Predicting Transformational School Leadership in Different School Contexts: Does Work Engagement Make a Difference?

• In Event: School Leadership for Innovation

Abstract

Objectives:
Previous research on Transformational School Leadership (TSL) has focused predominantly on the impacts and effects of leadership behavior on organizational processes, structures, and the involved individuals (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005). The majority of researchers highlight TSL as an empowering way to strengthen schools' culture, improve teachers' commitment and student learning, and support educational innovation (Wilson Heenan et al., 2023; Hallinger, 2003). Furthermore, leadership studies revealed that transformational leadership behaviors are positively associated with employees’ perceptions of job resources, performance feedback, and social support (Fernet et al., 2015).
Even though, a substantial amount of scholarly work investigated the outcomes of TSL, there is limited empirical evidence about the antecedents of TSL (Sun et al., 2017). Besides, organizational contexts, e.g., the socio-economic status (SES), as a potential cause for school leaders' differentiated needs in implementing TSL, have not been investigated sufficiently (Sun & Leithwood, 2012). Nevertheless, there is empirical evidence that leadership depends on the job demands and resources of those working in leadership positions (Gregersen et al., 2016). In this respect, it is known that the effects of job resources on dependent variables are mediated by work engagement, i.e., absorption, dedication, and vigor (Mazzetti et al., 2023). Against that background, the purpose of the present research is to examine factors predicting TSL in various SES context by applying the Job Demands-Resources Theory (JD-R) (Bakker &Demerouti). It scrutinizes job resources (psychological safety), personal resources (self-efficacy), and the mediating effects of school leaders’ work engagement as antecedents of TSL within various school SES context (demands). The following research questions will, hence, guide the study:
1. How are self-efficacy and psychological safety related to TSL in low SES- vs. non low SES schools?
2. Does school leaders' work engagement mediate the relation between resources and TSL?


Method:
We use data from a random sample of 984 German School leaders, 224 from low-SES schools, and 760 from non-low-SES schools. We applied a multi-group structural equation model (MG_SEM) in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) for data analysis.

Results:
Results show that for school leaders at low-SES schools, only job resources (psychological safety) have a statistically significant effect on their TSL behavior (β=.41**). Personal resources (self-efficacy), in turn, have no direct effect on TSL, but function as an essential predictor for work engagement. However, work engagement does not significantly mediate the relationship between job and personal resources and TSL at low-SES schools.
At non-low SES schools, personal resources are positively related to TSL (β=.39**) and are more important than job resources (β=.20**). Work engagement functions as a positive significant but weak mediator (β=.13**) between school leaders’ personal resources and TSL at non-low-SES schools.

Conclusion:
Our research contributes to the understanding of TSL by revealing striking differences in the effect of antecedents on TSL and the importance of considering schools’ SES. Our results suggest that while job resources are highly relevant for school leaders at low-SES schools, personal resources seem more critical for TSL at non-low-SES schools.

Authors

• Jasmin Witthöft, Leuphana University - Lueneburg

• Marcus Pietsch, Leuphana University - Lueneburg