The Relationship between School Principals’ Leadership Behaviours and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review aims to investigate the relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction. With this purpose, studies that focused on this relationship in the literature were examined. Twenty-seven studies found in different databases (i.e. ERIC, WOS, SCOPUS and ULAKBİM) were included in the analysis. These studies mostly focused on the relationships between school principals’ transformational and interaction leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction. Additionally, job satisfaction was also studied in relation to servant leadership, ethical leadership, distributive leadership, individual- and task-oriented leadership and school leadership behaviours. Based on the findings of the studies examined, school principals’ transformation leadership behaviours were found to have stronger relationships with teachers’ job satisfaction compared to interactional leadership behaviours and were an important predictor of job satisfaction. Negative relationships were revealed between laissez-faire leadership and job satisfaction. On the other hand, school principals’ servant leadership and ethical leadership behaviours were found to be important variables in ensuring job satisfaction. Lastly, school principals’ administrative behaviours that encourage participation and are flexible, sharing leadership at school, and exhibiting individual-oriented and supportive leadership behaviours were revealed to enhance teachers’ job satisfaction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".