delineate the part of the dependent variable variations that are associated with the organisation level and to predict only this component of variation. Second, it fits theoretical predictions regarding the consistency of leadership behaviours across situations and subordinates. Third, it reduces the risk of common source variance inflation, since the analyses are based on the relationships between shared perception among organisation members in a group regarding their leader's behaviour and their individual responses to these behaviours ([<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref47">63</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the next section, we will concentrate on the effect of transformational leadership, as this largely studied variable captures several organisational dimensions reviewed above. We argue that the impact of transformational leadership on OC is mediated by schools' culture strength and teachers' collective efficacy beliefs. Culture strength is defined as a measure for within‐school cohesion in culture perceptions.</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-5">3. Mediating processes between transformational leadership and organisational commitment</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0080139662-6">3.1. Cognitive pathway: culture strength</hd> <p>According to [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref48">67</reflink>], transformational leadership can be related to culture strength in two ways. First, transformational leaders foster close relationships with subordinates and create opportunities for sharing and clarifying perceptions and interpretations of organisational events. In other words, transformational leaders sustain the sharing of interpretations between them and their followers ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref49">60</reflink>]), as they help to make events meaningful for followers. The second way is linked to the inspirational role of transformational leaders. Since their action is framed by their values and their vision, they are expected to exhibit greater consistency across situations in terms of their leadership practices, so that they inspire the behaviors and thinking of their subordinates. Some recent studies have supported the hypothesis of an impact of transformational leadership on the culture strength ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref50">66</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref51">42</reflink>]). [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref52">67</reflink>], for instance, found a strong correlation between transformational leadership and culture strength concerning the safety climate in a sample of 45 platoons of infantry soldiers from five different brigades.</p> <p>To our knowledge, however, no study has tested explicitly the mediating effect of the culture strength in the relationship between leadership and employees' affective commitment to their organisation. Only [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref53">63</reflink>] tested and confirmed a model suggesting that procedural justice climate perceptions and strength fully mediate the relationship between transactional leadership and followers' OC. In the present study, we make the hypothesis that the impact of the principal's transformational leadership on teachers' OC can also be mediated by culture strength, since the reinforcement of the norm cohesion by the principal's transformational leadership raises in‐group distinctiveness and makes identification and commitment to the group easier ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref54">36</reflink>]).</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 1a</emph>: The principal's transformational leadership is positively associated with school culture strength and teacher OC.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 1b</emph>: School culture strength is positively associated with teacher OC.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 1c</emph>: The effect of the principal's transformational leadership on teacher OC is mediated by school culture strength.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0080139662-7">3.2. Motivational pathway: collective efficacy beliefs</hd> <p>Teacher efficacy refers to personal efficacy beliefs specific to the teachers' professional behaviour ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref55">56</reflink>]). In this article, we are interested in efficacy beliefs as a group construct. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref56">27</reflink>] argued that collective efficacy (measured directly at the collective level and not as an aggregated measure of individual self‐efficacy) is a specific and distinct construct that may predict significantly differences between schools in student achievement. For schools, collective efficacy refers to the perceptions that the teachers' team as a whole can execute the courses of action necessary to have positive effects on students ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref57">27</reflink>]). According to [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref58">5</reflink>], the sources of collective efficacy beliefs are similar to those of personal self‐efficacy beliefs. The group's mastery experience is central, meaning that past level of schools' success should influence the teachers' team beliefs in their ability to stimulate students' learning. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref59">27</reflink>] found, for instance, that the average prior achievement of a school (considered as a proxy of mastery experience) has a significant impact on the level of collective efficacy beliefs. But more than the actual collective performance, it is the interpretation of the performance information that is the most important determinant of collective efficacy beliefs ([<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref60">61</reflink>]). As outlined by [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref61">27</reflink>], the role of cognitive processes is pivotal: the same experiences may lead to different efficacy beliefs in different individuals and groups. We hypothesise that the principal may play a key role in the interpretation of the performance information and in the evolution of the teachers' collective efficacy beliefs. Leadership actions can contribute to teacher efficacy in emphasising accomplishment, giving frequent feedback and promoting an academic emphasis in the school ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref62">56</reflink>]). Some recent evidence supports this hypothesis. Using a sample of 487 French Canadian teachers from 40 public high schools, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref63">21</reflink>] found positive and significant correlations between the principal's transformational leadership and teachers' collective efficacy. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref64">20</reflink>] showed also that the transformational leadership behaviors of the principal explained 35% of the variance in teachers' collective efficacy.</p> <p>Some studies tested directly whether collective efficacy mediates the relationship between the principal's transformational leadership and individual attitudes. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref65">56</reflink>] compared full and partial mediation models using a cross‐sample validation sample design. Their analyses computed at the school level on 3074 teachers and 218 elementary schools suggested that transformational leadership has direct and indirect effects (through collective efficacy) on teacher commitment to school mission and to professional learning community. Evidence from non‐educational settings also supports this mediation hypothesis. Using a sample of 402 employees from the banking and finance sectors in China and India, [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref66">62</reflink>] found that collective efficacy partially mediated the contribution of transformational leadership to OC. Finally, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref67">3</reflink>] are the only researchers who examined a similar research question using the appropriate multilevel framework. Their Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM) analyses were computed on a sample of 520 staff nurses employed by a large public hospital in Singapore. Their results suggest that psychological empowerment (which is conceptually close to self‐efficacy) mediates the relationship between transformational leadership and organisational commitment. This discussion leads to the following hypotheses:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 2a</emph>: The principal's transformational leadership is positively associated with teachers' collective efficacy and teacher OC.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 2b</emph>: Teachers' collective efficacy is positively associated with teacher OC.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Hypothesis 2c</emph>: The effect of transformational leadership on teacher OC is mediated by teachers' collective efficacy.</item> </ulist> <p>In sum, few previous studies have used the analytic design required to test properly the effect of school organisational constructs on teachers' commitment. The few previous multilevel studies which exist indicated that a principal's transformational leadership, culture strength, and collective efficacy might be among the prominent organisational variables related to OC. Theoretical arguments supported by some recent findings suggest that culture strength and collective efficacy mediate the effect of transformational leadership on OC. However, the only multilevel studies partially supporting these hypotheses were performed outside the educational field. The model that our multilevel study aims to investigate in schools is presented in Figure 1.</p> <p>Graph: 1 . Theoretical model of the principal's transformational leadership impact on teachers' OC</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-8">4. Study</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0080139662-9">4.1. Methodology</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0080139662-10">4.1.1. Participants</hd> <p>This study was part of a larger research program on school and teacher effectiveness in the French‐speaking part of Belgium. A stratified random sampling design was used. The sample consisted of 660 teachers from 50 primary schools. The schools were sampled using a two‐stage procedure. First, quintiles of the distribution of school social composition in the population were calculated. The social composition index used to define our sample was an individual variable aggregated at school level. It is different from the academic composition index used later in the analyses. The individual‐level variable combined several measures of the socio‐economic (parents' income, type of occupation and level of employment) and socio‐cultural (parents' level of educational attainment) resources of the students' families. This index is also used in politics as a tool for compensatory policies in French‐speaking Belgium. Then, schools were selected randomly in each quintile and asked to take part in the research. This sample appears to be representative of school composition distribution in the population. Neither the mean (Z = 0.36, p =.64) nor the variance (chi‐square = 59.46, p = [.75;.90]) of the sample differ from the mean and the variance of the social composition in the school population of French‐speaking Belgium.</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-11">4.1.2. Procedure</hd> <p>All the teachers from the primary schools in our sample were invited to complete a self‐reported questionnaire on the principal's leadership, school organisational characteristics, efficacy beliefs and OC within their school. The questionnaire was filled in by the teachers in the presence of members of the research team, in the midst of the school year (in February and March). The average number of teachers per school is 12 (M = 12.45; SD = 5.1).</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-12">4.1.3. Measures</hd> <p>As the main objective of this study is to get a better understanding of the organisational dynamics underlying the development of teacher OC, we tried to isolate as much as possible the part of the between schools variance in OC specifically associated with organisational parameters. According to this idea, individual teacher variables were selected using the main trends of results suggested in the literature reviewed above. These teacher variables were used mainly as control variables in the test of the proposed model.</p> <p> <emph>Teachers' variables (level‐1 variables):</emph> </p> <p>Gender. Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female and 1 = male. Seventy‐five per cent of the participants were women.</p> <p>Age. A simple continuous measure of the teachers' age in years was used (participants were 25–63 years old, M = 41; SD = 9.5).</p> <p>Teacher experience. Rather than using a continuous measure of teacher experience that would have been redundant with the age variable and in line with the results presented in the introduction, we put emphasis on two key moments of the teacher's career. The first dichotomic variable is centered on the teacher's career entry and is coded 0 for the teachers who have less than five years of experience (23% of the sample) and 1 for the teachers who have more than five years of experience. The second dichotomic variable puts emphasis on the teacher's career end and is coded 0 for the teachers who have more than 30 years of experience (26% of the sample) and 1 for the teachers who have less than 30 years of experience.</p> <p>Teacher employment status. The teacher employment status variable is also a dichotomic one, with 0 representing teachers who have a non‐fixed‐term employment contract and 1 representing the teachers who hold a fixed‐term employment contract (75% of the sample).</p> <p>Teacher self‐efficacy beliefs. Teacher self‐efficacy beliefs were measured by items adapted from the Ohio State Teacher efficacy scale developed by Tschannen‐Moran Woofolk‐Hoy and Hoy (2001) and translated in French. Responses to these items were given on a six‐point agreement scale ranging from totally disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref68">1</reflink>) to totally agree (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref69">6</reflink>). Exploratory factorial analyses showed a two‐factorial solution. The first factorial component relates to the collective efficacy in discipline management (4 items; α = 0.87); the second one deals with the collective efficacy in learning management (8 items; α = 0.85).</p> <p>Organisational culture (as individual distance). A questionnaire of school culture was especially designed (see [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref70">21</reflink>], for a more detailed description of this questionnaire), using Hargreaves' (1995) typologies. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref71">30</reflink>] proposed two typologies to examine the relationships between school culture and student achievement. The first typology is based on [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref72">4</reflink>] idea that every group simultaneously has to maintain pressure to keep members on task and to maintain in the group some social harmony, which is easily disturbed by pressure to keep on task. Groups deal with an instrumental function, or task achievement, but also with an expressive function, or maintaining good social relationships. Schools have various instrumental functions, especially those directed towards student cognitive achievement; and in the same way, schools have an expressive task of maintaining social relationships so that they are satisfying, supportive and sociable. The second typology opposes two ideal types, with the traditional school on one side and the collegial school on the other side. Traditional schools are essentially organised on a bureaucratic basis, while collegial ones are characterised by the sharing of power and responsibility ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref73">30</reflink>], p. 32). Combining these two typologies, the organisational culture scale asked teachers about the perceived importance of four core values in their schools. The first two cultural values measured are related to the first typology described by [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref74">30</reflink>]. The first value concerns the status of disciplinary guidelines and rules in schools (four items, e.g. 'the respect of the disciplinary norms (by the students) is central'). The second aspect of cultural value is an indicator of how much emphasis was placed on academic achievement (three items, e.g. 'teachers have high expectations concerning their students' performance'). The two next aspects of the school culture values are associated with the second typology defined by Hargreaves. The first element refers to the status of innovation within schools (six items, e.g. 'teachers are keen to experiment with new pedagogical methods'). The second element measures cultural values in terms of teacher collaboration and collegiality (six items, e.g. 'collaboration between teachers is highly valued'). Responses to these items were given on a six‐point agreement scale ranging from totally disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>) to totally agree (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref76">6</reflink>). Exploratory factorial analyses showed a four‐factorial solution fitting the expected factorial structure. To construct a measure of individual distance with the collective norms within schools, each scale was simply entered in the analyses as group‐centered. For this reason, these scales are not presented in the level‐1 correlation matrix (see Table 1).</p> <p>1. Correlations between level‐1 continuous variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">1.</th><th align="center">2.</th><th align="center">3.</th><th align="center">4.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. Organisational commitment</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Self‐efficacy in discipline management</td><td align="char" char=".">.39***</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Self‐efficacy in learning management</td><td align="char" char=".">.23***</td><td align="char" char=".">.54***</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Age</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.09**</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Notes. * <.05; ** <.01; *** <.001.</p> <p>Organisational commitment (OC). OC (six items, α = 0.85) was measured using the affective commitment subscale of [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>]. According to [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref78">45</reflink>], this form of commitment predicts better than the other two dimensions of commitment (continuance and normative) behaviors like absenteeism, turnover and employee performance. The items were translated into French and slightly adapted to the teaching profession. Responses to these items were given on a six‐point agreement scale ranging from totally disagree (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref79">1</reflink>) to totally agree (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>). This subscale of organisational commitment relates highly to the OC measure from [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref81">47</reflink>]. An exploratory factorial analysis applied on this subscale confirms the one‐factorial solution. Correlations between continuous level‐1 variables can be found in Table 1.</p> <p> <emph>School variables:</emph> </p> <p>School academic composition. The school academic composition variable was based on a mathematics achievement test performed by the sixth grade students of each school at the beginning of the academic year. This test covered three domains: number (27 items), geometry (9 items) and problem solving (16 items) and appeared to be highly reliable (α = 0.91). Academic composition is operationalized by the students' average achievement in mathematics, and next standardized to permit the computation of effect size. The school student body characteristics are often used as covariates in the analyses on the determinants of teachers' attitudes and attrition. Academic composition was used rather than ethnic or socio‐cultural composition, since evidence related to school‐average achievement is the most consistent ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref82">12</reflink>]).</p> <p>Transformational leadership. Twenty‐four items (charisma, consideration for individuals and intellectual stimulation scales) from the multifactor leadership questionnaire (5X ‐ short; [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref83">8</reflink>]) were used to measure transformational leadership constructs. The teachers answered on a Likert scale with six levels. Although this instrument aims to measure three underlying constructs, an exploratory factorial analysis applied to this set of items revealed a two‐factorial solution with loadings which do not fit the expected underlying factorial structure. For this reason, and since the scale is highly reliable when conceptualized as a one‐factor solution (α = 0.97), we used the factorial score as the transformational leadership index. The aggregated properties of the scale are examined in order to ensure that the aggregated measure is reliable and represents a dimension actually shared at school level. The intra‐class correlation (ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref84">1</reflink>)) of a one‐way ANOVA for this scale is high (ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) = 0.32), thus making aggregation meaningful. The aggregation is made in reference to an additive composition model ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref86">16</reflink>]).</p> <p>Culture strength. Following Chan's (1998) dispersion composition models, the culture strength measure was captured by the variance of the teachers' school culture perceptions. An index of within‐school agreement (by means of average deviation measure (ADMj)) was computed on the four dimensions of the schools' organisational culture questionnaire. The computation of ADMj involves two steps. In the first step, we computed the average deviation for each scale item, and in the second step, we calculated the average deviation for the J items of each scale. The higher the ADMj score, the higher the within‐group dispersion and the lesser the within‐group agreement. Because this index is a direct measure of within‐school variability, prior to testing our hypotheses, we multiplied the values provided by the ADMj index regarding each cultural scale by −1, so that scores represented higher within‐school agreement. According to [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref87">28</reflink>], the ADMj index has several advantages compared with the [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref88">34</reflink>] interrater agreement index. First, it does not require an a priori specification of a null response range of interrater agreement. Second, the ADMj index provides estimates of the interrater agreement in the metric of the original response scale. A principal components analysis (PCA) applied on the four ADMj indexes (one for each cultural scale) yielded a one‐factorial solution that explains more than 60% of the total variance, making it possible to use a single construct of culture strength.</p> <p>Collective efficacy. The collective sense of efficacy scale was adapted from the Collective Teachers Belief scale developed by [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref89">58</reflink>]. This construct measures the belief that teachers hold about their capacity to achieve meaningful student learning in spite of whatever obstacles arise and make learning difficult. It includes an assessment of the collective perception of the school's capacity for student discipline (4 items; α = 0.89), as well as for instructional practices (8 items; α = 0.92). The aggregated properties of the scale are examined in order to ensure that the aggregated measure is reliable and represents something actually shared at school level. The intra‐class correlations (ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref90">1</reflink>)) of a one‐way ANOVA for these two scales are respectively 0.17 and 0.15, thus making aggregation relevant. The aggregation is made in reference to an additive composition model ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]). Correlations between level‐2 variables can be found in Table 2.</p> <p>2. Correlations between level‐2 variables</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">1.</th><th align="center">2.</th><th align="center">3.</th><th align="center">4.</th><th align="center">5.</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">1. School composition</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">2. Transformational leadership</td><td align="char" char=".">0</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">3. Culture strength</td><td align="char" char=".">.11</td><td align="char" char=".">.32*</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">4. Collective efficacy (Learning management)</td><td align="char" char=".">−.02</td><td align="char" char=".">.30*</td><td align="char" char=".">.59***</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">5. Collective efficacy (Discipline management)</td><td align="char" char=".">.04</td><td align="char" char=".">.39**</td><td align="char" char=".">.41**</td><td align="char" char=".">.15</td><td align="char" char=".">1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Notes. * <.05; ** <.01; *** <.001.</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-13">4.1.4. Analytic strategy</hd> <p>Multilevel analyses were applied (HLM 6.2, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref92">14</reflink>]), and not multilevel stuctural equation modelling (SEM), given the limited size of our sample at the school level. We used two‐levels intercepts‐as‐outcomes models, with teachers as level‐1 (<emph>n</emph>1 = 660) and schools as level‐2 (<emph>n</emph>2 = 50). Such models hypothesize a predictive effect of group‐level variables (transformational leadership, culture strength and collective efficacy) on individual variables (teacher OC). The ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref93">1</reflink>) of the items measuring the dependent variable ranged from.08 to.12. According to the standards proposed by [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref94">31</reflink>], these values can be considered as moderate grouping effect and justify the use of multilevel modelling. The ICC(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref95">1</reflink>) of the transformational leadership and collective efficacy items range respectively between.28 and.47, and between.14 and.21.</p> <p>First of all, a null model (without explanatory variables) is fitted to provide estimates of variance components at each level (teacher and school levels).</p> <p> <emph>Null model</emph> </p> <p>Where:</p> <p>Yij: OC</p> <p>β<subs>0j</subs>: Intercept for school <emph>j</emph>.</p> <p>i: Teacher index</p> <p>j: School index.</p> <p>Next, the individual variables are entered into the model as predictors in two steps. First, only some of the individual characteristics are introduced. Next, individual teachers' self‐perceptions are added (self‐efficacy and individual organisational culture distance). Teacher self‐efficacy beliefs and individual distance from the school organisational culture are entered in our analyses to dissociate their role with the one played respectively by collective efficacy and the teams' culture strength at the upper level.</p> <p> <emph>Level‐1 model (individual characteristics)</emph> </p> <p> <emph>Level‐1 model (individual and self‐perceptions characteristics)</emph> </p> <p>The final step of the analyses is the test of mediation hypotheses. Following Baron and Kenny's (1986) recommendations, we entered for each predicted path (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref96">1</reflink>) the independent variable as the only predictor (transformational leadership), (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref97">2</reflink>) mediators as the only predictors (either culture strength or collective efficacy) and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref98">3</reflink>) the independent variable (transformational leadership) and one of the mediators (culture strength or collective efficacy) together. In each analysis, school composition was used as covariate (cov). Finally, a full model integrating both mediators was tested.</p> <p> <emph>Level‐2 model (mediation analyses)</emph> </p> <hd id="AN0080139662-14">4.1.5. Results</hd> <p>A necessary precondition when testing variables at different levels of analysis is that there must be a significant within‐ and between‐groups variance in the outcome variables ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref99">31</reflink>]). Therefore, before testing our hypotheses, we analyzed a null model. The null model partitions the variance into the outcome variable in its within‐school and between‐school components. Its analysis points out that only 5.2% of the total variance in teachers' OC is associated with schools. The between‐schools variance in teacher commitment to school appears to be small, but is highly significant (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref100">52</reflink>) = 88.12; <emph>p</emph> <.001).</p> <p>Next, level‐1 predictors were entered into the analyses following two successive steps. In the first step, we introduce only teachers' characteristics. The results reveal (see Table 3) that age, gender and employment status, but not experience, have a significant impact on OC. Together, these teachers' characteristics explain 3.9% of teacher commitment variance. The effect of a one‐year difference in age is very small (β = 0.02; <emph>p</emph> <.001). If we assume a linear relationship between age and teacher commitment, the level of OC for a teacher five years older would be.10 SD greater than the one for the younger teacher. The results also show that after controlling for their age, work experience and employment status, men are less committed to their school than are women (β = −0.14; <emph>p</emph> <.001). Finally, the multilevel analysis suggests that controlling for age, gender, and experience, teacher employment status influences OC significantly, meaning that teachers who hold a non‐fixed‐term employment contract are more committed to their school than those who hold a fixed‐term employment contract (β = 0.41; <emph>p</emph> <.001). In the second step, teachers' self‐perceptions were added to the model. The results reveal that age and employment status (but not gender) remain significant predictors of teacher commitment. Moreover, the analyses also show that teachers who feel more confident in their ability to help their students learn reported higher OC (β = 0.09; <emph>p</emph> <.05). However, the relationship between self‐efficacy beliefs in discipline management and teacher commitment appears non‐significant (β = 0.06; ns).</p> <p>3. Null model and models with level‐1 control predictors</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th /><th align="center" valign="top">Model 1 Null model</th><th align="center" valign="top">Model 2 Teacher characteristics model</th><th align="center" valign="top">Model 3 Teacher characteristics, self‐efficacy and individual norm model</th></tr><tr><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">FIXED</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Intercept</italic></td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Teacher variables</italic></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.14*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher experience:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐beginning teachers vs. others</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐finishing teachers vs. others</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Employment status:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐temporary vs. definite</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.40***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.35**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐learning</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.08*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Norm distance:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐collaboration</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐innovation</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐performance</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">RANDOM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual variance</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher level</td><td align="center">94.8%</td><td align="center">90.9%</td><td align="center">90%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level</td><td align="center">5.2%</td><td align="center">5.2%</td><td align="center">5.2%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total variance accounted for</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.9%</td><td align="center">4.8%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">χ<sup>2</sup> (dl)</td><td align="center">88.122 (52)***</td><td align="center">87.451 (52)***</td><td align="center">87.178 (52)***</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 Notes. * <.05; ** <.01; *** <.001.</p> <p>Only 4.8% of the variance in OC is accounted for by the linear combination of teachers' gender, age, employment status and self‐efficacy beliefs. Interestingly, these individual variables do not explain between‐schools variance in teachers' OC. The between‐schools variance in teacher commitment remains clearly different from zero (χ<sups>2</sups> = 83.47; <emph>p</emph> <.001), despite the introduction of the main individual predictors suggested in the literature. So in the next steps of our analyses, we introduce school variables (school organisational and body characteristics) in order to try to explain this part of the variance.</p> <p>Importantly for our next analyses, the transformational leadership appears significantly related to the teachers' OC (β = 0.13; <emph>p</emph> <.01). Tables 2 and 4 present the results associated with the test of the first set of hypotheses. Testing the first condition set by [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref101">7</reflink>], hypothesis 1a predicted that transformational leadership would be significantly associated with the level of culture strength within schools. This hypothesis was tested using correlation analyses. Table 2 results confirm that transformational leadership is significantly associated with the level of culture strength within school (r = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> <.05). The next hypotheses are tested using multilevel modeling, with academic composition as covariate. This covariate predicts significantly OC (β = 0.09; <emph>p</emph> <.01). Supporting condition 2 for mediation, the HLM results show that, as predicted by hypothesis 1b, the level of culture strength is significantly and positively related to the teacher OC (β = 0.18; <emph>p</emph> <.01). Finally, to test the mediation hypothesis, principal's transformational leadership and school culture strength were both entered in the same model. Results reveal that hypothesis 1c is also supported. That is, when regressed on teacher OC with transformational leadership, the effect of culture strength is significant (β = 0.16; <emph>p</emph> <.01), whereas the impact of transformational leadership becomes non‐significant (β = 0.07, <emph>ns</emph>). The full model explains 75% of between‐schools variance in teachers' OC. The between‐schools variance in OC is no longer different from zero (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref102">48</reflink>) = 59.18, <emph>ns</emph>).</p> <p>4. First mediation model: cognitive pathway</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Model 4a Teacher variables and TL model</th><th align="center">Model 4b Teacher variables and CS model</th><th align="center">Model 4c Teacher variables, TL and CS model</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">FIXED</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Intercept</italic></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Teacher variables</italic></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher experience:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐entry in career vs. others</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐end of career vs. others</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Employment status:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐temporary vs. definite</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.30*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐learning</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Norm distance:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐collaboration</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐innovation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐performance</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>School variables</italic></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Academic composition</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Transformational</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">leadership</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.18***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.15***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Culture strength</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">RANDOM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual variance</td><td align="center">90%</td><td align="center">90%</td><td align="center">90%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher level</td><td align="center">3.9%</td><td align="center">1.4%</td><td align="center">1.3%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level</td><td align="center">6.1%</td><td align="center">8.6%</td><td align="center">8.7%</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Total variance accounted for</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">χ<sup>2</sup> (dl)</td><td align="center">76.685 (50)**</td><td align="center">61.936 (50)</td><td align="center">59.182 (49)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Notes. * <.05; ** <.01; *** <.001. TL = transformational leadership; CS = culture strength.</p> <p>Tables 2 and 5 present the results for the second set of hypotheses. As shown in Table 2, the first condition for mediation analysis (hypothesis 2a) is met. Transformational leadership is significantly and positively related to teachers' collective efficacy (collective efficacy in learning management: r =.30, <emph>p</emph> <.05; collective efficacy in discipline management: r =.39, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Next, supporting the condition 2 for mediation and hypothesis 2b, the results reveal that both forms of collective efficacy predict significantly OC (collective efficacy in learning management: β =.12, <emph>p</emph> <.01; collective efficacy in discipline management: β =.15; <emph>p</emph> <.01). Finally, to test the mediation hypothesis, principal transformational leadership and teacher collective efficacy were both entered in the same model. Results reveal that hypothesis 2c is also supported. That is, when regressed on teacher OC with transformational leadership, the effects of both forms of collective efficacy are significant (collective efficacy in learning management: β =.11, <emph>p</emph> <.01; collective efficacy in discipline management: β =.14, <emph>p</emph> <.01), whereas the influence of transformational leadership becomes non‐significant (β = 0.03, <emph>ns</emph>). This full model explains 75% of between‐schools variance in teachers' OC, making the between‐schools difference non‐significant (χ<sups>2</sups> (<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref103">48</reflink>) = 55.03, <emph>ns</emph>).</p> <p>5. Second mediation model (motivational pathway) and full model</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Model 5a Teacher variables and TL model</th><th align="center">Model 5b Teacher variables and CE</th><th align="center">Model 5c Teacher variables, TL and CE</th><th align="center">Model 6 Teacher variables, TL, CE and CS</th></tr><tr><th align="left" /><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center">Estimate</th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">FIXED</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Intercept</italic></td><td align="char" char=".">−0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.10</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>Teacher variables</italic></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Gender</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td><td align="char" char=".">0.01***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.00</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher experience:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐entry in career vs. others</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.15</td><td align="char" char=".">0.14</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.19</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐end of career vs. others</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.17</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td><td align="char" char=".">0.16</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Employment status:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐temporary vs. definite</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.34**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.13</td><td align="char" char=".">0.31**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Self‐efficacy:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐learning</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.25</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Norm distance:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">‐collaboration</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐innovation</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">−0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐performance</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.046</td><td align="char" char=".">0.06</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left"><italic>School variables</italic></td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Academic composition</td><td align="char" char=".">0.18**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.08**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td><td align="char" char=".">0.083**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.027</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Transformational leadership</td><td align="char" char=".">0.12***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.036</td><td align="char" char=".">0.042</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Collective efficacy:</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.12***</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.112**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.032</td><td align="char" char=".">0.07*</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐learning</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.15**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.03</td><td align="char" char=".">0.144**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.042</td><td align="char" char=".">0.11**</td><td align="char" char=".">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">‐discipline</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="char" char=".">0.08</td><td align="char" char=".">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Culture strength</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">RANDOM</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Residual variance</td><td align="center">90%</td><td align="center">90%</td><td align="center">90%</td><td align="center">90%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Teacher level</td><td align="center">3.9%</td><td align="center">1.3%</td><td align="center">1.3%</td><td align="center">0.9%</td></tr><tr><td align="left">School level</td><td align="center">6.1%</td><td align="center">8.7%</td><td align="center">8.7%</td><td align="center">9.1%</td></tr><tr><td /></tr><tr><td align="left">Total variance accounted for</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">χ<sup>2</sup> (dl)</td><td align="center">76.685 (50)**</td><td align="center">55.559 (49)</td><td align="center">55.031 (48)</td><td align="center">52.247 (47)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 Notes. * <.05; ** <.01; *** <.001. TL = transformational leadership; CS = culture strength; CE = collective efficacy.</p> <p>Finally, in model 6, our results show that the impact of the culture strength on teacher commitment to their school becomes itself non‐significant (β = 0.08, <emph>ns</emph>) when both mediators are entered simultaneously into the prediction model, suggesting that the effect of culture strength on teacher OC could be mediated by the level of teacher collective efficacy or is due to its association with collective efficacy. The relationship between the level of culture strength and the level of collective efficacy appears to be strong, even when controlling for the level of transformational leadership behaviors (partial r =.56 between culture strength and collective efficacy in learning management; partial r =.31 between culture strength and collective efficacy in discipline management).</p> <hd id="AN0080139662-15">4.2. Discussion and conclusion</hd> <p>The main objective of this study was to better understand the processes through which transformational leadership behaviors influence teacher OC. Following Chan's (1998) additive composition models, transformational leadership was considered as a group‐level construct. Using a multilevel framework, we proposed that the impact of a principal's transformational leadership is fully mediated by the level of culture strength (cognitive pathway) and the level of collective efficacy (motivational pathway).</p> <p>Since the seminal research of [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref104">49</reflink>], few studies have examined the processes through which leadership behaviors affect work‐related outcomes within a multilevel framework, and none in the educational field. Only Walumbwa and colleagues (2008) showed that procedural justice climate perceptions and strength completely mediated the relationships between contingent reward leader behavior and followers' levels of organisational commitment, while Avolio <emph>et al</emph>.'s (2004) study suggested that psychological empowerment, considered as a group‐level construct, mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and OC. Otherwise, the mediating role of collective efficacy and climate strength was previously tested either at the individual ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref105">48</reflink>]) or at the organisational level ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref106">62</reflink>]).</p> <p>Our results show that the proportion of variance in organisational commitment at school level is less than that reported in other organisational settings. Using a sample of bank employees, [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref107">63</reflink>] found, for instance, that 20% of the variance in variables like OC and satisfaction with supervisor lies between departments. Our result may be explained by specific characteristics of the schools which are depicted as loosely coupled systems ([<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref108">65</reflink>]). This characteristic of schools remains particularly relevant in the case of the Belgian educational system, where audit regimes, performance targeting and monitoring through inspection are not highly developed modes of regulation. In such a system, it could be that the nature of the psychological bond between the teachers is not necessarily constructed at the school level but could be anchored at micro levels (e.g. grade, subject matter, informal group, etc.). This small school effect questions the relevance of policies targeting schools as the level of intervention to mobilize teachers in order to improve teaching and learning ([<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref109">55</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref110">29</reflink>]). However, the portion of variance in teacher OC lying between schools is comparable to the portion of variance accounted for by teacher individual characteristics and perceptions largely studied in the literature (about 5%). Moreover, between‐schools differences are independent of these individual variables. Nevertheless, other variables than those measured in this study need to be considered to account for a larger portion of variance in teacher OC. Particular attention could be paid to factors external to the organisations potentially related to teacher OC, such as perceived accountability ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref111">53</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref112">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Results for the individual predictors indicate a very small positive effect of age on teacher OC, a small effect of gender in favor of women, a small positive effect of self‐efficacy for students' learning, and a moderate positive effect of non‐fixed‐term contract. Concerning this last result, it should be noted that in the French‐speaking Belgian system, it is very easy for beginning teachers to move from one school to another, but school change becomes more complicated once teachers get a permanent contract. More important for the focus of this article, results at the school level show a small positive effect of transformational leadership on teacher OC and a very small positive effect of academic composition. The small contextual effect of the principal's leadership raises questions about what is measured by individual perception of this leadership. However, results also contribute to elucidate the paths through which the principal's transformational leadership influences teacher OC. First, they show that the influence of the principal's transformational leadership is mediated by the level of culture strength within schools. This last result extends the results on climate or culture strength which are mostly studied as a moderator of the relationship between different organisational behaviours (climate content) or processes (leadership behaviors) and some work‐related outcomes (OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction). It also sheds light on the cognitive mechanisms associated with the impact of the transformational leadership, while most research concentrates on the motivational pathways through which transformational leadership behaviors may affect work‐related outcomes. It confirms the need to investigate the effects of leadership on both affects and cognitions ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref113">41</reflink>]) as possible interconnected mechanisms underlying the impact of leadership behaviors on workers' motivation and performance. Second, the influence of the principal's transformational leadership on OC appears to be fully mediated by the level of collective efficacy. This result confirms those of earlier studies ([<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref114">62</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref115">56</reflink>]) computed at the organisational level only, and extends them in a multilevel framework. The effect size (.1 < β <.2) associated with the impact of both mediators on OC appears to be smaller than most of the effect sizes typically reported in the organisational literature (.1 < β <.4). However, given that only a few multilevel studies are available, it is impossible at this stage to know whether the smaller effect size reported in our study is due to the multilevel setting applied to the data or to the specificity of the organisational setting in which we tested our hypotheses (i.e. Belgian schools).</p> <p>Interestingly, our results also suggest that the cognitive and motivational pathways are interconnected. It seems that the more schools are characterized by culture strength, the more teachers feel they can, as a team, enhance students' learning. This last result confirms those of [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref116">40</reflink>], who found that group cohesion and the strength of a group's norms are positively related to general group‐level efficacy beliefs. But it also extends the hypotheses set by [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref117">25</reflink>] about the relationship between teams' cohesion, collective efficacy and actual performance. For these authors, the effect of team cohesion on collective efficacy is moderated by the level of task interdependence. This means that the level of team cohesion is specifically important in organisations or teams characterized by a high level of task interdependence. Contradicting this hypothesis, our results suggest that the level of culture strength can be a key mediator of the transformational leadership behaviors' impact on teacher OC in schools, while the studied schools are rather characterized by a very low level of task interdependence. Doing it, they question the moderator role of task interdependence and extend the hypothesis of a relationship between team cohesion and collective efficacy to organisations in which the coordination process is implicit ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref118">52</reflink>]).</p> <p>The results of our study are obviously limited in several ways. The correlation design used in this research does not give any information about the causal ordering of the relationships between the principal's transformational leadership, culture strength, collective efficacy and teachers' OC. We suggest further studies either to use a longitudinal design (see, for instance, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref119">11</reflink>]) or to manipulate the transformational leadership behaviors (see, for instance, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref120">6</reflink>]) to evaluate the causal impact of the transformational leadership behaviors on the proposed mediators and on the dependent variable. Moreover, because part of our data came from the same individuals and involved perceptual data (teachers provided ratings of their perceptions of the principal's transformational leadership, school culture and collective self‐efficacy), there is a risk of common‐source bias. A common‐source bias refers to the fact that the correlation between the variables is potentially amplified when the same people answer the questions measuring the different constructs. However, the likelihood that the common‐source bias explains our pattern of results is limited in several ways. First, by averaging teachers' evaluations of the leadership behaviors and collective efficacy beliefs, and calculating indexes of culture strength, we reduced common‐source bias. Second, following Podsakoff <emph>et al</emph>.'s (2003) recommendations, we used Harman's (1967, cited in [50]) single‐factor statistical procedure to address this problem. A principal components analysis applied on the different items constituting the predicting scales of our model (transformational leadership, both scales of collective efficacy and OC) reveals the presence of four factors, suggesting again that common method/source was not a serious problem in this study. Nonetheless, future studies should look at further separating these measures, either through time or through the use of separate subsamples. We also recommend the use of behavioural measures or proxies like the employees' intention to quit their organisation. Moreover, our examination of the cognitive mechanisms underlying the impact of the transformational leadership behaviors is limited to an 'individual' approach of the collective cognition (see [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref121">41</reflink>]). We suggest that further explorations of cognitive mediators integrate a collective definition and operationalization of the collective cognition, and highlight the important role of team mental representations and learning processes. We encourage particularly researchers to better understand the role of these cognitive processes in relation with the intellectual stimulation component of the transformational leadership model. We can indeed suggest that the socio‐cognitive conflicts and framing processes associated with the intellectual stimulation produced by leaders are important mechanisms in the emergence and the reinforcement of groups' norms and collective mental representations. Finally, comparative studies aimed at explaining the variations in the strength of the associations between predictors of OC in different professional fields or educational systems could be very useful to better understand the psychological and organizational processes leading to OC.</p> <ref id="AN0080139662-16"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref68" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Allen N.J. Meyer J.P. The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization Journal of Occupational Psychology 1990 63 1 – 18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Allen N.J. Meyer J.P. Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization: an examination of construct validity Journal of Vocational Behavior 1996 49 252 – 276</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref67" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Avolio B.J. Zhu W. Koh W. Bhatia P. Transformational leadership and organizational commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of structural distance Journal of Organizational Behavior 2004 25 8 951 – 968</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref72" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bales R.F. Some uniformities of behaviour in small social systems Reading in social psychology Swanson G.E. Newcombe T. Hartley E.L. Holt, Rinehart & Winston New York 1952 321 – 323</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref58" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura A. Self‐efficacy: the exercise of control Freeman New York 1997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref69" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barling J. Weber T. Kelloway E.K. Effects of transformational leadership training on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment Journal of Applied Psychology 1996 81 827 – 832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref101" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Baron R.M. Kenny D.A. The moderator—mediator variable distinction in social psychology research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986 51 1173 – 1182</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref16" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bass B.M. Avolio B.J. Full range leadership development: manual for the MLQ Mind Garden Palo Alto, CA 1997</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref3" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bentein K. Vandenberg R. Vandenberghe C. Stinglhamber F. The role of change in the relationship between commitment and turnover: a latent growth modeling approach Journal of Applied Psychology 2005 90 3 468 – 482</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bogler R. Somech A. Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers' organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools Teaching and Teacher Education 2004 20 277 – 289</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bommer W. Rich G. Rubin R. Changing attitudes about change: the effects of transformational leadership on employee cynicism about organizational change Journal of Organizational Behavior 2005 26 733 – 753</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borman G.D. Dowling N.M. Teacher attrition and retention: a meta‐analytic and narrative review of the research Review of Educational Research 2008 78 3 367 – 409</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown R.B. Organizational commitment: clarifying the concept and simplifying the existing construct typology Journal of Vocational Behavior 1996 49 230 – 251</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryk A.S. Raudenbush S.W. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods Sage London 1992</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Caprara G.V. Barbaranelli C. Borgogni L. Steca P. Efficacy beliefs as determinants of teachers' job satisfaction Journal of Educational Psychology 2003 95 4 821 – 832</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan D. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different levels of analysis: a typology of composition models Journal of Applied Psychology 1998 83 2 234 – 246</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chan W.Y. Lau S. Nie Y. Lim S. Hogan D. Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: the mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with school American Educational Research Journal 2008 45 3 597 – 630</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Coladarci T. Teachers' sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching Experimental Education 1992 60 4 323 – 337</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dee J.R. Henkin A.B. Singleton C.A. Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools: examining the effects of team structures Urban Education 2006 41 6 603 – 627</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Demir K. Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: the moderating role of collaborative culture and teachers' self‐efficacy Eurasian Journal of Educational Research 2008 8 3 93 – 112</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dumay X. Antecedants and consequences of schools' culture for student achievement Educational Administration Quarterly 2009 45 4 523 – 555</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dussault M. Payette D. Leroux M. Principals' transformational leadership and teachers' collective efficacy Psychological Reports 2008 102 2 401 – 410</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Firestone W.A. Pennell J.R. Commitment, working conditions and differential incentive policies Review of Educational Research 1993 63 4 489 – 525</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fresko B. Kfir D. Nasser F. Predicting teacher commitment Teaching and Teacher Education 1997 13 4 429 – 438</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galand B. Lecocq C. Philippot P. School violence and teacher professional disengagement British Journal of Educational Psychology 2007 77 465 – 477</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gibson C.B. Earley P.C. Collective cognition in action: accumulation, interaction, examination and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs in the workplace Academy of Management Review 2007 32 2 438 – 458</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goddard R.D. Hoy W.K. Hoy A.W. Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure and impact on student achievement American Educational Research Journal 2000 37 2 479 – 507</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gonzalez‐Roma V. Peiro J.M. Tordera N. An examination of the antecedents and moderator influences of climate strength Journal of Applied Psychology 2002 87 465 – 473</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guarino M.G. Santibanez L. Daley G.A. Teacher recruitment and retention: a review of the recent empirical literature Review of Educational Research 2006 76 2 173 – 208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hargreaves D.H. School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement School Effectiveness & School Improvement 1995 6 23 – 46</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hox J. Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications Lawrence Erlbaum Mahwah, NJ 2002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang S.L. Waxman H.C. The association of school environment to student teachers' satisfaction and teaching commitment Teaching and Teacher Education 2009 25 235 – 243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ingersoll R.M. Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis American Educational Research Journal 2001 38 3 499 – 534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> James L.R. Demaree R.G. Wolf G. Estimating within‐group reliability with and without response bias Journal of Applied Psychology 1984 69 85 – 98</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Judge T.A. Piccolo R.F. Ilies R. The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration and initiating structure in leadership research Journal of Applied Psychology 2004 89 36 – 51</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kidwell R. Mossholder K. Bennett N. Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals Journal of Management 1997 23 6 775 – 793</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirby S. Girssmer D. Hudson L. Sources of teacher supply: some new evidence from Indiana Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 1991 11 3 256 – 268</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Koh W.L. Steers R.M. Terborg J.R. The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore Journal of Organizational Behavior 1995 16 4 319 – 333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lanivich S.E. Brees J.R. Hochwarter W.A. Ferris G.R. P‐E fit as moderator of the accountability—employee reactions relationships: convergent results over two samples Journal of Vocational Behavior 2010 77 3 425 – 436</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee C. Tinsley C.H. Bobko P. An investigation of the antecedents and consequences of group‐level confidence Journal of Applied Psychology 2002 32 1 – 26</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lord R.G. Emrich C.G. Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box extending the cognitive revolution in leadership theory Leadership Quarterly 2000 11 4 551 – 579</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Luria D. Climate strength: how leaders form consensus? Leadership Quarterly 2008 19 42 – 53</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ma X. MacMillan R.B. Influence of workplace conditions on teachers' job satisfaction Journal of Educational Research 2001 93 1 39 – 47</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marks H.M. Louis K.S. Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools American Journal of Education 1997 107 4 532 – 575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meyer J.P. Becker T.E. Vandenberghe C. Employee commitment and motivation: a conceptual and integrative model Journal of Applied Psychology 2004 89 6 991 – 1007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mowday R. T. Porter L.W. Steers R.M. Employee—organization linkages: the psychology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover Academic Press New York 1982</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mowday R.T. Steers R.M. Porter L.W. The measurement of organizational commitment Journal of Vocational Behavior 1979 14 224 – 247</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pillai R. Williams E.A. Transformational leadership, self‐efficacy, group cohesiveness, commitment and performance Journal of Organizational Change Management 2004 17 2 144 – 159</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff P.M. Mackenzie S. Bommer W. Transformational leader behaviors and substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and organizational citizenship behaviors Journal of Management 1996 22 2 259 – 298</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Podsakoff P.M. MacKenzie S.C. Lee J. Podsakoff N.P. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the empirical and theoretical literature and suggestions for future research Journal of Applied Psychology 2003 88 879 – 903</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reyes P. Individual work orientation and teacher outcomes Journal of Educational Research 1990 83 6 327 – 335</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rico R. Sanchez‐Manzanares M. Gil F. Gibson C. Team implicit coordination process: a team knowledge‐based approach Academy of Management Review 2008 33 1 163 – 184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riketta M. Landerer A. Organizational commitment, accountability, and work behaviour: a correlational study Social Behavior and Personality 2002 30 7 653 – 660</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenholtz S.J. Effective schools: interpreting the evidence American Journal of Education 1985 93 352 – 387</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenholtz S.J. Conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: implications for teacher induction programs The Elementary School Journal 1989 89 4 421 – 439</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ross J.A. Gray P. Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy School Effectiveness & School Improvement 2006 17 2 179 – 199</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanders K. Dorenbosch L. de Reuver R. The impact of individual and shared employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment Personnel Review 2008 37 4 412 – 425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tschannen‐Moran M. Woofolk‐Hoy A. Hoy W.K. Efficacy: its meaning and measure Review of Educational Research 2001 68 2 202 – 248</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Useem E.L. Christman J.B. Gold E. Simon E. Reforming alone: barriers to organizational learning in urban school change initiatives Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 1997 2 55 – 78</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vancouver J.B. Millsap R.E. Peters P.A. Multilevel analysis of organizational goal congruence Journal of Applied Psychology 1994 79 5 666 – 679</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vanlede M. Bourgeois E. Galand B. Philippot P. Sources of academic self‐efficacy‐beliefs: the role of the specificity level of autobiographical memories about academic performance Cahier de Recherche en Education et Formation 2009 67 4 – 11</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walumbwa F.O. Wang P. Lawler J.J. Shi K. The role of collective efficacy in relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 2004 77 515 – 530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Walumbwa F.O. Wu C. Orwa B. Contingent reward transactional leadership, work attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of procedural justice climate perceptions and strength Leadership Quarterly 2008 19 251 – 265</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ware H. Kitsantas A. Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment Journal of Educational Research 2007 100 303 – 310</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weick K.E. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems Administrative Science Quarterly 1976 21 1 1 – 19</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zohar D. Luria G. Climate as a social‐cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns Journal of Applied Psychology 2004 89 2 322 – 333</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zohar D. Tenne‐Gazit O. Transformational leadership and group interaction as climate antecedents: a social network analysis Journal of Applied Psychology 2008 93 744 – 757</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Xavier Dumay and Benoît Galand</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref63"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref119"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ979862
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Multilevel Impact of Transformational Leadership on Teacher Commitment: Cognitive and Motivational Pathways
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dumay%2C+Xavier%22">Dumay, Xavier</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Galand%2C+Benoit%22">Galand, Benoit</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22British+Educational+Research+Journal%22"><i>British Educational Research Journal</i></searchLink>. 2012 38(5):703-729.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 27
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Secondary+Education%22">Elementary Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Motivation%22">Teacher Motivation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Principals%22">Principals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Culture%22">School Culture</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Transformational+Leadership%22">Transformational Leadership</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Statistical+Analysis%22">Statistical Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Organizational+Climate%22">Organizational Climate</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Environment%22">Work Environment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Persistence%22">Teacher Persistence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hierarchical+Linear+Modeling%22">Hierarchical Linear Modeling</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22French%22">French</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Belgium%22">Belgium</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/01411926.2011.577889
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0141-1926
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: A growing body of research indicates that transformational leadership affects teachers' commitment to their school. The present study aims to investigate the processes explaining this effect at the organisational level. Using a sample of 660 teachers within 50 primary French-speaking Belgian schools, the authors test a model hypothesising that the impact of the school principal's transformational leadership (as an organisational-level construct) on teacher commitment to school is mediated by school culture strength (cognitive pathway) and teacher collective efficacy beliefs (motivational pathway). Results of multilevel analyses largely support the theoretical model, but show that schools have a limited impact on teacher commitment. (Contains 5 tables and 1 figure.)
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 67
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2012
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ979862
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ979862
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/01411926.2011.577889
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 27
        StartPage: 703
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Principals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Culture
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Transformational Leadership
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Organizational Climate
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Environment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Persistence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hierarchical Linear Modeling
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: French
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Belgium
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Multilevel Impact of Transformational Leadership on Teacher Commitment: Cognitive and Motivational Pathways
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dumay, Xavier
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Galand, Benoit
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2012
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0141-1926
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 38
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: British Educational Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1