Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of transformational leadership on teaching performance among academic staff at Universities in Wenzhou, China. Focusing on the four dimensions of transformational leadership—idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration—the research examines how these factors influence teaching performance and the moderating role of perceived organizational support (POS). Data from 290 full-time faculty members were analyzed using AMOS software. Results show that all four leadership dimensions positively affect teaching performance, with POS enhancing the effects of inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration, but not idealized influence. The findings offer valuable insights for Chinese higher education leaders to improve teaching performance through targeted leadership practices and contribute to the broader literature on transformational leadership in academic settings.

Keywords

Transformational leadership idealized influence inspirational motivation intellectual stimulation individualized consideration

Introduction

Performance is critical for both individuals and organizations, with improvements in staff performance directly driving organizational growth. Research consistently highlights performance as a critical predictor of organizational success and a central focus in studies of organizational outcomes (Pritchard et al., 2008; Sonnentag & Frese, 2002). Effective leadership involves leading high-performance employees and optimizing their contributions, which are essential tasks indicative of a leader’s effectiveness (Armstrong & Taylor, 2014; Bakker & Demerouti, 2008; Yukl, 2013). The rapidly transforming landscape of higher education necessitates robust leadership to drive faculty performance, meeting evolving academic and institutional goals. Transformational leadership (TL)—characterized by Inspirational Motivation (IM), Intellectual Stimulation (IS), Individualized Consideration (IC), and Idealized Influence (II) —has enhanced employee performance across sectors. However, its specific impact on faculty performance in academia remains underexplored. The current study addresses this gap by examining the relationship between TL dimensions and faculty teaching performance (TP) in higher education institutions (HEIs).

Universities need highly competent faculty to ensure effective teaching and learning, aiming to advance knowledge through teaching, research, and community engagement (Yousefi & Abdullah, 2019). University academic staff are responsible for shaping and disseminating students’ scientific knowledge; their leadership style impacts performance, includes research, teaching, and service, and affects students’ achievement. Significantly, China encourages its universities to adopt reforms toward strategic and sustainable goals aligned with those of developed countries. In China’s regional HEIs, the caliber of academic personnel is a significant obstacle to reforms and faculty development and performance present significant constraints. (Li & Wang, 2021). Assessing and enhancing educators are essential for China’s attainment of its 2030 sustainable development objectives (Weng et al., 2019). Addressing these challenges through targeted improvements in faculty capabilities is critical to advancing educational quality and meeting long-term strategic goals. For this reason, in 2018, China’s Ministry of Education (MOE) and other ministries released the “Action Program for the Revitalization of Education” (2018–2022), targeting teaching staff development. On the other hand, leadership, defined as influencing others, is crucial in teaching efficacy. University leaders can improve teaching and learning outcomes by enhancing motivation, skills, departmental culture, and faculty environment through various leadership styles (Ross & Gray, 2006). According to Yang and Li (2019), TL, widely recognized for ensuring effective task fulfillment among corporate team members, requires further study in Chinese HEIs. This leadership style is based on Sun (2013) and is characterized by influence, motivation, intellectual stimulation, and creativity, which can enhance academic staff’s teaching performance and suggest significant improvements in educational settings.

While past research has established a positive correlation between TL and TP (Brouer et al., 2016), a more detailed examination of its specific dimensions is required. Furthermore, Perceived Organizational Support (POS) ‘s moderating role in this relationship must be investigated. POS signifies how employees perceive their organization, appreciate their contributions, and are concerned about their well-being. Elevated POS levels correlate with increased job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and overall performance. These factors can either strengthen or weaken the impact of TL on faculty performance.

Shaped by its historical context and Confucian principles, China’s higher education environment presents unique challenges and opportunities for examining the relationship between TL and teaching activities. This study investigates two core questions: (1) To what extent do the dimensions of TL—namely IS, IM, IC, and II—directly influence TP in HEIs?

(2) How does POS moderate the relationships between TL dimensions and TP? To address these questions, the study proposes four hypotheses regarding the direct effects of TL dimensions on TP and another four hypotheses concerning the moderating role of POS. Understanding these dynamics is crucial for university administrators and policymakers who aim to create an environment that enhances faculty performance and improves student outcomes. The findings have significant academic and practical implications for advancing the quality of higher education in China. This research aims to provide actionable insights for leadership development programs and organizational policies in HEIs by clarifying the interplay between TL, POS, and faculty performance. In doing so, it addresses a critical gap in the existing research.

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership emphasizes the development of strong relationships between leaders and their team members to inspire and motivate the team to achieve better performance and morale. Rather than relying solely on charisma or influence, this leadership style encourages leaders to push their teams toward higher levels of performance and innovation (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Unlike the transactional leadership style, TL emphasizes motivating employees to complete work, fostering mutual respect and trust, and creating an atmosphere that supports innovation and collaboration (Northouse, 2016). The theoretical foundation of TL goes back to early leadership theories, especially trait and behavior theories. Trait theory states that leaders’ inherent qualities and competencies significantly determine their success, while behavioral theory emphasizes the importance of leaders’ behavior and interactions with team members (Ronald, 2014). These theories provide a basis for comprehending how leaders influence the behavior and performance of team members through their personality traits and skills that cause them to adopt different leadership styles (Zaccaro, 2007), originating in the 1970s with Burns and later developed by Bass and Avolio, TL was initially applied in political contexts before being introduced to organizations. It emphasizes four main aforementioned components: idealized influence (II), inspirational motivation (IM), individualized consideration (IC), and intellectual stimulation (IS). These components collectively promote collaboration, innovation, and performance, fostering employee satisfaction and organizational success (Bass & Avolio, 1994; Bishop et al., 2023; Mathende & Yousefi, 2021; Samad, 2012; Thamrin, 2012).

Empirical studies have demonstrated TL’s efficacy in enhancing trust, performance, satisfaction, and organizational commitment (Banks et al., 2016; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). According to Raes et al. (2013), TL stimulates innovation among educators and encourages student creativity by developing conducive environments, integrating knowledge, and setting specific goals. Also, the same recent study indicates that TL improves teaching performance, academic research quality, and student satisfaction in HEIs (Al-Husseini et al., 2021). While TL is effective across various fields, it may not be universally applicable. Leaders must adapt strategies to specific organizational structures and cultural contexts (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In Chinese HEIs, leaders face unique challenges and must balance collective and individual needs, requiring cultural sensitivity and cross-cultural communication skills (Zhang & Zhou, 2014). Despite these challenges, TL remains crucial for responding to global competition and advancing educational practices in China.

Leaders in Chinese higher education institutions (HEIs) face significant challenges due to a rapidly evolving landscape influenced by economic, political, and social factors. According to Zhang and Zhou (2014), effective leadership requires balancing institutional goals with the needs of faculty and students while demonstrating cultural sensitivity and cross-cultural communication. The push for global competitiveness further complicates this, requiring teaching, research, and governance reforms. On the other hand, transformational leadership (TL) is vital in addressing these complexities by inspiring faculty, staff, and students to embrace change and work toward a shared vision of continuous improvement (Bass & Riggio, 2006). In China, transformational leaders encourage collaboration, provide innovation, and enhance academic performance while upholding cultural values like collectivism and harmony (Hofstede, 2011).

As Chinese universities strive for global recognition, TL helps align institutions with international standards, driving performance, collaboration, and reputation improvements while preserving cultural relevance (Wang, 2024; Yu & Jang, 2024). The increasing demand for digital innovation, particularly post-COVID-19, adds another challenge. TL supports the adoption of technology-enhanced learning, promoting flexibility and risk-taking while ensuring faculty are prepared for digital transformation without compromising teaching and research quality (Bohari et al., 2024; Chen & Zhou, 2023).

Teaching Performance

Assessing faculty performance, a cornerstone of institutional strategic planning is crucial for evaluating educational quality and effectiveness. Well-performing faculty deliver high-quality education and foster critical thinking, creativity, and teamwork, and this contributes to students’ academic and social development while reducing work stress in private universities (Yousefi et al., 2020).

Additionally, faculty performance directly influences institutional reputation and attractiveness. Top-notch faculty attract students, secure financial support, and create partnership opportunities, which enhance overall institutional performance and impact (Harris & Jones, 2010).

Faculty performance assessment and management have gained heightened attention as educational reform progresses. Traditional faculty performance assessments prioritize metrics like publications, teaching hours, and student evaluations, often emphasizing research output and institutional service (Boyer, 1990). However, novel assessments are more holistic, valuing innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, and digital engagement (O'Meara & Braskamp, 2005). This shift recognizes diverse roles, such as community engagement and pedagogical innovation, while allowing for flexible, non-linear career paths (Kezar, 2018). Hence, contemporary performance management systems now provide a comprehensive overview of a faculty member’s professional development, continuous learning, and community engagement, extending beyond traditional evaluations focused on teaching and research. These systems recognize the importance of diverse contributions, including mentorship, interdisciplinary collaboration, and societal impact. Factors such as organizational culture, leadership style, resource allocation, and professional development opportunities significantly influence faculty performance (Fullan & Hargreaves, 2012; Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Kezar, 2018).

Moreover, aligning institutional priorities with individual goals is critical for fostering faculty engagement and innovation (O'Meara & Braskamp, 2005; Boyer, 1990). HEIs must support faculty with ongoing professional development to meet modern educational challenges. Modern challenges in higher education institutions (HEIs) include the rapid pace of technological advancements, the shift towards digital and hybrid learning environments, increasing globalization, and the demand for interdisciplinary research and collaboration. Additionally, faculty must navigate evolving student needs, including fostering inclusivity and addressing mental health concerns, while adapting to new educational policies and performance metrics. These challenges require ongoing professional development to ensure that faculty remain effective and innovative in their teaching, research, and leadership roles. A conductive education environment offering additional resources and support promotes faculty performance (Fraser & Taylor, 2019; Sudirman et al., 2021). Skilled faculty can create an ideal learning environment that engages students’ curiosity, sparks passion for learning, and encourages continuous improvement. Quality teaching promotes active student engagement, critical thought, and knowledge retention, resulting in students building essential skills for academic excellence and future career success (Marzano, 2007).

Teaching performance significantly influences HEIs’ reputations, directly associating with teaching quality. Professional development substantially impacts instructional practices, particularly in instructional strategies and assessment methods (Desimone et al., 2002). Institutions emphasizing teaching excellence provide resources, training, and support to improve teaching strategies, assessment methods, and course design.

This investment in faculty development leads to better teaching practices and student outcomes (Gibbs & Coffey, 2004). Teaching performance is also a core component of HEIs’ accountability and accreditation processes that directly impact student learning outcomes, satisfaction, institutional reputation, faculty development, accountability, and student success.

The dimensions affecting teaching performance in higher education are multifaceted, involving individual, organizational, and environmental factors.

Educational background, work experience, teaching methods, and attitudes determine teaching performance. Faculty members’ teaching methods and attitudes impact student interactions and subsequently influence student learning outcomes (Harris & Sass, 2014). Effective leadership providing adequate technical support and training opportunities can help faculty improve their teaching skills and knowledge (Ruslan, 2020).

Transformational leadership’s impact on academic staff performance is significant in China’s cultural and social contexts. Transformational leadership involves linking leaders, employees, and organizational interactions. This leadership style encourages innovation, support, and motivation among faculty, promoting a supportive atmosphere for teaching and learning and significantly improving teaching performance (Sadeghi & Pihie, 2012). Despite transformational leadership’s widespread effect, research remains lacking in Chinese higher education, presenting a valuable direction for future research. Enhancing these factors facilitates teaching performance, creating practical teaching-learning activities requiring appropriate leadership styles.

Interaction Between TL Style & Teaching Performance

The TL style encourages leaders to develop deep connections with their followers to inspire and motivate them to improve overall performance and morale. Historically, research on TL has focused primarily on the corporate sector, but it is now applied in many fields, including education. As mentioned above, Bass and Avolio (1994) state that TL comprises four dimensions, as shown in the conceptual framework below.

Intellectual stimulation (IS) describes how leaders contribute to innovation and learning by inspiring the exploration of solutions among participants and the questioning of established assumptions and views. It stimulates critical thinking and creativity. Day et al. (2016) researched the influence of leadership on organizational behaviors. They suggest that IS plays a vital role in educational contexts. They also indicate that leadership encourages questioning and innovative teaching methods. Jamali et al. (2022) explored how different leadership styles influence faculty performance, particularly IS, in a vibrant academic environment.

They found that educational organizations are more adaptable and practical if leadership emphasizes intellectual development and critical thinking. Andriani et al. (2018) further explored an environment conducive to innovation and steady personal growth. They found that leadership motivates educators to shake off conventional shackles to positively impact teaching methods and education. As a result, the study proposes the following hypothesis (H1):

Hypothesis 1

Intellectual stimulation has a valuable impact on the teaching performance of the academic staff.

Idealized influence (II) stresses how leaders become respected by acting as models through behavior and values. If leaders show high morals and values, employees will be inspired to follow them for higher goals and visions (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Ngaithe et al. (2016) support this idea by suggesting that leaders with II positively influence staff performance. Firmansyah et al. (2022) further explored the connection between II and instructor performance in the educational sector.

They suggested that teachers led by people with idealized solid influence are more content with their job performance. Similarly, Harefa et al. (2022) emphasize that leaders serve as moral example. Therefore, the II could foster an environment suitable for teaching practices. According to Arifin et al. (2014), leaders with high ethical standards and values help create a positive organizational culture for effective teaching and learning. Thus, the hypothesis (H2) is proposed below:

Hypothesis 2

Inspirational Motivation has a favorable influence on the teaching performance of the academic staff.

Inspirational motivation (IM) refers to the intrinsic motivation leaders inject into their team members. The aim is to encourage them to do beyond expectations. This can help create objectives with great significance and direction. Nyamubi (2021) illustrates that school leaders can make teachers more enthusiastic in their jobs through inspiration. Notably, this motivation is based on acknowledgment, and positive reinforcement outstrips the motivation created by financial rewards. Anwar et al. (2020) examine how a supportive and motivating educational environment is created as a result of leadership. A leader can depict an attractive vision and make it a reality. Educators make more significant efforts to drive personal and professional growth by doing so. Based on these insights, the following hypothesis (H3) is formulated:

Hypothesis 3

Individualized Consideration has a beneficial effect on the teaching performance of the academic staff.

Individualized consideration (IC) refers to how leaders contribute to personal and professional growth by providing care and support. If leadership meets individual needs and professional development, it helps create an environment for educators to be motivated in terms of excellent performance and innovation (Jamali et al., 2022). This can ensure that educators feel valued and supported in their teaching engagement and effectiveness. Andriani et al. (2018) suggest that individualized consideration boosts job satisfaction and educational performance. Leaders interested in developing their team members could boost morale and create a productive teaching team. Furthermore, Alzoraiki et al. (2018) reveal that teachers become more dedicated and influential thanks to personalized support from leaders. Consequently, this study proposes the following hypothesis (H4):

Hypothesis 4

Idealized Influence has an affirmative impact on the teaching performance of the academic staff.

Enhancing the role of POS between TL & teaching performance

According to Eisenberger et al. (1986), POS is the extent to which employees believe their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. POS influences teachers’ commitment and performance. Stinglhamber et al. (2015) suggest that POS influences followers’ affective commitment. According to research on the moderating role of POS in education, POS can significantly improve the nexus between leadership styles and their outcomes. Hoch et al. (2018) reveal that TL positively influences employee performance and dedication due to POS. Therefore, the effect of TL depends on teachers’ POS.

The connection between TL and POS indicates that leadership directly influences teaching performance. It also interacts with teachers’ POS. This interaction is also explored by Wang (2022). The author suggests that TL and high POS make employees more creative and show better performance. It is proposed that POS determines the effectiveness of TL.

Moreover, Song et al. (2013) discuss how TL fosters knowledge-creation practices in an organization, indicating that TL helps create a conducive environment for knowledge-sharing and innovation among teachers through inspirational and intellectual stimulation. For instance, according to Bachtiar et al. (2018), idealized influence, under which leaders serve as ethical models, significantly impacts teaching performance in environments where teachers perceive high organizational support. Purwanto (2020) reached a similar conclusion.

They indicate that inspirational motivation improves teaching strategies and classroom outcomes when teachers feel they receive enough support from their institution. Under POS, teachers are spurred to question established assumptions. They are also encouraged to try new methods (Chi et al., 2014). So, it can be said that an organization with greater POS can make teachers open to new approaches.

Furthermore, Wulandari et al. (2023) suggest that individualized consideration and personalized support for teachers help with professional development and teaching performance. The following hypotheses are proposed according to the above insights:

Hypothesis 5

Idealized influence enhances the relationship between transformational leadership and teaching performance.

Hypothesis 6

Inspirational motivation enhances the relationship between transformational leadership and teaching performance.

Hypothesis 7

Intellectual stimulation enhances the relationship between transformational leadership and teaching performance.

Hypothesis 8

Individualized consideration enhances the relationship between transformational leadership and teaching performance.

The past studies on TL within educational settings stress its positive impact on teaching performance and the beneficial role of POS. However, the literature reveals a gap in understanding how POS moderates the relationship between TL dimensions and teaching performance, particularly in Chinese education. This study seeks to address this gap by examining the intricate dynamics between these variables to offer a new layer of insight into effective leadership practices and potentially enrich the global discourse on educational leadership.

Methodology

Participants and Data Collection

This study utilizes scales adapted from prior research to ensure consistency and validity within the model. For exogenous variables, we employed the Transformational Leadership Questionnaire (TLQ) structure, adapted by Chaoping and Kan (2008) from Bass’s questionnaire, incorporating four variables and utilizing a 5-point Likert scale. Additionally, the study includes POS as a critical variable, based on the work of Eisenberger et al. (1997), measured using a 7-point Likert scale to assess participants’ perceptions of organizational support. The endogenous variable, teaching performance, was measured by Moeller (2009), evaluating participants’ self-assessed performance in teaching activities. The target population for data collection comprised full-time faculty members at public universities, including normal, vocational, and Sino-foreign structures in Wenzhou, China. A simple random sampling approach was employed, with the questionnaire designed and distributed through an electronic platform. Faculty members were invited to participate via email to ensure equal participation opportunities across universities. Before conducting a pilot test, the Teaching Performance scale was translated from English to Chinese and subjected to content validity verification by five experts, including researchers, translators, and faculty members.

Data Analysis

Data analysis was conducted in two phases: first, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was conducted to assess structural validity, while the internal consistency reliability was assessed through Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. Next, structural equation modeling (SEM) tested the hypothesized relationships to provide insights into the strength and direction of the relationships between TL dimensions, POS, and TP. Moderation analysis was conducted using interaction terms to examine the moderating effects. These analyses ensured the validity and reliability of the measurement model and the structural model’s robustness and explanatory power, which provided a solid foundation for further analysis.

Results and Findings

As mentioned above, the research focused on the academic staff to determine the influence of the four aspects of TL on teaching activities. All responses were collected anonymously and securely stored to protect personal information. This respects the confidentiality and privacy of all participants. The collected questionnaires were analyzed using SPSS 29 and Amos 26, and after cleaning data and removing uncompleted questionnaires, 290 valid ones remained. Descriptive results show in Table 1 that 63.1% of the respondents (n = 183) were male, and 36.9% (n = 107) were female. More than 39% of participants (n = 113) were from the College of Science, Mathematics, and Technology, and the majority held a position as a lecturer.

Table 1.

Profiles of Respondents.

	Categories	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Gender	Male	165	62.3
Gender	Female	100	37.7
Age	24–30	88	33.2
	31–40	90	34
	41–50	61	23
	Above 51	26	9.8
Working experience	Below 2 years	27	10.2
	2–5 years	94	35.5
	5–10 years	87	32.8
	Above 10 years	57	21.5
Department	Science and technology	106	40
	Liberal Arts	76	28.7
	Business	66	24.9
	Others	17	6.4
Title	Assistance	90	34
	Lecture	144	54.3
	Assistant professor	27	10.2
	Professor	4	1.5

Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Normality Test

Evidence supporting the construct validity of the TLQ was substantiated through the execution of Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Furthermore, Harman’s Single-Factor Test was utilized to examine the potential issue of bias, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2012), to evaluate the existence of common method bias in data collected from a single source. Specifically, the highest variance attributed to a single factor was 12.47%, which falls below the 50% threshold.

Consequently, concerns regarding standard method bias can be dismissed in this research. In addition, the cumulative variance accounted for by the six factors was 66.14%, which exceeds the recommended threshold of 50%, as shown in Table 2 below.

Table 2.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CMV).

	Initial eigenvalues			Extraction sum of squared loadings			Rotated sum of squared loadings
	Total	% Of variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Of variance	Cumulative %	Total	% Of variance	Cumulative %
1	10.565	25.154	25.154	10.565	25.154	25.154	6.614	15.747	15.747
2	5.242	12.48	37.634	5.242	12.48	37.634	5.099	12.141	27.887
3	3.66	8.713	46.347	3.66	8.713	46.347	5.061	12.051	39.938
4	3.472	8.267	54.614	3.472	8.267	54.614	4.254	10.127	50.066
5	3.276	7.8	62.415	3.276	7.8	62.415	4.092	9.742	59.808
6	2.93	6.975	69.39	2.93	6.975	69.39	4.024	9.582	69.39

To determine whether the four variables positively correlate with teaching performance, assessing the data’s distribution for normality is essential (Table 3). The normality was validated as the Skewness is between −1 and 1, and Kurtosis is between −3 and 3, as Hair et al. (2010) recommended.

Table 3.

Normality Test.

		Statistic	Std.Error
Teaching performance	Skewness	−.645	.150
Teaching performance	Kurtosis	−.833	.298
Intellectual stimulation	Skewness	−.499	.150
Intellectual stimulation	Kurtosis	−.946	.298
Inspirational motivation	Skewness	−.719	.150
Inspirational motivation	Kurtosis	−.749	.298
Individualized consideration	Skewness	−.147	.150
Individualized consideration	Kurtosis	−1.366	.298
Idealized influence	Skewness	−.302	.150
Idealized influence	Kurtosis	−1.284	.298
Perceived organizational support	Skewness	−.302	.150
Perceived organizational support	Kurtosis	−1.284	.298

Reliability of the Latent Constructs

Cronbach’s alpha is the primary measure for gauging the internal consistency of items within a scale (Cleff, 2014). Such reliability tests aim to evaluate the characteristics of measurement scales and their items, ultimately deriving a comprehensive index of their internal consistency. As presented in Table 4, the reliability coefficients for the underlying constructs are as follows: Intellectual Stimulation (α = 0.91), Inspirational Motivation (α = 0.897), Individualized Consideration (α = 0.903), Idealized Influence (α = 0.916), Teaching Performance (α = 0.969) and Perceived Organizational Support (α = 0.918). These values reflect a commendable reliability and exceed the widely recognized threshold of 0.70, as Blair et al. (2015) suggested.

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics.

	Mean	SD	Cronbach'α
Intellectual stimulation	3.23	.986	.91
Inspirational motivation	3.45	1.013	.897
Individualized consideration	3.06	1.105	.903
Idealized influence	3.13	1.116	.916
Teaching performance	4.72	1.49	.969
Perceived organizational support	4.59	1.841	.918

Measurement Model

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Subsequent to the descriptive statistics analysis, CFA was utilized to verify that the observed variables effectively represented their underlying latent constructs, with factor loadings exceeding the 0.6 thresholds.

Convergent validity was evaluated by computing the Average Variance Extracted (AVE). As outlined in the accompanying table, the composite reliability (CR) and AVE metrics for each construct were calculated. The CR values across the constructs ranged from 0.912 to 0.969, and the AVE metrics varied from 0.581 to 0.797. Following the criteria established by Hair et al. (2010) and Straub et al. (2004), all constructs demonstrated CR and AVE metrics that exceeded the advised minimums of 0.7 and 0.5, respectively.

The methodology proposed by Fornell and Larcker (1981) was adopted to verify discriminant validity. This approach mandates that the square root of the AVE for each construct should be greater than its correlations with other constructs (Table 5).

Table 5.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity.

	CR	AVE	IS	IM	IC	II	POS	TP
Intellectual stimulation	.919	.587	.766
Inspirational motivation	.912	.635	.171^**	.797
Individualized consideration	.914	.639	.215^**	.154^*	.799
Idealized influence	.923	.666	.248^**	.151^*	.211^**	.816
Teaching performance	.917	.581	.322^**	.287^**	.308^**	.306^**	.762
Perceived organizational support	.969	.797	.138*	.194^**	.176^**	.213^**	.267^**	.893

Model Fit

Various steps and tests were employed to evaluate the adequacy of this study model’s fit, with their results in Table 6. The model demonstrated a satisfactory fit across all considered metrics: CMIN/DF (1.072), SRMR (0.0401), GFI (0.901), NFI (0.913), RMSEA (0.016), and CFI (0.994).

Table 6.

Model Fit Indices.

Index	Model value	Recommended value	Remark
CMIN/DF	1.147	<3	Good fit
SRMR	0.040	<0.05	Good fit
TLI	0.984	>0.90	Good fit
CFI	0.985	>0.90	Good fit
RMSEA	0.024	<0.07	Good fit

These fit values follow the standards proposed by Byrne (2016) and Hooper et al. (2008) and confirm the model’s adequate representation of the observed data.

Path Analysis

As mentioned above, AMOS 26 was adopted to perform the measurement model in the first phase and, afterward, assess the path analysis with the structure model analysis to figure out the results of the proposed hypotheses in this study. Figure 1 shows the model with all four hypotheses included, and the arrows indicate the regression weights. The details of the hypotheses are outlined in Table 7. In the path analysis, all four variables exhibited significant positive associations with teaching performance. Specifically, IS (β = 0.286, p < .01), IM (β = 0.207, p < .05), IC (β = 0.451, p < .001), and II (β = 0.249, p < .05), were resulted to have a positive effect on teaching activity, with IC having the most pronounced effect (Table 8).

Figure 1.

Conceptual framework.

Table 7.

Structural Model Results.

Path	Unstd	S.E.	C.R.	Sig	Decision
Intellectual Stimulation→TP	.436	.120	3.618	.011	Supported
Inspirational Motivation→TP	.292	.095	3.070	.024	Supported
Individualized Consideration→TP	.212	.094	2.258	.001	Supported
Idealized Influence→TP	.235	.091	2.591	.030	Supported

Notes: IS = Intellectual Stimulation, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IC = Individualized Consideration, II = Idealized Influence, TP = Teaching Performance.

Table 8.

Path Analysis (Moderation).

Path	Std	Unstd	S.E.	C.R.	p	Decision
H5: IM*POS→TP	.125	.099	.048	2.056	.040	Supported
H6: IS*POS→TP	.164	.139	.054	2.576	.010	Supported
H7: IC*POS→TP	.142	.106	.052	2.042	.041	Supported
H8: II*POS→TP	−.091	−.068	.047	−1.456	.145	Not supported

Notes: IS = Intellectual Stimulation, IM = Inspirational Motivation, IC = Individualized Consideration, II = Idealized Influence, TP = Teaching Performance, POS = Perceived Organizational Support.

The study examined the moderating effects of POS on four impact pathways by constructing interaction terms as proposed by Ping (1995) and Liu (2019). The results presented in Table 7 reveal that POS significantly enhances the positive impact of IM, IS, and IC on TP, as evidenced by the supported hypotheses (H5, H6, and H7) with respective path estimates of 0.125, 0.164, and 0.142, and p-values underscoring statistical significance (p < .05). Conversely, the Idealized Influence (II) dimension, when moderated by POS, does not exhibit a significant effect on TP, as indicated by the unsupported hypothesis H8 (β = −0.091, p > .05).

A moderation effect graph was constructed using the method proposed by Preacher et al. (2006). Figure 2 illustrates the positive moderating effect of POS on how IS influences Teaching Performance. Specifically, for academic staff with high POS (one standard deviation above the mean), the impact of IS on Teaching Performance is more pronounced; conversely, for academic staff with low POS (one standard deviation below the mean), the influence of IS on Teaching Performance is comparatively weak. Similarly, the same generalization could be applied to IM and IC. Thus, Hypotheses 5, 6, and 7 are supported.

Figure 2.

Moderation graph.

Discussion

This study proves that transformational leadership (TL) positively impacts teaching performance in higher education institutions (HEIs) in China, specifically within Wenzhou’s educational framework. The results affirm the broader literature’s assertions that TL improves employee performance across various sectors (Banks et al., 2016; Judge & Piccolo, 2004). In line with Al-Husseini et al. (2021), this study’s findings confirm that the key dimensions of TL—Intellectual Stimulation (IS), Inspirational Motivation (IM), and Individualized Consideration (IC)—all contribute to enhanced teaching performance. However, our study extends the understanding of TL’s role in education by highlighting the moderating effect of Perceived Organizational Support (POS), which plays a crucial role in amplifying the positive influence of TL on teaching performance in Chinese HEIs. Notably, Individualized Consideration (IC) emerged as the most influential dimension of TL in this study, diverging from Western-centric findings where Inspirational Motivation (IM) is typically highlighted as the most significant factor. This discrepancy may be attributed to China’s collectivist culture, which emphasizes relational leadership, mentorship, and group harmony (Hofstede, 2011).

In Chinese academic settings, where leaders are expected to nurture and provide personalized support to faculty, the prominence of IC aligns with cultural preferences for fostering strong, individualized relationships between leaders and their subordinates. This cultural specificity stresses the importance of understanding how leadership effectiveness is shaped by the cultural environment in which it is practiced. While IC reflects the importance of cultural alignment in leadership, the findings also reveal the practical significance of other dimensions, such as IM, in driving teaching behaviors. For example, IM fosters intrinsic motivation and a shared sense of purpose among faculty, which can be pivotal for encouraging innovative teaching methods. Even seemingly modest coefficients, such as IM (β = 0.207, p < .05), suggest meaningful implications for real-world leadership behavior. A 0.1-point increase on a 5-point Likert scale could lead to improved teaching strategies, enhanced student engagement, or more effective collaboration among faculty members. When supported by an organizational climate that fosters innovation and collaboration, these incremental changes have the potential to elevate academic quality and organizational outcomes.

Beyond these individual dimensions, the broader organizational climate, as shaped by POS, further amplifies the effects of TL practices. The moderating role of Perceived Organizational Support (POS) is another significant contribution of this study. The findings show that POS strengthens the positive effects of TL dimensions—particularly IC, IS, and IM—on teaching performance, emphasizing the importance of a supportive organizational climate. As Eisenberger et al. (1986) described, POS refers to the degree to which employees believe their organization values their contributions and cares about their well-being. When faculty members perceive high organizational support, they are more likely to respond positively to leadership efforts, resulting in higher performance. This suggests that leadership development programs in Chinese universities should focus on fostering transformational leadership skills and creating organizational policies that increase perceived support for faculty. University administrators and policymakers should prioritize building a supportive environment that recognizes and values faculty contributions. This approach would enhance the effectiveness of TL and ultimately improve teaching performance.

In addition, this study reinforces the global discourse on TL’s positive impact on performance while offering new insights into how cultural context and organizational support modulate these effects. Developing leadership strategies that align with cultural values and enhancing organizational support mechanisms are crucial for optimizing faculty performance in Chinese HEIs.

Limitations and Future Research

Despite the significant contributions of this study, it is essential to acknowledge certain limitations. One fundamental limitation is the geographic specificity of the sample, which may restrict the generalizability of the findings beyond the context of Chinese higher education. However, studying Wenzhou’s diverse academic universities, including public and Sino-foreign universities, provides a comprehensive understanding of the local educational landscape. Future research should aim to replicate the study across broader and more diverse geographic contexts to assess the generalizability of these conclusions globally. Additionally, while this study focuses on the relationship between TL and teaching performance, other factors, such as research productivity and service activities, warrant further investigation to provide a more holistic view of faculty performance.

Furthermore, educational institutions can leverage TL more effectively to elevate faculty performance by considering these cultural and contextual nuances. Exploring POS and its long-term effects will also provide a more comprehensive understanding of the dynamics between leadership and performance in academic settings.

Implications of the Study & Conclusion

This study shows that TL practices can significantly increase professors’ teaching performance. Leaders who exhibit ideal influence act as role models and inspire faculty members to adopt high standards of teaching excellence (Bass & Avolio, 1994). Inspirational motivation encourages teachers to engage more deeply with their work and foster a more passionate and committed approach to teaching. Intellectual stimulation promotes innovation in teaching methods and enables faculty to explore new instructional strategies and improve student outcomes (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006). Individual consideration ensures that faculty members feel valued and supported, which can increase their job satisfaction and teaching effectiveness (Podsakoff et al., 1990). The moderating effect of POS suggests that the nexus between TL and teaching performance is strengthened when faculty members perceive high levels of support. This highlights the significance of building a supportive environment where faculty feel their contributions are recognized and valued (Eisenberger et al., 1986). University leaders, administrators, and decision-makers should focus on developing policies and practices that foster POS, such as providing professional development opportunities, recognizing and rewarding teaching excellence, and ensuring fair and transparent communication. Additionally, university leaders must implement TL practices while fostering a supportive organizational culture. This dual approach can create a synergistic effect and significantly improve teaching performance. Administrators should also consider training programs for department chairs and other leaders to develop leadership skills and enhance their ability to support faculty effectively (Hoch et al., 2018). In addition, policymakers should consider integrating these findings into broader educational reforms. By promoting TL and increasing institutional support, universities can improve the quality of teaching, which is critical to student success and the overall development of higher education in China.

Footnotes

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.

Funding

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

ORCID iD

Midya Yousefi

References

Al-Husseini

El Beltagi

Moizer

(2021). Transformational leadership and innovation: The mediating role of knowledge sharing amongst higher education faculty. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(5), 670–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1588381

Alzoraiki

Rahman

O. B. A.

Mutalib

M. A.

(2018). The effect of the dimensions of transformational leadership on the teachers’ performance in the Yemeni public schools. European Scientific Journal, 14(25), 322–334.

Andriani

Kesumawati

Kristiawan

(2018). The influence of the transformational leadership and work motivation on teachers performance. International Journal of Scientific & Technology Research, 7(7), 19–29.

Anwar

Mohammed

B. S.

Wahab

M. A.

Liew

M. S.

(2020). Enhanced properties of cementitious composite tailored with graphene oxide nanomaterial-A review. Developments in the Built Environment, 1(1), 100002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2019.100002

Arifin

Troena

E. A.

Djumahir

Rahayu

(2014). Organizational culture, transformational leadership, work engagement and teacher’s performance: Test of a model. International Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 1–14.

Armstrong

Taylor

(2014). Armstrong's Handbook of human resource management practice (13th ed.). Kogan Page.

Bachtiar

Sudibjo

Bernarto

(2018). The effects of transformational leadership, perceived organizational support on job and life satisfaction of preschool teachers. Information, 21(4), 1301–1320.

Bakker

A. B.

Demerouti

(2008). Towards a model of work engagement. Career Development International, 13(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1108/13620430810870476

Banks

G. C.

McCauley

K. D.

Gardner

W. L.

Guler

C. E.

(2016). A meta-analytic review of authentic and transformational leadership: A test for redundancy. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(4), 634–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.02.006

10.

Bass

B. M.

Avolio

B. J.

(1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage.

11.

Bass

B. M.

Riggio

R. E.

(2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

12.

Bishop

C. T.

Esaki

Taub

M. E.

(2023). Learning to be a leader worth following. Human Service Organizations: Management, Leadership & Governance, 47(5), 422–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/23303131.2023.2228853

13.

Blair

Ursache

Greenberg

Vernon-Feagans

Family Life Project Investigators . (2015). Multiple aspects of self-regulation uniquely predict mathematics but not letter–word knowledge in the early elementary grades. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 459–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038813

14.

Bohari

Wider

Udang

L. N.

Jiang

Tanucan

J. C. M.

Lajuma

(2024). Transformational leadership’s role in shaping Education 4.0 within higher education. Journal of Infrastructure, Policy and Development, 8(8), 4900. https://doi.org/10.24294/jipd.v8i8.4900

15.

Boyer

E. L.

(1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professoriate. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

16.

Brouer

Chiu

Wang

(2016). Political skill dimensions and transformational leadership in China. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 31(6), 1040–1056. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmp-05-2014-0166

17.

Byrne

B. M.

(2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

18.

Chaoping

L. I.

Kan

(2008). The structure and measurement of transformational leadership in China. Frontiers of Business Research in China, 2(4), 571–590.

19.

Chen

Zhou

(2023). The impact of job crafting on teachers’ innovative teaching behaviors: A moderated chain mediation model. Educational Academic Monthly, 7(9), 50–57.

20.

Chi

Yeh

S. F.

(2014). How well-being mediates the relationship between social support and teaching effectiveness. Journal of Education and Learning, 3(4), 117–130. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v3n4p117

21.

Cleff

(2014). Exploratory data analysis in business and economics. Springer.

22.

Day

Sammons

(2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x15616863

23.

Desimone

L. M.

Porter

A. C.

Garet

M. S.

Yoon

K. S.

Birman

B. F.

(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081

24.

Eisenberger

Cummings

Armeli

Lynch

(1997). Perceived organizational support, discretionary treatment, and job satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 812–820. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.5.812

25.

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

26.

Firmansyah

Prasojo

Jaedun

Retnawati

(2022). Transformational leadership effect on teacher performance in asia: A meta-analysis. Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences, 17(6), 2143–2152. https://doi.org/10.18844/cjes.v17i6.7552

27.

Fornell

Larcker

D. F.

(1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312

28.

Fraser

Taylor

(2019). The business of people: Leadership for the changing world. Taylor & Francis.

29.

Fullan

Hargreaves

(2012). Reviving teaching with ‘professional capital. Education Week, 31(33), 30–36.

30.

Gibbs

Coffey

(2004). The impact of training of university teachers on their teaching skills, their approach to teaching and the approach to learning of their students. Active Learning in Higher Education, 5(1), 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787404040463

31.

Hair

Black

W. C.

Babin

B. J.

Anderson

R. E.

(2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson Educational International.

32.

Hallinger

Heck

R. H.

(1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203

33.

Harefa

A. R.

Sitanggang

Nainggolan

(2022). The influence of transformational leadership on teaching performance and subjective well-being of lecturers. Indonesian Journal of Educational Research and Review, 5(3), 502–513. https://doi.org/10.23887/ijerr.v5i3.54821

34.

Harris

Jones

(2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210376487

35.

Harris

D. N.

Sass

T. R.

(2014). Skills, productivity and the evaluation of teacher performance. Economics of Education Review, 40(1), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.03.002

36.

Hoch

J. E.

Bommer

W. H.

Dulebohn

J. H.

(2018). Do ethical, authentic, and servant leadership explain variance above and beyond transformational leadership? A meta-analysis. Journal of Management, 44(2), 501–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316665461

37.

Hofstede

(2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1014

38.

Hooper

Coughlan

Mullen

M. R.

(2008). Structural equation modelling: Guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

39.

Jamali

Bhutto

Khaskhely

Sethar

(2022). Impact of leadership styles on faculty performance: Moderating role of organizational culture in higher education. Management Science Letters, 12(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2021.8.005

40.

Judge

T. A.

Piccolo

R. F.

(2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(5), 755–768. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.5.755

41.

Kezar

(2018). How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change. Routledge.

42.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829

43.

Wang

(2021). Higher education faculty development in China. Journal of Asian Education, 32(4), 567–589.

44.

Liu

(2019). Advanced psychological statistics. China Renmin University Press.

45.

Marzano

R. J.

(2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. ASCD.

46.

Mathende

Yousefi

(2021). Transformational leadership role and means efficacy on work performance under volatile uncertain complex and ambiguous environment. Open Journal of Leadership, 10(04), 277–299. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojl.2021.104018

47.

Moeller

(2009). Stressors, strains and social support: Occupational experiences of university professors. [Master’s thesis, University of Windsor]. Leddy Library.

48.

Ngaithe

L. N.

K’Aol

G. O.

Lewa

Ndwiga

(2016). Effect of idealized influence and inspirational motivation on staff performance in state owned enterprises in Kenya. European Journal of Business and Management, 8(1), 6–13.

49.

Northouse

P. G.

(2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

50.

Nyamubi

G. J.

(2021). The Influence of heads of schools’ inspirational motivation on teachers’ work performance. Asian Journal of Management Sciences & Education, 10(2), 1–15.

51.

O'Meara

Braskamp

(2005). Aligning faculty reward systems and development to promote faculty and student growth. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 42(2), 369–386.

52.

Ping

R. A.

join' ' (1995). A parsimonious estimating technique for interaction and quadratic latent variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 32(3), 336–347. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151985

53.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Moorman

R. H.

Fetter

(1990). Transformational leader behaviors and their effects on followers' trust in leader, satisfaction, and organizational citizenship behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 1(2), 107–142. https://doi.org/10.1016/1048-9843(90)90009-7

54.

Podsakoff

P. M.

MacKenzie

S. B.

Podsakoff

N. P.

(2012). Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63(1), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452

55.

Preacher

K. J.

Curran

P. J.

Bauer

D. J.

(2006). Computational tools for probing interactions in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986031004437

56.

Pritchard

R. D.

Harrell

M. M.

DiazGranados

Guzman

M. J.

(2008). The productivity measurement and enhancement system: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 540–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.540

57.

Purwanto

(2020). Effect of transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction toward life satisfaction: Eevidences from Indonesian teachers. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 29(3), 5495–5503.

58.

Raes

Decuyper

Lismont

Van den Bossche

Kyndt

Demeyere

Dochy

(2013). Facilitating team learning through transformational leadership. Instructional Science, 41(2), 287–305. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-012-9228-3

59.

Ronald

(2014). Comprehensive leadership review-literature, theories and research. Advances in Management, 7(5), 52–66.

60.

Ross

J. A.

Gray

(2006). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 179–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565795

61.

Ruslan

(2020). Contribution of principal transformational leadership and interpersonal communication through work motivation on teacher performance at all state junior high schools in Banjarmasin Uttara subdistrict. Journal of K6 Education and Management, 3(2), 178–186.

62.

Sadeghi

Pihie

Z. A. L.

(2012). Transformational leadership and its predictive effects on leadership effectiveness. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(7), 186–197.

63.

Samad

(2012). The influence of innovation and transformational leadership on organizational performance. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 57(1), 486–493. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1215

64.

Song

J. H.

Bae

S. H.

Park

Kim

H. K.

(2013). Influential factors for knowledge creation practices of CTE teachers: Mutual impact of perceived school support, transformational leadership, and work engagement. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(4), 467–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9283-8

65.

Sonnentag

Frese

(2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. Psychological Management of Individual Performance, 23(1), 3–25.

66.

Stinglhamber

Marique

Caesens

Hanin

De Zanet

(2015). The influence of transformational leadership on followers’ affective commitment: The role of perceived organizational support and supervisor’s organizational embodiment. Career Development International, 20(6), 583–603. https://doi.org/10.1108/cdi-12-2014-0158

67.

Straub

Boudreau

M. C.

Gefen

(2004). Validation guidelines for IS positivist research. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13(1), 380–427.

68.

Sudirman

Sherly

Candra

Dharma

Lie

(2021). Determinants of teacher performance: Exploring the role of satisfaction and motivation as mediation. Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Pengajaran, 54(1), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.23887/jpp.v54i1.32417

69.

Sun

(2013). The effect of transformational leadership on teacher development and the mediating role of trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(3), 464–498.

70.

Thamrin

H. M.

(2012). The influence of transformational leadership and organizational commitment on job satisfaction and employee performance. International Journal of Innovation, Management and Technology, 3(5), 566–572. https://doi.org/10.7763/ijimt.2012.v3.299

71.

Wang

C. J.

(2022). Exploring the mechanisms linking transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, creativity, and performance in hospitality: The mediating role of affective organizational commitment. Behavioral Sciences, 12(10), 406. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs12100406

72.

Wang

(2024). Transformational leadership and organization innovation in Chinese colleges. Asia Pacific Journal of Management and Sustainable Development, 12(2), 80–87.

73.

Weng

S. S.

Liu

Chuang

Y. C.

(2019). Reform of Chinese universities in the context of sustainable development: Teacher evaluation and improvement based on hybrid multiple criteria decision-making model. Sustainability, 11(19), 5471. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11195471

74.

Wulandari

Noviani

Hardhienata

Setyaningsih

(2023). Professional commitment: Transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, and achievement motivation as the mediator. AL-ISHLAH: Jurnal Pendidikan, 15(2), 2166–2172. https://doi.org/10.35445/alishlah.v15i2.3239

75.

Yang

(2019). Transformational leadership in Chinese universities: A cultural perspective. Asia Pacific Education Review, 20(1), 75–85.

76.

Yousefi

Abdullah

A. G. K.

(2019). The impact of organizational stressors on job performance among academic staff. International Journal of Instruction, 12(3), 561–576. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2019.12334a

77.

Yousefi

Devi

Shuib

(2020). Organizational stress indicators and influence on academic performance in private universities. Asia Proceedings of Social Sciences, 5(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.31580/apss.v5i2.1123

78.

Jang

(2024). A framework for transformational leadership to enhance teacher’s work performance. Frontiers in Psychology, 15(1), 1331597. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1331597

79.

Yukl

(2013). Leadership in organizations (8th ed.). Pearson.

80.

Zaccaro

S. J.

(2007). Trait-based perspectives of leadership. American Psychologist, 62(1), 6–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.1.6

81.

Zhang

Zhou

(2014). Empowering leadership, uncertainty avoidance, trust, and employee creativity: Interaction effects and a mediating mechanism. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2014.02.002

Bolstering teaching performance in Chinese universities through transformational leadership and perceived organizational support

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Literature Review

Transformational Leadership

Teaching Performance

Interaction Between TL Style & Teaching Performance

Enhancing the role of POS between TL & teaching performance

Methodology

Participants and Data Collection

Data Analysis

Results and Findings

Confirmatory Factor Analysis & Normality Test

Reliability of the Latent Constructs

Measurement Model

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Model Fit

Path Analysis

Discussion

Limitations and Future Research

Implications of the Study & Conclusion

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

ORCID iD

References