Does school leadership affect teacher work engagement in Turkish schools? Investigating the mediating effect of teacher job satisfaction: A multilevel structural equation modelling analysis
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online May, 2026
Does school leadership affect teacher work engagement in Turkish schools? Investigating the mediating effect of teacher job satisfaction: A multilevel structural equation modelling analysis
Emerging research highlights the central role of leadership in the effectiveness of Turkish schools, particularly in influencing teacher engagement, a key factor in achieving better school outcomes. This study investigated how and under what conditions school leadership is beneficial for teachers’ work engagement using data collected from 368 public secondary school teachers in Turkey. A model was developed to explore the direct and indirect relationships among school leadership, teacher job satisfaction, and work engagement, and it was tested at both the teacher and school levels. A multilevel structural equation model analysis was used to test the developed model. The results indicated that school leadership has a significant impact on teachers’ job engagement, regardless of the school where they work. Furthermore, job satisfaction played a mediating role in the relationship between school leadership and work engagement at both levels. The effect of school leadership on teachers’ work engagement at both levels occurs on the condition that job satisfaction acts as a mediator. This result makes a valuable contribution to the existing literature. Based on the results of the study, we also offer some suggestions for policy makers and school leaders to increase teacher work engagement by emphasising teacher job satisfaction.
AkmanYAkmanGİ (2017) İlköğretim okulu öğretmenlerinin iş yaşam kalitesi algısının işle bütünleşmeleri üzerindeki etkisi. İlköğretim Online16(4): 1491–1504.
2.
AlazmiAAAl-MahdyYFH (2022) Principal authentic leadership and teacher engagement in Kuwait’s educational reform context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(3): 392–412.
3.
ArifinFTroenaEADjumahirM, et al. (2014) Organizational culture, transformational leadership, work engagement and teacher’s performance: Test of a model. International Journal of Education and Research2(1): 1–14.
4.
AseantyDAndreasALutfiyaniI (2022) The effect of servant leadership on work engagement and affective commitment mediated by job satisfaction on education staff at private universities in west Jakarta. In LePALISSHE 2021: Proceedings of the First Lekantara Annual Conference on Public Administration, Literature, Social Sciences, Humanities, and Education, LePALISSHE 2021, 3 August 2021, Malang, Indonesia (p. 397). European Alliance for Innovation.
5.
AtabayE (2020) Tükenmişlik ile iş doyumu arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi: Anaokulu öğretmenleri örneklemi [Unpublished master’s thesis]. İstanbul Gelişim Üniversitesi Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü.
6.
AtasoyRYalçınMT (2023) How school leadership affects teachers’ professionalism via trust in administrator in bureaucratic school structures. IE: Inquiry in Education15(1): 2.
7.
AydinASarierYUysalS (2013) The effect of school principals’ leadership styles on teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory And Practice13(2): 806–811.
8.
BakerLDreherMJGuthrieJT. (Eds). 2000) Engaging Young Readers: Promoting Achievement and Motivation. New York: Guilford Press.
9.
BakkerABBalMP (2010) Weekly work engagement and performance: A study among starting teachers. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology83(1): 189–206.
10.
Baş AtikZ (2018) Öğretmenlerin işle bütünleşme düzeylerinin beş faktör kişilik özellikleri, iş doyumu ve öznel iyi oluşla ilişkisi (Unpublished master’s thesis). Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi, Trabzon.
11.
BaycanA (1985) An Analysis of the Several Aspects of Job Satisfaction Between Different Occupational Groups.İstanbul: Boğaziçi Üniversitesi SBE.
12.
BentlerPM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin107(2): 238–246.
13.
BirdJJWangCWatsonJR, et al. (2009) Relationships among principal authentic leadership and teacher trust and engagement levels. Journal of School Leadership19(2): 153–171.
14.
BlauPM (1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
15.
BuonomoIFarneseMLVecinaML, et al. (2021) Other-focused approach to teaching. The effect of ethical leadership and quiet ego on work engagement and the mediating role of compassion satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology12: 692116.
16.
BushTBriggsARMiddlewoodD (2006) The impact of school leadership development: Evidence from the ‘new visions’ programme for early headship. Journal of in-Service Education32(2): 185–200.
17.
BushTGloverD (2014) School leadership models: What do we know?School Leadership and Management34(5): 553–571.
18.
BüyükgözeHCaliskanOGümüşS (2022) Linking distributed leadership with collective teacher innovativeness: The mediating roles of job satisfaction and professional collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(6): 1388–1409.
19.
BüyükgözeHÖzdemirM (2017) İş doyumu ile öğretmen performansı ilişkisinin duygusal olaylar kuramı çerçevesinde incelenmesi. İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi18(1): 311–325.
20.
CaiYLiuPTangR, et al. (2023) Distributed leadership and teacher work engagement: The mediating role of teacher efficacy and the moderating role of interpersonal trust. Asia Pacific Education Review24(3): 383–397.
21.
CansoyR (2019) The relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction: A systematic review. International Education Studies12(1): 37–52.
22.
CemaloğluNŞahinDE (2007) Öğretmenlerin mesleki tükenmişlik düzeylerinin farkli değişkenlere göre incelenmesi. Kastamonu Education Journal15(2): 463–484.
23.
Cruz-GonzálezCRodríguezCLSegoviaJD (2021) A systematic review of principals’ leadership identity from 1993 to 2019. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(1): 31–53.
24.
Darling-HammondLYoungsP (2002) Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us?Educational Researcher31(9): 13–25.
25.
DayCGuQSammonsP (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly52(2): 221–258.
26.
DecmanJMBadgettKShaughnessyB, et al. (2018) Organizational leadership through management: Superintendent perceptions. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(6): 997–1013.
27.
DouDDevosGValckeM (2017) The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership45(6): 959–977.
28.
DursunYDursunAKaradereG, et al. (2023) Okul yöneticilerine görüşlerine göre ideal öğretmende bulunması gereken nitelikler. Journal of European Education13(2): 1–17.
29.
DuttaVSahneyS (2016) School leadership and its impact on student achievement: The mediating role of school climate and teacher job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Management30(6): 941–958.
30.
DuyarIGumusSSukru BellibasM (2013) Multilevel analysis of teacher work attitudes: The influence of principal leadership and teacher collaboration. International Journal of Educational Management27(7): 700–719.
EldorLShoshaniA (2016) Caring relationships in school staff: Exploring the link between compassion and teacher work engagement. Teaching and Teacher Education59: 126–136.
33.
El HelouMNabhaniMBahousR (2016) Teachers’ views on causes leading to their burnout. School Leadership And Management36(5): 551–567.
34.
EryılmazADoğaT (2012) İş Yaşamında Öznel İyi Oluş: Utrecht İşe Bağlılık Ölçeğının Psikometrik Niteliklerinin İncelenmesi. Klinik Psikiyatri Dergisi15(1).
35.
FiorilliCBenevenePDe StasioS, et al. (2019) Teachers’ burnout: The role of trait emotional intelligence and social support. Frontiers in Psychology10(2743): 1–9.
36.
GerbingDWAndersonJC (1992) Monte carlo evaluations of goodness of fit indices for structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research21(2): 132–160.
37.
GokceF (2010) Assessment of teacher motivation. School Leadership and Management30(5): 487–499.
38.
GriffithJ (2004) Relation of principal transformational leadership to school staff job satisfaction, staff turnover, and school performance. Journal of Educational Administration42(3): 333–356.
39.
HakanenJJBakkerABSchaufeliWB (2006) Burnout and work engagement among teachers. Journal of School Psychology43(6): 495–513.
40.
HallingerPHeckRH (1996) Reassessing the principal's role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly32(1): 5–44.
41.
HallingerPHosseingholizadehRHashemiN, et al. (2018) Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(5): 800–819.
42.
HanJYinHWangJ, et al. (2020) Job demands and resources as antecedents of university teachers’ exhaustion, engagement and job satisfaction. Educational Psychology40(3): 318–335.
43.
HarrisA (2004) Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading?Educational Management Administration & Leadership32(1): 11–24.
44.
HaugeTENorenesSOVedøyG (2014) School leadership and educational change: Tools and practices in shared school leadership development. Journal of Educational Change15(4): 357–376.
45.
HeckRHHallingerP (2014) Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learning. Journal of Educational Administration52(5): 653–681.
46.
HermantoYBSrimulyaniVA (2022) The role of servant leadership and work engagement in improving extra-role behaviour and teacher performance. International Journal of Productivity and Quality Management35(1): 57–77.
47.
HerzbergFMausnerBSnydermannB (1959) The Motivation to Work. New York: Wiley.
48.
HofstedeGHofstedeGJMinkovM (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. New York: McGraw-Hill.
49.
HøigaardRGiskeRSundsliK (2012) Newly qualified teachers’ work engagement and teacher efficacy influences on job satisfaction, burnout, and the intention to quit. European Journal of Teacher Education35(3): 347–357.
50.
HongyingS (2007) Literature review of teacher job satisfaction. Chinese Education and Society40(5): 11–16.
51.
HoyWKMiskelCG (2015) Educational Administration Theory, Research, and Practice (7 b.). (S. Turan, Çev.)Ankara: Nobel Yayınları.
52.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal6(1): 1–55.
53.
KazakEYavuzŞK (2024) Öğretmenlerin Yaşadıkları Gerçeklik Şokunun Neden ve Sonuçları. Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi37(1): 241–267.
54.
KonermannJ (2012) Teachers’ work engagement: A deeper understanding of the role of job and personal resources in relationship to work engagement, its antecedents, and its outcomes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Universiteit Twente, Enschede, The Netherlands.
55.
KöseA (2016) The impact of demographic features on teachers’ work engagement. Turkish Journal of Education5(4): 255–264.
56.
KöseAUzunM (2018) The relationship between work engagement and perceived organizational justice. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice24(3): 483–528.
57.
KulophasDRuentrakulAWongwanichS (2015) The relationships among authentic leadership, teachers’ work engagement, academic optimism and school size as moderator: A conceptual model. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences191: 2554–2558.
58.
LeithwoodK (2012) The Ontario Leadership Framework 2012 with a discussion of the research foundations.Toronto: Institute for Educational Leadership and the Ontario Ministry of Education.
59.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management28(1): 27–42.
60.
LeithwoodKJantziD (2005) Transformational leadership. In: DaviesB (ed.) The Essentials of School Leadership. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 31–43.
61.
LeithwoodKPattenSJantziD (2010) Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly46(5): 671–706.
62.
LeithwoodKSteinbachRJantziD (2002) School leadership and teachers’ motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly38(1): 94–119.
63.
LeithwoodKSunJ (2012) The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly48(3): 387–423.
64.
LeithwoodKSunJMcCulloughC (2019) How school districts influence student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration57(5): 519–539.
65.
LeithwoodKSunJPollockK (2017) How School Leaders Contribute to Student Success: The Four Paths Framework (23). New York: Springer.
66.
LiuYBellibaşMŞGümüşS (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 & Leadership49(3): 430–453.
67.
LockeEA (1976) The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In: DunnetteMD (ed.) Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology: 1297–1349. Chicago: Rand McNally.
68.
LüdtkeORobitzschA (2009) Assessing within-group agreement: A critical examination of a random-group resampling approach. Organizational Research Methods12(3): 461–487.
69.
MacKenzieSBPodsakoffPMJarvisCB (2005) The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioural and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology90(4): 710–730.
70.
ManaloRAde CastroBUyC (2020) The mediating role of job satisfaction on the effect of motivation to organizational commitment and work engagement of private secondary high school teachers in Metro-Manila. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research9: 133–159.
71.
MincklerCH (2014) School leadership that builds teacher social capital. Educational Management Administration & Leadership42(5): 657–679.
72.
Ministry of National Education (2024) Millî eğitim bakanlığı eğitim kurumlarına yönetici görevlendirme yönetmeliği.
73.
Ministry of National Education (2024) Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Personeli Hizmet İçi Eğitim Yönetmeliği.Öğretmen Yetiştirme ve Geliştirme Genel Müdürlüğü.
74.
MuthénBMuthénL (2017) Mplus. In: Handbook of item response theory. New York: Chapman and Hall/ CRC, 507–518.
75.
NgS-WSzetoSYE (2016) Preparing school leaders: The professional development needs of newly appointed principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership44(4): 540–557.
76.
NguyenTDShihMHSrivastavaD, et al. (2021) Stratified random sampling from streaming and stored data. Distributed and Parallel Databases39: 665–710.
77.
NinkovićSRKnežević FlorićOČ (2016) Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 49–64.
78.
NovitasariDAsbariMWijayaMR, et al. (2020) Effect of organizational justice on organizational commitment: Mediating role of intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction. International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS)3(3): 96–112.
79.
NurtjahjaniFBatilmurikRWPribadiJD (2021) The influence of transformational leadership style on work engagement remuneration dimediation and educator motivation. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen19(1): 11–22.
80.
NurtjahjaniFPuspitaAFNovitasariAF (2022) Effect of transformational leadership on work engagement as mediated by educator motivation. The International Journal of Social Sciences World (TIJOSSW)4(1): 260–271.
81.
OrphanosSOrrMT (2014) Learning leadership matters: The influence of innovative school leadership preparation on teachers’ experiences and outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership42(5): 680–700.
82.
ÖzdemirN, Gümüş KılınçSAÇ, et al. (2022) A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: An updated framework and future direction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership: 1–27.
83.
PatrickSK (2022) Organizing schools for collaborative learning: School leadership and teachers’ engagement in collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly58(4): 638–673.
84.
PekerR (2002) İlköğretim okullarında görev yapan öğretmenlerin mesleki tükenmişliklerine etki eden bazı faktörler (the factors affecting professional burnout of teachers in primary schools). Uludağ Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi DergisiXV(1): 305–318.
85.
PepeAAddimandoLDagdukeeJ, et al. (2021) Psychological distress, job satisfaction and work engagement: A cross-sectional mediation study with a sample of Palestinian teachers. Educational Studies47(3): 275–291.
86.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBPodsakoffNP (2012) Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology63: 539–569.
87.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
88.
PressleyT (2021) Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19. Educational Researcher50(5): 325–327.
89.
SchaufeliWBBakkerAB (2004) Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and Behavior25(3): 293–315.
90.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaMGonzález-romáV, et al. (2002) The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies3(1): 71–92.
SkaalvikEMSkaalvikS (2013) Teachers’ perceptions of the school goal structure: Relations with teachers’ goal orientations, work engagement, and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research62: 199–209.
93.
SoininenVPakarinenELerkkanenMK (2023) Reciprocal associations among teacher–child interactions, teachers’ work engagement, and children's social competence. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology85: 101508.
94.
SpillaneJP (2005) Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum69(2): 143–150.
95.
SudibjoNSutarjiT (2020) The roles of job satisfaction, well-being, and emotional intelligence in enhancing the teachers’ employee engagements. Management Science Letters10(11): 2477–2482.
96.
TEDMEM (2023) Yeni bir eğitim anlayışı şart (TEDMEM Güncel Yayınlar Dizisi 9), Türk Eğitim Derneği Yayınları Ankara.
97.
ThomasLTuytensMDevosG, et al. (2020) Transformational school leadership as a key factor for teachers’ job attitudes during their first year in the profession. Educational Management Administration & Leadership48(1): 106–132.
98.
TimmsCBroughP (2013) I like being a teacher” career satisfaction, the work environment and work engagement. Journal of Educational Administration51(6): 768–789.
99.
TingSC (2011) The effect of internal marketing on organizational commitment: Job involvement and job satisfaction as mediators. Educational Administration Quarterly47(2): 353–382.
100.
TopchyanRWoehlerC (2021) Do teacher status, gender, and years of teaching experience impact job satisfaction and work engagement?Education and Urban Society53(2): 119–145.
101.
UslukayaADemirtasZ (2023) Can a supportive supervisor be a treasure for teachers? A multilevel analysis of the relationship between perceived supervisor support, work engagement, and burnout. Psychology in the Schools60(11): 4667–4685.
102.
Van Der WantACBrokDBeijaardP, et al. (2019) The relation between teachers’ interpersonal role identity and their self-efficacy, burnout and work engagement. Professional Development in Education45(3): 488–504.
103.
Van TuinLSchaufeliWBVan den BroeckA (2021) Engaging leadership: Enhancing work engagement through intrinsic values and need satisfaction. Human Resource Development Quarterly32(4): 483–505.
104.
WahlstromKLLouisKS (2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly44(4): 458–495.
105.
WangL (2022) Exploring the relationship among teacher emotional intelligence, work engagement, teacher self-efficacy, and student academic achievement: A moderated mediation model. Frontiers in Psychology12: 810559.
106.
WeissDJDawisRVEnglandGW (1967) Manual for the Minnesota satisfaction questionnaire. Minnesota Studies In Vocational Rehabilitation22: 120.
107.
YalçınMTAtasoyR (2021) Okul liderliği ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Uluslararası Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Eğitim AraştırmalarıDergisi3(2): 103–112.
108.
YılmazANYıldızFBalcıD, et al. (2023) Öğretmen görüşlerine göre ideal müdür beklentilerinin değerlendirilmesi. International Academic Social Resources Journal8(53): 3485–3504.
109.
Zahed-BabelanAKoulaeiGMoeinikiaM, et al. (2019) Instructional leadership effects on teachers’ work engagement: Roles of school culture, empowerment, and job characteristics. CEPS Journal9(3): 137–156.
110.
ZhengXYinHLiuY (2019) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher28: 509–518.
