Purpose: The present study sought to investigate how principal-teacher relationship patterns interact with transformational leadership to influence teachers’ innovativeness and resistance to change, drawing on the leader-member exchange theory. Method: Data were collected from 1005 teachers across 92 schools in Türkiye. Multilevel latent profile moderation analysis was conducted to reveal teacher-principal relationship profiles and how each profile moderates the associations between transformational leadership and teacher resistance to change, as well as transformational leadership and teacher innovativeness. Findings: Our findings revealed three teacher-principal relationship profiles within schools: cohesive, conflicting, and balancing, as well as two school profiles: cohesive schools and blended schools. Additionally, principal-teacher relationship profiles played a moderating role in the effects of transformational leadership on teacher innovativeness and resistance to change at both the school and individual levels. We found that transformational leaders were more effective in promoting teacher innovativeness and mitigating teacher resistance to change when they had a cohesive relationship with teachers. These associations were not significant in the case of conflicting or balancing relationships. At the school level, transformational leadership had a stronger association with teacher innovativeness if the school was characterized as cohesive rather than blended. However, transformational leadership was related to less resistance to change only in cohesive schools. Leadership remained ineffective in reducing resistance when a mixture of cohesive and conflicting teachers was present (in blended schools). Conclusion: Effective principal-teacher interactions serve as the foundation for transformational leadership to inspire innovation and reduce resistance to change within and across schools.
ActonK. S. (2021). School leaders as change agents: Do principals have the tools they need?Management in Education, 35(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206209274
2.
AgasistiT.BowersA. J.SoncinM. (2019). School principals’ leadership types and student achievement in the Italian context: Empirical results from a three-step latent class analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 860–886. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218768577
3.
AggarwalA., ChandP. K., JhambD., & MittalA. (2020). Leader-member exchange, work engagement, and psychological withdrawal behavior: The mediating role of psychological empowerment. Frontiers in Psychology, 11(423), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00423
4.
AkdoğanE. (2002). Perceived leadership styles of lecturers and job satisfaction relationship between the levels. Unpublished master's thesis, Marmara University, Istanbul.
5.
AkyürekM. I.AkkoyunM. (2023). Turkish adaptation of principal-teacher relationship scale: Validity and reliability study. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research, 10(3), 658–667. https://doi.org/10.52380/ijcer.2023.10.3.473
6.
ArmenakisA. A.HarrisS. G. (2009). Reflections: Our journey in organizational change research and practice. Journal of Change Management, 9(2), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697010902879079
7.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915181
8.
AsparouhovT.MuthénB. (2015). Residual associations in latent class and latent transition analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935844
9.
AvolioB. J.BassB. M. (Eds.). (2001). Developing Potential Across a Full Range of Leadership TM: Cases on Transactional and Transformational Leadership. Psychology Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410603975
10.
BakırD., & AltunayE. (2025). The ınterplay of school cultural dynamics and change: Exploring the resistance to school change. European Journal of Education, 60(1), e70059, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejed.70059
11.
BalyerA.OzcanK. (2012). Cultural adaptation of headmasters’ transformational leadership scale and a study on teachers’ perceptions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 49(1), 103–128.
12.
BassB. M.AvolioB. J. (2000). MLQ: Multifactor leadership questionnaire. Mind Garden.
13.
BassB. M.RiggioR. E. (2006). Transformational Leadership (2nd ed.). Psychology Press.
14.
BauerD. J.CurranP. J. (2004). The integration of continuous and discrete latent variable models: Potential problems and promising opportunities. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 3–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.3
BellibaşMŞPolatcanM.AkyürekMİ (2024b). Principal leadership typologies and their relationship with teacher self-efficacy and commitment: A latent profile mediation analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(6), 1497–1518. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221139932
17.
BellibaşMŞPolatcanM.KılınçAÇ (2022). Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(5), 812–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220945706
18.
BellibaşM. Ş.RyskuluevaF.LevinJ.PietschM. (2024a). A safe space and leadership matter for innovation: Exploring the role of psychological safety in the relationship between transformational leadership and innovation radicalness in Kyrgyz classrooms. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241264
19.
BerkovichI. (2018a). Will it sink or will it float: Putting three common conceptions about principals’ transformational leadership to the test. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(6), 888–907. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217714253
20.
BerkovichI. (2018b). Typology of trust relationships: Profiles of teachers’ trust in principal and their implications. Teachers and Teaching, 24(7), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2018.1483914
21.
BilgeB.KonaklıT. (2024). Leader member exchange as a mediator of the relationship between schools’ openness to change and political skills of school principals. SAGE Open, 14(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/215824402412739
22.
BowersA. J.BlitzM.ModesteM. E.SalisburyJ.HalversonR. (2017). Is there a typology of teacher and leader responders to CALL, and do they cluster in different types of schools? A two-level latent class analysis of CALL survey data. Teachers College Record, 119(4), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900408
23.
BoyceJ.BowersA. J. (2018). Different levels of leadership for learning: Investigating differences between teachers individually and collectively using multilevel factor analysis of the 2011-2012 schools and staffing survey. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 197–225. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1139187
24.
BurićI.Parmač KovačićM.HuićA. (2021). Transformational leadership and instructional quality during the COVID-19 pandemic: A moderated mediation analysis. Društvena Istraživanja: Časopis za Opća Društvena Pitanja, 30(2), 181–202. https://doi.org/10.5559/di.30.2.01
25.
CalışkanA. (2019). Resistance to change: A scale adaptation study. Journal of Süleyman Demirel University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences, 24(2), 237–252.
26.
CarmeliA.GittellJ. H. (2009). High-quality relationships, psychological safety, and learning from failures in work organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30(6), 709–729. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.565
27.
ChenJ.ZhengW.JiangB. (2022). The impact of moral leadership on physical education teachers’ innovation behavior: The role of identification with leader and psychological safety. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1030245), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1030245
28.
CingözA.AkdoğanA. A. (2011). An empirical examination of performance and image outcome expectation as determinants of innovative behavior in the workplace. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 24, 847–853. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.099
29.
DansereauF.JrGraenG.HagaW. J. (1975). A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 13(1), 46–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(75)90005-7
30.
DayanM.Di BenedettoC. A.ColakM. (2009). Managerial trust in new product development projects: Its antecedents and consequences. R&D Management, 39(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9310.2008.00538.x
31.
DentE. B.GoldbergS. G. (1999). Challenging “resistance to change.”The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 35(1), 25–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886399351003
32.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2014). Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons.
33.
DuBoseB. M.MayoA. M. (2020). Resistance to change: A concept analysis. Nursing Forum, 55(4), 631–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/nuf.12479
34.
FerrisG. R.JudgeT. A. (1991). Personnel/human resources management: A political ınfluence perspective. Journal of Management, 17(2), 447–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700208
35.
FullanM. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. John Wiley & Sons.
36.
FurstS. A.CableD. M. (2008). Employee resistance to organizational change: Managerial influence tactics and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(2), 453–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.453
37.
GeorgeJ. M.JonesG. R. (2001). Towards a process model of ındividual change in organizations. Human Relations, 54(4), 419–444. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726701544002
38.
GeorgeJ. M.ZhouJ. (2001). When openness to experience and conscientiousness are related to creative behavior: An interactional approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.513
39.
GraenG. B.Uhl-BienM. (1995). Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader-member exchange (LMX) theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi-domain perspective. The Leadership Quarterly, 6(2), 219–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(95)90036-5
40.
GrovesK. S. (2020). Testing a moderated mediation model of transformational leadership, values, and organization change. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 27(1), 35–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1548051816662614
41.
GumusS.BellibasM. S.EsenM.GumusE. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216659296
42.
HallingerP. (2018). Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216670652
43.
HallquistM. N.WileyJ. F. (2018). MplusAutomation : An R package for facilitating large-scale latent variable analyses in M plus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(4), 621–638. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1402334
HerodotouC.SharplesM.GavedM.Kukulska-HulmeA.RientiesB.ScanlonE.WhitelockD. (2019). Innovative pedagogies of the future: An evidence-based selection. Frontiers in Education, 4(113), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2019.00113
46.
HoC. S. M., EyalO., & ManT. W. Y. (2025). Profiling teacher leaders through entrepreneurial behaviours: A cluster analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 63(1), 109–125. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2024-0079
47.
HoC. S. M., & LuJ. (2024). Measuring teacher entrepreneurial behavior: A scale development and validation study. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 9(3), 259–279. https://doi.org/10.1108/JPCC-01-2024-0009
48.
HuL. T.BentlerP. 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
49.
InandiY.TuncB.YucedaglarA.KilicS. (2020). The relationship of school administrators’ leadership styles with organizational dissent and resistance to change according to perceptions of teachers. International Online Journal of Educational Sciences, 12(5), 287–302.https://doi.org/10.15345/iojes.2020.05.020
50.
JermierJ. M., KnightsD. E., & NordW. R. (1994). Resistance and power in organizations. Routledge.
51.
KanakeM. K.KemboiA. (2020). Employee empowerment and ınnovative work behavior: The moderating role of leader-member exchange. SEISENSE Journal of Management, 3(5), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.33215/sjom.v3i5.421
52.
KılınçAÇPolatcanM.SavaşG.ErE. (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
53.
KleysenR. F.StreetC. T. (2001). Toward a multi-dimensional measure of individual innovative behavior. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 2(3), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005660
54.
KwanH. K.LiuJ.YimF. H. (2011). Effects of mentoring functions on receivers’ organizational citizenship behavior in a Chinese context: A two-study investigation. Journal of Business Research, 64(4), 363–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2010.04.003
55.
LasradoF.KassemR. (2020). Let’s get everyone involved! the effects of transformational leadership and organizational culture on organizational excellence. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 38(1), 169–194. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-11-2019-0349
LeithwoodK.JantziD. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010402
58.
LeithwoodK.SunJ.SchumackerR. (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
59.
LewickiR. J.McAllisterD. J.BiesR. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. The Academy of Management Review, 23(3), 438–458. https://doi.org/10.2307/259288
60.
LewinK. (1951). Problems of research in social psychology. In CartwrightD. (Ed.), Field theory in social science (pp. 155–169). Harper & Brothers.
61.
LiY. (2022). A review of empirical research on transformational school leadership in China (2010–2019). ECNU Review of Education, 5(1), 156–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/2096531120942242
62.
LiaoC. L., & SánchezB. (2019). Mentoring relationship quality profiles and their association with urban, low-income youth’s academic outcomes. Youth & Society, 51(4), 443–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X16668058
63.
LinQ. (2022). The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(948152), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.948152
64.
LinY.DowellN.GodfreyA.ChoiH.BrooksC. (2019, March). Modeling gender dynamics in intra and interpersonal interactions during online collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 9th international conference on learning analytics & knowledge. p. 431–435). ACM.
65.
LiuM.-S. (2013). Effect of HIWP and employee knowledge ınnovation on organizational ınnovation performance. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2013(1), 12495. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2013.39
66.
Lomba-PortelaL.Domínguez-LloriaS.Pino-JusteM. R. (2022). Resistances to educational change: Teachers’ perceptions. Education Sciences, 12(359), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12050359
MarksH. M.PrintyS. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412
69.
MartinR.GuillaumeY.ThomasG.LeeA.EpitropakiO. (2016). Leader–member exchange (LMX) and performance: A meta-analytic review. Personnel Psychology, 69(1), 67–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12100
70.
McAllisterD. J.LewickiR. J.ChaturvediS. (2006). Trust in developing relationships: From theory to measurement. Academy of Management Proceedings, 2006(1), G1–G6. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2006.22897235
McLarnonM. J. W.O’NeillT. A. (2018). Extensions of auxiliary variable approaches for the ınvestigation of mediation, moderation, and conditional effects in mixture models. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 955–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428118770731
73.
MetzM. (2021). Overview of change in organizations. Resistance to change. Ovidius University Annals. Economic Sciences Series, 21(1), 611–620. https://doi.org/10.61801/OUAESS.2021.1.85
74.
MeyerJ. P.MorinA. J. (2016). A person-centered approach to commitment research: Theory, research, and methodology. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(4), 584–612. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2085
75.
MokhberM.KhairuzzamanW.VakilbashiA. (2018). Leadership and innovation: The moderator role of organization support for innovative behaviors. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(1), 108–128. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2017.26
76.
MoolenaarN. M.DalyA. J.SleegersP. J. C. (2010). Occupying the principal position: Examining relationships between transformational leadership, social network position, and schools’ innovative climate. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 623–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10378689
77.
MorinA. J.MarshH. W. (2015). Disentangling shape from level effects in person-centered analyses: An illustration based on university teachers’ multidimensional profiles of effectiveness. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.919825
78.
MorinA. J. S.McLarnonM. J. W.LitalienD. (2020). Mixture modeling for organizational behavior research. In GripY.HansenS. D. (Eds.), Handbook on the temporal dynamics of organizational behavior (pp. 351–379). Edward Elgar Publishing.
79.
MoyeM. J.HenkinA. B.EgleyR. J. (2005). Teacher-principal relationships: Exploring linkages between empowerment and interpersonal trust. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(3), 260–277. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230510594796
80.
MumtazS.RowleyC. (2020). The relationship between leader–member exchange and employee outcomes: Review of past themes and future potential. Management Review Quarterly, 70(1), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-019-00163-8
81.
MuthénB. (2003). Statistical and substantive checking in growth mixture modeling: Comment on bauer and curran (2003). Psychological Methods, 8(3), 369–377. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.8.3.369
NgT. W. (2017). Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation pathways. The Leadership Quarterly, 28(3), 385–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.11.008
84.
NgT. W. H.FeldmanD. C.LamS. S. K. (2010). Psychological contract breaches, organizational commitment, and innovation-related behaviors: A latent growth modeling approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 744–751. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018804
85.
NylundK. L.AsparouhovT.MuthénB. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A monte carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(4), 535–569. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701575396
86.
Nylund-GibsonK.GarberA. C.SinghJ.WitkowM. R.NishinaA.BellmoreA. (2023). The utility of latent class analysis to understand heterogeneity in youth coping strategies: A methodological introduction. Behavioral Disorders, 48(2), 106–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429211067214
87.
Nylund-GibsonK.GrimmR.QuirkM.FurlongM. (2014). A latent transition mixture model using the three-step specification. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 439–454. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.915375
88.
Nylund-GibsonK.MasynK. E. (2016). Covariates and mixture modeling: Results of a simulation study exploring the impact of misspecified effects on class enumeration. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(6), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2016.1221313
O’NeillT. A.McLarnonM. J.XiuL.LawS. J. (2016). Core self-evaluations, perceptions of group potency, and job performance: The moderating role of individualism and collectivism cultural profiles. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 89(3), 447–473. https://doi.org/10.1111/joop.12135
91.
OregS. (2006). Personality, context, and resistance to organizational change. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15(1), 73–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320500451247
92.
OregS. (2018). Resistance to change and performance: Toward a more even-handed view of dispositional resistance. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(1), 88–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886317741867
93.
OregS.BersonY. (2011). Leadership and employees’ reactions to change: The role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership style. Personnel Psychology, 64(3), 627–659. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01221.x
94.
Owusu-AgyemanY. (2021). Transformational leadership and innovation in higher education: A participative process approach. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(5), 694–716. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1623919
95.
ÖzdemirN.KılınçAÇPolatcanM.TuranS.BellibaşMŞ (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
96.
PalmatierR. W.DantR. P.GrewalD.EvansK. R. (2006). Factors ınfluencing the effectiveness of relationship marketing: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing, 70(4), 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.70.4.136
97.
ParkC. K.LimD. H.JuB. (2016). Transformational leadership and teacher engagement in an international context. In KeengweJ. MbaeJ. G. Onchwari G. (Eds.), Handbook of research on global issues in next-generation teacher education (pp. 22–42). IGI Global.
98.
ParkJ.-H.JeongD. W. (2013). School reforms, principal leadership, and teacher resistance: Evidence from Korea. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 33(1), 34–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.756392
99.
PengJ.LiM.WangZ.LinY. (2021). Transformational leadership and employees’ reactions to organizational change: Evidence from a meta-analysis. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 57(3), 369–397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886320920366
100.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ.-Y.PodsakoffN. 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
101.
PriceH. E. (2012). Principal–teacher interactions: How affective relationships shape principal and teacher attitudes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 39–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X1141712
102.
PriceH. E. (2015). Principals’ social interactions with teachers: How principal-teacher social relations correlate with teachers’ perceptions of student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 53(1), 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2014-0023
103.
QianJ.HanZ.WangH.LiX.WangQ. (2014). Power distance and mentor-protégé relationship quality as moderators of the relationship between informal mentoring and burnout: Evidence from China. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 8(51), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-4458-8-51
104.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A.AkaezeH. O. (2017). Comparing between- and within-group variances in a two-level study: A latent variable modeling approach to evaluating their relationship. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 77(2), 351–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164416634166
105.
RosingK.FreseM.BauschA. (2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22(5), 956–974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014
106.
RöthT.SpiethP. (2019). The influence of resistance to change on evaluating an innovation project's innovativeness and risk: A sensemaking perspective. Journal of Business Research, 101, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.04.014
107.
SaleemA., & NaveedS. (2017). Leadership and employees reaction towards change: Role of leaders’ personal attributes and transformational leadership. Pakistan Administrative Review, 1(1), 61–82.
108.
SassonI.GrinshtainY.AyaliT.YehudaI. (2022). Leading the school change: The relationships between distributed leadership, resistance to change, and pedagogical practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 0(0), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2068187
109.
SchmitzM. L.AntoniettiC.ConsoliT.CattaneoA.GononP.PetkoD. (2023). Transformational leadership for technology integration in schools: Empowering teachers to use technology in a more demanding way. Computers & Education, 204(104880), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104880
110.
ScottS. G.BruceR. A. (1994). Determinants of innovative behavior: A path model of individual innovation in the workplace. Academy of Management Journal, 37(3), 580–607. https://doi.org/10.2307/256701
111.
SerdyukovP. (2017). Innovation in education: What works, what doesn’t, and what to do about it?Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching & Learning, 10(1), 4–33. https://doi.org/10.1108/JRIT-10-2016-0007
112.
ShaoJ.CherianJ.XuL.ZaheerM.SamadS.ComiteU.MesterL.BadulescuD. (2022). A CSR perspective to drive employee creativity in the hospitality sector: A moderated mediation mechanism of ınclusive leadership and polychronicity. Sustainability, 14(6273), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106273
113.
ShroutP. E.FleissJ. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 420–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420
114.
SliwkaA.KlopschB.BeigelJ.TungL. (2024). Transformational leadership for deeper learning: Shaping innovative school practices for enhanced learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 62(1), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2023-0049
115.
SupermaneS. (2019). Transformational leadership and innovation in teaching and learning activities: The mediation effect of knowledge management. Information Discovery and Delivery, 47(4), 242–250. https://doi.org/10.1108/IDD-05-2019-0040
116.
TangY. (2021). Does information and communication technology (ICT) empower teacher innovativeness: A multilevel, multisite analysis. Educational Technology Research and Development, 69(6), 3009–3028. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10052-1
117.
TerhartE. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: Reflecting an inconvenient truth. School Leadership & Management, 33(5), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.793494
118.
ThurlingsM.EversA. T.VermeulenM. (2015). Toward a model of explaining teachers’ ınnovative behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research, 85(3), 430–471. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314557949
119.
ÜlçayO. (2024). Türkiye yüzyılı maarif modeli değerlendirmesi [the evaluation of the türkiye century education model]. Ulusal Eğitim, Toplum ve Dünya Dergisi, 1(2), 70–75.
120.
UrickA. (2016). The influence of typologies of school leaders on teacher retention: A multilevel latent class analysis. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(4), 434–468. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2014-0090
121.
UrickA.BowersA. J. (2014). What are the different types of principals across the United States? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(1), 96–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13489019
122.
VeletićJ.OlsenR. V. (2024). Exploring school leadership profiles across the world: A cluster analysis approach to TALIS 2018. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(5), 1090–1116. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1953612
123.
VermeulenM.KreijnsK.EversA. T. (2022). Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange and school learning climate: Impact on teachers’ innovative behaviour in The Netherlands. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(3), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932582
124.
VerschuerenK.KoomenH. M. Y. (2012). Teacher–child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment & Human Development, 14(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672260
125.
WangT.OlivierD. F.ChenP. (2023). Creating individual and organizational readiness for change: Conceptualization of system readiness for change in school education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 26(6), 1037–1061. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1818131
126.
WuJ. BTsuiA. S.KinickiA. J. (2010). Consequences of differentiated leadership in groups. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 90–106. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2010.48037079
127.
YueC. A.MenL. R.FergusonM. A. (2019). Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness to change: The mediating role of trust. Public Relations Review, 45(101779), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.04.012
128.
ZeeM.RoordaD. L.HannaF. (2023). Principal–teacher relationships: Dimensionality and measurement invariance of a measure for primary and secondary school teachers. Management in Education, 0(0), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206231154740
129.
ZhangX.BartolK. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The ınfluence of psychological empowerment, ıntrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement. Academy of Management Journal, 53(1), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.48037118
130.
ZhouN.TigelaarD.WangJ.AdmiraalW. (2024). Factors predicting vocational teachers’ transfer of learning: A quantitative study in the context of work placement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 140(104467), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2023.104467
