Article

Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Transformational leadership, 2022, Vol. 50(3) 491–510
ª The Author(s) 2020

leader–member exchange and Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1741143220932582
school learning climate: Impact journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

on teachers’ innovative
behaviour in the Netherlands

Marjan Vermeulen , Karel Kreijns and Arnoud T Evers

Abstract
Despite the fact that innovative behaviour of teachers is important for the quality of teaching in our
knowledge society, there is still little research into leadership and organizational factors that
influence teachers’ innovative behaviour. By combining self-concept leadership theory, social
exchange theory and a hierarchical model of the distance of variables to human behaviour from an
interactive perspective, we tried to unravel the relationships between school organization and
teacher variables. Based on longitudinal data (2011, 2012, 2013) from a select sample of 597
teachers (being part of a research panel), a structural equation model (Mplus) was used for testing
the relationship between transformational leadership, the school learning climate, the quality of
teacher–leadership relationships (leader–member exchange), teachers’ inquiry habit of mind and
teachers’ innovative behaviour. The findings show a very good fit for the model and contribute to
confirmation of the combined used theories and concepts of leadership in education, leaderships’
influence on the organizational learning climate, the crucial mediating role of leader–member
exchange between organizational variables and teacher variables, and the mediating dispositional
variable of teachers’ inquiry habit of mind between leader–member exchange and innovative
behaviour. This study adds to our insights into the complexity of innovation in school
organizations.

Keywords
Innovative behaviour, transformational leadership, learning climate, leader–member exchange the-
ory, teachers’ inquiry habit of mind

Introduction
Creating new knowledge, using new technologies, looking for new and better solutions, and being
creative and innovative are important features for all citizens in all knowledge societies in this

Corresponding author:
Marjan Vermeulen, Open University of the Netherlands, P.o. 2960 6401 DL Heerlen, Netherlands.
Email: marjan.vermeulen@ou.nl
492 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

increasingly globalizing world. This is all the more true for education, because students in the
educational system are the citizens of our future society (Vincent-Lancrin and Jacotin, 2019).
Therefore, education should enable students to develop creative and innovative thinking, and,
because the quality of teachers is a prerequisite for the learning outcomes of students (Hattie,
2008), teachers should be innovative, keep up to date, set an example for students and use all the
possibilities in their teaching that new knowledge and technologies offer (Saavedra and Opfer,
2012). In other words, teaching in this knowledge society needs professionals who are able to keep
learning, think critical (Earl and Katz, 2006) and translate new information into better teaching
practices for their students (Meijer et al., 2016). Being innovative, or showing innovative beha-
viour (IB), is often defined as the generation and implementation of new ideas (Thurlings et al.,
2015).
The boundaries of IB with the concept of creative behaviour are vague and are often used
interchangeably (Anderson et al., 2014). Furthermore, part of these earlier mentioned 21st-century
professional characteristics are also designated as an inquiry habit of mind (IHoM) (Earl and Katz,
2006). IHoM is a personal state that gives direction to one’s behaviour instead of the behaviour
itself. IHoM is a way of looking at knowledge and the position of knowledge in relation to a
teacher’s own practice; it is prerequisite for a teacher’s professional development and IB, and they
merge in a progressive way (Katz and Dack, 2014: 36). Or, in other words, IHoM is about the
ability to continuously develop professional performance within the work situation (Meijer et al.,
2016). To be or become such a continuously developing professional, teachers need an organiza-
tional context in which they are stimulated to keep on developing these 21st-century competences
in order to help their students develop (Meijer et al., 2016). The aim of this research is to unravel
mechanisms in the relationship between school contextual factors and teachers’ IHoM and IB
(Thurlings et al., 2015).

Theoretical framework
From an interactional psychological viewpoint, individual organizational behaviour is determined
by different interacting variables situated on different levels of the organization and individual
characteristics (Smith et al., 2006). Important organizational factors that affect teachers’ profes-
sional development are leadership and relationships between leadership and teachers (Day et al.,
2016). Focussing on leadership characteristics as an important context factor in relation to teacher
behaviour, the concept of transformational leadership (TL) is one of the most researched in the
educational context (Bush, 2018).
Although the relationship between leadership and teacher IB has empirically been proved over
different domains and professions, according to Aryee et al. (2012), research indicates that the
relationship between leadership behaviour and teacher behaviour is not direct but is mediated by
different variables such as employee’s psychological state. This is in line with the interactional
psychological perspective on organizational behaviour. In the educational domain, research found
that TL is related to teacher IB and that this relationship is mediated by dispositional variables
(Klaeijsen et al., 2018). Furthermore, earlier research has proved that TL affects all kinds of school
aspects such as the school culture (Day et al., 2016; Luyten and Bazo, 2019) or school climate
(McCarley et al., 2016) or, more specific, the school learning climate (LC) (Vermeulen et al.,
2015), the professional development of teachers (Vermeulen et al., 2017; Thoonen et al., 2012) and
innovation (Katz and Dack, 2014).
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 493

Figure 1. Model of the investigated relationships between transformational leadership (TL), learning climate
(LC), leader–member exchange (LMX), inquiry habit of mind (IHoM) and innovative behavior (IB). TL was
measured at T1 (2010), LC at T2 (2012), and LMX, IHoM and IB at T3 (2013).

Vallerand (1997) already proposed from an interactional perspective to distinguish between

different levels within the environment; global level and contextual level (such as experienced
organizational context and experienced leadership) as well as situational-level motivational con-
structs (such as IHoM and other psychological states; see, for example, self-determination theory
(Deci and Ryan, 2008)) and the individual behaviour itself. Based on these notions, we developed a
conceptual framework for explaining individual innovative teacher behaviour, in which the influ-
ence of leadership characteristics on teacher behaviour is mediated by teachers’ dispositional
variables and experienced contextual variables. Following the call for more research (Aryee
et al 2012; Carasco-Saul Kim and Kim, 2015) that explains the mechanisms between leadership
and employee behaviour, we expand on the work of others (Aryee et al., 2012) who combined the
self-concept leadership theory with social exchange theory, by adding the hierarchical principle of
Vallerand for explaining individual behaviour within an interactional psychological perspective. In
the following, we elaborate on the previous empirical findings and theoretical explanations that
form the building blocks of our conceptual framework presented in Figure 1, explaining the
relationships between the experienced TL, the learning climate, leader–member exchange (LMX),
teachers’ IHoM and IB.

Transformational leadership
One of the most important school organizational factors related to student and teacher behaviour is
leadership (Day et al., 2016; Gumus et al., 2018). The leadership concept related to innovation and
change is that of transformational leadership (TL) (Choi et al., 2016). TL can be described as a
494 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

process where ‘leaders and followers help each other to advance into a higher level of morale and
motivation’ (Burns, 1978: 20). In other words, TL refers to a set of behaviours of leaders, which
leads to higher employee motivation or other psychological states and, as a result, to increased
employee performance (Jensen and Bro, 2018; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006). These influences of
leadership on increased motivational, attitudinal and psychological aspects can be explained by the
self-concept theory of leadership, which states that the influence of TL on employees is aimed at
changing how they feel about themselves and not directly at the behaviour (Aryee et al., 2012).
TL has been proved an essential factor in sustainable educational innovation (Klaeijsen, 2015;
Timperley et al., 2007). Although many different dimensions of TL have been distinguished (Sun
and Leithwood, 2012), in the research on TL within school organizations, three dimensions of this
type of leadership have been most often identified (Geijsel et al., 2009; Klaeijsen, 2015; Thoonen
et al., 2012). The first dimension, building a vision, is about identifying and articulating a vision
referring to the goals, principles and priorities of the organization (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006).
The second dimension, individual consideration, includes attending to the feelings, needs and
demands of individual employees. The third dimension, that of intellectual stimulation, refers to
sufficient support for professional development and to stimulating employees to take on chal-
lenges, experimenting and readdressing existing knowledge and daily practice (Thoonen et al.,
2012). Thus, transformational leaders motivate their employees by articulating a vision and a
mission in terms of the values they represent (Aryee et al., 2012). Visionary and inspiring com-
munication can positively influence employees’ feelings about themselves (psychological state)
and their attitude to work; it focusses attention and gives meaning to the actions of employees. By
continuously communicating the vision and purpose of the organization, employees will develop a
joint frame of reference for their work behaviour. By showing – as part of leadership behaviour –
individual consideration, teachers feel on the one hand recognized and better understood with
regard to their personal needs, and on the other hand empowered to pursue the organizational goals
and complete their task and efforts successfully (Geijsel et al., 2009). Intellectual stimulation is
aimed at the professional development of teachers, their professional learning and experimenting
with new behaviour to create new or better educational practices. Thus, this dimension is closely
related to teachers’ IB. Furthermore, TL as a total construct is found to be a key characteristic for
the performance of employees’ IB (Zhu and Wang, 2011) and creative behaviour (Bock et al.,
2005; Wang and Noe, 2010).
In previous research (Vermeulen et al., 2017), TL was validated as a second order construct,
where the three dimensions (TL vision, TL individual consideration, TL intellectual stimulation)
together form the factor TL. Thus we expected that TL is a second order construct.

Learning climate
The school learning climate (LC) can be considered as a part of the organizational climate or
culture. Within the literature there is much discussion about the concepts of organizational culture
and climate and their relationship (Nikolova et al., 2014); more specifically, whether climate is a
part of culture or vice versa (Schneider, 2000) or complementary (Schneider et al., 2013), or
whether it is more or less the same (Schein 2000). More consensus however is reached about the
multidimensionality of the organizational climate, but no consensus is reached about the most
important dimensions of climate or culture. In this article, organizational climate, and learning
climate as part of it, is defined as one’s personal perceptions of the working environment (Chen,
2011), thus aligning the concept with the individual contextual variables that influence behaviour
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 495

(Klaeijsen et al, 2018; Vallerand, 1997). These personal perceptions of the work environment were
proved to be related to perceptions of TL (Hetland et al., 2011; Michaelis et al., 2010).
Leaders have an important influence on the formation of the climate because leaders are the
providers and also the filters of all kind of organizational information thus shaping the experienced
work environment of employees (González-Romá and Peiró, 2016). LC is operationalized more
specifically as a part of organizational climate and refers to one’s perceptions of work settings that
help or hinder learning at work (Hetland et al., 2011). Thus defined, LC can be characterized by
collective reflection, tolerance to different opinions, learning from mistakes and learning from
other colleagues or teams, as well as good practices from other organizations (Van Woerkom,
2003). Therefore we expected that TL affects LC (Hypothesis 1).
There is a growing body of evidence that (a number of aspects of) LC is related to employee
learning and creativity (Bertels et al., 2011). Indeed, Paavola et al. (2004) concluded that IB is
related to an environment where teachers are willing to take risks (of failure or mistakes) and share
new methods with each other.

LMX theory
The leadership–membership exchange or, in short, LMX theory is based on the social exchange
theory, in which reciprocity of relationships between people is a central theme (Graen and Uhl-
Bien, 1995). On the individual level, the process between leader and ‘follower’ is often described
as a dyadic process which can differ in quality depending on the follower’s characteristics (Yukl
et al., 2009), contexts and situations (Somech and Wenderow, 2006), and it develops over time
(Graen and Schiemann, 2013). Thus, in LMX theory, high-exchange relationships, characterized
by more trust, liking and respect based on expectations of mutual exchange and therefore reinfor-
cing trust, liking and so on, lead to more extra role behaviour of employees, or in other words
employees are more inclined to do more than the role description. In low-exchange relationships
the employee is only expected to behave as described in the formal requirements, thus reinforcing
low expectations of extra role behaviour (Ng, 2017).
LMX is found to be a mediator in the relationship between TL characteristics and the perfor-
mance of employees (Wang et al., 2005) and IB (Ng, 2017). Furthermore, strong relationships have
been found between LC and LMX (Joo et al., 2014). Recent research – not in the educational
sector, however – into influencing employee behaviour showed the important role of different
mediating dispositional variables (like IHoM) when explaining leadership influence on employee
behaviour (Fischer et al., 2017; Ng, 2017). Thus, it can be expected that LMX is a mediator
between the organizational factors (TL and LC) and IHoM and employee IB. Subsequently,
following Ng (2017), LC is expected to be related to LMX (Hypothesis 2) and TL is strongly
related to higher-exchange relationships (LMX) (Hypothesis 3) that in turn affect dispositional
variables in this research IHOM (Hypothesis 4) and teachers’ IB (Hypothesis 6).

Inquiry habit of mind

Although IHoM is not a clear and empirically grounded concept (Meijer et al., 2016), some
agreements about the key characteristics can be found in the literature. These key characteristics
include openness and curiosity, grounding your decisions not on tacit knowledge alone, but
searching for evidence and other possibilities, and having an attitude of always wanting to know
more (Uiterwijk-Luijk et al., 2017).
496 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Emphasis is laid on the characteristic of IHoM as a stance (Cochran-Smith, 2003), meaning that
IHoM is not a sequence of steps to solve a problem that can be learned – for instance, at a teacher
training institute –, but is ‘an intellectual perspective – a way of questioning, making sense of, and
connecting one’s day-to-day work with the work of others and to larger social, historical, cultural,
and political contexts’ (Cochran-Smith, 2003: 21). Or, as So (2013: 189) puts it, ‘an active and
habitual way of being that continues over the course of a professional career’.
Much of the educational literature (Uiterwijk-Luijk et al., 2017) with regard to IHoM has
references to Earl and Katz (2006). They defined IHoM as ‘a way of thinking that is a data-
driven dynamic iterative system to organize ideas, search for information, and move closer to
understanding some phenomenon’ (Earl and Katz, 2006: 18; see also Kreijns et al., 2019). Earl and
Katz – referring to Keating (1996) in order to describe the concept of IHoM in general – formulated
‘a habit of mind’ as: ‘Habits of mind incorporate dispositional, emotional, motivational, and
personality variables that contribute to competence in managing the environment and making
decisions’ (Keating, 1996, cited in Earl and Katz, 2006: 18). The word ‘inquiry’ is combined
with the concept ‘habits of mind’ to focus on a specific ‘habit of mind’ and to make a distinction
with inquiry as research in the academic world. The concept of IHoM is more a way of life – ‘(a)
way of knowing and being’ (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2009: 113) – of how you learn and how you
perform in all kind of situations, such as work. This description is related to the concept of learning
from a (social) constructivist viewpoint, where learning is a situated process, often in interaction
with others (such as colleagues or supervisors), directed at making sense of one’s own situation,
leading to the construction of knowledge (So, 2013). Therefore, habits of mind develop in social
interaction when opinions, attitudes, norms and values are exchanged between people. A specific
kind of social interaction is LMX.
Three dimensions of IHoM are distinguished. The first dimension, ‘value deep understanding’,
refers to a possible range of outcomes and the urge to keep searching for increased understanding.
Therefore, new ideas should not be interpreted within existing frameworks, because changes will
only be superficial. Besides, with regard to developing a deeper understanding of one’s own work,
asking for feedback from others and collecting information to evaluate are important processes.
The second dimension, ‘reserve judgement and tolerate ambiguity’, points to an open mind for
different explanations, and not supporting too quickly some particular idea or theory. There is a
tolerance for uncertainty gaining better answers and deeper understanding, next to a willingness to
live in the dissonance long enough to investigate ideas until there is some clearness about its
possible meaning (Earl and Katz, 2006: 18), meaning that you are able to live with uncertainty, not
needing every answer or clearness inmediately, taking your time to find answers. The third
dimension, ‘take a range of perspectives and systematically pose increasingly focused questions’,
means considering systematically ‘a range of views through which one gains sufficient evidence to
explain, support and challenge points of views and includes the realization that using data almost
never provides answers’ (Earl and Katz, 2006: 18). Or, in other words, using data usually leads to a
more focussed investigation and better questions (Timperley, 2010). In previous research, the three
dimensions were operationalized into three constituting variables. The concept of IHoM turned out
to be a second order construct based on these three constituting variables (Kreijns et al., 2019).
Based on research using the theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 2010; Uiterwijk-
Luijk et al., 2017) where teachers’ intention to provide specific behaviour, such as innovative
behaviour (Klaeijsen et al., 2018), proved to be related to dispositional or psychological variables,
it can be expected that dispositional variables (such as IHoM) are related to more distal variables,
such as experienced leadership (see, for instance, Vermeulen et al., 2017) and LMX (Hypothesis 4).
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 497

The IHoM concept has gained interest in recent years and more research in the educational field
has been called for (Uiterwijk-Luijk et al., 2017).

Innovative behaviour
IB can be described as a behavioural process in which new ideas are generated, created, developed,
applied, promoted, realized and modified by employees in order to benefit role performance (e.g.
De Jong and Den Hartog, 2007). This definition by De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) is most often
used in recent educational research (Thurlings et al., 2015). Research has proved that IB is directly
related to LMX (Ng, 2017), and therefore we expected LMX to be related to IB (Hypothesis 6).
IHoM is important for developing professionalism and innovation (Katz and Dack, 2014), and thus
IB is seen as an outcome of IHoM (Earl and Timperley, 2009); therefore we expected that IHoM
affects IB (Hypothesis 5). In addition, in this research we expected that school organizational
factors – more specifically TL, the school LC and LMX – affect teachers’ IHoM and teachers’ IB
(Earl and Timperley, 2009; Katz and Dack, 2014).
The conceptual model, with the expected relationships based on the previously discussed
literature, is depicted in Figure 1. All the variables are drawn in circles/ellipses to express that
these variables are latent variables.

Method
Procedure and participants
The Netherlands, where this study took place, is well comparable to other western countries; the
political and practical concerns and struggles over, for example, teacher professional development
or curriculum change with regard to 21st-century skills are much alike. The longitudinal study
reported here was part of a larger study on Dutch teachers’ use of digital learning materials (DLMs)
in their lessons (see, for example Vermeulen et al., 2017) and the study considered the use of
DLMs as an expression of IB, but used separate variables to measure DLMs and IB; in this study,
the latter was used. Because in this study we were interested in the individually experienced
contextual and situational variables in relation to individual behaviour, the sample was a random
sample from the Dutch teacher population. Because of the longitudinal design, the participants
were part of an existing panel of TNO-NIPO (a commercial organisation in the Netherlands that
gathers data and provides a datafile usable with for instance SPSS), all working at different
schools, in primary, secondary, higher and vocational education.
For research into the relationship between teachers, leaders and characteristics of the organi-
zation they work for, it is important that there is a period of time between the different measure-
ments; not only for more indication of causality, but especially because it takes time for a leader to
influence characteristics of the organization and have an impact on individual employee behaviour.
Leaders need more time to influence organizations than individual relationships or individual
behaviour (Fischer et al., 2017). In Dutch schools, leadership is a stable phenomenon; there is
not much mobility of teachers and of school leaders (VOION, 2012). Due to the very low mobility
in the period of the study within the educational sector, changing leadership in our sample is within
the error range (CAOP, 2018; VOION, 2012).
In this longitudinal study there was a year or more between the different surveys. The first
survey, containing the scale for TL, was administered in December 2010 (¼ T1; n ¼ 1445). The
second survey containing the scale for LC was administered in March 2012 (¼ T2; n ¼ 1673), and
498 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Table 1. Descriptives of respondents.

School type % n ¼ 597 % men n ¼ 570 Mean age n ¼ 544

Primary 46.0 18.7 40.9

Secondary 39.9 55.1 46.0
Vocational 12.3 66.0 42.2
Divers 1.8 60.2 44.3
Total 100 40.6 43.2

the third survey containing the scales for LMX, IHoM and IB was administered in March 2013
(¼ T3; n ¼ 1228). As the current longitudinal study required participants to respond on all 3
occasions, the sample size reduced to 597 participants. Descriptives of these participants can be
found in Table 1 (note that gender and age are not known for all the participants).

Instruments
All the instruments described below were used in various previous studies and are based on earlier
statistical validations, separate constructs (see, for instance, Vermeulen et al., 2017, Kreijns et al
2019).

Transformational leadership. TL was measured with an adapted version of the Dutch TL scale of
Geijsel et al. (2009) to meet the demands of the current study with a focus on IB. This scale has
been used in many research contexts (e.g. Thoonen et al., 2012). The TL scale had three dimen-
sions with all items formulated in Dutch (as was the case for all items included in the survey1). The
TL items used the preamble ‘Our school leader . . . ’. The first dimension (vision building) con-
sisted of five items. These items assessed the extent to which a school leader initiates and identifies
a vision for the school. A sample item is ‘ . . . refers explicitly to the school’s objectives during the
decision-making process’. The second dimension (individual consideration) originally had four
items but for the current study one item was added in relation to innovation. Items assessed the
extent to which the school leader acknowledges teachers’ efforts and provides individualized
support for teachers; the added item was ‘ . . . has an eye and ear for problems experienced by
teachers when introducing innovations’. The items used were always aimed at characteristics
related to leadership behaviour towards teachers in general; this is in contrast with the immediate
interaction with the leader, to distinguish TL dimensions from LMX. The third dimension (intel-
lectual stimulation) originally had six items; however, two items were added. The items assessed
the extent to which the school leader provides teachers with intellectual stimulation. The two added
items had more focus on stimulating teachers’ innovative behaviour. These items were
‘ . . . encourages teachers to try out new things in line with their interest’ and ‘ . . . encourages
teachers to think about how our organization can be improved’. Seven-point Likert scales (1 ¼
totally not applicable to 7 ¼ totally applicable) were used as answering categories for all items
rather than the 4-point Likert scales used by the original TL scale. Because the TL scale has already
been validated (including the added items) in earlier research (see Vermeulen et al., 2017), we did
not perform a construct validation of the scale prior to the SEM analyses.
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 499

Learning climate. The instrument of Van Woerkom (2003) was used in this research for measuring
LC. The scale has been validated for the Dutch context of schools. However, items were reformu-
lated, one item was removed and two items added to reflect our study in a school organization
context with a focus on IB. The instrument had one dimension and consisted of 13 items. The
removed item was ‘time is spent on reflecting jointly on our goals’ and the two added items were
‘employees are involved in important innovations in my school’ and ‘time is reserved for working
together on our professionalization’ respectively. Four-point Likert scales were used as answer
categories: 1 ¼ (almost) never, 2 ¼ sometimes, 3 ¼ often, and 4 ¼ (almost) always. Because of the
changes made, a construct validation of the changed LC scale using Rasch analyses was per-
formed. The Rasch analyses revealed good psychometric properties of the scale (further informa-
tion can be obtained by the researchers). The Cronbach’s alpha was .88.

LMX. With regard to the measurement of LMX, we used an adapted version of the LMX-7 scale
from Scandura and Graen (1984); three items were substituted by three other items and the
remaining four items were reformulated to reflect the purpose of our study, namely the school
organization context with a focus on IB. All items targeted directly at the own experienced relation
with the supervisor, to distinguish it from the dimensions of TL. An example item is: ‘My super-
visor takes my suggestions for changes into account.’ Another reason for reformulating was that
the wording of the items did not fit Dutch culture very well. This LMX scale had one dimension
consisting of seven items. These items assessed the quality of the exchange relationship between
supervisors and subordinates. Seven-point Likert scales (from 1 ¼ to a very small extent to 7 ¼ to a
very large extent) were used as answering categories for all items rather than the 4-point Likert
scales used by the original LMX-7 scale. As all these changes essentially meant that we had
constructed a new scale, we applied Rasch analyses to determine the psychometric qualities of
the scale. These Rasch analyses resulted in the conclusion that the scale had good psychometric
qualities (more information can be obtained from the researchers). The Cronbach’s Alpha was .96.

Inquiry habit of mind. Teachers’ IHoM scale (also named the Teacher Inquiry Habit of Mind Scale
(T-IHMS) of Kreijns et al. (2019)) was used. The T-IHMS was validated in earlier research using
series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs). The valida-
tion revealed a three-factor structure (the dimensions) with good fit values (root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) ¼ .66; comparative fit index (CFI) ¼ .964; Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI)
¼ .946; standardized root mean squared residual (SRMSR) ¼ .037; see Kreijns et al., 2019 for
more details). Each dimension consisted of three items; all items used the preamble ‘When I work
at school . . . ’. Items of the first dimension (deep understanding) assessed the extent to which the
tendency exists not to presume a certain outcome, but to allow for a range of outcomes and the
search for increased clarity and understanding (Earl and Katz, 2006: 18). A sample item is ‘ . . . I
am critical on whether I did the right thing.’ Items of the second dimension (judgement/ambiguity)
assessed the extent to which judgement is reserved and tolerance for ambiguity exists so as to keep
an open mind for different explanations and to avoid too quickly supporting some particular idea or
theory. A sample item is ‘ . . . I can deal with situations wherein solutions and explanations are not yet
available.’ The items of the third dimension (perspectives/questions) assess the extent to which a
range of perspectives is taken into account and where systematically focussed questions are posted. A
sample item is ‘ . . . I try to avoid prejudices with regard to solutions and explanations.’ All items
were using 7-point Likert scales (from 1 ¼ absolutely not applicable to me to 7 ¼ totally applicable
500 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Table 2. Overview of mean, standard deviation and correlations (n ¼ 597).

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

TLvision 4,63 1,48

TLsupport 4,70 1,49 ,58**
TLstimulation 4,73 1,36 ,63** ,86**
LC 3,16 0,48 ,42** ,46** ,49**
LMX 4,98 1,27 ,20** ,36** ,35** ,32**
IHoM learning 5,35 0,85 ns ,08* ,08* ,14** ,30**
IHoM uncertainty 4,74 0,92 ns ns ns ,09** ,26** ,49**
IHoM inquiry 4,85 0,89 ns ns ns ,07* ,25** ,63** ,59**
IB 4,28 0,87 ns ,15** ,12** ,10** ,33** ,51** ,50** ,58**
TL: transformational leadership; LC: learning climate; LMX: leader–member exchange; IHoM: inquiry habit of mind; IB:
innovative behaviour; ns: not significant.

to me). Because the scale was used unabridged, we did not perform a construct validation of the scale
prior to the SEM analyses.

Innovative behaviour. The IB scale of De Jong and Den Hartog (2007) was used. This scale was
validated for Dutch teachers and used in various research settings (e.g. Konermann, 2012, Klaeij-
sen et al., 2018). This scale had one dimension consisting of eight items. These items assessed the
degree to which teachers exhibit innovative behaviour. A sample item is ‘I take many initiatives for
change in my work.’ All items used 7-point Likert scales (from 1 ¼ absolutely not applicable to 7
¼ totally applicable). The scale was used unabridged, so we did not perform a construct validation
of the scale prior to the SEM analyses.

Analyses
First, the relations between the separate variables were calculated with SPSS 24. Table 2 gives an
overview.
The model from Figure 1, in which all assumed relationships (Hypotheses 1 to 6) are included,
was analysed with Mplus version 7.2. Also, direct effect of LMX on TL and indirect effect of TL
on LMX via LC were analysed, as well as direct effect of LMX on IB and indirect effect of LMX
on IB via IHoM.
All the SEM analysis has been performed twice: in the first analysis all the variables were assumed
to be continuous and in the second analysis as ordered categorically (see Byrne, 2012, subsection
Categorical Variables Analysed as Continuous Variables: 128). Continuous variables or categorical
could lead to different estimates and, therefore it is recommended to use both in a situation when it is
not clear if continuous is allowed to be used (Byrne, 2012), both are shown in Figure 2.

Results
In Figure 2 the result of the tested hypotheses within the sequential equation model is presented. In
Figure 2, for two variables, second order CFAs were found, more specifically for IHoM and for TL.
This was expected based on results of earlier research (Kreijns et al., 2019; Vermeulen et al.,
2017). Both second order constructs performed strong parameters from the three constituting
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 501

Figure 2. Model of the investigated relationships between transformational leadership (TL), learning climate
(LC), leader–member exchange (LMX), inquiry habit of mind (IHoM) and innovative behaviour (IB). Trans-
formational leadership is a second-order model with three dimensions.
502 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Table 3. Fit values for the different indicators.

Analyses

Analysis 1 Analysis 2
(variables treated (variables treated as
Test as continuous) ordinal categorical) Criteria

Chi-square test of model fit

Value 2813.375 1918.886
Degrees of freedom 1413 1413
p-value .000 .000
RMSEA
Estimate .041 .024 Should be < .06 for good/
close fit*
90% confidence .039, .043 .022, .027 CI should encompass values
interval (CI) < .06*
Probability RMSEA < ¼ .05 1.00 1.00
CFI/TLI
CFI .948 .995 Should be > .95 for good fit*
TLI .945 .994 Should be > .95 for good fit*
Standardized/weighted root
mean square residual
SRMSR .039 Should be < .08* for good fit
WRMSR** 1.113 Should be close to 1.0 for
good fit
*See Hu and Bentler (1999) for these cut-off values.
**WRMSR is an experimental fit statistic and could normally be ignored if all other fit statistics look good. (http://
www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/9/5096.html?1321986275).
RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; CFI: comparative fit index; TLI: Tucker-Lewis index.

factors to the second order factor. The IHoM scale was based on ‘value deep understanding’ (.87,
.88), ‘judgement ambiguity’ (.81, .83) and ‘asking questions from different perspectives’ (.98, .96).
All three loaded .8 or more on the total IHoM variable.
The TL construct was based on ‘vision building’ (.68, .70), ‘individual consideration’ (.94, .95)
and ‘intellectual stimulation’ (.98, .98). For good fit, three correlations between the error terms
between the latent variables of TL were made.
Furthermore, Figure 2 shows that the strongest relationship was found between IHoM and IB
(.67, .69). TL and LC have strong relationships too (.56, .58) whereby TL was measured in 2011
and LC in 2012. LMX, measured in 2013, was the expected key variable in the model and is
affected directly by TL (.27, .25) and by LC (.21, .22). LMX has relationships with IHoM as well as
IB, where the strongest relationship for LMX was found with IHoM (.31, .34) and a weak but still
significant relation with IB (.10, .11). Thus, basing our expectations on earlier research, all the
expected relationships (Hypotheses 1 to 6) that together form the model were found to be signif-
icant. Furthermore, in Table 3 it is shown that all fit values suggest a very good fit of the structured
model. IHoM appeared to be a very good predictor of IB. Both IHoM and IB were influenced by
the extent to which the school organization factors TL, LC and LMX were present.
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 503

Table 4. Unstandardized coefficients of the mediation analyses.

X Y Mediator Total effects Indirect effects

LMX IB IHoM .398** .265**

.459** .313**
TL LMX LC .433** .134**
.420** .145**
**p < .01.
LMX: leader–member exchange; IB: innovative behaviour; IHoM: inquiry habit of mind; TL: transformational leadership; LC:
learning climate.

In order to detect whether the effect of LMX on IB was (partly) mediated by IHoM and whether
the effect of TL on LMX was (partly) mediated by LC, mediation analyses were performed in
Mplus. The results in Table 4 show that indeed IHoM and LC partly mediated the effects of LMX
and TL respectively.
Next, the fit values on different indicators were examined. The values resulted in good to very
good fit on all the fit indicators of our final structural model (see Table 3, also for the norms). Thus
the combination of hypotheses 1 to 6 together in one model is accepted.

Discussion and conclusion

Based on findings of Ayree et al. (2012), who combined the self-concept theory of leadership with
social exchange theory, we added the hierarchical principle from an interactionist perspective on
behaviour of Vallarand (1997). The latter explained the sequence of the mediating variables in
(more) distal to proximal or dispositional variables. Based on empirical findings within and outside
the educational field, we constructed a conceptual framework, in which the relationship between
TL and individual IB was mediated by the experienced LC of the organization, the relation with
direct supervisors (LMX) and a dispositional variable, more specifically IHoM as a requirement
for IB. The findings in this research proved that LMX was a key variable in the tested model
between the organizational factors and teachers’ dispositional and behaviour factors, measured at
three different times (2011, 2012, 2013).
The LMX concept is based on the social exchange theory, explaining why social relations occur
and how they are strengthened; for instance, because of the reciprocity norm. When experiencing
benefits from a relation, the norm is to return benefits, and by doing so the relation is further
strengthened and more long-term commitment is built (Ng, 2017). This mechanism explains why
TL affects LMX directly, but TL was also indirectly related to LMX via LC. LC is a social
construct, that is shaped by all the organizational members in a negotiation process (Nikalova
et al., 2014), in which the TL role is of great importance because of the influence in implementing
policy, setting goals and acting as an example, which is reflected in the climate. Subsequently, how
the relationship with the direct supervisor is experienced (LMX) can be shaped by the perceived
LC. For instance, the way in which errors are handled (being in a situation one can learn from, or
the opposite in which punishment will follow when errors are made), shapes the relationship with
the direct supervisor.
Furthermore, developing IHoM from a social constructive learning perspective is also based on
social relations and interactions, where people together make sense of the situation. This explains
504 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

the relationship between LMX and IHoM, or more precisely, the mediating role of LMX between
IHoM and TL.
Teachers’ IB is more affected by IHoM than by LMX, thus leading to the conclusion that IHoM
is an important dispositional variable for enhancing teachers’ IB and that IHoM partly mediates
between organizational factors like LMX and teacher self-reported IB. IHoM is a dispositional
variable, meaning that it is a personal characteristic that is proximally positioned to behaviour
itself. This fits in an interactional perspective on explaining human behaviour (Vallerand, 1997,
Klaeijsen et al., 2018). Although this is a longitudinal research design, LMX, IHoM and IB are
measured at the same time (2013). The design would have been stronger if these three variables
had not been cross-sectional, but were measured at different times.
Many studies have had a focus on the relationship between LMX and IB (Joo et al., 2014) and
mediating dispositional variables. For instance, work engagement, as a dispositional variable, was
found to be a mediating variable between LMX and employees’ IB (Khan and Malik, 2017) as well
as job autonomy (Volmer et al., 2012) or motivational and affectional variables (Ng, 2017). Our
study adds to these findings the significance of IHoM as a mediator in the relationship between
LMX and IB, thus proving that the way teachers look at knowledge and learning is an important
factor for IB.
Furthermore, TL is one of the most researched topics in education of the last decades (Bush,
2018); evidence showed relationships with TL and better performance of teachers, teams and
educational organizations and IB of employees (Ng, 2017). Although there is not yet agreement
on a theoretical concept of what (combination of) factors TL influences, that finally leads to these
desired employee behaviour outcomes, some important steps were made towards a conceptual
model. Based on a meta-analyses performed by Ng (2017) on a variety of concepts for explaining
relationships between TL and employee behaviour, LMX turned out to be the mediating key
variable between TL and the other dispositional and behaviour variables on individual employee
performance. Our study confirmed this finding for the educational field. A restriction of Ng’s
meta-analyses was that other organizational factors besides TL, such as organizational culture or
climate, were not taken into account. From our research it can be learned that the relation between
TL and LMX is mediated by school LC. Because LC is just one part of organizational character-
istics, future research should expand these organizational factors.
Some critic on LMX and the empirical found outcomes have been discussed in the literature.
LMX has not taken into account the diversity of the social surroundings; the concept of LMX was
operationalized too much from an individual point of view (Avolio et al. (2009) and team relations
and social networks should be part of the research agenda (Graen et al., 2018). In our research,
LMX was operationalized from the traditional individual point of view, because how the individual
perceives the working environment is an important factor in explaining the individual’s behaviour
(Uhl-Bien, 2011). Future research could broaden these insights by building on evidence of more
effective professional development in teams or learning communities (Willemse et al., 2016), in
order to learn more about the development of key factors enhancing the quality of leadership
relationships in teams and networks.

Practical implications
In this 21st-century knowledge society it is important to enhance learning, professionalization and
innovation. Strengthening teachers’ IB can be facilitated by certain leadership practices, and more
specific TL characteristics (such as vision building, individual consideration and intellectual
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 505

stimulation). Because the school context is the daily professional learning context for teachers
(Vermeulen, 2016), fostering IB should start in this context, in which leadership plays an important
role. TL is directly related to an organizational climate in which learning is a key factor, which in
turn leads to perceived higher-quality relationships between school leaders and teachers. From the
self-concept theory of leadership, the social exchange theory and from a social constructive
learning viewpoint, communication and social interaction are key factors in making sense of
situations and influencing people’s ‘habits of mind’. Thus, communicating and interacting are
important for 21st-century leadership skills.
LC can be enhanced by human resource development (HRD) policies, which are aimed at an
open, safe climate where people trust and respect each other, and where making mistakes and
complaints are opportunities to learn from. Besides these HRD policies, leaders can influence
those climates by being an example and by focussing on continuously communicating with teach-
ers, thus building relationships and influencing the sense-making process within the organization.
The quality of the relationships between school leaders and teachers proved to be an important
foundation for fostering teacher’s IHoM and IB; both necessary for practising future education in a
developing knowledge society.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit
sectors.

ORCID iD
Marjan Vermeulen https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8084-7217

Note
1. All Dutch items are translated into English throughout this paper.

References
Anderson N, Potočnik K and Zhou J (2014) Innovation and creativity in organizations: A state-of-the-science
review, prospective commentary, and guiding framework. Journal of Management 40(5): 1297–1333.
Aryee S, Walumbwa FO, Zhou Q and Hartnell CA (2012) Transformational leadership, innovative behavior,
and task performance: Test of mediation and moderation processes. Human Performance 25(1): 1–25.
Avolio B, Walumbwa F and Weber T (2009) Leadership: Current theories, research, and future directions.
Annual Review of Psychology 60: 421–449.
Bertels HJ, Kleinschmidt EJ and Koen PA (2011) Communities of practice versus organizational climate:
Which one matters more to dispersed collaboration in the front end of innovation? Journal of Product
Innovation Management 28(5): 757–772.
Bock GW, Zmud RW, Kim YG and Lee JN (2005) Behavioural intention formation in knowledge sharing:
Examining the roles of extrinsic motivators, social-psychological forces, and organizational climate. MIS
Quarterly 29(1): 87–111.
506 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Boone WJ (2016) Rasch analysis for instrument development: Why, when, and how? CBE-Life Sciences
Education 15(4): rm4.
Boone WJ, Staver JS and Yale MS (2014) Rasch Analysis in the Human Sciences. Dordrecht: Springer
Science þ Business Media.
Burns JM (1978) Transformational leadership theory. Leadership. New York: HarperCollins.
Bush T (2018) Transformational leadership: Exploring common conceptions. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 46(6): 883–887.
Byrne BM (2012) Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Program-
ming. New York: Routledge.
CAOP (2018) Onderwijs aan het werk (Education at work). Available at: https://www.caop.nl/app/uploads/
2019/02/Onderwijs_aan_het_werk_-_2018.pdf (accessed 15 December 2019).
Carasco-Saul M, Kim W and Kim T (2015) Leadership and employee engagement: Proposing research
agendas through a review of literature. Human Resource Development Review 14(1): 38–63.
Chen C (2011) Factors affecting high school teachers’ knowledge-sharing behaviours. Social Behaviour and
Personality 39(7): 993–1008.
Choi SB, Kim K, Ullah SME and Kang SW (2016) How transformational leadership facilitates innovative
behavior of Korean workers: Examining mediating and moderating processes. Personnel Review 45(3):
459–479.
Cochran-Smith M (2003) Learning and unlearning: The education of teacher educators. Teaching and
Teacher Education 19: 5–28.
Cochran-Smith M and Lytle SL (2009) Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation.
New York: Teachers College Press.
Day C, Gu Q and Sammons P (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.
De Jong JP and Den Hartog DN (2007) How leaders influence employees’ innovative behaviour. European
Journal of Innovation Management 10(1): 41–64.
Deci EL and Ryan RM (2008) Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development,
and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne 49(3): 182–185.
Earl LM and Katz S (2006) Leading Schools in a Data-Rich World: Harnessing Data for School Improve-
ment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
Earl LM and Timperley H (2009) Understanding how evidence and learning conversations work. In: Earl LM
and Timperley H (eds) Professional Learning Conversations: Challenges in using Evidence for Improve-
ment. Berlin: Springer Dordrecht, pp. 1–12.
Fischer T, Dietz J and Antonakis J (2017) Leadership process models: A review and synthesis. Journal of
Management 43(6): 1726–1753.
Fishbein M and Ajzen I (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New
York: Psychology Press.
Geijsel FP, Sleegers PJC, Stoel RD and Krüger ML (2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school
organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. Elementary
School Journal 109(4): 406–427.
González-Romá V (2016) Leader–member exchange and organizational culture and climate. In: Bauer T and
Erdogan B (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Leader-Member Exchange. New York: Oxford University
Press, pp. 311–331.
Graen G, Canedo JC and Grace M (2018) Adapting LMX theory to forthcoming changes: Two different
frameworks. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 11(3): 531–535.
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 507

Graen GB and Schiemann W (2013) Leadership-motivated excellence theory: An extension of LMX. Journal
of Managerial Psychology 28(5): 452–469.
Graen GB and Uhl-Bien M (1995) The relationship-based approach to leadership: Development of LMX
theory of leadership over 25 years: Applying a multi-level, multi-domain perspective. Leadership Quar-
terly 6(2): 219–247.
Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M and Gumus E (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in
educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1):
25–48.
Hattie J (2008) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Hetland H, Skogstad A, Hetland J and Mikkelsen A (2011) Leadership and learning climate in a work setting.
European Psychologist 16(3): 163–173.
Hu L and Bentler PM (1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional
criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 6(1): 1–55.
Jensen UT and Bro LL (2018) How transformational leadership supports intrinsic motivation and public
service motivation: The mediating role of basic need satisfaction. American Review of Public Adminis-
tration 48(6): 535–549.
Joo BK, Yang B and McLean GN (2014) Employee creativity: The effects of perceived learning culture,
leader–member exchange quality, job autonomy, and proactivity. Human Resource Development Inter-
national 17(3): 297–317.
Katz S and Dack LA (2014) Towards a culture of inquiry for data use in schools: Breaking down professional
learning barriers through intentional interruption. Studies in Educational Evaluation 42: 35–40.
Khan MN and Malik MF (2017) ‘My leader’s group is my group’: Leader–member exchange and employees’
behaviours. European Business Review 29(5): 551–571.
Klaeijsen A (2015) Predicting Teachers’ Innovative Behaviour: Motivational Processes at Work. PhD Thesis,
Open University of the Netherlands.
Klaeijsen A, Vermeulen M and Martens R (2018) Teachers’ innovative behaviour: the importance of basic
psychological need satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, and occupational self-efficacy. Scandinavian Jour-
nal of Educational Research 62(5): 769–782.
Konermann J (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. PhD Thesis. Available at:
research.utwente.nl.
Kreijns K, Vermeulen M, Evers A, et al (2019) The development of an instrument to measure teachers’
inquiry habit of mind. European Journal of Teacher Education, 1–17.
Leithwood K and Jantzi D (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.
Luyten H and Bazo M (2019) Transformational leadership, professional learning communities, teacher
learning and learner centred teaching practices: Evidence on their interrelations in Mozambican primary
education. Studies in Educational Evaluation 60: 14–31.
McCarley TA, Peters ML and Decman JM (2016) Transformational leadership related to school climate: A
multi-level analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(2): 322–342.
Meijer MJG, Geijsel FP, Kuijpers M, Boei F and Vrieling E (2016) Exploring teachers’ inquiry-based
attitude. Teaching in Higher Education 21(1): 64–78.
508 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

Michaelis B, Stegmaier R and Sonntag K (2010) Shedding light on followers’ innovation implementation
behavior: The role of transformational leadership, commitment to change, and climate for initiative.
Journal of Managerial Psychology 25(4): 408–429.
Ng TW (2017) Transformational leadership and performance outcomes: Analyses of multiple mediation
pathways. Leadership Quarterly 28(3): 385–417.
Nikolova I, Van Ruysseveldt J, De Witte H and Van Dam K (2014) Learning climate scale: Construction,
reliability and initial validity evidence. Journal of Vocational Behavior 85(3): 258–265.
Paavola S, Lipponen L and Hakkarainen K (2004) Models of innovative knowledge communities and three
metaphors of learning. Review of Educational Research 74(4): 557–576.
Saavedra AR and Opfer VD (2012) Learning 21st-century skills requires 21st-century teaching. Phi Delta
Kappan 94(2): 8–13.
Scandura TA and Graen GB (1984) Moderating effects of initial leader–member exchange status on the
effects of a leadership intervention. Journal of applied psychology 69(3): 428.
Schein EH (2000). Sense and nonsense about culture and climate. In Ashkanasy NM, Wilderom CPM and
Peterson MF (eds) Handbook of organizational culture & climate. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp.
xxiii–xxx.
Schneider B (2000) The psychological life of organizations. In: Ashkanasy NM, Wilderom CPM and Peterson
MF (eds) Handbook of Organizational Culture & Climate. Thousand Oaks: SAGE, pp. xvii–xxi.
Schneider B, Ehrhart MG and Macey WH (2013) Organizational climate and culture. Annual Review of
Psychology 64: 361–388.
Smith DB, Schneider B and Dickson MW (2006) 1.4 Meso organizational behaviour: Comments on the third
paradigm. In: Clegg Stewart R, Hardy Cynthia, Lawrence TB and Nord Walter R (eds) The Sage Hand-
book of Organizational Studies. 2nd ed. London: Sage, pp. 149–164.
So K (2013) Knowledge construction among teachers within a community based on inquiry as stance.
Teaching and Teacher Education 29: 188–196.
Somech A and Wenderow M (2006) The impact of participative and directive leadership on teachers’
performance: The intervening effects of job structuring, decision domain, and leader–member exchange.
Educational Administration Quarterly 42(5): 746–772.
Sun J and Leithwood K (2012) Transformational school leadership: Effects on student achievement. Lead-
ership and Policy in Schools 11: 418–451.
Thoonen EJ, Sleegers PJC, Oort FJ and Peetsma TD (2012) Building school-wide capacity for improvement:
The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 23(4): 441–460.
Thurlings M, Evers AT and Vermeulen M (2015) Toward a model of explaining teachers’ innovative
behavior: A literature review. Review of Educational Research 85(3): 430–471.
Timperley H (2010) Using evidence in the classroom for professional learning. In Ontario Research Sympo-
sium, 17–19 February.
Timperley H, Wilson A, Barrar H and Fung I (2007) Teacher Professional Learning and Development: Best
Evidence Synthesis Iteration. Wellington: Ministry of Education.
Uhl-Bien M (2011) Relational leadership theory: Exploring the social processes of leadership and organizing.
In: Leadership, Gender, and Organization. Berlin: Springer, pp. 75–108.
Uiterwijk-Luijk L, Krüger ML, Zijlstra B and Volman M (2017) Inquiry-based leadership: The influence of
affective attitude, experienced social pressure and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Administration
55(5): 492–509.
Vallerand RJ (1997) Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In: Zanna MP (eds)
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 29. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 271–360.
Vermeulen et al.: Transformational leadership, leader–member exchange 509

Van Woerkom M (2003) Critical Reflection at Work: Bridging Individual and Organizational Learning. PhD
Thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands.
Vermeulen M, Van Acker F, Kreijns K and Van Buuren H (2015) Does transformational leadership encourage
teachers’ use of digital learning materials. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(6):
1006–1025.
Vermeulen M (2016) Organising learning. A rich learning environment for schools and teachers. Leren
Organiseren. Een Rijke Leeromgeving Voor Leraren en Scholen. Oratie: Open University Heerlen.
Vermeulen M, Kreijns K, Van Acker F and van Buuren H (2017) The role of transformative leadership, ICT
infrastructure and learning climate in teachers’ use of digital learning materials during their classes. British
Journal of Educational Technology 48(6): 1427–1440.
Vincent-Lancrin S and Jacotin G (2019) Measuring innovation in education 2019: What has changed in the
classroom? Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264311671-en.
VOION (2012) Factsheet mobiliteit publieke domein (Factsheet mobility in public domain). Available at:
https://kennisopenbaarbestuur.nl/media/128785/factsheet_mobiliteit_publieke_domein.pdf (accessed 15
December 2019).
Volmer J, Spurk D and Niessen C (2012) Leader–member exchange (LMX), job autonomy, and creative work
involvement. Leadership Quarterly 23(3): 456–465.
Wang H, Law KS, Hackett RD, Wang D and Chen ZX (2005) Leader–member exchange as a mediator of the
relationship between transformational leadership and followers’ performance and organizational citizen-
ship behaviour. Academy of Management Journal 48(3): 420–432.
Wang S and Noe RA (2010) Knowledge sharing: A review and directions for future research. Human
Resource Management Review 20(2): 115–131.
Widmann A, Messmann G and Mulder RH (2016) The impact of team learning behaviours on team innovative
work behaviour: A systematic review. Human Resource Development Review 15(4): 429–458.
Willemse TM, Boei F and Pillen M (2016) Fostering teacher educators’ professional development on
practice-based research through communities of inquiry. Vocations and Learning 9(1): 85–110.
Yukl G, O’Donnell M and Taber T (2009) Influence of leader behaviours on the leader–member exchange
relationship. Journal of Managerial Psychology 24(4): 289–299.
Zhu Y and Wang Y (2011) The relationship between entrepreneur psychological capital and employee’s
innovative behaviour: The strategic role of transformational leadership and knowledge sharing. Advanced
Materials Research 282(1): 691–696.

Author biographies
Marjan Vermeulen is professor at the faculty of Educational science of the Open University of the
Netherland. Her professorship is funded by teacher education institute ‘De Kempel’ and education
advice organization ‘Onderwijs maak je samen’ (Education is made together). She is the director of
the educational science master of the OU. Her expertise lies in supporting educational practice as
well as educational research in the field of professional development of teachers, the school as
organisation of work for teachers and school leadership, educational development and innovation.

Karel Kreijns is full professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences of the Open University of
the Netherlands. His primary research interest is the social aspects of computer-supported colla-
borative learning (CSCL) and networked learning (i.e., social presence, social space, and
510 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(3)

sociability) using an ecological approach and the affordance theory of Gibson. Other research
interests are motivation for the use of technology in education and BIE-coaching (BIE ¼ bug-in-
ear technology) of beginning teachers to reduce attrition and to improve the quality of the teacher.

Arnoud Evers, PhD, is assistant professor at the Faculty of Educational Sciences at the Open
University (OU) of the Netherlands. He is visiting scholar at the Teaching Systems Lab (TSL)
group of MIT (Cambridge, Massachusetts). He has also previously been Board Member of the
European Association for Practitioner Research on Improving Learning (EAPRIL). His main
research areas are: teachers’ learning at work, innovative schools and behaviour and HRD. He
published, among others, in Review of Educational Research, Human Resource Development
Review, European Journal of Training and Development, Studies in Continuing Education, and
Vocations and Learning.