Distributed Leaders’ Well-Being in Türkiye: Do School Principals’ Commitment and Trust Make a Difference?

Abstract

This study examines the role of distributed leadership behaviours in the empirical relationship between school principals’ commitment and trust with their well-being. Two main theories and the cultural and political context informed the design of this study. The theoretical background is based on Job Demands and Resources Theory and Self Determination Theory. The contextual background is based on a collectivist culture with a vertical hierarchical structure. In this cross-sectional study, which collected data from 532 school principals in Türkiye, mediation modelling was used to measure the structural relationships between the study variables. In this study a positive correlation was found between principals’ distributed leadership behaviours and well-being. In addition, there was a direct relationship between principal trust, commitment and distributed leadership and a direct relationship between principal trust, commitment and well-being. Finally, a relationship was found between principal trust and well-being and principal commitment and well-being mediated by distributed leadership. This study revealed that in a non-Western collectivist culture with high power distance, principals’ sharing of power through distributed leadership enhanced their well-being. The findings demonstrate that trust and commitment serve as critical psychological job resources and social context factors that simultaneously enhance principals’ leadership behaviours and their positive emotional experiences. These findings highlight the importance of systemic and practical approaches to integrating distributed leadership, building trust, and strengthening commitment in schools. This study provides some implications for policymakers and practitioners.

Plain Language Summary

The effect of Turkish school principals’ trust and commitment on their well-being through the mediating role of distributed leadership

School principals are key actors in school improvement and their leadership behaviours have attracted the attention of educational administration researchers. There are many studies that examine the positive outcomes of school leaders’ distributed leadership behaviours for the school and the factors that support the development of this leadership. In contrast, this study presents distributed leadership as a mediating variable rather than an outcome. The well-being of principals was chosen as the target of the study. Bureaucratic tasks, increased responsibility and accountability in schools often have a negative impact on the well-being of school leaders. The main purpose of this study is to examine the effect of principals’ trust and commitment on their well-being through the mediating role of distributed leadership. The study was conducted with 532 school principals in Türkiye, which has a vertically hierarchical and collectivist culture. This study shows that in a non-Western collectivist culture with high power distance, principals’ sharing of power through distributed leadership increases well-being. It also shows that trust and commitment serve as critical psychological work resources and social contextual factors that simultaneously enhance principals’ leadership behaviours and positive emotional experiences. In light of these findings, it can be argued that policies and practices that enhance principals’ distributed leadership behaviours, build trust among colleagues, and strengthen principals’ commitment can support principals’ well-being.

Keywords

principal well-being distributed leadership principal commitment principal trust school principal

Introduction

Principals’ well-being is a critical factor for individual and school health and success (e.g., J. Chen, 2021; Pollock & Wang, 2020). Principals’ roles have expanded from leading learning to managing financial and human resources, mentoring, motivating, and being accountable. In carrying out these roles and more, principals’ complex interactions with stakeholders inside and outside the school and the nature of school management work make principals’ well-being important (Wang et al., 2023). Increased accountability, the complexity of daily tasks and reduced autonomy of decision-making can collectively lead to stress in school principals. It is imperative that the school principals well-being not be sacrificed for accountability and the pursuit of quality education.

The literature reveals that school principals experience work-related, relationship-related and time-related stress (Dadaczynski et al., 2022). Work-related stressors and challenges such as limited resources and increased responsibility (Riley et al., 2021) have a negative impact on their well-being (Lim & Pollock, 2019). When principals’ well-being decreases, their ability to significantly influence the school’s functionality and the well-being of the whole school is likely to decrease (J. Chen, 2021). Therefore, in recent years, there has been a focus on principals’ emotional abilities as well as their professional abilities (Mahfouz, 2020; Wang, 2025).

The importance of principal well-being in school success has been recognised, suggestions for further research on this topic (e.g., J. Chen et al., 2025; Gorrell & De Nobile, 2023) have been taken into consideration, and the number of studies on principals’ well-being has increased significantly in the last few years (Bailey & Gibson, 2024; Beausaert et al., 2023; Kutsyuruba et al., 2024; Wang, 2024, 2025).

The first of the main bases of the study is the need to focus on studies that aim to reveal the factors that support the school principal well-being. In Türkiye, there has been more research on teachers’ well-being (e.g., Bellibaş, Gümüş, & Chen, 2024; Özcan, 2024), while studies on school principals’ well-being have been limited and focused on crisis periods such as the COVID-19 pandemic (e.g., Arastaman & Çetinkaya, 2022; Toker-Gokce & Sarikaya, 2024). However, it has been observed that the well-being of school principals has positive outcomes, such as their leadership behaviour (S. Özdemir et al., 2024). The need to investigate the well-being of principals outside of crisis periods and the importance of the subject have been proven by longitudinal studies conducted in different countries (Rahimi et al., 2025).

Secondly, the importance of school leadership in educational organisations has been widely acknowledged in the field of educational administration. A principal’s educational leadership behaviours encompass all actions aimed at influencing others to achieve goals within educational settings (Connolly et al., 2019). Educational leadership theories, as discussed in the literature, all emphasise the need for a clear goal or purpose behind leadership practices. Instructional leadership is highlighted when the principal’s influencing activities focus on supporting teachers to enhance student learning (e.g., defining the school mission, managing school programmes; Hallinger & Wang, 2015; S. Liu & Hallinger, 2018). Various leadership models, such as transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership, have been extensively studied by theorists in the field of educational leadership.

Although studies on the leadership behaviours of school principals in Türkiye follow developments in international leadership literature, the country’s unique changes are also reflected in the research. Turkish education management researchers have focused on transformational leadership (e.g., S. Özdemir et al., 2024; Yilmaz & Tore, 2025), instructional leadership (e.g., Akgöz et al., 2024; Cansoy et al., 2024) and distributed leadership (e.g., Kavgacı, 2024; Kaya et al., 2024) models, as well as social justice leadership (e.g., Bozkurt & Kara, 2024; Turkoglu Ozdemir & Sincar, 2025). School principals in Türkiye have significant official authority, and their job description, which is full of bureaucratic, administrative and academic responsibilities, keeps school principals in a busy work schedule. Furthermore, Ministry of National Education (MoNE) has introduced significant changes with a comprehensive curriculum reform, and these changes have made it difficult for school principals to manage schools on their own (Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2024). School principals should create a collaborative school environment that involves teachers in decision-making processes (N. Özdemir et al., 2023). While the Turkish collectivist culture prioritises conformity and mutual commitment, it normalises inequality between managers and those being managed through high power distance (Hofstede, 2011). In Turkish schools, leadership sharing among teachers can be individual and exceptional (M. Özdemir & Demircioğlu, 2015). When the current cultural context and school implementation processes are evaluated, a distributed leadership model that emphasises teachers’ participation in decision-making processes, collaboration, and partnership has emerged. Empirical evidence has shown a positive relationship between distributed leadership and several outcomes, including student achievement (e.g., Harris et al., 2022; Ling et al., 2023), school improvement (e.g., Harris, 2014), teachers’ innovative work behaviour (Evers et al., 2024), and motivational factors (Cai et al., 2023). A recent study indicate that school leadership can support principal well-being (Cherkowski et al., 2020) and firstly focuses on the link between principals’ perceptions of themselves as distributed leaders and their well-being.

Third, various school- and principal-bounded variables may influence the emergence of distributed leadership and well-being among school principals. At this point, Job Demands and Resources Theory guided to study, focussing on balancing resources and demands in employees’ positive emotions towards work, and Self Determination Theory, focussing on basic needs in employees’ positive emotions towards work. These concepts were both relevant to the theoretical perspective of study, and their relevance to schools has already been pointed out and researchers focused on trust and commitment, which have the potential to effect positive outcomes as input variables in terms of both theories. Previous studies have indicated that trust is a significant factor in student achievement and school development (e.g., Sun et al., 2023). Leithwood et al. (2020) propose that trust is a critical element of an ‘emotional pathway’. Van Maele and Van Houtte (2015) showed in their study that trust between colleagues at school can lead to a decrease in the feeling of burnout. School principals’ lack of trust may negatively affect their well-being. Studies on the level of trust in school principals and schools in Türkiye have intensified (e.g., Bektaş et al., 2022; Kılınç et al., 2024; Parlar et al., 2022). According to the Integrated Values Survey, the level of interpersonal trust in Türkiye is low (14%; IVS, 2022). Given the low level of interpersonal trust in Türkiye, research on trust should focus not only on trust in school principals but also on principal trust in colleagues, as trust must be examined bilaterally.

Moreover, a considerable body of empirical research in educational management studies has concentrated on affective organisational commitment (e.g., Berkovich & Eyal, 2017; Bogler & Berkovich, 2022). There is a negative relationship between school principals’ commitment and burnout (Myer et al., 2004). As commitment is defined as an indicator of well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2017), high commitment of school principals may positively affect their well-being. School principals in Türkiye are employed for 4 years (Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2021), which may negatively affect their commitment to their schools. Despite this, it is surprising that studies on commitment in Türkiye mainly focus on teacher commitment (e.g., Bellibaş, Polatcan et al., 2024; Mahmutoğlu et al., 2025).

Finally, current study was guided by Türkiye’s vertically hierarchical education system and collectivist-power-distanced culture. Studies support that well-being is also affected by the socio-cultural context in which the individual lives (e.g., Berkovich & Eyal, 2015; Oplatka, 2017). This study will contribute to the existing body of knowledge by examining the relationship between school principals’ well-being and leadership, trust and commitment in a social context characterised by high power distance and a vertical hierarchical culture. This theoretical and cultural investigation will provide valuable insights into the role of leadership in promoting well-being in educational settings, thereby filling a significant gap in the current literature.

Theoretical and Contextual Framework

Two main theories and the cultural and political context informed the design of this study. First, the theoretical background of this study is based on Job Demands and Resources Theory and Self Determination Theory. Job Demands and Resources Theory posits that employees’ job and personal resources will increase their engagement and well-being, which in turn will positively affect job performance (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). Within this theory, it was hypothesised that personal resources would positively affect principal well-being and their distributed leadership related to job performance and engagement in terms of the school. It was postulated that the distributed leadership of the school principal in terms of Self Determination Theory would support the autonomous structure of the school by contributing to teacher autonomy, which would, in turn, support the well-being of both teachers and the school principal (Ryan & Deci, 2001). In this study, school principal trust and principal commitment were considered personal resources in the context of Job Demands and Resources and social context in the perspective of Self Determination Theory and made as input variables. Well-being was identified as an output variable, representing a positive outcome of resources and social context following both theories. Distributed leadership was conceptualised as both a resource and social context, as well as a performance outcome, and it was positioned as a mediating variable.

Secondly, the contextual background of this study is based on a collectivist culture with a high power distance and a centralised education system with a vertical hierarchical structure. A considerable body of research indicates that leadership practices are influenced by cultural values (e.g., Bush, 2020, 2021; Hallinger, 2018; Walker & Hallinger, 2015). This study was conducted in Türkiye, where collectivist culture is dominant and power distance is high in contrast to Western cultures. Collectivism emphasises ‘we’ consciousness, harmony, shared opinion, traditions and relationship’s importance (Hofstede, 2011). Furthermore, emotions are identified as a significant key force in interpersonal relationships (Beycioğlu & Sincar, 2019). Due to the high power distance, the education system in Türkiye is highly hierarchical, and decisions are mostly made from the centre, while the MoNE manages the education system. Given that the MoNE centrally formulates and administers education policies, substantial reforms affecting schools are often introduced in a top-down fashion, flowing from the Ministry to schools via provincial directorates. Because in this centrally managed system, school principals’ primary responsibility is implementing decisions (Kılınç et al., 2021). For example, the curriculum change study on the ‘Turkish Century Education Model’ to be implemented by all schools in the 2024 to 2025 school year, which the MoNE presented in the first quarter of 2024, was carried out centrally and approved in a short time (Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2024). Turkish principals are appointed based on teaching experience and previous performance. The absence of structured training programmes for school principals in Türkiye may cause problems in the development of many administrative behaviours, such as leadership (Kılınç et al., 2021; Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2020). The manner in which distributed leadership functions in this culture and educational structure may be instructive for similar structures.

Several measures have been implemented considering the sustained decline in students’ performance in Türkiye in international examinations (OECD, 2019a, 2019b), which allow benchmarking of student outcomes against those of other countries. Türkiye’s Education Vision 2023 represents one such initiative. The vision document emphasises the development of leadership capacity in school success and aims to increase teachers’ responsibilities by introducing programmes to increase their participation in decision-making and autonomy (Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2018). These statements point to distributed leadership skills. There is a paucity of empirical evidence regarding the impact of leadership behaviour on principal well-being. However, sufficient evidence suggests that school principals are more likely to apply leadership behaviours when they have higher levels of well-being (J. Chen et al., 2025). Moreover, it is challenging to identify strategic policies that aim to enhance the well-being of school principals in Türkiye, apart from individual initiatives. In light of the studies mentioned earlier and the existing gaps in the literature, researchers have set principal well-being as a target and aimed to examine the effects of distributed leadership, principal trust and commitment on principal well-being. This study aimed to investigate the potential indirect and direct links between principal trust and commitment with well-being through distributed leadership based on principal’s perceptions.

Literature Review

Principal Well-Being

Well-being is conceptualised based on self-determination theory, which posits that individuals should have a stable identity, experience psychological development throughout their lives, and be able to utilise their life experiences to deal with the difficulties they face (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Well-being is related to self-efficacy (Bandura et al., 2003), social support (Wang, 2025), and job satisfaction (Yang et al., 2020).

Focussing on the individual definition of well-being, physical, mental and social well-being definitions are encountered. The definition was subsequently expanded upon, and well-being was defined as the ability to realise one’s potential, overcome daily challenges, and contribute to one’s place (The World Health Organization, 2014). The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development) has accepted this perspective and made it possible to apply it in educational settings (2020). The two perspectives of well-being, namely the focus on happiness and the realisation/achievement of potential (Ryan & Deci, 2001), have provided a framework for research in the fields of management and education. In this study, it has chosen to examine the principal well-being in the context of achieving their potential. In this context, Zheng et al.’s (2015) conceptualisation of job satisfaction, attributing meaning to work, and satisfaction with achievements was followed.

Despite extensive research into human well-being, there remains no clear consensus on its definition. The semantic breadth of well-being and the fluidity of the concept can act as a limitation. A further limitation is that existing studies of principals’ well-being, such as the current study, have largely employed instruments designed for the general population (e.g., J. Chen & Walker, 2023; Hancock et al., 2019). While these are useful, they may fail to capture the unique nature of the principalship and the specific well-being needs associated with it. Another aspect of well-being is that it is a complex construct that covers various aspects including occupational, social, cognitive and emotional well-being (Cumming, 2017). While this study conceptualises well-being based on occupational factors, the exclusion of other dimensions may be a limitation.

Stress and burnout are often pointed out as factors that prevent principals from realising their potential and reduce their job and achievement satisfaction. In addition to the stress experienced by principals and its consequences (Diotaiuti et al., 2020), there are studies showing that principals’ well-being is related to the idea of work and life, interpersonal and intrapersonal balance that helps them cope with potential stress (J. Chen et al., 2025; Cherkowski et al., 2020). DeMatthews et al. (2023) stated burnout as an obstacle to principals’ well-being.

As research in the field of educational administration and leadership (Youssef-Morgan & Luthans, 2013) has demonstrated, investigating the positive reasons for well-being at school can provide valuable insights into how to support and enhance the well-being experiences of school principals.

Principal Distributed Leadership

The concept of distributed leadership, which encompasses the expansion of leadership roles in schools beyond administrative and formal tasks, has been widely accepted in the field of educational leadership in recent years (Heck & Hallinger, 2009) and has been one of the most discussed topics (Gronn, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2009a; Y. Liu et al., 2021; Spillane et al., 2015 ). Distributed leadership in schools, defined as ‘the sharing of leadership within and across schools’ (Harris, 2008, p. 16), has gained considerable traction among researchers, policymakers, practitioners, and educational reformers (Harris, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2009b; Spillane, 2006). Two main approaches to the emergence of distributed leadership have been proposed. In the first perspective, it is argued that distributed leadership is based on the collective action of school members who can lead both inside and outside the classroom and brings a high sense of agency and ownership to the leadership work (Harris, 2008; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Özer & Beycioğlu, 2013). According to the second perspective, Spillane’s ‘practice-centred’ theory, ‘leadership practice emerges through the interaction of leaders, followers and the situation’ (Spillane et al., 2001, p.27). In this study, the first perspective is adopted by conceptualising distributed leadership as a school feature characterised by a set of shared and collective leadership practices that aim to encourage teachers’ participation in school decision-making processes.

The broad conceptual boundaries of distributed leadership and its nature that has different meanings in different contexts (Gronn, 2000, 2003) and the lack of consensus on its application areas in schools (Bennett et al., 2003) are noteworthy as important limitations of this leadership type. For some theorists, distributed leadership is regarded as a novel designation for existing practices, akin to ‘old wine in a new bottle’ (Elmore, 2000). A further limitation of this study is that it examines distributed leadership from the perspective of collective action in schools and teachers’ participation in decision-making, thereby excluding the practice-centred perspective. The conceptualisation of the first perspective was shaped by the educational reforms in Türkiye, which prioritise teachers’ participation in leadership as a means of enhancing overall school improvement (Ministry of Education [MoNE], 2017, 2018). A further challenge associated with the concept of distributed leadership is the lack of awareness of the conditions that need to be created in schools and the resources and supports that need to be provided to implement distributed leadership in both ordinary and extraordinary periods, such as pandemics (e.g., B. Brown & Jones, 2025; Murphy & Brennan, 2024).

Studies in the field of educational administration have demonstrated a positive correlation between distributed leadership and a range of school outcomes, including organisational commitment (H. Hulpia et al., 2009a), teacher trust, self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Y. Liu et al., 2021; Zheng et al., 2019). In addition to enabling teacher development and school improvement (Harris, 2013), distributed leadership significantly predicts teacher well-being (Devos et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2012).

Compared to the effect of distributed leadership on principal well-being, studies showing the effects of principal well-being on leadership behaviours are more common (Dor-Haim & Oplatka, 2021; Zembylas, 2010). In addition, J. Liu et al. (2023) showed that there is a positive relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ career and professional well-being. On the contrary, there are also studies showing that distributed leadership can cause stress among school staff (Mayrowetz, 2008). Based on the conclusion that school members need more active encouragement from the school principal to realise the leadership distributed to them (Murphy & Brennan, 2024), the low level of well-being of the school principal may be an important obstacle to implementing distributed leadership in the school. Based on previous research showing an empirical relationship between distributed leadership and school variables and the theoretical foundations supporting both concepts, researchers hypothesise that there is a positive and direct relationship between distributed leadership and principal well-being (Hypothesis 1).

Principal Trust

Trust can be defined as “the willingness to be vulnerable to the other person, provided that the other person is perceived to be helpful, fair, honest, and competent” (Tschannen-Moran, 2014, p. 29). Trust affects the quality of interactions between school principals, teachers and students in schools and can be a critical resource for school improvement (Karacabey et al., 2022; Leithwood, 2021; Van Maele et al., 2014). Tschannen-Moran and Gareis (2015) posit that trust is paramount for student learning and the development of collaborative work in a professional context. The effectiveness of schools in general has been associated with school leaders who establish and develop trust with staff and educational stakeholders (Çoban et al., 2023; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Moreover, building trust can be seen as one of the most important tasks of the school leader (Howe et al., 2023; Kosonen & Ikonen, 2022).

Furthermore, the literature has documented that trust-based relationships in educational institutions facilitate communication and decision-making processes, thereby improving overall school functioning (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Forsyth et al., 2011). Upon examination of the literature, it becomes evident that the research focuses on the trust of others in the school principal rather than the trust between colleagues within the school (e.g., Hallinger et al., 2019; Li et al., 2016; Mascall et al., 2008). Some studies have focused on trust in colleagues in teacher learning and school improvement (e.g., Li et al., 2016; S. Liu et al., 2016). Following Hoy and Tschannen-Moran’s (2007) conceptualisation of trust in schools, this study focuses on principal trust in colleagues.

According to Bryk and Schneider (2002), in school, principals and teachers establish relational trust that defines their social exchanges within the framework of their defined roles. The principal and teacher in the relationship are expected to understand their own role responsibilities and maintain their expectations of the other’s role responsibilities (Kolleck, 2023). Bektaş et al. (2022) argued that distributed leadership contributes to the school improvement process by supporting teacher trust. Research shows that trust plays an important mediating role in school leadership and teacher practices (Hallinger et al., 2019) and that teachers’ perceptions of distributed leadership affect their trust in colleagues (Mascall et al., 2008; Tschannen-Moran & Gareis, 2015). Within the context of previous studies, researchers hypothesise that principal trust in their colleagues is positively and directly related to distributed leadership (Hypothesis 2). In addition, based on the idea that trust creates an emotional pathway in the school (Leithwood et al., 2020), it is considered that it can support the well-being of school principals. Zheng et al. (2022) found that school principals’ trust in their colleagues can reduce emotional exhaustion. School principals’ trust in their colleagues and establishing relationships in this context effectively create an authentic school climate, especially in societies with high power distance (Zheng & Ye, 2024). On the theoretical background of the literature on well-being and trust, researchers hypothesise that principal trust in their colleagues is positively and directly related to principal well-being (Hypothesis 3).

Principal Commitment

Commitment is defined as people’s motivating connection with their work (Meyer & Allen, 1991). One of the most common models explaining commitment in the literature is the three-component model of Allen and Meyer (1990). In this model, commitment comprises affective, normative and continuance components (Allen & Meyer, 1990). The present study focuses on the aspect of emotional commitment. Affective commitment to the organisation entails the individual identifying with, being involved in, and enjoying the organisation’s membership. Individuals with high emotional commitment demonstrate positive behaviours without expecting any form of reward to advance the values their organisations have given them (Eisenberger et al., 1986).

In the literature, concepts such as sacrifice and responsibility are frequently used in reference to commitment. This synonymous use may present challenges to the accurate comprehension of the concept of commitment. Furthermore, as this study is solely concerned with affective commitment as defined by Allen and Meyer (1990) within their organisational commitment model, the potential influence of normative and continuance commitments, which are crucial elements within the organisational commitment of school principals, has been omitted. It is possible that the effects of normative and continuance commitment on affective commitment of school principals have been overlooked.

Studies on organisational commitment in educational settings have predominantly focused on teachers (Marshall, 2015; Sezgin, 2009). This study, however, shifts attention to school principals, exploring their commitment to their schools based on the conceptual framework of school commitment provided by OECD (2010). Barret and Breyer (2014) emphasise the interconnectedness of leadership and commitment, highlighting how commitment facilitates the development of strategies to achieve organisational goals. Additionally, research demonstrates a positive correlation between teachers’ organisational commitment and their participation in distributed leadership roles (Devos et al., 2014; H. Hulpia et al., 2009b; H. Hulpia et al., 2012; H. Hulpia & Devos, 2010). Drawing on this foundation, researchers hypothesise that principal commitment is positively and directly related to distributed leadership (Hypothesis 4).

Furthermore, Cheung (2000) posited that employees’ well-being positively correlates with their commitment. Teachers with an emotional commitment to their school demonstrate higher levels of well-being (McInerney et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2019). Sergiovanni (2006) posits that high levels of commitment in schools are a distinguishing feature of high well-being. Studies also show that school principals’ well-being positively affects their commitment to work (J. Chen et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2020). Based on the previous studies on commitment and well-being, researchers hypothesise that principal commitment is positively and directly related to principal well-being (Hypothesis 5).

The Mediator Role of Distributed Leadership

In the current study, in addition to the direct empirical links between principal trust and commitment to well-being, the indirect effects of principal trust and commitment to well-being were also examined with the mediating role of distributed leadership. Studies have indicated that teachers’ trust in colleagues, school climate, and school principal plays a mediating role in leadership practices on teacher well-being (S. Chen, 2018; Dou et al., 2017; Sun & Xia, 2018). Researchers have identified a direct and indirect relationship between trust and teachers’ well-being at school (Mascall et al., 2008; Zheng et al., 2019; Zhu et al., 2011). Also, the literature highlights the importance of trust-based relationships in forming the foundation of distributed leadership (Lárusdóttir & O’Connor, 2017; Murphy & Brennan, 2024).

When the second and third hypotheses are considered together, the researchers hypothesise that distributed leadership mediates the relationship between principal trust and well-being (Hypothesis 6). The effect of principal commitment on principal well-being through distributed leadership has been identified as a gap in the literature. When the fourth and fifth hypotheses are considered together, researchers hypothesise that distributed leadership plays a mediating role in the relationship between the principal commitment and the principal well-being (Hypothesis 7). The conceptual model followed is presented in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1.

Conceptual model.

The hypotheses tested in this study are as follows:

H1: Distributed leadership practices in schools are positively related to principal well-being.

H2: School principals’ trust in colleagues is positively related to their well-being.

H3: School principals’ commitment to their schools is positively related to their well-being.

H4: School principals’ trust in colleagues is positively related to their distributed leadership practices.

H5: School principals’ commitment to their schools is positively related to their distributed leadership practices.

H6: School principals’ trust in colleagues is positively and significantly related to their well-being through distributed leadership.

H7: School principals’ commitment to their schools is positively and significantly related to their well-being through distributed leadership.

Method

Procedure and Sample

The sample of this study consisted of school principals working in public basic and upper secondary schools in Türkiye. In the data collection process, firstly stratification was made according to the number of schools in 12 cities at the NUTS 1 (The Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics) level (Eurostat, 2016). Then, school principals were contacted by phone and e-mail and the data collection tool that was created through Google Forms was sent to the school principals, who consented. The data collection process took approximately 2 months to complete. As a result, the study sample consisted of 532 school principals. Of the school principals, 122 (22.9%) were female and 410 (77.1%) were male. Almost half of the school principals (48.3%) had a bachelor’s degree, while more than half (51.7%) had a postgraduate degree. The total professional experience of the school principals in the sample, including teaching, was 25.6 years, and their average experience as school principal was 7.5 years. This demographic distribution is consistent with the demographic distribution of school principals in Türkiye (MoNE, 2022).

A signed informed consent was obtained from the participants, also including the following statements. Precautions were taken to ensure that the participants did not feel coerced, with a particular emphasis on the voluntary nature of participation and the option to withdraw at any time. The findings of this research, which evaluate the factors that support the well-being of school principals and provide recommendations to policymakers and practitioners, underscore the significance of the study. For these reasons, it was considered that collecting data from school principals with direct experience would provide more qualified results.

Instruments

Principal Well-Being

The workplace well-being sub-factor of the Employee Well-Being Scale, as developed by Zheng et al. (2015) was utilised. School principals evaluated their degree of professional well-being using a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). An illustrative statement reads: ‘I am fundamentally content with my work achievements in my current position’. In the validity and reliability study conducted by Zheng et al. (2015), the developer of the scale, the construct validity was tested through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and the structural validity of the scale was confirmed (χ²/df = 2.32, RMSEA = 0.06, CFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.93, SRMR = 0.04). The internal consistency coefficient was also found to be above the acceptable threshold (α = .87). The findings of S. Özdemir et al. (2024) who adapted the scale into Turkish language and culture, further supported the validity and reliability of the scale in this new context.

Distributed Leadership

The scale was developed by Özer and Beycioğlu (2013). The scale has 10 items graded from 1 (never) to 5 (always). An example statement is: ‘The principal is willing to carry out school work in interaction with other school members’. As part of their psychometric evaluation, Özer and Beycioğlu (2013) verified the structural validity of the scale through CFA, with fit indices indicating an acceptable model fit (χ²/df = 2.71, RMSEA = 0.10, CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.05). Additionally, the internal consistency coefficient was found to be high (α = .92), demonstrating strong reliability.

Principal Trust

The Faculty Trust in Colleagues sub-dimension of the Omnibus Trust Scale to measure the trust levels of school principals (Hoy & Tschannen-Moran, 2007) was used. This dimension comprises six items and is graded from 1 (never agree) to 5 (always agree). A sample item from the scale is as follows: ‘When teachers in this school tell you something, you can believe it’. In the validity and reliability study conducted by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000), the scale demonstrated excellent internal consistency (α = .98), and the factor loadings ranged from 0.88 to 0.97, indicating strong construct validity. In this study, The Faculty Trust in Colleagues Scale was adapted to Turkish language and culture by the authors, following the guidelines proposed by Hambleton and Patsula (1998). As part of the adaptation process, the scale was first translated into Turkish by two bilingual experts proficient in both Turkish and English. It was then back-translated into English by two other experts with equivalent language proficiency. The consistency between the original and back-translated versions was assessed to ensure linguistic equivalence. Subsequently, both the original and Turkish versions were administered to a group of 50 bilingual teachers, and a high correlation between the two versions confirmed the accuracy and cultural relevance of the translation.

Principal Commitment

The assessment of teacher commitment was conducted using the school commitment scale (OECD, 2019b). This scale comprises four items rated from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). An illustrative statement from the scale is: ‘I typically anticipate each working day at this school’. The scale was previously adapted into Turkish by Kaya et al. (2024) and implemented within the context of the Turkish education system. Its structural validity was supported through CFA, with fit indices indicating an excellent model fit (χ²/df = 1.13, RMSEA = 0.04, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.04). Furthermore, the internal consistency coefficient was above the acceptable threshold (α = .78), demonstrating the reliability of the scale.

Control Variables

In this study, gender, education degree, school level, school size and experience variables that may have a potential effect on the principal well-being were used as control variables (See et al., 2022).

Analytical Approach

Structural equation modelling was employed to examine the empirical relationships proposed in the hypothesised model (see Figure 1). Structural equation modelling is a powerful tool for analysing complex theoretical models in the social and behavioural sciences (Kline, 2010), making it ideal for this study, which aims to investigate the effects of distributed leadership, principal trust, and commitment on principal well-being.

In structural equation modelling, two critical assumptions must be met: distribution normality, which assumes that data is symmetrically distributed around the mean, and multicollinearity, a condition where highly correlated independent variables can obscure their individual effects (Kline, 2010; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Researchers tested these assumptions and confirmed that the data followed a normal distribution, and no multicollinearity issues were present. Once these prerequisites were met, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to ensure the construct validity of the scales. After confirming the validity of the scales, descriptive statistics were calculated and pairwise correlations between variables were examined to provide an overview of the dataset.

Next, researchers constructed the structural equation modelling by positioning principal trust and commitment as input variables, distributed leadership as a mediator, and principal well-being as the outcome variable. Additionally, control variables, including gender, education level, school level, school size, and experience, were incorporated to account for their potential influence on principal well-being. The model was analysed in three steps: first, testing the direct effects of principal trust, commitment, and distributed leadership on principal well-being; second, examining the direct effects of principal trust and commitment on distributed leadership; and finally, testing the indirect effects of principal trust and commitment on principal well-being, mediated by distributed leadership. To assess the fit of both the confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling, researchers followed the guidelines set by Hu and Bentler (1999). To further test the significance of the direct and indirect effects, researchers performed a bootstrapping analysis by randomly selecting 2,000 samples of varying sizes from the original 532 school principals and running the structural equation modelling repeatedly. All data analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 27 and Mplus 8.3 software.

Findings

Validity and Reliability Analyses

Confirmatory factor analysis was first applied to the distributed leadership, principal well-being, commitment, and trust scales completed by school principals. The findings regarding the fit indices are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Fit Indices of the Scales.

Scales	α	χ²/df	RMSEA	SRMR	TLI	CFI	CR	AVE
Distributed leadership	.83	3.06	0.06	0.01	0.97	0.98	0.89	0.54
Principal well-being	.89	3.72	0.07	0.07	0.98	0.99	0.90	0.64
Principal commitment	.95	1.48	0.03	0.01	0.99	0.99	0.89	0.67
Principal trust	.85	3.40	0.07	0.01	0.99	0.99	0.94	0.75

Note.χ²/df = Chi-square to degrees of freedom ratio; RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; SRMR = standardised root mean square residual; TLI = Tucker-Lewis index; CFI = comparative fit index; CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

The scales’ fit indices showed that all scales’ construct validity showed a good fit. The reliability of the scales was tested and all of them were confirmed to be reliable. To summarise our study variables, we computed descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations. The results showed that the mean scores for distributed leadership, principal well-being, and principal trust were above the scale midpoint, indicating generally positive perceptions in these areas. In contrast, the mean score for principal commitment was slightly lower compared to the other variables. Table 2 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations.

Table 2.

Relationships Among Variables.

Variables	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Distributed leadership	1	0.555**	0.411**	0.413**	−0.74	−0.001	−0.079	0.010	0.045	0.039
2. Principal well-being		1	0.558**	0.492**	−0.030	−0.001	−0.043	0.025	0.108*	0.101*
3. Principal commitment			1	0.472**	−0.001	−0.062	−0.042	0.025	0.108*	0.095*
4. Principal trust				1	−0.036	−0.056	−0.124**	−0.043	0.042	0.049
5. Gender					1	−0.035	0.063	0.119**	0.061	0.274**
6. Educational degree						1	0.079	0.123**	−0.113**	−0.076
7. School level							1	−0.042	0.180**	0.096*
8. School size								1	0.023	0.112**
9. Experience (total)									1	0.010
10. Experience (principal)										1
Mean/percentage	4.43	4.38	3.28	4.01	22.9%	48.3%	65.8%	606.16	25.60	7.50
Standard deviation	0.42	0.52	0.53	0.63	0.42	0.50	0.48	463.65	14.27	7.76
Skewness	−0.38	−0.62	−0.43	−0.43	−1.29	−0.07	0.67	1.70	12.22	1.30
Kurtosis	−0.57	0.18	−0.22	0.55	−0.33	−2.00	−1.56	6.51	228.88	1.75

Note. Gender: Reference group is female; Educational degree: Reference group is bachelor’s degree; School level: Reference group is basic education (primary and lower secondary schools).

p < .01, *p < .05.

Table 2 shows that all variables were moderately, positively and significantly related. The relationships between distributed leadership and principal well-being, commitment and trust are moderate and positive. In addition, principal well-being has a moderate and positive pairwise relationship with principal commitment and trust. Finally, the relationship between principal commitment and trust is also moderate, positive and significant.

Hypothesis Testing

Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypotheses in this research and explore the empirical links between the variables. In structural equation modelling, principal trust and commitment were positioned as input variables, distributed leadership as a mediator variable, and principal well-being as an output variable (see Figure 2). Gender, education level, school level, school size, and experience were included as control variables to examine their possible effects on principal well-being. After running the model, researchers found that the fit indices indicated a good fit.

Figure 2.

Standardised path coefficients.

The results of the analyses showed that there was a moderate, positive and significant relationship between distributed leadership and principal well-being. It also revealed that there was a low-level, positive and significant relationship between principal trust and distributed leadership and principal well-being. It was concluded that the relationship between principal commitment and distributed leadership and principal well-being were positive, moderate and significant. Also, the relationship of our control variables were insignificant. These findings confirmed the hypotheses 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 regarding the direct relationships between the variables.

After examining the direct relationships between the variables, then the indirect associations of principal trust and commitment on principal well-being through distributed leadership were tested. The results for direct, indirect, and total associations are shown in Table 3.

Table 3.

Direct, Indirect and Total Effects.

Effect	Path	B	SE	LCI	UCI	p
Direct effect	DL to PWB	0.345	0.05	0.258	0.434	.000
	PT to PWB	0.188	0.05	0.103	0.277	.000
	PC to PWB	0.378	0.06	0.282	0.475	.000
	PT to DL	0.246	0.05	0.158	0.332	.000
	PC to DL	0.375	0.06	0.278	0.466	.000
Indirect effect	PT via DL to PWB	0.085	0.07	0.038	0.107	.001
Indirect effect	PC via DL to PWB	0.129	0.03	0.085	0.180	.000
Total effect	PT to PWB	0.273	0.06	0.137	0.294	.000
Total effect	PC to PWB	0.507	0.06	0.369	0.595	.000

Note. DL = distributed leadership; PWB = principal well-being, PC = principal commitment, PT = principal trust; LCI = lower 95% confidence interval; UCI = upper 95% confidence interval.

According to the results, the association between principal trust and principal well-being through distributed leadership was found to be low-level, positive, and statistically significant. Similarly, a low-level, positive, and statistically significant association was observed between principal commitment and principal well-being via distributed leadership. Regarding the total associations, both principal trust and principal commitment showed statistically significant and positive total relationships with principal well-being. These results provide support for hypotheses 6 and 7.

Discussion

This section begins with an interpretation of the findings, implications for policymakers and practitioners and continues with limitations and recommendations for future research.

Interpretation of Findings

The first key finding of the current study is that principals’ trust and commitment are related to distributed leadership. Additionally, distributed leadership is associated with principals’ well-being. Furthermore, trust and commitment are also related to principals’ well-being. Finally, trust and commitment are linked to principals’ well-being through distributed leadership. When examining these findings in more detail, it is clear that distributed leadership is associated with principals’ well-being. This finding suggests that higher levels of distributed leadership may be associated with greater satisfaction in school principals’ professional efforts. This finding may be interpreted in light of Ryan and Deci’s (2001) perspective, which suggests that distributed leadership is associated with the autonomous structure of schools, potentially through its relation to teacher autonomy. This autonomy may be linked to improved well-being for both teachers and school principals. Distributed leadership is also often associated with enhanced communication and collaboration between principals and teachers, which has been linked in the literature to reduced role strain for principals. In turn, such dynamics may correspond with higher levels of well-being among principals. This interpretation aligns with previous research indicating that principals who report a balance between their professional and interpersonal roles also tend to report higher well-being. (e.g., J. Chen et al., 2025; Cherkowski et al., 2020).

In contrast to the current study, there are studies in the literature where well-being is examined as an antecedent and leadership as the related outcome. For example, according to J. Chen et al. (2025), school principals with higher levels of well-being are more likely to report engaging in leadership behaviours. Other studies have also identified a positive correlation between principal well-being and leadership behaviours (e.g., Cherkowski et al., 2020; Dor-Haim & Oplatka, 2021; Zembylas, 2010). Some research on distributed leadership has focused on the relationship between school principals’ leadership practices and teachers’ well-being, suggesting a positive association between the two (Devos et al., 2014; Johnson et al., 2012; J. Liu et al., 2023). The present study contributes to this body of research by examining principal well-being as an outcome and exploring its associations with distributed leadership, while also positioning school principals as central figures in both leadership and well-being frameworks.

This study provides evidence of a direct relationship between principal trust, commitment and distributed leadership. Research supports the relationship between distributed leadership and teacher trust (Zheng et al., 2019) and commitment (H. Hulpia et al., 2009a). Evidence shows that trust-based relationships in schools improve communication, interaction and decision-making processes (e.g., Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Forsyth et al., 2011). In addition, trust-oriented relationships have been presented to significantly impact the existence of distributed leadership (Lárusdóttir & O’Connor, 2017; Murphy & Brennan, 2024). Research on school trust has focused more on teacher trust, and the relationship between teacher trust and distributed leadership has been identified (Bektaş et al., 2022).

Furthermore, the current study identified a direct relationship between principal trust and commitment and their well-being. In other words, an empirical association was observed between principal trust and commitment and well-being. This finding suggests that higher levels of trust and commitment may be related to greater levels of principal well-being. In this study, trust and commitment were conceptualised as personal resources. The Job Demands and Resources Theory posits that employees’ work-related and personal resources are associated with their well-being (Bakker & Demerouti, 2014). The present study specifically examined school principals’ trust in their colleagues. The observed positive association between principals’ trust and their well-being aligns with findings by Zheng et al. (2022), who reported that higher trust levels are associated with lower levels of emotional exhaustion in school principals. In the broader literature, other studies have examined how teachers’ trust in the school climate, colleagues, and school principals is related to their well-being (e.g., S. Chen, 2018; Dou et al., 2017; Sun & Xia, 2018), along with research identifying direct and indirect associations between school trust climate and teacher well-being (Mascall et al., 2008; Zhu et al., 2011).

The current study examined school principals’ sense of commitment. While the focus differs slightly, some studies reporting that principals with higher levels of well-being tend to feel more committed to their work appear to align with the present findings (J. Chen et al., 2025; Yang et al., 2020). Cheung (2000) highlighted a positive association between employees’ well-being and their sense of commitment. Studies focussing on teachers more frequently explore the relationship between commitment and well-being, with findings suggesting that higher commitment levels are often linked to greater well-being (e.g., McInerney et al., 2015; Meyer et al., 2019). In a broader context, Sergiovanni (2006) described high school commitment as being associated with high well-being. In this study, all variables were analysed based on principals’ self-reported perceptions. This perspective offers an additional contribution to the educational literature by exploring the associations between principal trust, commitment, and well-being from the perspective of school leaders. Finally, researchers explored the relationship between principal trust and well-being, as well as commitment and well-being, with distributed leadership acting as a mediator. The analysis provided empirical support for both of the proposed relationships. This important finding is noteworthy considering the lack of a model examining the role of distributed leadership as a mediator between principal trust and commitment to well-being.

Conclusion and Implications

This study revealed that in a non-Western collectivist culture with high power distance, principals’ sharing of power through distributed leadership enhanced their well-being. Furthermore, principal trust in their colleagues and their commitment to their schools supported distributed leadership and positively influenced their well-being. In Türkiye, where power distance is high and MoNE is vertically structured, it is noteworthy that distributed leadership fosters principals’ well-being. This provides valuable insight for non-Western cultures and hierarchical education systems similar to Türkiye. The findings demonstrate that trust and commitment serve as critical psychological job resources and social context factors that simultaneously enhance principals’ leadership behaviours and their positive emotional experiences. These findings highlight the importance of systemic and practical approaches to integrating distributed leadership, building trust, and strengthening commitment in schools.

Our study provides some implications for policymakers and practitioners. The results underline the need for systemic efforts to promote distributed leadership as a pathway to improving principals’ well-being. Policymakers should thus prioritise the development of structured leadership programmes that focus on equipping school leaders with the skills to foster trust and commitment within their school communities. These programmes should include practical tools such as simulations, case studies, and collaborative learning opportunities to build principals’ capacity to share leadership responsibilities effectively. In addition, to address Türkiye’s hierarchical education system, policymakers must also consider strategies to reduce power distance by granting school principals greater autonomy in decision-making. For example, introducing school-based decision-making teams where teachers and principals collaborate on key issues, such as curriculum planning and student support, could foster a more inclusive leadership culture. Furthermore, pilot programmes for distributed leadership in select schools could serve as a model for scaling these practices nationwide, ensuring that their benefits are evaluated and understood in diverse school contexts. Finally, through a policy perspective, it is believed that it is crucial to invest in initiatives that enhance principals’ awareness of their psychological job resources, such as trust and commitment. At this point, reflective workshops and peer mentoring programmes could be integrated into leadership development frameworks, helping principals to cultivate the skills necessary for trust-building and commitment in their teams. These systemic efforts would not only improve distributed leadership practices but also enhance principals’ well-being, which is critical for sustaining school improvement efforts.

From a practical perspective, the study highlights that school principals can enhance their well-being by actively fostering distributed leadership in their schools. This can be achieved by involving teachers in decision-making processes, such as forming collaborative planning teams or leadership committees that distribute responsibilities equitably. By creating opportunities for teachers to contribute to school governance, principals can reduce their workload and foster a sense of shared accountability within their teams. In addition, building trust is another critical strategy for improving well-being. Therefore, principals should engage in regular trust-building activities, such as team retreats, collaborative workshops, and informal gatherings that strengthen relationships between staff members. Principals can also establish structured feedback mechanisms, such as regular meetings or anonymous surveys, to ensure that distributed leadership practices align with teachers’ needs and expectations. Additionally, principals can improve their own well-being by adopting a mindset of shared leadership, delegating specific roles such as mentoring or departmental coordination to teachers, and leveraging technology to automate routine administrative tasks. These strategies might free up time for principals to focus on creating a collaborative and inclusive school environment. Finally, principals should consider engaging in professional reflection practices, such as leadership journaling or participating in peer coaching, to continuously evaluate and improve their leadership strategies.

Limitations and Future Research

This study has some limitations in terms of data collection method and sample. Firstly, in this study, data were collected only from school principals, and they were asked to rate their principal well-being, distributed leadership, commitment and trust. This sampling method poses a potential limitation regarding social desirability (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To prevent this potential limitation, the anonymity of the participants was preserved, the questionnaire titles were concealed and the data were collected by ordering the variables according to their roles. However, for future research, studies that will collect data from both school principals and teachers and interpret these data by evaluating them together may be more effective in reducing the effect of social desirability.

Secondly, the data were collected cross-sectionally. The cross-sectional data collection method prevented the researchers from establishing a causal link between the variables. In future studies, collecting and interpreting the data longitudinally or experimentally may provide causal inferences about the variables of school principals addressed in this study.

Third, results are limited to the individual level. In school leadership research, it is common to conduct school-level analysis by measuring principals’ leadership behaviours through teachers’ perceptions (Supovitz et al., 2010). In such school-level studies, the effects of leadership on teacher outcomes were analysed. Since this study directly examined principals’ well-being as an output, trust and commitment as inputs, and distributed leadership as mediating variables, data were collected from principals at the individual level. In future studies, analyses to be conducted at the school level with data collected from both principals and teachers in the form of self-other reports will allow for a broader perspective and a more unbiased view of leadership.

Fourth, as this study relied solely on quantitative data collection and analysis, it offers limited insight into the underlying mechanisms of the relationships among the variables. Integrating qualitative data in future research would allow for a more in-depth exploration of these connections and thereby contribute more comprehensively to the educational leadership literature.

Finally, it is believed that the results of the study may encourage researchers to conduct studies on other factors that support principal well-being. It is also suggested that researchers in Türkiye and other countries with similar cultural characteristics should consider under-researched dimensions such as uncertainty avoidance or short/long-term orientation in the cultural background of the studies.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Hatice Turan Bora

Onur Erdoğan

Zeki Öğdem

Ethical Considerations

The Ethics Committee at Gazi University approved our interviews (approval: E-77082166-604.01-962331) on June 3, 2024.

Consent to Participate

Respondents gave written consent for review and signature before starting interviews.

Author Contributions

Hatice Turan Bora: Theoretical framework and literature review; Writing. Onur Erdoğan: Theoretical framework and literature review; Data analysis. Zeki Öğdem: Data collection.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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.

Data Availability Statement

Research data will be shared upon request from the corresponding author.

References

Akgöz

E. E.

Şahin

Erdoğan

(2024). The mediator role of school climate in the relationship between instructional leadership behaviors of school principals and teacher autonomy. International Journal of Educational Management, 38(4), 1142–1159. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2023-0323

Allen

N. J.

Meyer

J. P.

(1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

Arastaman

Çetinkaya

(2022). Stressors faced by principals, ways of coping with stress and leadership experiences during the COVID -19 pandemic. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(7), 1271–1283. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-09-2021-0361

Bailey

Gibson

M. T.

(2024). Well-being of international school leaders during the COVID-19 pandemic. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241269412

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2014). Job demands–resources theory. In Cooper

Chen

(Eds.), Wellbeing: A Complete Reference Guide (pp. 37–64). Wiley-Blackwell.

Bandura

Caprara

G. V.

Barbaranelli

Gerbino

Pastorelli

(2003). Role of affective self-regulatory efficacy in diverse spheres of psychosocial functioning. Child Development, 74(3), 769–782. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00567

Barret

Breyer

(2014). The influence of effective leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Research Initiative, 1(2), 1–9. https://digitalcommons.uncfsu.edu/jri/vol1/iss2/3

Beausaert

Froehlich

D. E.

Riley

Gallant

(2023). What about school principals’ well-being? The role of social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 405–421. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143221991853 Original work published 2023.

Bektaş

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Gümüş

(2022). The effects of distributed leadership on teacher professional learning: mediating roles of teacher trust in principal and teacher motivation. Educational Studies, 48(5), 602–624. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1793301

10.

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Gümüş

Chen

(2024a). The impact of distributed leadership on teacher commitment: The mediation role of teacher workload stress and teacher well-being. British Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 814–836. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3944

11.

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Polatcan

Özcan

Akyürek

M. İ

. (2024b). School leadership in a non-western context: How is paternalistic leadership related to teacher well-being and commitment in collectivist versus individualistic school cultures? Journal of Educational Administration, 62(5), 433–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-01-2024-0002

12.

Bennett

Wise

Woods

P. A.

Harvey

J. A.

(2003). Distributed leadership: A review of literature. National College for School Leadership, pp. 1–57.

13.

Berkovich

Eyal

(2015). Educational leaders and emotions: An international review of empirical evidence 1992–2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 129–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314550046

14.

Berkovich

Eyal

(2017). Emotional reframing as a mediator of the relationships between transformational school leadership and teachers’ motivation and commitment. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(5), 450–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-07-2016-0072

15.

Beycioğlu

Sincar

(2019). The effects of shame in school leadership: The case of Turkish principals. In Oplatka

Arar

(Eds.), Emotion management and feelings in teaching and Educational Leadership (Studies in Educational Administration) (pp. 213–234). Emerald Publishing Limited.

16.

Bogler

Berkovich

(2022). A systematic review of empirical evidence on teachers’ organizational commitment 1994–2018. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(3), 440–457. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1774783

17.

Bozkurt

Kara

(2024). Relationship between social justice leadership and trust in principals: mediating role of perceived administrator support. Research in Educational Administration and Leadership, 9(2), 296–328. https://doi.org/10.30828/real.1433217

18.

Brown

Jones

(2025). Adaptive leadership of schools in Australia during the covid-19 pandemic: Lessons for future crises. School Leadership and Management, 45, 153–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2025.2473890

19.

Bryk

A. S.

Schneider

(2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

20.

Bush

(2020). Theories of educational leadership and management. Sage Publications.

21.

Bush

(2021). School leadership and culture: Societal and organisational perspectives. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(2), 211–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220983063

22.

Cai

Liu

Tang

(2023). Distributed leadership and teacher work engagement: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and the moderating role of interpersonal trust. Asia Pacific Education Review, 24, 383–397. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-022-09760-x

23.

Cansoy

Gümüş

Walker

(2024). Challenges in implementing instructional leadership: Insights from Turkish school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241263915

24.

Chen

(2021). Development and validation of the principal emotion inventory: A mixed-methods approach. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(5), 750–767. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220919764

25.

Chen

Hallinger

Lee

J. C. K.

(2025). Looking back and ahead: A bibliometric review of research on principal well-being, 1962–2022. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(4), 730–750. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231190217

26.

Chen

Walker

(2023). Emotional trajectory at different career stages of principalship: A perspective from excellent principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 384–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220985300

27.

Chen

(2018). Influence of functional and relational perspectives of distributed leadership on instructional change and school climate. Elementary School Journal, 119(2), 298–326. https://doi.org/10.1086/700279

28.

Cherkowski

Kutsyuruba

Walker

(2020). Positive leadership: animating purpose, presence, passion and play for flourishing in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(4), 401–415. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-04-2019-0076

29.

Cheung

C. K.

(2000). Commitment to the organization in exchange for support from the organization. Social Behavior and Personality, 28(2), 125–140.

30.

Çoban

Ö.

Özdemir

Bellibaş

M. Ş

. (2023). Trust in principals, leaders’ focus on instruction, teacher collaboration, and teacher self-efficacy: Testing a multilevel mediation model. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(1), 95–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220968170

31.

Connolly

James

Fertig

(2019). The difference between educational management and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibility. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(4), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745880 Original work published 2019.

32.

Cumming

(2017). Early childhood educators’ well-being: An updated review of the literature. Early Childhood Education Journal, 45, 583–593. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-016-0818-6

33.

Dadaczynski

Kotarski

Rathmann

Okan

(2022). Health literacy and mental health of school principals. Results from a German cross-sectional survey. Journal of Health Education, 122(3), 350–363. https://doi.org/10.1108/he-10-2020-0094

34.

Deci

Ryan

(2002). Self-determination theory. http://psych.rochester.edu/SDT/theory.html

35.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Reyes

Carrola

Edwards

James

(2023). Novice principal burnout: Exploring secondary trauma, working conditions, and coping strategies in an urban district. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 22(1), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2021.1917624

36.

Devos

Tuytens

Hulpia

(2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120(2), 205–231. https://doi.org/10.1086/674370

37.

Diotaiuti

Mancone

Bellizzi

Valente

(2020). The principal at risk: Stress and organizing mindfulness in the school context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(17), 6318. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176318

38.

Dor-Haim

Oplatka

(2021). Feelings of loneliness among school principals: Experiences, causes and copying strategies. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(2), 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1668423

39.

Dou

Devos

Valcke

(2017). The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(6), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216653975

40.

Eisenberger

Huntington

Hutchison

Sowa

(1986). Perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.500

41.

Elmore

R. F.

(2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Albert Shanker Institute.

42.

Evers

A. T.

Messmann

Kreijns

(2024). Distributed leadership, leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: the mediating role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Current Psychology, 43, 11037–11049. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-05048-4

43.

Eurostat (2016). Eurostat: Regional statistics by NUTS classification. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database#Data%20navigation%20tree

44.

Forsyth

P. B.

Adams

C. M.

Hoy

W. K.

(2011). Collective trust. Why schools can’t improve. Teacher College Press.

45.

Gorrell

De Nobile

(2023). The well-being of Australian primary school principals: A study of the key concerns. International Journal of Educational Management, 37(6/7), 1243–1254. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-01-2023-0039

46.

Gronn

(2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/0263211x000283006

47.

Gronn

(2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. Sage.

48.

Gronn

(2010). Where to next for educational leadership? In Bush

Middlewood

L. B. V. D.

(Eds.), The principles of educational leadership and management içinde (pp. 70–85). Sage.

49.

Hallinger

(2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652

50.

Hallinger

Liu

Piyaman

(2019). Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning? A comparative study China and Thailand. Compare, 49(3), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237

51.

Hallinger

Wang

W. C.

(2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Springer.

52.

Hambleton

R. K.

Patsula

(1998). Adapting tests for use in multiple languages and cultures. Social Indicators Research, 45, 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006941729637

53.

Hancock

D. R.

Müller

Stricker

Wang

Lee

Hachen

(2019). Causes of stress and strategies for managing stress among German and US principals. Research in Comparative and International Education, 14(2), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745499919846037

54.

Harris

(2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863253

55.

Harris

(2013). Distributed Leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 545–554. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213497635

56.

Harris

(2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Sage.

57.

Harris

Jones

Ismail

(2022). Distributed leadership: Taking a retrospective and contemporary view of the evidence base. School Leadership and Management, 42, 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2109620

58.

Heck

R. H.

Hallinger

(2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209340042

59.

Howe

Hallam

Hilton

(2023). Principal trust: Factors that influence faculty trust in the principal. In Zajda

Hallam

Whitehouse

(Eds.), Globalisation, Values Education and teaching democracy. Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research (pp. 159–179). Springer.

60.

Hoy

W. K.

Tschannen-Moran

(2007). The conceptualization and measurement of faculty trust in schools. In Hoy

DiPaola

(Eds.), Essential ideas for the reform of American schools (pp. 87–114). Information Age.

61.

Bentler

P. M.

(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. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

62.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

(2009a). 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450902909840

63.

Hulpia

Devos

Van Keer

(2009b). The influence of distributed leadership on teachers’ organizational commitment: A Multilevel approach. Journal of Education and Research, 103(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903231201

64.

Hulpia

Devos

(2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 565–575. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.08.006

65.

Hulpia

Devos

Rosseel

Vlerick

(2012). Dimensions of distributed leadership and the impact on teachers’ organizational commitment: A study in secondary education. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(7), 1745–1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00917.x

66.

IVS. (2022). Trust in others. Integrated Values Surveys (IVS) Version 3.

67.

Johnson

S. M.

Kraft

M. A.

Papay

J. P.

(2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811211401004

68.

Karacabey

M. F.

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Adams

(2022). Principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Turkish schools: Examining the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy and teacher trust. Educational Studies, 48(2), 253–272. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.1749835

69.

Kavgacı

(2024). Does relational context matter? Trust in principal as a moderator between distributed leadership and organisational citizenship behaviours in Turkish schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241292938

70.

Kaya

Erdoğan

Yeşil

Sezgin

(2024). The roles of collective teacher efficacy and commitment in the relationship between Turkish language teachers’ job satisfaction and school principal distributed leadership. Sage Open, 14(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440241271136

71.

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Beycioglu

(2021). Mapping the terrain of training and appointment of educational leaders in the Turkish context: An historical perspective. In: Internationalisation of Educational Administration and Leadership Curriculum: Voices and Experiences from the ‘Peripheries’. (pp. 139-157). Emerald Publishing Limited.

72.

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Polatcan

Savaş

(2024). How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(2), 455–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221082803

73.

Kline

R. B.

(2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.

74.

Kolleck

(2023). Trust in cross-sector alliances: Towards a theory of relational trust in multi-professional education networks. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(6), 1362–1382. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432211043876

75.

Kosonen

Ikonen

(2022). Trust building through discursive leadership: A communicative engagement perspective in higher education management. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(3), 412–428. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1673903

76.

Kutsyuruba

Arghash

Al Makhamreh

(2024). School leader well-being: Perceptions of Canada’s outstanding principals. Education Sciences, 14, 667. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14060667

77.

Lárusdóttir

S. H.

O’Connor

(2017). Distributed leadership and middle leadership practice in schools: A disconnect? Irish Educational Studies, 36(4), 423–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/03323315.2017.1333444

78.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

(2009a). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Routledge.

79.

Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

(2009b). New perspectives on an old idea: A short history of the old idea. In Leithwood

Mascall

Strauss

(Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence (pp. 1–14). Routledge.

80.

Leithwood

(2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11(8), 377. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377

81.

Leithwood

Sun

Schumacker

(2020). How school leadership influences student learning: A test of “The four paths model.” Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(4), 570–599. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x19878772 Original work published 2020.

82.

Hallinger

Walker

(2016). Exploring the mediating effects of trust on principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Hong Kong primary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 20–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558577

83.

Lim

Pollock

(2019). Secondary principals’ perspectives on the impact of work intensification on the secondary vice-principal role. Leading and Managing, 25(9), 80–98.

84.

Ling

Bai

Y. J.

B. B.

Yang

(2023). The application of distributed leadership in middle school classroom. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1200792. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1200792

85.

Liu

Qiang

Kang

(2023). Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and wellbeing in schools: A study of relations among teachers in Shanghai. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01696-w

86.

Liu

Hallinger

(2018). Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(4), 501–528. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x18769048

87.

Liu

Hallinger

Feng

(2016). Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does principal leadership make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education, 59, 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.05.023

88.

Liu

Bellibaş

M. Ş.

Gümüş

(2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

89.

Mahfouz

(2020). Principals and stress: Few coping strategies for abundant stressors. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(3), 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218817562

90.

Mahmutoğlu

Celep

Kaya

(2025). The impact of school administrators’ influence tactics on teachers’ organizational commitment: The role of learning agility. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, 1549328. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1549328

91.

Marshall

I. A.

(2015). Principal leadership style and teacher commitment among a sample of secondary school teachers in Barbados. Journal of Arts and Humanities, 4(5), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.18533/journal.v4i5.706

92.

Mascall

Leithwood

Straus

Sacks

(2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863271

93.

Mayrowetz

(2008). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x07309480

94.

McInerney

D. M.

Ganotice

F. A.

King

R. B.

Morin

A. J. S.

Marsh

H. W.

(2015). Teachers’ commitment and psychological well-being: Implications of self-beliefs for teaching in Hong Kong. Educational Psychologist, 35(8), 926–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895801

95.

Meyer

J. P.

Allen

N. J.

(1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/1053-4822(91)90011-z

96.

Meyer

J. P.

Morin

A. J. S.

Stanley

L. J.

Maltin

E. R.

(2019). Teachers’ dual commitment to the organization and occupation: A person-centered investigation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 100–111.

97.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2017). Teacher strategy paper. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_05/25170118_Teacher_Strategy_Paper_2017-2023.pdf

98.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2018). Türkiye’s 2023 education vision”. https://planipolis.iiep.unesco.org/sites/default/files/ressources/turkey_education_vision_2023.pdf

99.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2020). Professional development programme for school administrators in the context of inclusive education: instructional leadership. https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/www/kapsayici-egitim-baglaminda-okul-yoneticilerinin-mesleki-gelisimi-projesi/icerik/1006

100.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2021). Regulation on the selection and appointment of managers in educational institutions affiliated to the Ministry of National Education. https://mevzuat.gov.tr

101.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2022). National education statistics formal education 2022/2023. https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=508

102.

Ministry of Education [MoNE]. (2024). Turkish Century Education Model. https://tymm.meb.gov.tr/upload/brosur/ortak_metin.pdf

103.

Murphy

Brennan

(2024). Enacting distributed leadership in the republic of Ireland: Assessing primary school principals’ developmental needs using constructive developmental theory. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(3), 666–685. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221086850

104.

Myer

J. P.

Becker

T. E.

Vandenberghe

(2004). Employee commitment and motivation; A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991

105.

OECD. (2010). TALIS 2008 technical report. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2010/03/talis-2008-technical-report_g1ghc158/9789264079861-en.pdf

106.

OECD. (2019a). PISA 2018 technical report, OECD Publishing. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/pisa2018technicalreport/

107.

OECD. (2019b). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. Available at.

108.

Oplatka

(2017). Empathy regulation among Israeli school principals: Expression and suppression of major emotions in educational leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 27(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700104

109.

Özcan

(2024). Subjective well-being levels of classroom teachers. European Journal of Education, 59(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.12693

110.

Özdemir

Demircioğlu

(2015). Distributed leadership and contract relations: Evidence from Turkish high schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(6), 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543207

111.

Özdemir

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Polatcan

Turan

Bellibaş

M. Ş

. (2023). Exploring teachers’ instructional practice profiles: Do distributed leadership and teacher collaboration make a difference? Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(2), 255–305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x231159092

112.

Özdemir

Sezgin

Kılınç

A. Ç.

Erdoğan

Turan Bora

(2024). Unveiling the associations between principal self-efficacy, openness to change and transformational leadership: The mediating role of well-being. Journal of Educational Administration, 62(5), 528–544. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-11-2023-0284

113.

Özer

Beycioğlu

(2013). The development, validity and reliability study of distributed leadership scale. Elementary Education Online, 12(1), 77–86.

114.

Parlar

Türkoğlu

M. E.

Cansoy

(2022). Exploring how authoritarian leadership affects commitment: The mediating roles of trust in the school principal and silence. International Journal of Educational Management, 36(1), 110–129. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijem-04-2021-0160

115.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Lee

J. Y.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879

116.

Pollock

Wang

(2020). School principals’ work and well-being in Ontario: What they say and why it matters. https://ir.lib.uwo.ca/edupub/220/

117.

Rahimi

Arnold

Horwood

Riley

(2025). Health and well-being of government school leaders across urban and rural regions in Australia: Evidence from 2011 to 2020. In Johnson

J. D.

Harmon

H. L.

(Eds.), Handbook on rural and remote education (pp. 196–215). Elgar Online.

118.

Riley

See

S. M.

Marsh

Dicke

(2021). The Australian principal occupational health, safety and wellbeing survey (IPPE report). Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University.

119.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 141–166. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.141

120.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

121.

See

S. M.

Kidson

Marsh

Dicke

(2022). The Australian Principal Occupational Health, Safety and Wellbeing Survey (IPPE Report). Sydney: Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University.

122.

Sergiovanni

T. J.

(2006). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective. Pearson Education.

123.

Sezgin

(2009). Examining the relationship between teacher organizational commitment and school health in Turkish primary schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 15(2), 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610902820115

124.

Spillane

J. P.

(2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

125.

Spillane

J. P.

Halverson

Diamond

J. B.

(2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x030003023

126.

Spillane

J. P.

Harris

Jones

Mertz

(2015). Opportunities and challenges for taking a distributed perspective: Novice school principals’ emerging sense of their new position. British Educational Research Journal, 41(6), 1068–1085.

127.

Sun

Xia

(2018). Teacher-perceived distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: A multilevel SEM approach using the 2013 Talis data. International Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006

128.

Sun

Zhang

Forsyth

P. B.

(2023). The effects of teacher trust on student learning and the malleability of teacher trust to school leadership: A 35-year meta-analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(4), 744–810.

129.

Supovitz

Sirinides

May

. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.

130.

Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.). (2007). Using multivariate statistics (7 ed.). Pearson.

131.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2020). How’s life: Measuring well-being. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/wise/how-s-life-23089679.htm

132.

The World Health Organization. (2014). Global status report on alcohol and health. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/global-status-report-on-alcohol-and-health-2014

133.

Toker-Gokce

Sarikaya

A. S.

(2024). Beyond the school: Principals’ insights on expanded roles in times of crisis. The case of COVID-19 in Turkey. International Journal of Leadership in Education. Advance online publication. 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2024.2420194

134.

Tschannen-Moran

(2004). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools. Jossey-Bass.

135.

Tschannen-Moran

(Ed.). (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

136.

Tschannen-Moran

Gareis

C. R.

(2015). Faculty trust in the principal: An essential ingredient in highperforming schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 66–92. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2014-0024

137.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

W. K.

(2000). A multidisciplinary analysis of the nature, meaning, and measurement of trust. Review of educational research, 70(4), 547–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070004547

138.

Turkoglu Ozdemir

Sincar

. (2025). Primary school teachers’ perspectives on school principals’ social justice leadership practices in Turkey. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2025.2486426

139.

Van Maele

Van Houtte

. (2015). Trust in school: A pathway to inhibit teacher burnout? Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 93–115. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-02-2014-0018

140.

Van Maele

Van Houtte

Forsyth

P. B

. (2014). Introduction: trust as a matter of equity and excellence in education. In Van Maele

Forsyth

P. B.

Van Houtte

(Eds.), Trust and school life (pp. 1–33). Springer.

141.

Walker

Hallinger

(2015). A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(4), 554–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-05-2015-0038

142.

Wang

(2024). Principals’ well-being: Understanding its multidimensional nature. Journal of School Leadership and Management, 44(4), 442–465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2334942

143.

Wang

(2025). Emotional well-being of school principals: exploring enhancement and risk factors. Journal of Educational Administration, 63, 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-07-2024-0239

144.

Wang

Pollock

Hauseman

(2023). Time demands and emotionally draining situations amid work intensification of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 59(1), 112–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x221132837

145.

Yang

Zeng

Han

Pan

(2020). Work-family conflict and primary and secondary school principals’ work engagement: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 596385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.596385

146.

Yilmaz

Tore

(2025). The mediating role of self-efficacy in the effect of school principals’ transformational leadership characteristics on teachers’ innovative work behavior. Leadership and Policy in Schools. 1–20. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2025.2462741

147.

Youssef-Morgan

C. M.

Luthans

(2013). Positive leadership: Meaning and application across cultures. Organizational Dynamics, 42(3), 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.orgdyn.2013.06.005

148.

Zembylas

(2010). The emotional aspects of leadership for social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 48(5), 611–625. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231011067767

149.

Zheng

Dan

Luo

Peng

(2022). A job demands-resources perspective on kindergarten principals’ occupational well-being: The role of emotion regulation. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19, 15030. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192215030

150.

Zheng

(2024). Teacher leadership for professional development in a networked learning community: A Chinese case study. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(5), 1062–1081. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221121224

151.

Zheng

Yin

Liu

(2019). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 28, 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7

152.

Zheng

Zhu

Zhao

Zhang

(2015). Employee well-being in organizations: Theoretical model, scale development, and cross-cultural validation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(5), 621–644. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1990

153.

Zhu

Devos

(2011). Teacher perceptions of school culture and their organizational commitment and well-being in a Chinese school. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(2), 319–328.