The roles of teacher autonomy and leader–member exchange in the link between distributed leadership and teacher zest for work in Türkiye: Testing a moderated mediation model
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2025
The roles of teacher autonomy and leader–member exchange in the link between distributed leadership and teacher zest for work in Türkiye: Testing a moderated mediation model
This study aimed to test a moderated mediation model, where the link between distributed leadership and teacher zest for work was examined, with leader–member exchange included as the moderator and teacher autonomy as a mediator. Using data from 718 teachers employed in basic education and upper secondary schools in Türkiye, we conducted latent moderated mediation structural equations modelling through maximum likelihood to estimate the structural links between our study variables. Our results revealed the significance of the direct relationship between distributed leadership and teacher autonomy and zest for work. Our results revealed that leader–member exchange significantly moderated both the direct relationship between distributed leadership and teacher autonomy and the direct relationship between distributed leadership and teacher zest for work, strengthening these associations as leader–member exchange increased. Furthermore, leader–member exchange also exerted a significant moderating effect on the indirect relationship between distributed leadership and teacher zest for work via teacher autonomy. These findings underscore the crucial role of high-quality leader–member relationships in enhancing the positive impact of distributed leadership on teacher autonomy and zest for work. Implications for educational policy and leadership practice are discussed.
AkgözEESahinFErdoganO (2024) The mediator role of school climate in the relationship between instructional leadership behaviors of school principals and teacher autonomy. International Journal of Educational Management38(4): 1142–1159.
2.
AngellePS (2010) An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: A portrait of a middle school. Rmle Online33(5): 1–16.
3.
AyralMÖzdemirNTürediA, et al. (2014) The relationship between teacher autonomy and student achievement: PISA sample. Eğitim Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi4(1): 207–218.
4.
AytaçAŞahinÇGörgülüD, et al. (2024) The relationship between teachers’ zest for work and teaching motivation: The mediating role of achievement goals. Frontiers in Psychology15: 1362920.
5.
BaşTKeskinNMertİS (2010) Leader member exchange (LMX) model and validity and reliability of its instrument in turkish. Ege Academic Review10(3): 1013–1039.
6.
BektaşFKılınçAÇGümüşS (2022) The effects of distributed leadership on teacher professional learning: Mediating roles of teacher trust in principal and teacher motivation. Educational Studies48(5): 602–624.
7.
BellibaşMŞGümüşSChenJ (2024) The impact of distributed leadership on teacher commitment: The mediation role of teacher workload stress and teacher well-being. British Educational Research Journal50(2): 814–836.
8.
BerkovichIBoglerR (2020) Conceptualising the mediating paths linking effective school leadership to teachers’ organisational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(3): 410–429.
9.
BurićIMacukaI (2018) Self-efficacy, emotions and work engagement among teachers: A two wave cross-lagged analysis. Journal of Happiness Studies: An Interdisciplinary Forum on Subjective Well-Being19(7): 1917–1933.
10.
BushTNgAYM (2019) Distributed leadership and the Malaysia Education Blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralised context. Journal of Educational Administration57(3): 279–295.
11.
BuskeR (2018) The principal as a key actor in promoting teachers’ innovativeness: Analysing the innovativeness of teaching staff with variance- based partial least square modeling. School Effectiveness and School Improvement29(2): 262–284.
12.
BüyükgözeH (2023) Job satisfaction with profession among teachers in Türkiye: Perceptions of social utility and educational policy influence. Participatory Educational Research10(5): 200–213.
13.
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.
14.
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.
15.
CheungGWLauRS (2017) Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods20(4): 746–769.
16.
ÇolakİAltınkurtY (2017) The relationship between school climate and teacher autonomy behaviors. Educational Administration: Theory and Practice23(1): 33–71.
17.
DansereauFGraenGBHagaWJ (1975) A vertical dyad linkage approach to leadership within formal organizations: A longitudinal investigation of the role-making process. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance13(1): 46–78.
18.
DeciELRyanRM (2000) Self-determination theory. In: Van LangePAMKruglanskiAWHigginsET (eds) Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology. London: Sage, 416–437.
19.
DouDDevosGValckeM (2017) The relationships between school autonomy gap, principal leadership, teachers’ job satisfaction and organisational commitment. Educational Management Administration & Leadership45(6): 959–977.
20.
DulebohnJHBommerWHLidenRC, et al. (2012) A meta-analysis of antecedents and consequences of leader-member exchange: Integrating the past with an eye toward the future. Journal of Management38(6): 1715–1759.
21.
EbersoldSRahmTHeiseE (2019) Autonomy support and well-being in teachers: Differential mediations through basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration. Social Psychology of Education2: 921–942.
22.
ErdoganBEndersJ (2007) Support from the top: Supervisors’ perceived organizational support as a moderator of leader-member exchange to satisfaction and performance relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology92(2): 321–330.
23.
ErdoganOSezginFÖzdemirS, et al. (2024) How national and school cultural factors influence the link between distributed leadership and collective teacher innovativeness: Testing a multilevel moderated mediation model. European Journal of Education, 59, e12718.
EversATMessmannGKreijnsK (2024) Distributed leadership, leader-member exchange and innovative work behavior: The mediating role of basic psychological needs satisfaction. Current Psychology43(12): 11037–11049.
26.
FriedmanIA (1999) Teacher-Perceived work autonomy: The concept and its measurement. Educational and Psychological Measurement59(1): 58–76.
27.
GongJ (2025) The effects of distributed leadership on teaching innovation in Shanghai, China: The mediating roles of teacher autonomy, teacher collaboration and teacher self-efficacy. Frontiers in Psychology16: 1562838.
28.
GraenGBUhl-BienM (1995) Relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of leader member exchange theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level multi domain perspective. Leadership Quarterly6(2): 219–247.
29.
GumilarGMunzirT (2019) The influence of the principal's leadership style on teacher's performance at SMA Global Indo-Asia Batam. Dimensions7(2): 255–266.
30.
GumusSBellibasMSEsenM, et al. (2016) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 25–48. Orijinal work published 2018.
31.
HairJFHultGTMRinglCM, et al. (2017) A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM). Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
32.
HarrisA (2005) Crossing Boundaries and Breaking Barriers: Distributed Leadership in Schools. London: Specialist Schools Trust.
33.
HarrisA (2008) Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration46: 172–188.
HarrisAMuijsD (2004) Improving School Through Teacher Leadership. Columbus: Open University Press.
36.
HarrisonMGKingRBWangH (2023) Satisfied teachers are good teachers: The association between teacher job satisfaction and instructional quality. British Educational Research Journal49: 476–498.
37.
HascherTWaberJ (2021) Teacher well-being: A systematic review of the research literature from the year 2000-2019. Educational Research Review34(8): 100411.
38.
HeckRHHallingerP (2009) Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal46(3): 659–689.
39.
HenselerJRingleCMSarstedtM (2015) A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science43(1): 115–135.
40.
HilalYYHammadWPolatcanM (2022) Does distributed leadership improve teacher agency? Exploring the mediating effect of teacher reflection. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(6): 1369–1387.
41.
HofstedeG (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2(1): Article 8.
42.
HongyingS (2007) Literature review of teacher job satisfaction. Chinese Education & Society40(5): 11–16.
43.
HuLTBentlerPM (1999) Cut off criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling6(1): 1–55.
44.
HulpiaHDevosGRosseelY (2009) The relationship between the perception of distributed leadership in secondary schools and teachers’ and teacher leaders’ job satisfaction and organizational commitment. School Effectiveness and School Improvement20(3): 291–317.
45.
JosephsonMVingårdE (2007) Zest for work? Assessment of enthusiasm and satisfaction with the present work situation and health-A 1.5-year follow-up study. WORK29(3): 225–231.
46.
KaraçamAPulurAAdıgüzelNS (2017) Examining the relationshıp between physical education teachers’ zest for work and physical self esteem levels. Physical Education and Sport Sciences Journal11(3): 278–287.
47.
KaraferyeFBellibaşMŞ (2025) Key school leadership practices to enhance teacher wellbeing: A meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence. Research Papers in Education: 1–33. doi:10.1080/02671522.2025.2475496
48.
KengatharanN (2020) The effects of teacher autonomy, student behavior and student engagement on teacher job satisfaction. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice20(4): 1–15.
49.
KılınçAÇErEBeycioğluK (2021) Mapping the terrain of training and appointment of educational leaders in the Turkish context: An historical perspective. In: SamierEAElkalehESHammadW (eds) Internationalisation of Educational Administration and Leadership Curriculum. Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited, 139–157.
50.
KılınçAÇErdoganOSavasG, et al. (2025) Leading teacher innovative practices in a centralized education system: the role of transformational leadership, teacher growth mindset and long-term orientation. Journal of Educational Administration63(5): 426–441.
51.
KılınçAÇÖzdemirN (2022) Does distributed leadership matter for student achievement? Evidence from a centralised education system. Educational Studies51(1): 1–21.
52.
KılınçAÇPolatcanMÇepniO (2023) Exploring the association between distributed leadership and student achievement: The mediation role of teacher professional practices and teacher self-efficacy. Journal of Curriculum Studies55(3): 352–368.
53.
KılınçAÇPolatcanMErdoganO, et al. (2023) Investigating the association between principal learning-centred leadership and teacher instructional practices: The mediating roles of teacher self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Studies51(4): 568–587.
54.
KılınçAÇPolatcanMTuranS, et al. (2024) Principal job satisfaction, distributed leadership, teacher-student relationships, and student achievement in Turkey: A multilevel mediated-effect model. Irish Educational Studies43(2): 281–299.
55.
KlineRB (2010) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. New York: Guilford.
56.
LawsonT (2004) Teacher autonomy: Power or control?Education32(3): 3–18.
57.
LeithwoodKJantziD (1999) The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly35(5): 679–706.
58.
LeithwoodKJantziD (2000) The effect of different sources of leadership on student engagement in school. In: RileyKLouisK (eds) Leadership For Change and School Reform. London: Routledge, 55–66.
59.
LentRWBrownSD (2006) Integrating person and situation perspectives on work satisfaction: A social-cognitive view. Journal of Vocational Behavior69(2): 236–247.
60.
LidenRCMaslynJM (1998) Multidimensionality of leader-member exchange: An empirical assessment through scale development. Journal of Management24(1): 43–72.
61.
LiebendörferMSchukajlowS (2020) Quality matters: How reflecting on the utility value of mathematics affects future teachers’ interest. Educational Studies in Mathematics105: 199–218.
62.
LinQ (2022) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology13: 948152.
63.
Little D. (1995) Learning as dialogue: The dependence of learner autonomy on teacher autonomy. System23(2): 175–182.
64.
LiuJQiangFKangH (2023) Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and wellbeing in schools: A study of relations among teachers in Shanghai. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications10(1): 1–9.
65.
LiuLLiuPYangH, et al. (2024) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher well-being: The mediating roles of organisational trust. Educational Management Administration & Leadership52(1): 22–45.
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.
LiuYWatsonS (2020) Whose leadership role is more substantial for teacher professional collaboration, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: A lens of distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education26(6): 1082–1110.
68.
LumbyJ (2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership41(5): 581–597.
69.
MaXMarionR (2025) Linking distributed leadership to teacher job satisfaction in China: Mediating roles of teacher well-being and work motivation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241303299
70.
MachinSVernoitJ (2011) Changing School Autonomy: Academy Schools and Their Introduction to England’s Education. London: Centre for the Economics of Education.
71.
MaslynJMUhl-BienM (2001) Leader–member exchange and its dimensions: Effects of self-effort and other’s effort on relationship quality. Journal of Applied Psychology86(4): 697–708.
72.
MeteESSökmenASökmenA (2021) The relationship between supervisor support and turnover intention: The moderator effect of leader-member exchange. Gazi İktisat ve İşletme Dergisi7(3): 257–274.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE]. (2024b) Teaching Profession Law (Law No. 7354). Ankara: Official Gazette of the Republic of Türkiye.
75.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019a) Teaching in Focus #26: How Teachers and Schools Innovate: New Measures in TALIS 2018.
76.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2019b) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing.
77.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2023) PISA 2022 results (Volume II): learning during – and from – disruption. Paris: OECD Publishing.
78.
ÖzerNBeycioğluK (2013) The development, validity and reliability study of distributed leadership scale. Elementary Education Online12(1): 77–86.
79.
ParkNPetersonC (2010) Does it matter where we live?: The urban psychology of character strengths. American Psychologist65(6): 535–547.
80.
PearsonLCHallBC (1993) Initial construct validation of the teaching autonomy scale. Journal of Educational Research86(3): 172–177.
81.
PearsonLCMoomawW (2005) The relationship between teacher autonomy and stress, work satisfaction, empowerment and professionalism. Educational Research Quarterly29(1): 38–54.
82.
PetersonCParkNHallN, et al. (2009) Zest and work. Journal of Organizational Behavior30: 161–172.
83.
PetersonCSeligmanMEP (2004) Character Strengths and Virtues: A Handbook of Classification. New York: Oxford University.
84.
PodsakoffPMPodsakoffNPWilliamsLJ, et al. (2024) Common method bias: It's bad, it's complex, it's widespread and it's not easy to fix. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior11: 17–61.
85.
PolatcanM (2021) An exploration of the relationship between distributed leadership, teacher agency and professional learning in Turkey. Professional Development in Education50(4): 789–803.
86.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
87.
Presidency of the Republic of Türkiye, Directorate of Strategy and Budget. (2023) Twelfth Development Plan (2024–2028). Retrieved from https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/Twelfth-Development-Plan_2024-2028.pdf
88.
RunhaarPKonermannJSandersK (2013) Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: Considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education30: 99–108.
89.
RyanRMDeciEL (2017) Self-determination theory. In: Zeigler-HillVShackelfordTK (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Cham: Springer, 6229–6235.
90.
SchaufeliWBSalanovaM (2021) Work engagement: An emerging psychological concept and its implications for organizations. In: AlbrechtSL (eds) Handbook of Employee Engagement: Perspectives, Issues, Research and Practice. Chetenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 135–144.
91.
ScheerensJHendriksMLuytenH (2014) School Size Effects: Review and Conceptual Analysis. In: School Size Effects Revisited. SpringerBriefs in Education. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06814-5_2.
92.
SchriesheimCACastroSLZhouX, et al. (2001) The folly of theorizing “A” but testing “B”: A selective level-of-analysis review of the field and a detailed leader–member exchange illustration. Leadership Quarterly12(4): 515–551.
93.
SezginFErdoganO (2015) Academic optimism, hope and zest for work as predictors of teacher self-efficacy and perceived success. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice15(1): 7–19.
94.
SezginFKilinçAÇÖzdemirS, et al. (2024) Exploring the Moderation Role of Teacher Cultural Value Profiles on the Association between Transformational Leadership and Teacher Job Satisfaction: Evidence from Turkish Education Context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432241237374.
95.
SkaalvikEMSkaalvikS (2011) Teacher job satisfaction and motivation to leave the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging and emotional exhaustion. Teaching and Teacher Education27(6): 1029–1038.
96.
SkaalvikEMSkaalvikS (2014) Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy: Relations with teacher engagement, job satisfaction and emotional exhaustion. Psychological Reports114(1): 68–77.
97.
SparroweRTLidenRC (2005) Two routes to influence: Integrating leader–member exchange and social network perspectives. Administrative Science Quarterly50(4): 505–535.
SpillaneJP (2005a) Primary school leadership practice: How the subject matters. School Leadership & Management25(4): 383–397.
100.
SpillaneJP (2005b) Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum69(2): 143–150.
101.
SpillaneJPHalversonRDiamondJB (2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies36(1): 3–34.
102.
StoreyA (2004) The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management24(3): 249–265.
103.
TabachnickBGFidellLS (2007) Experimental Designs Using ANOVA. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.
104.
TayLYRamachandranKOngWLM, et al. (2021) Empowerment through distributed leadership in reconciliating tensions and dilemmas in teacher professional development. Teacher Development25(5): 647–668.
105.
ToropovaAMyrbergEJohanssonS (2021) Teacher job satisfaction: The importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educational Review73(1): 71–97.
106.
WebbPT (2002) Teacher power: The exercise of professional autonomy in an era of strict accountability. Teacher Development6(1): 47–62.
107.
WeströmSUusiauttiSMaattaK (2018) The force that keeps you going: Enthusiasm in vocational education and training (VET) teachers work. International Journal for Research in Vocational Education and Training5(4): 244–263.
108.
Yakut ÖzekBBüyükgözeH (2023) Examining the relationship of distributed leadership and job satisfaction: On the mediating roles of teacher self-efficacy and co-operation. Education and Science48(213): 255–277.
109.
ZhaoXJeonL (2023) Examining the associations between teacher job satisfaction, workplace climate and well-being resources within Head Start programs. Early Education and Development35(5): 933–949.
