The relationships between school autonomy gap,principal leadership,teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, school climate, teacher psychological factors, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment under the context of school autonomy reform. A path model has been developed to define the relationships between principal leadership and teachers’ outcomes via mediating variables. Multiple-group comparison was used to explore the effect of school autonomy gap in this process. We collected the data through a survey carried out in 26 senior secondary schools in China. In total 528 teachers and 59 principals and assistant principals participated. The results suggest a significant influence of instructional and transformational leadership on teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment, mediated by the indirect impact of school climate and teachers’ self-efficacy. School autonomy gap, which is closely related to principal leadership, emerged as an important influence in the path model.

Keywords

School autonomy principal leadership job satisfaction organizational commitment

Introduction

School autonomy has become a hot topic in the context of educational reforms. As “the way of future”, greater autonomy has been introduced in educational systems globally (Keddie, 2015). Policy makers consider school autonomy a strategy to ensure school accountability, increase student achievement and parental involvement, and improve school effectiveness (Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003). School autonomy is also linked with school climate, teachers’ job satisfaction and teachers’ organizational commitment. From an organizational development perspective, increased school autonomy is believed to enhance an individual’s sense of ownership (Bogler and Somech, 2005), reduce uncertainty from the environment (Riehl and Sipple, 1996), provide the opportunity to make a contribution to the organization (Firestone and Pennell, 1993), and consequently improve teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Leithwood and Menzies, 1998b).

In a school autonomy context, the role of the principal becomes larger. Some authors explicitly state that strong leadership is even a key prerequisite for a successful school autonomy reform (Briggs and Wohlstetter, 2003). However, we know little about whether principals think they have enough autonomy and how this can influence their leadership practices. Recent research has observed a salient autonomy gap between the level of autonomy the principals perceived and the level they preferred. Moreover, the amount of school autonomy can influence the way the school leaders restructure their school and implement the policy. In turn, this can result in varying teacher outcomes (Adamowski et al., 2007; Adamson, 2012). However, large-scale quantitative studies about this issue are missing in the literature.

This study aims to examine the critical role of autonomy gap and principal leadership, school climate and teachers’ psychological factors on two teacher outcomes: job satisfaction and organizational commitment. We hypothesize that the impact of leadership on teacher outcomes will be mediated by school climate and teachers’ psychological factors.

School autonomy gap reported by principals: the gap between perceived autonomy and preferred autonomy

From a theoretical point of view, research has argued that school autonomy leads to more effective resource allocation, a strong professional culture and increased staff commitment and job satisfaction (Wohlstetter and Chau, 2004). However, empirical evidence presents a mixed picture of the expected positive outcomes. In addition, available evidence is less clear as to the paths by which these effects are achieved (Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Leithwood and Menzies, 1998a). Based on their analysis of studies about organizational autonomy, Verhoest and his colleagues (2004) pointed out that different conceptions and measures of autonomy used in these studies can explain the mixed results. For example, the emphasis on different facets of autonomy (e.g. managerial or financial autonomy), different data collection methods (e.g. document analysis versus studying perceptions of actors) and varying analysis techniques (e.g., qualitative case comparison or autonomy indexes) help to explain variation in research results (Verhoest et al., 2004).

This introduces a key question: which definition and measure of autonomy should be used? Earlier theoretical research described autonomy as a formal-legal status by distinguishing how much decision-making power, authority, responsibility and tasks have been transferred from the upper level to the local site. For example, Hanson (1998) defined three types of educational decentralization: decentralization, delegation and devolution. Decentralization typically only involves the transfer of task and work. Delegation refers to transfers of decision-making authority, which is withdrawable. Devolution refers to transfer of authority to an autonomous unit which can act independently without permission from the center (Hanson, 1998). Certain international studies also used categorical degrees of school autonomy (e.g. Eurydice, 2007; OECD, 2005).

Some empirical studies increasingly observe that individual local policy implementation may lead to quite different results. This is often related to differences observed between the objective legal-formal status of school autonomy and a school leaders’ actual experienced autonomy. Verhoest’s research about organizational autonomy reports about a substantial level of heterogeneity in autonomy among organizations with the same legal-formal status, owing to their different decision-making competencies (Verhoest et al., 2004). In other words, school leaders’ subjective perceptions of a comparable legal-formal status of autonomy can be different. For example, Adamowski and his colleagues (2007) interviewed 30 principals and found that principals with greater longevity in their school districts felt a sense of de facto autonomy, because their long-standing experience allowed them to have a greater say (Adamowski et al., 2007). Some theories help to explain differences in school leaders’ perceptions toward autonomy among schools. For example, Simon’s Bounded Rationality theory states school leaders’ rational decisions are constrained owing to given conditions (Simon, 1972), such as given goals, available information and their own capacities (Bass and Bass, 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1990). In addition, school leaders’ self-image, job priorities and leadership role shape their perceptions and resulting behavior. Devos and Bouckenooghe (2009) conducted an exploratory study about school leaders’ conceptions about their role as school leaders and identified different school leader profiles. They found that on the one hand “people-minded” principals gave priority to their task as an educational leader, devoting sufficient time to the development of an educational school policy and to invest in communication and consultation with teachers and students. On the other hand, “administrative-minded” principals devoted most of their time to administration and to the execution of central regulations of educational policy makers. School leaders’ perceptions towards school autonomy are bounded by their rationality and are related to their self-image. Therefore, school leaders’ perception of school autonomy can vary between schools with the same formal-legal status. In addition, this can lead to a different influence on school outcomes.

More recently, research has moved further ahead in understanding school leaders’ perceptions about school autonomy by distinguishing two close, yet different perspectives (Adamowski et al., 2007; Adamson, 2012): (1) the amount of autonomy principals think they possess, versus (2) the amount of autonomy they think is needed to successfully implement a reform. The distance in between reflects an autonomy gap, which integrates both perspectives – the governmental arrangements versus school demand – and reflects real demands of decision-making power stated by principals. Instead of assuming that abundant autonomy will definitely be welcomed at the local level, school autonomy gap reflects principals’ attitudes towards the autonomy, allowing a deeper understanding of how principal leadership and perceptions work together to influence organizational outcomes. For example, if autonomy policy arrangements do not fit local conditions and demands, a high level of autonomy can be a burden for schools rather than a blessing. In Adamowski’s research, researchers found most interviewed public school principals were satisfied with the autonomy granted because they accept their job as it is. Instead of trying to change the system, they learned to work within the system without asking for further autonomy (Adamowski et al., 2007). By revealing the gap, the present research introduces a new perspective to explain the heterogeneous results of autonomy reforms.

The above literature review indicates that without considering school leaders’ needs, adopting either an objective formal-legal status or a solely perceived autonomy perspective might result in a biased picture. Our aim is not to judge whether the autonomy devolved to schools is “limited” or “too much”. Rather, we try to describe the gap between the actual provision of school autonomy and the demand for school autonomy of school leaders, and explore its effects on the way principals influence organizational outcomes. Although some research has noted the importance of this new concept, to our knowledge, no large-scale quantitative research has been set up by taking school autonomy gap as a key variable in the research design. In the present study, we assume school autonomy gap is closely related to leadership and influences the school organization in a substantial but indirect way. Different levels of school autonomy gap will be identified and linked to the research variables and particular interrelationships.

Principal leadership

Previous literature has identified a strong relationship between principal leadership and teacher performance and attitudes (Bogler, 2001; Koh et al., 1995). Principal leadership has been regarded as an important antecedence of teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Hallinger, 2003; Nguni et al., 2006). Instructional and transformational leadership have been identified as two main types of educational leadership in previous literature (Hallinger, 2003; Shatzer et al., 2013). Instructional leadership focuses on improving the classroom practices of teachers. The existing research has demonstrated that principals as instructional leaders help teachers in their professional development, and consequently enhance their commitment, professional involvement and innovation (Sheppard, 1996). Blase and Blase (1999) also found principals’ instructional suggestions strongly enhanced teacher’s feelings of support and satisfaction. Transformational leadership draws attention to a wider range of conditions that may need to be changed if learning is to improve (Geijsel et al., 2003). Leithwood and his colleagues have indicated that principals with strong transformational leadership provide support for individual teachers, foster cooperation, and assist them to work together. Therefore, it affects teachers’ school commitment (Geijsel et al., 2003). Bogler (2001) has pointed out that transformational leadership behavior, including paying personal attention to the needs and interests of the teachers and raising teachers’ expectations and motivation, can improve teachers’ perception of their occupation.

Although instructional and transformational leadership are often considered to be alternative strategies, they are de facto complementary approaches (Louis et al., 2010). An integrated leadership perspective has been increasingly suggested in this field, indicating that both instructional and transformational leadership should be taken into account (Bush, 2014; Printy et al., 2009). Thus, the present study will combine both instructional and transformational leadership as substantial variables influencing teacher outcomes.

School climate

Though researchers have confirmed the significant influence of the principal on organizational outcomes, a large body of studies have stressed the mediating function of organizational culture and climate (Krüger et al., 2007; McCarley et al., 2016). Previous research argues that school climate has a direct influence on teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction, and also serves as a mediating variable in the effects of principal leadership on teacher outcomes (Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Hoy and Hannum, 1997; Lok and Crawford, 2004). Although school climate is a broad term that refers to school members’ shared perceptions of the school environment (Hoy et al., 1990), three dimensions have been identified as important characteristics of an effective school climate: formal collaboration, decision-making participation and innovation. Antecedent studies have pointed out that teachers who reveiceve more assistance and encouragement from fellow teachers, participate more in school decision-making and adapt an open attitude toward innovation tend to have a higher sense of satisfaction and trust in the organization (Hulpia et al., 2009; Louis and Smith, 1991; Somech and Bogler, 2002).

Teachers’ psychological factors

Bandura’s social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1977) and Deci and Ryan’s self-determinant theory (Deci and Ryan, 1985) serve to establish the paths between important teachers’ psychological factors and their organizational outcomes.

According to Bandura (1977), self-efficacy, defined as “people’s judgments of their capabilities to organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”, is one of the most important constructs mediating between human learning and behavior. Bandura’s research confirmed that people who see themselves as efficacious are more willing to take risks, be creative and be involved in activities. Abundant research is available showing that teachers with a high sense of self-efficacy tend to be more creative, humanistic and less critical towards students (Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001; Tschannen-Moran, 1998; Woolfolk et al., 1990). The level of teacher self-efficacy is also closely related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Caprara et al., 2006; Judge and Bono, 2001; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010).

Though abundant research has demonstrated teachers’ self-efficacy is strongly related with work outcomes, some researchers further claim this feeling of competence will only enhance intrinsic motivation unless accompanied by another critical psychological factor – a sense of autonomy (Ryan and Deci, 2000b). Ryan and Deci’s self-determinant theory hypothesizes that people do not only experience self-efficacy but also experience their behavior to be self-determined when intrinsic motivation is maintained or improved (Ryan and Deci, 2000a). As they suggest, autonomy is central in understanding the content and the process of motivation and goal pursuits. Higher motivation, consequently, will lead to desired outcomes and goals. Most previous studies confirm the positive relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher outcomes (Crocco and Costigan, 2007; Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2010). For example, Rosenholtz and Simpson’s research (1990) examined the effects of workplace conditions and teachers’ commitment and found that task autonomy is one of the highest correlates of teachers’ commitment. Similarly, Perie and Baker (1997) identified workplace-related factors associated with satisfaction and found a profound influence of autonomy on teachers’ job satisfaction. In addition, Crocco and Costigan’s recent research indicated that teachers’ desire for autonomy was strongly related to their desire to do good work (Crocco and Costigan, 2007).

Teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment

Among key indicators of school organizational outcomes, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment have been considered crucial (Leithwood and Menzies, 1998a). Job satisfaction is the emotional state resulting from perceiving one’s job as fulfilling or allowing the fulfilment of one’s job values (Locke, 1976). Teachers’ job satisfaction, independently or in interaction with other factors, has a variety of consequences on both teacher attitudes and teacher behavior (Beck and Murphy, 1998; Dee et al., 2006; Fullan and Watson, 2000).

Teachers’ organizational commitment represents their psychological bond to their school. Previous research regarded organizational commitment as an important organizational outcome, and as a critical determinant of school effectiveness and improvement (Dee et al., 2006; Firestone and Pennell, 1993; Fullan and Watson, 2000). Kushman (1992), for example, detected a significant relationship between teachers’ commitment and students’ reading achievement; later confirmed by Rosenholtz (1989). Allen and Meyer (1990) described three components of organizational commitment: affective, continuance, and normative. Among the three components, affective commitment – which refers to the emotional attachment to the organization individuals identify with, want to be involved in, and enjoy membership of – has been found to have a strong relationship with teacher performance (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Meyer et al., 1989; Ware and Kitsantas, 2007). Thus the present study will solely focus on affective commitment.

The Chinese educational context

This study is situated in Chinese higher secondary education. Traditionally known as a centralized system, Chinese schools are tightly regulated and mainly financed by the government. Over the past three decades, the educational decentralization reform and the “principal responsibility system” have authorized principals more autonomy regarding personnel management, finance management, student enrollment, and other school affairs (Ngok, 2007; Zhu et al., 2014). In addition, the “New Curriculum Reform” defined another critical change in the agenda of China’s educational reform around the year 2000. The new curriculum reform attempts to cultivate students’ general abilities including creativity, problem-solving skills and life-long learning, which is in clear contrast to the prevailing exam-oriented system (Liu and Dunne, 2009). In the past decades, schools have received a relative level of autonomy to set up school-designed courses. However, the practice of autonomy in school management is limited by a number of other factors (Zhu et al., 2014). For example, principals feel shackled by constraints originating from the government and/or market mechanisms outside school (Feng, 2002). As such, compared to the school principals in most western countries, the level of full decision making of Chinese principals is more constrained (Zhu et al., 2014).

Research framework

This study examines the relationship between the school autonomy gap, principal leadership, school climate, teacher psychological factors, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment under the context of school autonomy reform in China. The analysis proceeds in two steps. First we examine the relationship between principal leadership, school climate, teacher psychological factors, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment through a path model (see Figure 1). Secondly, we examine the relationship between school autonomy gap and other variables by contrasting different path models considering different levels in school autonomy gap.

Figure 1.

Hypothesized research model of the relations between principal leadership, school climate, teachers’ self-efficacy, teacher autonomy, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Method

Participants

Data were collected from 26 senior secondary schools within seven cities in China: Beijing, Zibo, Dali, Harbin, Weifang, Hefei and Guangzhou. The vast geographic distribution allows us to depict a sufficiently comprehensive picture of school autonomy reform implementation in China. Both cluster sampling and convenience sampling were used. The main purpose of deploying cluster sampling was to include both schools in the developed coastal cities (e.g. Beijing and Guangzhou) and less developed cities (e.g. Dali). Schools in the sample vary in background characteristics, such as size (ranging from 680 students to 5900 students), size of teaching staff (ranging from 70 to 545) and number of teachers with a Master’s degree (ranging from 0 to 230). In each school, we invited two or three principals/assistant-principals and 20 teachers to participate in the survey. In total, 48 principal questionnaires, with a response rate of 81%, and 472 teacher questionnaires, with a response rate of 91%, were returned. School leaders in the sample varied in age (ranging from 36 years to 58 years), years of experience as principal (ranging from 1 year to 27 years) and years working as principal in the current school (ranging from 1 year to 12 years). Teachers in the sample varied in age (ranging from 21 years to 60 years), years of experience (ranging from 1 year to 35 years) and years working in the current school (ranging from 1 year to 30 years).

Research instruments

We applied a school leader questionnaire and a teacher questionnaire. The school leader questionnaire focused on determining the level of school autonomy gap. It was defined as a set of preference-related judgments by principals and assistant-principals with regard to the distance between the perceived and the preferred school autonomy in several policy domains, namely funding (raise and use), vision, curriculum, student enrolment and personnel management (hiring, evaluating, salary and firing). The resulting scale “perceived autonomy” had nine items. School leaders were asked to rate the amount of autonomy they had in each policy domain on a five-point Likert scale (e.g. “According to THE REALITY, how much autonomy does the school ACTUALLY have in personnel hiring? 1 = not autonomous at all; 5 = very autonomous”). With a similar structure, the scale “preferred autonomy” required principals’ preferred amount of autonomy in each domain (e.g. “According to YOUR PREFERENCE, how much autonomy do you WISH the school to have in personnel hiring? 1 = not autonomous at all; 5 = very autonomous”). In brief, the school autonomy gap was equal to the principals’ preferred autonomy minus their perceived autonomy.

The teacher questionnaire consisted of 73 items rated on five-point Likert scales with seven variables: principals’ transformational and instructional leadership, school climate (formal collaboration, participation and innovation), teachers’ self-efficacy, teacher autonomy, teachers’ job satisfaction and teachers’ organizational commitment. These concepts were operationalized and measured using existing scales (Aelterman et al., 2002; Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Hulpia et al., 2009; Leithwood and Jantzi, 1999; Louis et al., 2010; Maslowski, 2001; Pearson and Hall, 1993; Staessens, 1990). We carefully translated English items and adjusted them to the Chinese context.

Analysis approach

For the school autonomy gap, firstly, we checked the means and standard deviations for the different policy domains in SPSS version 20.0. Secondly, we calculated the mean of the distance between the perceived and the preferred autonomy in each of the remaining policy domains to determine the perceived autonomy gap of each school leader. Next, the mean of autonomy gap of all school leaders of each school was calculated, representing school leaders’ collective perception of autonomy gap. The autonomy gap scores were only used to place the schools into categories but not in the data analysis (Edwards, 1994). We balanced sample sizes across groups to ensure stable parameter estimates and replicable results. Three groups were consequently identified based on the average autonomy gap at the school level: large gap (School N = 9, Teacher N =149), medium gap (School N = 8, Teacher N =155), and small gap (School N = 9, Teacher N =168).

For each scale in the teacher questionnaire, we calculated reliability and determined validity via factor analysis. Principal leadership, teachers’ self-efficacy, teacher autonomy, job satisfaction and organizational commitment were examined in a first-order confirmatory factor analysis. School climate and its three subdomains, collaboration, innovation and participation, was validated through a second-order confirmatory factor analysis. We found that some reversed-worded items reflected relatively low factor loadings. Previous studies provide a cultural explanation (Johnson, 2005; Wong et al., 2003). In Asian cultures, appearing polite is expected and agreeableness seems to be an important social norm. This norm consequently may prompt subjects to agree to both positive items and reverse-worded counterparts. After removing the latter items, a significant improvement in goodness-of-fit was observed. After removal of items reflecting double factor loadings or a strong residual covariance with other items or factors, additional fit was achieved. Next, one integrated measurement model was studied combining all subscales to check the relationships between the items, between the items and factors, and between factors. Finally, 47 items were included in view of path modelling. Table 1 summarizes key quality indicators for each scale, all reflecting a good fit (Hu and Bentler, 1999). This implies the scales are valid. On the base of the Cronbach’s α values, we can additionally conclude the scales reflect good to very good reliability.

Table 1.

Reliability and validity of the scales.

	Cronbach’s α	CFI^a	GFI	RMSEA	SRMR	RMR
Transformational leadership	0.875	0.995	0.991	0.050	0.017	0.013
Instructional leadership	0.904	0.996	0.994	0.079	0.010	0.016
School climate	0.919	0.953	0.926	0.076	0.043	0.025
Teachers’ self-efficacy	0.871	0.972	0.967	0.077	0.033	0.022
Teacher autonomy	0.818	0.968	0.978	0.060	0.034	0.041
Job satisfaction	0.711	0.994	0.995	0.058	0.020	0.034
Organizational commitment	0.738	1.000	0.999	0.000	0.008	0.006

^aCFI: Comparative Fit Index; GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index; RMSEA: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; SRMR: Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals; RMR: Root Mean Square Residuals.

Structural equation modeling was applied to test the model as depicted in Figure 1. Benchmarks were applied in line with Bentler (1990) and Hu and Bentler (1999) to interpret the results. Based on this baseline model, we analyzed the nature and effects of school autonomy gap in three ways. First, we checked the variance in school autonomy gap between the three groups on the basis of a Kruskal–Wallis test. Second, we studied the differences in the research variables between the three groups using ANOVA. Third, we examined the differences of paired paths between variables in the three models by applying multiple-group comparison in AMOS.

Results

Test of the general path model

The parameter estimates of the baseline model are presented in Figure 2. All indices are in line with recommended benchmarks for an acceptable goodness-of-fit: χ²=24.185 (p < 0.00); CFI = 0.987; GFI = 0.986; RMSEA = 0.066, SRMR = 0.034 (Hu and Bentler, 1999).

Figure 2.

The effect of principal leadership on teacher job satisfaction and organizational commitment as mediated by school climate and teachers’ psychological factors.

Test results show that principals’ transformational and instructional leadership, school climate, teachers’ self-efficacy all have significant and positive effects on teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In total, the model explains 30% of the variance in teachers’ job satisfaction and 34% in the variance in organizational commitment. In addition to the estimates shown in Figure 2, Table 2 gives a summary of the direct and indirect effects of antecedent variables.

Table 2.

Direct, indirect and total effects of antecedent variables on teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

	Job satisfaction			Organizational commitment
	Direct	Indirect	Total	Direct	Indirect	Total
Transformational leadership		0.20	0.20		0.21	0.21
Instructional leadership		0.23	0.23		0.25	0.25
School climate	0.38	0.13	0.51	0.43	0.11	0.54
Teachers’ self-efficacy	0.24	0.01	0.25	0.20	0.03	0.22
Teacher autonomy	0.03		0.03	0.07		0.07

With regard to principal leadership, the results confirmed that both instructional and transformational leadership play important roles in influencing teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. For transformational leadership, the model presents indirect effects on teachers’ job satisfaction and teachers’ organizational commitment (0.20 and 0.21, respectively; see Table 2). For instructional leadership, these effects are 0.23 and 0.25 respectively (see Table 2). The results also show that transformational leadership and instructional leadership have a significant positive effect on school climate (0.39 and 0.45 respectively; see Figure 2).

As for school climate, the results indicate its positive effect on teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. As shown in Table 2, on the one hand, school climate has a direct positive effect on teachers’ job satisfaction (0.38; see Table 2) and teachers’ organizational commitment (0.43; see Table 2). This implies that teachers reporting higher levels of school climate – including higher levels of teacher formal collaboration, innovation and participation – tend to be more satisfied and more committed. On the other hand, school climate also influences teacher outcomes indirectly through teachers’ self-efficacy (0.13 for teachers’ job satisfaction and 0.11 for teachers’ organizational commitment; see Table 2). Teachers’ self-efficacy is enhanced through the school’s support of teacher formal collaboration, innovation and participation, and subsequently improves teacher outcomes.

With regard to the impact of teacher psychological variables, teachers’ self-efficacy has a significant positive direct effect on both job satisfaction and organizational commitment (0.24 and 0.20 respectively; see Table 2). The more teachers feel efficacious, the higher their job satisfaction and organizational commitment. However, the impact of teacher autonomy does not reflect a similar pattern. No significant effects of teacher autonomy on job satisfaction nor on organizational commitment is identified in the model. It also does not present a mediating function between school climate and teacher outcomes. In our study it is only significantly related to teachers’ self-efficacy.

In summary, principals’ instructional and transformational leadership have indirect, albeit important, influences on teacher outcomes. School climate reflects a stronger direct than indirect influence, and is the strongest ascendant variable. Teachers’ self-efficacy also has a relatively strong direct influence on teacher outcomes. However, we found no significant influence of teacher autonomy in explaining the variance in teacher outcomes.

Comparing different levels in school autonomy gap

To test the role of school autonomy gap, we first provide basic characteristics of the three groups of schools with different levels of autonomy gap. Next, we describe the variances of all variables in the three groups. In addition, based on the baseline model tested above, we identify the effects of school autonomy gap on the paired paths between three groups by multi-group comparison.

Background characteristics of three groups

By measuring the distance between school leaders’ perceived autonomy and preferred autonomy, three groups with different levels of school autonomy gap were identified. Though the school autonomy reform has already been launched in China for three decades, all principals in our sample believe the current level of autonomy they have is not enough for a successful reform. Most school leaders expect a relatively high level of autonomy. However, they have significantly different perceptions of the autonomy they possess (see Table 3). Even under similar formal-legal policy arrangements, school leaders perceive school autonomy differently. For example, school leaders’ perceived actual autonomy ranges from 1.94 to 3.83 in three schools in Beijing and ranges from 2.00 to 5.00 in six schools in Dali. This confirms that school leaders’ perceptions of autonomy are subjective and not only dependent on the formal-legal status of the school.

Table 3.

Means, standard deviations of the autonomy gap in the three groups.

	Small gap	Medium gap	Large gap
	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)	Mean (SD)
Autonomy gap	0.57 (0.32)	1.54 (0.34)	2.63 (0.60)
Perceived autonomy	3.28 (1.07)	2.22 (0.51)	1.72 (0.58)
Preferred autonomy	3.85 (0.90)	3.72 (0.50)	4.35 (0.56)

Variable comparison between three levels of school autonomy gap

We examined the differences in teacher related research variables considering the different levels in school autonomy gap by analysis of variance. The results display idiosyncratic characteristics of schools in each group (see Table 4).

Table 4.

Means, standard deviations and ANOVA results of the study.

Research variables	ANOVA	Effect size Cohen’s f	Small gap Mean (SD)	Medium gap Mean (SD)	Large gap Mean (SD)
Transformational leadership	F = 9.16, p < 0.01	0.20	4.15 (0.74)	4.20 (0.81)	4.47 (0.61)
Instructional leadership	F = 8.40, p < 0.01	0.18	3.23 (1.01)	3.37 (1.05)	3.67 (1.02)
School climate	F = 7.65, p < 0.01	0.18	4.14 (0.62)	4.20 (0.57)	4.38 (0.52)
Teacher autonomy	F = 0.68, p = 0.51	0.00	3.59 (0.69)	3.68 (0.71)	3.61 (0.78)
Self-efficacy	F = 4.23, p < 0.01	0.14	4.02 (0.59)	4.15 (0.56)	4.20 (0.56)
Job satisfaction	F = 15.83, p < 0.01	0.26	3.72 (0.83)	3.86 (0.92)	4.22 (0.72)
Organizational commitment	F = 11.58, p < 0.01	0.18	4.09 (0.66)	4.14 (0.68)	4.41 (0.61)

The results indicate a notable pattern in school characteristics among the three groups. In brief, schools with a larger autonomy gap reflect stronger leadership, a more positive school climate, and higher levels of teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. In contrast, schools with a smaller autonomy gap reflect a relatively weak leadership and school climate, as well as lower levels of self-efficacy, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. No significant differences in teacher autonomy are observed between the three groups. As school leaders’ perceptions are closely related to their capacity, the pattern shows that principals with stronger leadership tend to reflect a stronger demand for autonomy. The values of Cohen’s f also indicate the school autonomy gap has a medium effect-size on teachers’ job satisfaction and a relatively small-medium effect-size on principals transformational and instructional leadership, school climate, and teachers’ organizational commitment (Cohen, 1988).

Multiple-group comparison

The goodness-of-fit of the baseline model allows for conducting multiple group analysis. All indices of the multiple group model are in line with the recommended benchmarks for acceptable fit: χ² = 56,835 (p <0 .01), CFI = 0.973, GFI = 0.968; RMSEA = 0.054, SRMR = 0.058 (Hu and Bentler, 1999). Next, the separate model for each group was tested to check the model stability. Again, all goodness-of-fit indices of the three separate models are in line with recommended benchmarks. Subsequently, we conducted nested model comparison. The results show that the factor loadings are not equivalent across the three groups (Δχ² ₍₂₂₎ = p < 0.05) (see Table 5), indicating significant differences between the three models.

Table 5.

Model comparison: Assuming model unconstrained to be correct.

Model	DF ^a	χ²	p	NFI	IFI	RFI	TLI
Model	DF ^a	χ²	p	Delta-1	Delta-2	rho-1	rho2
Structural regression weights	22	36.797	0.025	0.029	0.030	−0.016	−0.017
Structural co-variances	28	51.899	0.004	0.041	0.042	−0.014	−0.014
Structural residuals	40	88.193	0.000	0.069	0.071	−0.005	−0.005

^aDF Degrees of Freedom; NFI Normed Fit Index; IFI Incremental Fit Index; TLI Tucker-Lewis Index.

Next, to understand how the paths vary between the three groups, we examined the critical ratio for differences between parameters by multiple-group comparison. The largest significant difference is found in the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on school climate (see Table 6).

Table 6.

Path estimates of each group and critical ratios for differences between parameters between multiple groups.

	Estimates comparison	Small gap Estimates	Medium gap Estimates	Large gap Estimates
Transformational leadership on school climate	***	0.26***	0.40***	0.48***
Instructional leadership on school climate	***	0.54***	0.42***	0.40***

Note: ***: p< 0.01

The most marked differences are found in the paths between leadership and school climate. On the one hand, the influence of principal transformational leadership on school climate for schools with a large autonomy gap is significantly stronger than in schools with a medium and small autonomy gap. On the other hand, the effect of principal instructional leadership on school climate in schools with a large autonomy gap is weaker compared to schools with a small and medium autonomy gap. Combined with the results shown earlier, indicating better performance of all research variables, these path comparison results show that in schools with a larger autonomy gap, principals have a stronger capacity to adopt a transformational leadership position to improve school climate and consequently achieve improvement in teachers’ self-efficacy, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment.

Conclusions and discussion

In this study, we focused on how school autonomy gap and principal leadership affect a series of organizational and teacher variables. We hypothesized a model that integrated principal leadership, school climate, teachers’ self-efficacy and teacher autonomy as the ascendant variables to teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. The school autonomy gap was adopted as a key indicator to depict the fit between perceived and preferred school autonomy. We also expected this gap would influence the effects of principal leadership on other research variables. Based on the results presented above, we discuss several important conclusions in the following section.

The role of principals in school autonomy reform

This study demonstrated the critical role of principals in school autonomy reform by exploring principal leadership and school autonomy gap.

As for principal leadership, the results suggest that leadership has a tremendous yet indirect influence on teacher outcomes through school climate and teachers’ self-efficacy, which are in line with previous studies. In addition, the results of the path analysis allow us to reflect on leadership effects as identified in earlier research. Our results confirm the importance of both instructional and transformational leadership in influencing teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Although previous studies on school autonomy reforms have emphasized principals’ transformational leadership, recent research has re-evaluated the importance of instructional leadership and stressed integrating the two dimensions of leadership (Marks and Printy, 2003; Robinson et al., 2008). Our results support the idea that both instructional and transformational leadership matter.

Besides leadership, we also emphasized the importance of school leaders’ perceptions towards autonomy. The findings indicate there is a high heterogeneity in principal perceptions towards school autonomy, even under the same legal-formal status. Even within the same city, some principals perceived limited autonomy and demanded more power in school decision-making, whereas others were satisfied with the current policy arrangements and reported a weaker demand for more decision making power. This confirms Verhoest’s findings (Verhoest et al., 2004).

As for school autonomy gap, our research found a close relationship between school leaders’ perceptions and their leadership as perceived by the teachers. In particular, principals with strong leadership seem less satisfied with the current level of autonomy and expect more say. Principals with weaker leadership appear satisfied with the autonomy they have. Beck and Murphy’s (1998) research supports these linkages. They found that principals experiencing school autonomy reform reported stress about their role, as they felt more likely to be blamed for failures than they were under a centralized structure. In some extreme cases, some principals even felt like abdicating responsibility and welcomed structured and procedural modes of managing (Beck and Murphy, 1998). In their study, stronger leadership represented the opposite of abdication. Simon’s (1972) theory of Bounded Rationality provides an explanation for this phenomenon. As principals face cognitive and information limitations, sufficient capacity is an important prerequisite to counter these limitations at a low cost (e.g., time and energy). Principals with a strong leadership profile are capable and avoid risks to a lesser extent by making use of autonomy to make school decisions. In addition, they try their best to make related optimal decisions, even in complex and uncertain situations. Additional autonomy is an asset to these school leaders who possess the potential to use it. In schools with a smaller autonomy gap, school leaders may reflect insufficient capacities to make use of autonomy, and prefer a less strict accountability system. They tend to look for a satisfactory decision rather than the approximate-best decision. In this case, further autonomy is rather considered a burden that goes beyond school leaders’ capacities.

Furthermore, multiple-group comparison unravels the differences in the paths by which leadership influences organizational outcomes between schools with varying levels of autonomy gap. In schools with a larger autonomy gap, the influence of instructional leadership on school climate is relatively the lowest when comparing the three groups, whereas the effect of transformational leadership is the strongest. Devos and Bouckenooghe (2009) provided a starting point to frame these particular school leaders’ conceptions of their role. Three types of school leader profiles were identified: the “people-minded profile”, the “administrative-minded profile” and the “moderate-minded profile”. The differences between the three profiles are reflected in differences in school climate. Administrative-minded leaders are not found in schools with strong changes in climate and people-minded leaders are not found in schools with weak school climate. People-minded principals present the key characteristic of transformational leadership focusing on setting directions, developing people and redesigning the organization (Geijsel et al., 2003). In contrast, administrative-minded principals spend most of their energy on administrative affairs, report a lack of time to invest in educational policy and in their relationship with teachers, and do not possess the necessary social skills or policy skills to translate school goals into concrete plans. The results of the present study tell a similar story. Generally speaking, in schools with stronger leadership (both instructional and transformational) and a positive school climate, principals seem to have a stronger influence on school climate and on organizational outcomes through their transformational leadership. These leaders seek more power to develop their school and possess sufficient capacities to implement autonomy in practice. In contrast, in schools with weaker leadership and a lower school climate, principals lack the necessary transformational leadership skills to improve the school climate.

Teacher autonomy

Different from our expectation, it is surprising that teacher autonomy does not strongly influence teachers’ job satisfaction or teachers’ organizational commitment. In addition, the results show that teacher autonomy is only influenced by teachers’ self-efficacy, not by school climate. Moreover, ANOVA analysis results showed no significant variance in teachers’ autonomy based on school autonomy gap. Though these results are inconsistent with most findings in the literature, some empirical studies have found similar results. For example, Bogler and Somech hypothesized the positive relationship between teacher autonomy and teacher outcomes, but the results indicated teachers’ perceived autonomy and impact were the least effective predictors of any of the outcomes examined (Bogler and Somech, 2004). One possible reason is that teacher autonomy might be a very individual feeling, as the variation in teacher autonomy is relatively high. Another possible reason is that teacher autonomy is a complex variable that might only work well when combined with other conditions, such as a clear accountability system and a strong incentive mechanism. In particular, as Chinese schools face strong pressure from the central, standardized exam system, teachers who try to adopt new methods in their teaching are personally responsible for the risk of failure. In this context, even increase teachers’ autonomy would not enhance their job satisfaction or organizational commitment. These results indicate that studies should take more elements into account in understanding teacher autonomy. For example, teachers’ perceptions towards autonomy may be influenced by school management policy (e.g. accountability system) and personal traits (e.g. risk aversion). The results actually can be an echo of the failure of school autonomy reform at a personal level, calling for further research.

Implications and limitations

The present study contributes to the research literature by adding further evidence about the relation between school autonomy, organizational and psychological variables and teachers’ job satisfaction and commitment. The study was conducted in the context of recent school autonomy reform in China, presenting a unique laboratory in which this phenomenon can be studied first-hand. Thus far, hardly any research has been conducted in the Chinese context to study the nature and effects of the new school autonomy movement.

Our results have implications for policy makers and school leaders. First, policy makers should be aware of the gap between given and preferred autonomy, and take formal-legal status, school capacity and leadership all into account to establish successful autonomy. For school leaders with sufficient capacity and strong leadership, increasing autonomy combined with proper accountability could narrow their autonomy gap. Furthermore, as our results emphasize the critical role of principal leadership in school autonomy reform, professional development of school leaders is urgently needed. A successful school autonomy implementation requires school leaders’ stronger instructional and transformational leadership to lead the changes. With this regard, principal professional development programs can be helpful to attain positive organizational outcomes.

Some limitations of this study must be addressed. Firstly, qualitative data should be collected for a deeper understanding of autonomy gap and its corresponding influence on principals’ school management practices. Case studies would definitely help enrich the story. Secondly, regional differences should be considered in this and future research, especially in the case of China. Owing to fiscal decentralization, economic resources of schools differ by region in China. This has affected teachers’ motivation and resulted in teachers moving to regions with better job opportunities. Empirical research has confirmed that social capital is significantly related to the desire to shift professions in China, where cross-community disparities in social, human, and cultural resources have increasingly defined school conditions (Sargent and Hannum, 2005). Regional differences might have affected our results when looking at the impact on organizational outcomes. Thirdly, the autonomy gap could be elaborated within different policy domains. For example, previous research has also found differences between the autonomy gap in personnel management (Adamowski et al., 2007; Adamson, 2012). Lastly, the results of the structural equation modeling suggest causal relations. The embedded regression techniques nevertheless build on tests about associations and should always be interpreted in the light of this limitation.

Despite these limitations, this study contributes to the research on school autonomy reforms by confirming the important influences of both transformational and instructional leadership on teacher outcomes, clarifying the paths by which these influences are achieved, and exploring the effects of the autonomy gap in this process. We have also developed a better understanding of the complexity of school autonomy by investigating interactions between the formal-legal status of a school and the beliefs, capacities and perceptions of school principals and teachers. For future studies, we suggest that special attention should be paid to autonomy gap to enrich the knowledge base for school development and reform implementation (Maslowski, 2001).

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by Ghent University BOF Research Grant (grant number BOF B/11705/02).

References

Adamowski

Therriault

Cavanna

(2007) The Autonomy Gap: Barriers to Effective School Leadership. New York, NY: Fordham Foundation.

Adamson

(2012) Exploring principal autonomy in charter, private, and public schools. PhD Thesis, California State University, US.

Aelterman

Engels

Verhaeghe

Sys

Van Petegem

Panagiotou

(2002) Development of an instrument to measure well-being among primary and secondary school teachers. Report for Flemish Department of Education.

Allen

Meyer

(1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology 63(1): 1–18.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bass

(2009) The Bass Handbook of Leadership: Theory, Research, and Managerial Applications. New York, NY: Free Press.

Beck

Murphy

(1998) Site-Based Management and school success: Untangling the variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9(4): 358–385.

Bentler

(1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107(2): 238–246.

Blase

Joseph

Blase

(1999) Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(3): 349–378.

10.

Bogler

(2001) The influence of leadership style on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly 37(5): 662–683.

11.

Bogler

Somech

(2004) Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education 20(3): 277–289.

12.

Bogler

Somech

(2005) Organizational citizenship behavior in school: How does it relate to participation in decision making? Journal of Educational Administration 43(5): 420–438.

13.

Briggs

Wohlstetter

(2003) Key elements of a successful School-Based Management strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 14(3): 351–372.

14.

Bush

(2014) Instructional and transformational leadership: Alternative and complementary models? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4): 443–444.

15.

Caprara

Barbaranelli

Steca

Malone

(2006) Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology 44(6): 473–490.

16.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

17.

Crocco

Costigan

(2007) The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education 42(6): 512–535.

18.

Deci

Ryan

(1985) Intrinsic Motivation and Self-determination in Human Behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.

19.

Dee

Henkin

Singleton

(2006) Organizational commitment of teachers in urban schools: Examining the effects of team structures. Urban Education 41(6): 603–627.

20.

Devos

Bouckenooghe

(2009) An exploratory study on principals’ conceptions about their role as school leaders. Leadership and Policy in Schools 8(2): 173–196.

21.

Edwards

(1994) The study of congruence in organizational behavior research: Critique and a proposed alternative. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 58(1): 51–100.

22.

Eurydice (2007) School Autonomy in Europe. Policies and Measures. Brussels, Belgium: Eurydice.

23.

Feng

(2002) Goutong Yu Fenxiang - Zhongxi Jiaoyu Guanli Lingxian Xuezhe Shiji Huitan. Communicat. [Communication and Sharing: A Forum for Specialists in the Fields of Educational Management in China and Western Countries], Shanghai, China: Shanghai Education Press.

24.

Firestone

Pennell

(1993) Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Review of Educational Research 63(4): 489–525.

25.

Fullan

Watson

(2000) School-based management: Reconceptualizing to improve learning outcomes. School effectiveness and school improvement 11(4): 453–473.

26.

Geijsel

Sleegers

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2003) Transformational leadership effects on teachers’ commitment and effort toward school reform. Journal of Educational Administration 41(3): 228–256.

27.

Gibson

Dembo

(1984) Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology 76(4): 569–582.

28.

Hallinger

(2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–352.

29.

Hanson

(1998) Strategies of educational decentralization: Key questions and core issues. Journal of Educational Administration 36(2): 111–128.

30.

Hoy

Hannum

(1997) Middle school climate: An empirical assessment of organizational health and student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly 33(3): 290–311.

31.

Hoy

Tarter

Bliss

(1990) Organizational climate, school health, and effectiveness: A comparative analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly 26(3): 260–279.

32.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.

33.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

(2009) The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 20(3): 291–317.

34.

Johnson

(2005) The relation between culture and response styles: Evidence from 19 countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36(2): 264–277.

35.

Judge

Bono

(2001) Relationship of core self-evaluations traits - self-esteem, generalized self-efficacy, locus of control, and emotional stability – with job satisfaction and job performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology 86(1): 80–92.

36.

Keddie

(2015) School autonomy as ‘the way of the future’: Issues of equity, public purpose and moral leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 1–15.

37.

Koh

Steers

Terborg

(1995) The effects of transformational leadership on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore. Journal of Organizational Behavior 16(4): 319–333.

38.

Krüger

Witziers

Sleegers

(2007) The impact of school leadership on school level factors: Validation of a causal model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 18(1): 1–20.

39.

Kushman

(1992) The organizational dynamics of teacher workplace commitment: A study of urban elementary and middle schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 28(1): 5–42.

40.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1990) Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 1(4): 249–280.

41.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1999) The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly 35(5): 679–706.

42.

Leithwood

Menzies

(1998a) A review of research concerning the implementation of Site-Based Management. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 9(3): 233–285.

43.

Leithwood

Menzies

(1998b) Forms and effects of School-Based Management: A review. Educational Policy 12(3): 325–346.

44.

Liu

Dunne

(2009) Educational reform in China: Tensions in national policy and local practice. Comparative Education 45(4): 461–476.

45.

Locke

(1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: Dunnette

(ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp.1297–1349.

46.

Lok

Crawford

(2004) The effect of organisational culture and leadership style on job satisfaction and organisational commitment: A cross-national comparison. Journal of Management Development 23(4): 321–338.

47.

Louis

Smith

(1991) Restructuring, teacher engagement and school culture: Perspectives on school reform and the improvement of teacher’s Work. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 2(1): 34–52.

48.

Louis

Dretzke

Wahlstrom

(2010) How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 21(3): 315–336.

49.

McCarley

Peters

Decman

(2016) Transformational leadership related to school climate: A multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(2): 322–342.

50.

Marks

Printy

(2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.

51.

Maslowski

(2001) School culture and school performance: An explorative study into the organizational culture of secondary schools and their effects. PhD Thesis, University of Twente Twente, Netherlands.

52.

Meyer

Paunonen

Gellatly

Goffin

Jackson

(1989) Organizational commitment and job performance: It’s the nature of the commitment that counts. Journal of Applied Psychology 74(1): 152–156.

53.

Ngok

(2007) Chinese education policy in the context of decentralization and marketization: Evolution and implications. Asia Pacific Education Review 8(1): 142–157.

54.

Nguni

Sleegers

Denessen

(2006) Transformational and transactional leadership effects on teachers’ job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and organizational citizenship behavior in primary schools: The Tanzanian case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 145–177.

55.

OECD (2005) School factors related to quality and equity: Results from PISA 2000. Paris, France.

56.

Pearson

Hall

(1993) Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research 86(3): 172–178.

57.

Perie

Baker

(1997) Job Satisfaction among America’s Teachers: Effects of Workplace Conditions, Background Characteristics, and Teacher Compensation. Washington, DC: National Center for Edcuation Statistics.

58.

Printy

Marks

Bowers

(2009) Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership 19(5): 504–532.

59.

Riehl

Sipple

(1996) Making the most of time and talent: Secondary school organizational climates, teaching task environments, and teacher commitment. American Educational Research Journal 33(4): 873–901.

60.

Robinson

VMJ

Lloyd

Rowe

(2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(5): 635–674.

61.

Rosenholtz

(1989) Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School Journal 89(4): 421–439.

62.

Rosenholtz

Simpson

(1990) Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers’ commitment. Sociology of Education 63(4): 241–257.

63.

Ryan

Deci

(2000a) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25(1): 54–67.

64.

Ryan

Deci

(2000b) Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist 55(1): 68–78.

65.

Sargent

Hannum

(2005) Keeping teachers happy: Job satisfaction among primary school teachers in rural Nothwest China. Comparative Education Review 49(2): 173–204.

66.

Shatzer

Caldarella

Hallam

Brown

(2013) Comparing the effects of instructional and transformational leadership on student achievement: Implications for practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4): 445–459.

67.

Sheppard

(1996) Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership. Alberta Journal of Educational Research 42(4): 325–344.

68.

Simon

(1972) Theories of bounded rationality. In: McGuire

Radner

(eds) Decision and Organization. North-Holland Publishing Company, pp.161–176.

69.

Skaalvik

(2010) Teacher self-efficacy and teacher burnout: A study of relations. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(4): 1059–1069.

70.

Somech

Bogler

(2002) Antecedents and consequences of teacher organizational and professional commitment. Educational Administration Quarterly 38(4): 555–577.

71.

Staessens

(1990) The professional culture in elementary schools in Flanders. An empirical study in reformed primary education. PhD Thesis, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium.

72.

Tschannen-Moran

(1998) Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research 68(2): 202–248.

73.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

(2001) Teacher efficacy capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education 17: 783–805.

74.

Verhoest

Peters

Bouckaert

Verschuere

(2004) The study of organisational autonomy: A conceptual review. Public Administration and Development 24(2): 101–118.

75.

Ware

Kitsantas

(2007) Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research 100(5): 303–310.

76.

Wohlstetter

Chau

(2004) Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. In: Bulkley

Wolhstetter

(eds) Taking Account of Charter Schools: What’s Happened and What’s Next. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, pp.53–71.

77.

Wong

Rindfleisch

Burroughs

(2003) Do reverse worded items confound measures in cross-cultural consumer research? The case of the material values scale. Journal of Consumer Research 30 72–91.

78.

Woolfolk

Rosoff

Hoy

(1990) Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching & Teacher Education 6(2): 137–148.

79.

Zhu

Devos

Tondeur

(2014) Examining school culture in Flemish and Chinese primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(4) 557–575.