See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/370953819

A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices:

The mediation of teacher collective efficacy and the moderation of uncertainty
avoidance

Article  in  Educational Management Administration and Leadership · May 2023

DOI: 10.1177/17411432231177536

CITATIONS READS

0 94

4 authors:

Servet Ozdemir Ferudun Sezgin

Baskent University Gazi University
58 PUBLICATIONS   757 CITATIONS    59 PUBLICATIONS   1,118 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ali Çağatay Kılınç Mahmut Polatcan

Karabuk University Karabuk University
100 PUBLICATIONS   711 CITATIONS    67 PUBLICATIONS   380 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

International Study of Teacher Leadership View project

Article View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ali Çağatay Kılınç on 23 May 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
A cultural lens to school 1–21
© The Author(s) 2023

leadership effects on teacher Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17411432231177536
instructional practices: The journals.sagepub.com/home/ema

mediation of teacher collective

efficacy and the moderation of
uncertainty avoidance

Servet Özdemir, Ferudun Sezgin,

Ali Çağ atay Kılınç and Mahmut Polatcan

Abstract
This study explores how and under what boundary conditions school leadership influences tea-
chers’ instructional practices in Turkey. Using survey data from a sample of 928 teachers in 87 mid-
dle and high schools, the present study tested a moderated mediation model of school leadership’s
effects on teacher instructional practices, with teacher collective efficacy as the mediator and
uncertainty avoidance perceptions of teachers as the moderator. We performed a multilevel struc-
tural equation modeling with Bayesian estimation to examine the relationships between our con-
structs. The results showed significant indirect effects of school leadership on teacher instructional
practices with the significant mediator role of teacher collective efficacy. However, the distinct
contribution of this study lies in exploring the moderator role of uncertainty avoidance on the
effect of school leadership on teacher instructional practices through teacher collective efficacy.
Our results enhance the field’s understanding of how and to what extent cultural aspects of
any given society shape the effects of school leadership practices on teaching.

Keywords
Uncertainty avoidance, school leadership, teacher collective efficacy, teacher instructional
practices, secondary schools

Introduction
Educational research has yielded the strong conclusion that teaching, and thereby teachers, is an indis-
pensable factor in enhancing student learning outcomes (Bryk et al., 2010; Marzano et al., 2001).

Corresponding author:
Mahmut Polatcan, Department of Educational Sciences, Karabük University, Demir Çelik Campus, Karabuk 78050, Turkey.
Email: mahmutpolatcan78@gmail.com
2 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Therefore, seeking ways to improve the quality of teaching has become integral to contemporary edu-
cational policy initiatives around the world. This growing policy emphasis has led to a surge in school
leadership research that investigates the factors influencing teachers’ classroom practices (Hattie,
2009). Evidence from this research consistently suggests that school leadership is vital to the
success of school improvement endeavors, mostly through its potential indirect effects on teaching
and learning (Hallinger et al., 2020; Leithwood et al., 2004).
Although educational leadership scholars have made substantial progress toward understanding
the interplay between school leadership and teaching (e.g. Goddard et al., 2019; Leithwood et al.,
2020), evolving insights on the essence of leadership’s effects warrant subsequent research in three
ways. First, research on the effects of leadership is mostly conducted in Western societies, where
educational systems are organized in a decentralized fashion that grants greater autonomy and dis-
cretion to individual schools, as opposed to many developing nations outside of this mainstream
Western context (Supovitz, 2014). Second, a growing amount of research has been devoted to
exploring the paths that flow from leadership to teaching (e.g. Heck and Hallinger, 2014);
however, little research has attempted to test whether and to what extent teacher collective efficacy
plays a role as a significant mediator (e.g. Meyer et al., 2022). Therefore, we employed teacher col-
lective efficacy as a potential mediator that might transmit the effects of school leadership on
teacher instructional practices. The rationale underlying this preference is that teacher-emotional
factors, as the literature suggests, promise significant potential for school principals to exert their
effect on teaching and learning (Goddard et al., 2019; Ross and Gray, 2006). However, surpris-
ingly, limited research has attempted to substantiate whether teacher collective efficacy plays the
same role (e.g. Karacabey et al., 2022). This might be considered a significant gap worth investi-
gating because the existing literature suggests that the construct of teacher collective efficacy carries
substantial potential in improving the quality of teaching and learning (Bandura, 1997; Goddard
et al., 2000). Available research has confirmed this assumption by linking the construct with aug-
mented student learning outcomes (e.g. Eells et al., 2020; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001).
Indeed, the literature suggests that teacher collective efficacy might represent a useful intermediate
target for school principals to enhance the impact of their leadership practices on teacher learning
and instructional practices, ultimately leading to improved student learning outcomes (e.g. Fancera
and Bliss, 2011). Third, the literature that seeks to identify the boundary conditions that might shape
the effects of leadership is still in its infancy (Kılınç et al., 2022; Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021),
thus leaving significant room to learn about the contextualized nature of leadership (Walker and
Dimmock, 2012; Walker and Qian, 2018).
Although contingency theory has already informed scholars of the salience of cultural and con-
textual factors that might determine the effectiveness of school leadership practices (e.g. Hallinger,
2018), few studies in the field have conceptualized such variables as moderators (e.g. Shengnan and
Hallinger, 2021). For instance, limited research in this vein has found that power distance functions
as an important cultural condition that shapes the effects of leadership (Shengnan and Hallinger,
2021). Building upon existing research, we believe there is value in making subsequent inquiries
into exploring other possible cultural factors that might influence the nature, extent, and effect of
school leadership practices. Thus, we borrowed the “uncertainty avoidance dimension” referring
to the extent to which “a culture programs its members to feel either uncomfortable or comfortable
in unstructured situations” (Hofstede, 2011: 10), from Hofstede’s conceptualization of national
culture and integrated it into our conceptual model as a moderator. We have two main reasons
for employing uncertainty avoidance in this role. First, this concept is particularly important for
the Turkish context, since Turkey ranks among the countries with strong uncertainty avoidance,
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 3

suggesting that “strict behavioral codes, structured laws and rules, disapproval of deviant opinions,
and a belief in absolute truth may surround the leadership practices of school principals” (Hofstede,
2011: 10). Thus, this research could prove valuable, as Turkey’s context may reflect the cultural
situation in many other developing non-Western nations.
Second, we believe that this cultural aspect aligns well with the long-standing centralized and
hierarchical fashion of the Turkish education system. Therefore, it is logical to suggest that
school leaders operating in such a context may be more likely to prioritize maintaining order
and predictability in the school environment, which could result in a refined focus on rigid policies
and procedures, standardization of teaching practices, and a reluctance to experiment with new
instructional approaches or curricula (Bellibaş et al., 2022). Therefore, this study tested a multilevel
moderated mediation model of leadership effects on teacher instructional practices, where teacher
collective efficacy was proposed as a possible mediator and uncertainty avoidance as a moderator.

Study context
With over 19 million students and one million teachers in K-11 levels, the Turkish education system
is a macro one (Ministry of Natioanal Education [MoNE], 2021/2022). The education system in
Turkey has long been centralized and hierarchical, with all system-wide decisions being made
by the MoNE. School principals are generally expected to operate their schools in accordance
with the fundamental principles and laws of MoNE, and there is no formal preparatory training
for their administrative positions.
The Turkish education system has undergone substantial reform initiatives in the past few years
that intended to promote the standard of education in response to unsatisfactory results on global
student evaluations such as PISA and TIMSS (OECD, 2019a, 2019b). The main emphasis of
these reform efforts has been on developing school principals as leaders and enhancing their influ-
ence on classroom practices. One of the key policy initiatives in this regard was the 2014 decision
that granted school principals the responsibility of assessing teachers’ instructional performance
instead of national inspectors, which not only provided official support for principals to foster
teacher learning and classroom practices but also required them to obtain more leadership knowl-
edge and skills (Aslanargun and Tarku, 2014). Another significant initiative was the release of the
Teacher Strategy Paper, which prioritized the development of schools as learning organizations
under the leadership of principals (MoNE, 2017). The 2023 Education Vision policy document
further emphasized the role of school leaders in articulating a strong school vision, building the cap-
acity of teachers and schools, and improving the instructional program (MoNE, 2018). The overall
focus of these policy initiatives is to increase the direct or indirect contributions of school principals
to the instructional processes.
From a cultural perspective, uncertainty avoidance is one of the key characteristics of Turkey
according to Hofstede’s (2011) cultural dimensions. This suggests that Turkish society may feel
anxious and threatened by uncertainty, resulting in a stronger adherence to strict laws and regula-
tions (İ lhan and Yemiş ci, 2020). At the organizational level, this is reflected in a centralized and
formal structure primarily intended to reduce unpredictability. As a result, administrators may be
less inclined to share information with their subordinates and involve them in decision-making pro-
cesses. Additionally, there is often resistance to innovative ideas and efforts to introduce change in
both institutions and society at large (Altuncu et al., 2012). In this direction, our findings might have
important implications for policymakers and practitioners in Turkey and other developing nations
with similar features.
4 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Conceptual framework
We positioned our study around nearly four decades of research that investigated the effects of
school leadership on student learning outcomes (e.g. Leithwood et al., 2020). This body of research
has several explicit conclusions that guide further research. For instance, scholars agree that
leaders’ effects on student learning are mostly accrued indirectly, suggesting that a line of
teacher and school-bounded variables function as potential mediators (Goddard et al., 2019;
Heck and Hallinger, 2014; Thoonen et al., 2011). This conclusion has promoted a vein of research
exploring the paths through which school leaders influence teaching and learning (Hallinger and
Heck, 1996; Ross and Gray, 2006).
Recent years, however, have seen a growing trend toward illuminating the cultural, institutional,
and contextual conditions that might shape the effects of school leadership (Kılınç et al., 2022;
Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021). Moreover, leading EDLM scholars have called for more empirical
evidence to illustrate how leadership operates in different cultural and institutional contexts
(Hallinger and Leithwood, 1998; Harris, 2005). About a quarter-century ago, for instance,
Hallinger and Leithwood (1998) cautioned that neglecting the cultural context that bears and sus-
tains leadership could result in transferring Western-oriented knowledge to non-Western nations
without being questioned, which might in turn leave educational policy initiatives and practices
in those nations misinformed. Therefore, based on the main assumptions of contingency theory,
which outline that the effectiveness of leadership is closely tied to the conditions in which
leaders and the environment interact, alongside previous research that explored the paths
through which leadership influences student learning and the potential boundary conditions that
shape leadership practices, the current study aims to contribute to the international literature by
investigating the empirical relationships between uncertainty avoidance, school leadership,
teacher collective efficacy, and teacher instructional practices. Figure 1 displays our conceptual
model.

Theoretical background and research hypotheses

Teacher instructional practices
Educational policy reforms worldwide have focused on the critical role that teaching plays in
improving student learning outcomes (Goddard et al., 2019). Researchers have concluded that
teaching quality is an indispensable part of the school improvement process and thus connect
the success of any given policy initiative to the effective classroom practices that are fine-tuned
to the specific learning needs of students (Bryk et al., 2010; Hattie, 2009). However, which teaching
practices are most effective at improving student learning remains a tough question for scholars.
A closer review of the literature suggests a long list of classroom practices that might benefit
individual student learning. For instance, Marzano et al. (2001) identified such practices as
finding similarities and differences, producing and verifying hypotheses, setting goals, and support-
ing students’ learning efforts as highly relevant to effective teaching. Stronge et al. (2007)
addressed the efficacy of teaching strategies such as directing meaningful questions to students,
attuning instruction to the specific learning needs of individual students, and managing disruptive
student behaviors effectively for achieving higher-level learning outcomes. While additional work
in this area largely focuses on the specific aspects of field teaching (Rigby et al., 2017), our study
followed the conceptualization of Geijsel et al. (2009) due to its broader perspective on teaching,
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 5

Figure 1. Hypothetical model.

grounded on the basic assumption that teaching is improved only when teachers act responsibly and
eagerly to modify their practices. Thus, the present study frames teacher instructional practices as
efforts to increase student motivation, expand teaching strategies, pay close attention to students’
emotional needs, and encourage students to work together.

Teacher collective efficacy

Referring to “the group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to organize and execute courses of
action required to produce given levels of attainments” (Bandura, 1997: 477), the construct of col-
lective efficacy has received significant attention from educational scholars over the last two
decades due to its substantial potential to improve the quality of education (Tschannen-Moran
and Barr, 2004). Scholars have affirmed the merits of a refined focus on collective teacher efficacy
by suggesting that the construct helps policymakers, researchers, and practitioners to explore the
varying influences that schools exert on student outcomes (Goddard et al., 2000). In this study,
we followed the conceptualization of Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004), which consists of two
dimensions: instructional strategies and student discipline. Instructional strategies refer to the
extent to which teachers as a group can exert efforts to produce meaningful student learning and
help students master complex content, while student discipline addresses the extent to which a col-
lective group of teachers in any given school can work to control disruptive student behaviors and
establish rules and procedures to foster the learning of all students.
The literature suggests that a collective body of teachers with a high level of efficacy is more
likely to cope with the challenges that they face in educating their students (Sørlie and
Torsheim, 2011). They also set challenging goals for teaching and learning, collaborate with
6 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

colleagues around advancing instructional practices and work together to attune their classroom
practices to the learning needs of individual students (Goddard et al., 2000; Ross and Gray,
2006). The extant research has established empirical links between collective teacher efficacy
and teacher professional learning (Karacabey et al., 2022), teacher job satisfaction (Klassen
et al., 2010), and teacher commitment to organizational values (Ross and Gray, 2006). The lit-
erature also provides evidence, though not large in size, suggesting that when teachers as a
group feel a higher sense of efficacy about their capacity to achieve better student learning out-
comes, they are more likely to participate in school decisions around instructional matters
(Goddard, 2002), behave autonomously to modify their instructional practices and teaching
methods (Guskey, 1988), and feel empowered to move beyond their formal job descriptions
to improve the quality of classroom practices (Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000). Based on
these previous research findings and theoretical background, we pose that teacher collective
efficacy is positively related to teachers’ engagement in modifying their instructional practices
(Hypothesis 1).

School leadership
Principals are central to school improvement (Leithwood et al., 2004); thus, a wealth of leadership
approaches, models, and perspectives have been debated in the literature, with instructional and
transformational leadership standing out as the most popular (Gumus et al., 2018). Rooted in the
effective school movement (Edmonds, 1979), instructional leadership has gained worldwide trac-
tion thanks to its specific emphasis on teaching and learning (Hallinger and Murphy, 1985). Based
on past research that established the positive effects of instructional leadership on student learning
(e.g. Heck and Hallinger, 2014) and teacher outcomes such as trust, efficacy, and commitment (Liu
et al., 2016a, 2016b), policymakers worldwide have urged school principals to adopt and imple-
ment instructional leadership practices to leverage their schools’ capacities to teach and learn.
Starting in the 1990s, however, several researchers directed their attention to transformational lead-
ership by highlighting its potential to change organizational culture and support followers’ dedica-
tion to and motivation for achieving school goals (Geijsel et al., 2009; Marks and Printy, 2003).
Although these two leadership models present key differences in nature, context, and focus, both
frame the school principal as the only source of leadership who shoulders almost all the responsi-
bility for school improvement work (Hallinger, 2003). The literature debates other leadership
models—such as distributed, shared, and collaborative (e.g. Gumus et al., 2018)—however,
EDLM scholars have recently moved toward more generic conceptualizations of leadership, stem-
ming from the notion that effective leadership cannot be distilled into one specific type (e.g. Day
et al., 2016; Leithwood et al., 2020).
Following this historical progress in leadership research, the present study employed
Leithwood’s (2012) framework of school leadership, which frames the role under four main dimen-
sions. The first dimension, setting directions, refers to school members’ working towards a shared
set of goals, while the second, building relationships and developing people, specifically focuses on
establishing favorable connections among school members and advancing their knowledge and
skills to achieve school goals. The third dimension, developing the organization to support
desired practices, tackles aligning school structures, policies, routines, and operating procedures
with school improvement endeavors. Finally, the fourth dimension refers to improving the instruc-
tional program, which encompasses dedication to and enthusiasm for improving curriculum and
teaching to leverage the quality of instructional practices.
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 7

Previous research has found that effective school leadership can influence teacher collective effi-
cacy through a variety of mechanisms (Ninković and Knež ević Florić , 2018; Zheng et al., 2019).
For instance, when school leaders establish a clear vision and mission for the school, create a posi-
tive and supportive learning environment, and provide opportunities for professional development,
teachers are more likely to feel that they can make a positive difference in their students’ lives
(Ninković and Knež ević Florić , 2018). Similarly, when school leaders provide teachers with feed-
back and support to help them improve their instruction, teachers are more likely to feel that they
have the skills and knowledge necessary to help their students succeed (Zheng et al., 2019). These
findings suggest that school leadership can play an important role in shaping teachers’ beliefs about
their efficacy. Therefore, we hypothesized that there would be a positive and direct relationship
between school leadership and teacher collective efficacy (Hypothesis 2).
The literature also suggests that leadership’s effect on teaching is mostly accrued indirectly, with
the mediation of a set of teacher-bounded factors (Goddard et al., 2019; Thoonen et al., 2011).
Previous empirical research has shown that teacher emotional factors such as commitment (Pietsch
and Tulowitzki, 2017) and trust (Blömeke and Klein, 2013) play a key role in this interplay.
However, little research has been conducted to reveal whether teacher collective efficacy as a school-
level phenomenon functions significantly between leadership and teachers’ classroom practices (e.g.
Karacabey et al., 2022). Considering the existing evidence that suggests a positive and direct associ-
ation between school leadership and teacher collective efficacy (e.g. Ninković and Knež ević Florić ,
2018) as well as between teacher collective efficacy and teacher instructional practices (e.g. Somech
and Drach-Zahavy, 2000), it seems logical to assume that teacher collective efficacy plays a signifi-
cant mediator role between school leadership and teaching. From a theoretical standpoint, it also
seems reasonable that promoting teacher feelings and emotions might be a profitable strategy for
school principals who intended to promote teachers’ instructional practices (e.g. Leithwood et al.,
2020). In this study, therefore, we propose that school leadership influences teachers’ sense of collect-
ive efficacy, which in turn promotes teachers’ modification of instructional practices (Hypothesis 3).

Uncertainty avoidance
Although scholarship in the field of educational leadership has expanded dramatically over the last
two decades, Western-oriented knowledge continues to dominate the field, and thus little is known
about how school leadership operates in different cultures and contexts (Bush, 2021; Hallinger,
2018; Walker and Qian, 2018). Echoing early calls for studies on the potential role of culture in
shaping leadership practices (e.g. Walker and Dimmock, 1999), some researchers have recently
directed empirical attention toward applying cultural lenses to school leadership research, with
power distance being among the most popular constructs investigated in this area (Kılınç et al.,
2022; Shengnan and Hallinger, 2021; Walker and Qian, 2018). Aiming to contribute to this
growing body of research, this study investigates another potentially influential dimension of
culture: uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011). This concept refers to the extent to which indivi-
duals feel psychologically comfortable when they are faced with complex, uncontrollable, and
uncertain situations. We chose to employ uncertainty avoidance due to Hofstede’s (2011) findings
suggesting that Turkey ranks among the nations with the highest uncertainty avoidance. Given that
uncertainty avoidance has a social perspective, it is reasonable to expect that it might influence lead-
ership and management processes in any social organization, with schools being no exception.
Walker and Dimmock (2002) support this proposition by stating that insights into school life are
often sourced from the cultural elements embedded in society.
8 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

The literature suggests that employees with a high level of uncertainty avoidance tend to keep up
with rules and regulations while also seeking support and guidance from their managers to avoid
potentially dangerous circumstances (Hofstede, 1980). Walker and Dimmock (1999) stress that
in fatalistic cultures (or those with high uncertainty avoidance), people view uncertainty as some-
thing disruptive and thus seek ways to reduce or remove it. Moreover, in proactive societies (those
with a relatively low level of uncertainty avoidance), people tend to exercise their voice more freely
to change the way of doing things. When this notion is translated to schools, it suggests that tea-
chers’ attitudes towards uncertainty avoidance turn into a critical condition that might shape the
effectiveness of leadership practices on teacher beliefs and behaviors. As uncertainty avoidance
reflects a cultural tendency of how people treat change (Hofstede, 2011), a collective faculty of tea-
chers with a high sense of uncertainty avoidance may tend to focus more on rules and work proce-
dures than school improvement goals, which might necessitate the effective enactment of school
leadership practices (Hallinger and Kantamara, 2001). School principals are expected to be more
tolerant and open to ambiguity, view uncertainty as a part of daily life, and maintain greater
belief in teachers’ capacity to achieve school goals (Walker and Dimmock, 1999), which may
result in heightened collective teacher efficacy and thus higher quality instructional practices.
More specifically, one can expect that when teachers feel a higher sense of uncertainty avoidance,
there would be a greater need for school leadership with a refined focus on setting the school’s dir-
ection, building healthy relationships among teachers to facilitate teacher professional learning,
developing the school to support desired instructional practices, and improving the instructional
program (Hallinger and Kantamara, 2001). Furthermore, Bush (2021: 211) noted, “There are
broad societal norms that provide the framework for institutional leadership. These may differ
across countries, and leadership is understood and enacted differently, depending on these cultural
norms.” This statement lends substantial support to our hypothesis that uncertainty avoidance, a
significant cultural trait, influences the effects of school leadership practices.
As far as we know, our study is the first attempt to employ uncertainty avoidance as a moderator
of school leadership’s effects. Therefore, we cannot provide any empirical support from the field of
educational leadership for the above proposition. However, this hypothesis has found support from
previous research in the field of organizational behavior (e.g. Afsar and Masood, 2017; Watts et al.,
2020). For instance, Afsar and Masood (2017) explored the significant moderator function of uncer-
tainty avoidance on transformational leadership’s effects on the innovative work behavior of
nurses. In a recent cross-cultural meta-analysis study, Watts et al. (2020) illustrated that transform-
ational leadership has a stronger link with employee engagement in innovation when employees
have a higher level of uncertainty avoidance. Therefore, we suggest that the relationship
between principals’ leadership practices and teacher collective efficacy is moderated by teachers’
sense of uncertainty avoidance, such that the relationship is stronger when teachers’ perception
of uncertainty avoidance is higher (Hypothesis 4). Considering our first and fourth hypotheses,
we pose one final conjecture: school leadership is related to teacher instructional practices via con-
ditional indirect effects, such that its relationship with teacher practices is moderated by uncertainty
avoidance and mediated by teacher collective efficacy (Hypothesis 5).

Method
This cross-sectional study utilized surveys to collect data from a diverse population, offering advan-
tages over longitudinal and experimental studies due to shorter duration and lower cost (Connelly,
2016).
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 9

Procedures and participants

We drew our sample from teachers working in schools in 25 districts of Ankara, the capital city of
Turkey. Since Ankara is a cosmopolitan city, it reflects the socio-economic and cultural character-
istics of Turkey. Before collecting data, the approval for the study was obtained from the social and
human ethics committee of the institution where the researchers are employed. To begin, we deter-
mined the number of schools in the 25 districts by using the proportional stratification sampling
method. Then, through convenience sampling, we contacted the principals of the identified
schools by telephone and email to gather data. The researchers informed the school principals
about the purpose of the study and asked them for their support. Next, a voluntary consent form
was added to the online Google survey forms, and randomly selected volunteer teachers were
encouraged to participate in the study. Finally, online survey links prepared through Google
Forms were distributed to teachers at the designated schools through email and WhatsApp
teacher groups, and teachers were given two weeks to complete the questionnaires.
Since the data for this study were collected through self-reports measured through a single
instrument, the results were likely to be influenced by common method bias. Thus, we took pro-
active procedural precautions against this problem (Podsakoff et al., 2003). For instance, to mitigate
social desirability and data firing issues, we created the questionnaire in the order of dependent,
mediator, moderator, and independent. We also ensured anonymity by not requesting participant
names in the questionnaire form or gathering any identifying information on the participants
(e.g. IP addresses).
The study sample was comprised of a total of 928 teachers working in 87 schools. The majority
of the respondents were female (n = 651, 70.2%). While 81.9% (n = 760) of the respondents held a
bachelor’s degree, the rest held a graduate degree. The distribution of participants by gender and
educational attainment corresponds with the national distribution across Turkey (OECD, 2019c).
Moreover, 48.6% of participants (n = 451) worked in secondary schools, while 51.4% (n = 477)
worked in high schools. The average tenure of the respondents was 15.4 years (SD = 8.6).

Measures
School leadership (SL). This 28-item scale developed by Leithwood (2012) was adapted into
Turkish by Yalçın and Atasoy (2021). Respondents were asked to rate their leader on a five-point
Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). The scale includes dimen-
sions entitled setting direction, developing people, developing organization, and improving the
instructional program. One sample item is: “School leaders model collaboration in their own
work.”
Uncertainty avoidance (UA). This scale was a sub-dimension of the individual values scale
developed by Yoo et al. (2011). The five-item scale was translated into Turkish by Saylık
(2019). The participants were asked to assess their sense of uncertainty avoidance on a rating
scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). One sample item is: “I find it
helpful to standardize the procedures I should use in my job.”
Collective teacher efficacy (CTE). This 12-item scale was developed by Tschannen-Moran and
Barr (2004) and adapted into Turkish by Erdoğ an and Dönmez (2015). The scale included two
facets of teacher efficacy: instructional strategies and student discipline. The five-point Likert
scale ranged from none (1) to completely (5). One sample item is: “To what extent can teachers
in your school get students to think critically?”
10 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Teacher instructional practices (TIP). This 8-item scale was developed by Geijsel et al.
(2009) and adapted into Turkish by Polatcan (2020). The items were rated on a scale
ranging from disagree (1) to agree (4). One sample item is: “I give more time for my students
to work together.”
Control variables. Due to the potential effects of teacher demographics on our study con-
structs, we controlled for variables such as gender, school type, and experience (e.g. Kılınç et
al., 2022; OECD, 2019c). Among the nominal control variables, gender (female = 1, male = 0),
and school type (high = 1, secondary = 0) were represented by dummy variables.

Analytical approach
This study was conducted using Bayesian multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM)
through the Mplus 8.8 statistical program (Muthén and Muthén, 1998–2017). Data were collected
in 87 schools, each with at least ten teachers. Our data had a multilevel structure, with teachers
nested in schools. Therefore, data were aggregated to analyze school-level SL, UA, CTE, and
TIP based on teacher self-report. To justify the aggregation of individual SL, UA, and CTE
scores at the school level, within-group and between-group heterogeneity needed to be assessed.
To assess within-group heterogeneity, we calculated within-group agreement indices (RWG) for
each of our variables with a threshold criterion of 0.70 (George and James, 1993); consequently,
average RWG scores were good for SL (0.98), UA (0.85), CTE (0.92), and TIP (0.90).
Furthermore, support for the aggregation of teachers at the school level was provided by calculating
intra-class correlations (ICC (1) > 0.05, ICC (2) > 0.50) (Shrout and Fleiss, 1979). The ICC (1) and
ICC (2) values were 0.15 and 0.73 for SL, 0.16 and 0.76 for UA, 0.12 and 0.71 for CTE, and 0.08
and 0.57 for TIP, respectively. These findings showed that the individual-level data were suitable
for school-level analysis.
Next, we used the Bayesian approach to estimate the latent effects in our MSEM model. A four-
step procedure was followed to test the model in the Bayesian approach. In the first step, we per-
formed multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) to obtain the measurement model. In the
second step, we assessed the fit of the mediation model and the direct and indirect effects
between the variables without including the moderator variable in the analysis. In the third step,
for the interaction effect, we analyzed the effect of the moderator variable on the relationship
between the predictor variable and the mediator variable. In the last step, we examined the condi-
tional indirect effects of the moderated mediation model at −1 standard deviation (−1 SD) and +1
standard deviation (+1 SD). Moreover, we used Markov Monte Carlo chains simulating 10,000
iterations to obtain confidence intervals (CI) around the coefficients for the respective paths
(MacKinnon et al., 2004). In addition, we employed Harman’s single-factor test to check for any
common method variance problem (Harman, 1976). We found that the calculated variance
square (36.4%) was below the threshold of 50%. Our findings demonstrated that all items were
unevenly fitted among the study constructs.

Results
Descriptive analysis
Initially, we examined the skewness and kurtosis coefficients for the normality assumption of the
study variables. The model variables’ skewness and kurtosis coefficients ranged from −1.5 to +1.5,
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 11

indicating normal data distribution. Then, for the multicollinearity problem, we examined the vari-
ance inflation factor (VIF < 5) and tolerance index (TI > 0.10) values and found them to be within
the proposed ranges. Finally, we analyzed means, standard deviations, and correlations (see
Table 1).
As shown in Table 1, the average scores indicate a moderate level of SL (M = 3.51, SD = 0.44),
UA (M = 3.68, SD = 0.33), CTE (M = 3.71, SD = 0.22), and TIP (M = 3.43, SD = 0.23). This
implies that teachers’ instructional practices in schools as well as their tendencies toward collective
efficacy and uncertainty avoidance were moderate. Besides, the low standard deviations across all
variables indicate that respondents’ opinions were homogeneous. In line with the hypotheses, the
correlations prove that SL relates positively to UA (r = 0.587, p < .01), CTE (r = 0.550, p < .01), and
TIP (r = 0.320, p < .01). The correlations also indicate that CTE relates positively to UA (r = 0.516,
p < .01) and TIP (r = 0.331, p < .01). These findings provide the initial evidence in support of our
hypotheses.

Model testing
Multilevel confirmatory factor analysis
First, the construct validity and reliability of the study scales were tested (see Table 2). To test the
construct validity, MCFA was employed. For assessing convergent and discriminant validity, the
average variance extracted (AVE) and composite reliability (CR) values were calculated.

Table 1. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelation.

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Teacher level
1. Gender -
2. Status 0.079∗ -
3. Experience −0.094∗∗ 0.073∗
4. TIP 0.140∗∗ −0.016 −0.124∗∗ -
School level
5. TIP - 0.094∗∗ 0.320∗∗ 0.536∗∗ 0.331∗∗
6. Type - −0.130∗∗ 0.017 −0.070∗
7. SL - 0.587∗∗ 0.550∗∗
8. UA - 0.516∗∗
9. CTE -
Mean - - 15.47 - 3.43 - 3.51 3.68 3.71
SD - - 8.69 - 0.23 - 0.44 0.33 0.22
ICC1 - - - - 0.084 - 0.159 0.161 0.127
ICC2 - - - - 0.573 - 0.735 0.763 0.710
RWG - - - - 0.906 - 0.982 0.922 0.852
Skewness - - - - −0.380 - −0.088 −0.416 0.210
Kurtosis - - - - 0.078 - −0.900 −0.543 −0.030
VIF - - - - - - 1.74 1.66 1.56
TI - - - - - - 0.57 0.60 0.64
∗
: p < 0.05, ∗∗ : p < 0.01, TIP, teacher instructional practices; SL, school leadership; UA, uncertainty avoidance; CTE, collective
teacher efficacy; SD, standard deviation; ICC, intra-class correlation; R , inter-rater agreement; VIF, variance inflation factor;
TI, tolerance index.
12 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Table 2. Multilevel CFA test results for the study variables.

χ2/df RMSEA SRMRW SRMRB CFI TLI AVEW AVEB ωW ωB

SL 2.15 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.98 0.96 0.82 0.98 0.95 0.98
UA 1.83 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.96 0.95 0.78 0.96 0.94 0.97
CTE 2.58 0.05 0.03 0.05 0.95 0.94 0.83 0.99 0.96 0.99
TIP 3.13 0.07 0.05 0.08 0.93 0.91 0.80 0.95 0.95 0.98

SL, school leadership; UA, uncertainty avoidance; CTE, collective teacher efficacy; TIP, teacher instructional practices.

As illustrated in Table 2, the SL, UA, CTE, and TIP scales had acceptable fit indices. In addition,
the calculated AVE values were above 0.50, and the CR values were above 0.70. Thus, the conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the scales was ensured (Hair et al., 2010).

Mediating effect analysis

Second, at the school level, we examined the nature of the effects of SL on TIP through CTE (not
tabled). Therefore, we used Monte Carlo chains simulating 10,000 iterations to generate confidence
intervals (CI) around the coefficients for the respective paths (MacKinnon et al., 2004). As pro-
posed, CTE had a positive and significant relationship with TIP (γ = 0.423, SE = 0.20, 95% CI
[0.291, 0.755]), supporting H1. Likewise, SL was positively and significantly related to CTE
(γ = 0.567, SE = 0.07, 95% CI [0.437, 0.697]), affirming H2. Additionally, the indirect effect of
SL on TIP via collective CTE was also significant (γ = 0.240, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [0.141,
0.439]), confirming H3.

Moderating effect analysis

Third, we tested whether UA in the school moderated the effects of SL on CTE (see Figure 2). The
interaction term (SL × UA) was significantly related to CTE (γ = 0.299, SE = 0.11, 95% CI [0.094,
0.476]), confirming Hypothesis 4.
To demonstrate the moderation effects of uncertainty on school leadership and collective teacher
efficacy, we plotted a graph showing the relationships among the variables (see Figure 3).
Accordingly, school leadership had the strongest positive association with teacher instructional
practices when uncertainty avoidance was high. In contrast, when uncertainty avoidance was
low, this relationship was weaker.

Conditional indirect effects analysis

Finally, we tested the conditional indirect effects of SL. As demonstrated in Table 3, the effect
of the interaction of SL and UA on TIP through CTE was significant (γ = 0.164, SE = 0.04, 95%
CI [0.113, 0.214]). This means that when teachers’ sense of uncertainty avoidance increased,
school leadership strengthened its influence on CTE, which in turn promoted TIP. In addition,
when uncertainty avoidance was high, the indirect influence of SL on TIP was stronger (γ =
0.199, SE = 0.06, 95% CI [0.128, 0.316]). However, when uncertainty avoidance was low,
the indirect effect was weaker (γ = 0.052, SE = 0.03, 95% CI [−0.124, 0.081]), affirming
Hypothesis 5.
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 13

Figure 2. Results of the moderated mediation model testing.

Figure 3. Interaction effect between school leadership (SL) and uncertainty avoidance (UA) on collective
teacher efficacy.
14 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Table 3. Conditional indirect effects of school leadership on instructional practices at values of uncertainty
avoidance.

Estimate SE 95% LLCI 95% ULCI

Moderated mediation index 0.164 0.043 0.113 0.214

+1 SD 0.199 0.064 0.128 0.316
Mean 0.148 0.037 0.126 0.180
−1 SD 0.052 0.108 −0.124 0.081
LLCI, lower limit confidence interval; ULCI, upper limit confidence interval.

Discussion
This section begins by presenting the limitations of the present study, before interpreting the study
findings and providing implications for policy, practice, and research.

Limitations
Our study has several limitations that warrant further attention. First, our data were single-sourced,
as it was collected solely from teachers to measure variations in the constructs under investigation.
This could have led teachers to reflect a more positive outlook in their survey responses than what
actually occurs in reality, due to social desirability and acquiescence. However, teachers also com-
pleted the school leadership scale, which increases the objectivity of our data. We thus recommend
that future research collect data from both teachers and principals to better estimate the variation in
leadership. Our second limitation concerns the breadth of our data, which reflects principal and
teacher practices from only one province: Ankara, the capital city of Turkey. Although this limita-
tion makes it difficult to generalize our findings, it is important to note that the role sets of school
principals and teachers are largely defined by the centralized and hierarchical fashion of the educa-
tion system of Turkey, which consequently makes these roles nearly identical for all educators and
administrators across the country. Nevertheless, data from a larger sample may still have yielded
different findings. Third, although our dataset is large enough to perform sophisticated statistical
analyses such as MSEM, its cross-sectional nature hinders our ability to portray causal relationships
among our study variables. Thus, we encourage researchers to move beyond “one-point-in-time”
measures and consider employing longitudinal or experimental research designs to better gauge
changes in school leadership and its effects on teacher- and school-level variables (Thoonen
et al., 2011: 522).

Interpretation of findings
First, we found that teacher collective efficacy was positively related to teacher instructional prac-
tices. This suggests that when a collective group of teachers feels a heightened sense of efficacy,
they are more likely to modify their instructional practices. While this finding concurs with the
general agreement that teacher emotional factors such as efficacy (Karacabey et al., 2022) and com-
mitment (Ross and Gray, 2006) matter for teacher learning and practice, it also adds significantly to
the international literature by generating evidence on an underdeveloped association between tea-
chers’ collective efficacy beliefs and their modification of instructional practices. Thus, our results
suggest that when a collective body of teachers feels more confident in their ability to improve
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 15

student learning outcomes, they are more willing to fine-tune their teaching practices to the learning
needs of students.
Second, our analysis provided evidence of the significant indirect effects of school leadership on
teacher instructional practices via teacher collective efficacy. This finding replicates the conclusions
of previous studies that the effects of leadership on teaching are mostly achieved indirectly
(Leithwood et al., 2004; Thoonen et al., 2011). However, it is important to note that not much
research has explored the potential mediators between leadership and teaching, especially in
non-Western contexts (Goddard et al., 2019). Thus, our study contributes to filling this gap by iden-
tifying teacher collective efficacy as a significant mediator between school leadership and teacher
instructional practices. Moreover, our study highlights the significance of teacher collective efficacy
in promoting teacher instructional practices, which aligns with previous research that emphasizes
the role of collective efficacy in improving student outcomes (Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran
and Hoy, 2001). Consequently, our study highlights the unique function of collective efficacy as
mediating variable between school leadership and teaching in a non-Western education context
characterized by a highly centralized and hierarchical education system, as well as a strong societal
tendency toward uncertainty avoidance.
Finally, we found that uncertainty avoidance moderated the direct effects of school leadership
on teacher collective efficacy as well as its indirect effects on teacher teaching practices through
teacher collective efficacy. While this finding echoes previous research suggesting that cultural
aspects such as power distance shape the effects of leadership on teacher learning (Shengnan
and Hallinger, 2021) and teacher practices (Bellibaş et al., 2022), it also adds nuanced evidence
to the international literature by demonstrating that uncertainty avoidance is a critical cultural
variable with established potential to shape school leadership’s effects on teachers’ collective effi-
cacy beliefs and instructional practices. Hofstede (1980) argued that in high uncertainty avoidance
cultures, employees tend to seek guidance from their supervisors to refrain from risky and uncer-
tain situations. In the same vein, Hallinger and Kantamara (2001) stressed that in cultures where
uncertainty avoidance is a prevalent societal norm, people tend to search for stability and continu-
ity in their daily life activities. From this perspective, our findings suggest that, in high
uncertainty-avoidant cultures, school principals who set clear directions, build positive relation-
ships among teachers, link school structures and procedures with goals, and improve the instruc-
tional program could foster teachers’ sense of collective efficacy, which in turn engages teachers
in improving their instructional practices to better meet students’ learning needs. Although influ-
ential leadership scholars have long called for refined attention to identifying the boundary con-
ditions that might shape the effectiveness of school leadership practices (e.g. Hallinger and
Leithwood, 1998; Harris, 2005), limited research has endeavored in this direction, especially in
non-Western developing nations where education systems are mostly characterized by a hierarch-
ical and centralized fashion. In response to these calls, therefore, our study moves the literature
one step further by identifying uncertainty avoidance as a significant cultural aspect that modifies
the effect of school leadership on teaching. It also affirms the efficacy of adapting contingency
theory as a theoretical ground to see how leadership in a specific national context operates to influ-
ence teaching practices.

Implications for policy, practice, and future research

Our study has several implications for policy, practice, and research. In terms of policy, we favor
the promotion and sustenance of current policy reform movements in Turkey and other developing
16 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

countries to support the leadership development of school principals. We also recommend that pol-
icymakers consider a comprehensive approach to leadership development that integrates various
aspects of leadership work rather than limiting it to a single style. In addition, our findings highlight
the importance of cultural context when designing and implementing leadership development pro-
grams. Although developing school principals as leaders is crucial, it may not be adequate for
ensuring effective teaching practices. Thus, principals should be given greater discretion to
promote a culture of shared ideas and concerns among teachers, while maintaining clear guidelines
and a shared vision. However, it should be noted that the current role of Turkish school principals is
largely defined by bureaucratic and managerial responsibilities, limiting their engagement in lead-
ership work. Therefore, policymakers should provide support for principals to balance these respon-
sibilities with leadership development.
In terms of practice, we advise school principals to consider the prevalent cultural aspects of the
society that surround their school organization. Although the results of the present study emphasize
the increasingly important role of leadership for developing teaching practices under the condition
of high uncertainty avoidance, school principals should also recognize that teachers in high uncer-
tainty cultures might be reluctant to challenge or change the existing norms and thus tend to follow
their principals’ directions without critique, which could impede school improvement efforts.
Therefore, we believe in the need for a balance of leadership support from principals meaning
that they are not only expected to provide clear guidelines and a shared vision, articulate school
purposes, and help develop teachers as professionals to manage uncertainty avoidance perceptions
of teachers but are also charged with establishing a school environment that fosters teachers’ efforts
to generate new ideas and experiment with new instructional methods. We also recommend that
school principals view supporting collective teacher efficacy as a key intermediate goal in sustain-
ing efforts to promote teacher instructional practices.
With respect to future research, we recommend that regional leadership scholars replicate our
study in other parts of Turkey. Given that identifying the potential moderator role of uncertainty
avoidance in shaping leaders’ effects is a rare contribution to the international knowledge base,
we also encourage scholars from widely differing nations to conduct further inquiries to substantiate
the importance of cultural context in shaping leaders’ effects on teaching and learning. More spe-
cifically, we believe that the literature might benefit from further research illuminating how leader-
ship operates to influence teaching and learning in, for instance, collectivist or individualistic
contexts, as well as long-term or short-term oriented cultures. Finally, future research could
employ a combination of both quantitative and qualitative methods to provide more nuanced
insights into the interplay between culture, leadership, and teaching.

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

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

ORCID iDs
Ali Çağ atay Kılınç https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9472-578X
Mahmut Polatcan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5181-0316
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 17

References
Afsar B and Masood M (2017) Transformational leadership, creative self-efficacy, trust in supervisor, uncer-
tainty avoidance, and innovative work behavior of nurses. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science
54(1): 36–61.
Altuncu Y, Aktepe Ş Ö and İ slamoğ lu G (2012) Preliminary study for the development of uncertainty avoid-
ance instrument in Turkey. Journal of Business Economics and Finance 1(4): 34–48.
Aslanargun E and Tarku E (2014) Expectations of teachers from inspectors about professional supervision and
guidance. Educational Administration: Theory & Practice 20(3): 281–306.
Bandura A (1997) Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: H. W. Freeman.
Bellibaş MS, Polatcan M and Kılınç AÇ (2022) Linking instructional leadership to teacher practices: The
mediating effect of shared practice and agency in learning effectiveness. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 50(5): 812–831.
Blömeke S and Klein P (2013) When is a school environment perceived as supportive by beginning mathem-
atics teachers? Effects of leadership, trust, autonomy and appraisal on teaching quality. International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education 11(4): 1029–1048.
Bryk AS, Sebring PB, Allensworth E, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons From
CHICAGO. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
Bush T (2021) School leadership and culture: societal and organisational perspectives. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 211–213.
Connelly LM (2016) Cross-sectional survey research. Medsurg Nursing 25(5): 369–370.
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): 1–38.
Edmonds R (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership 37(1): 15–24.
Eells R, Ciesielski J and Rivkin A (2020) The relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student
achievement: a meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research 90(2): 269–305.
Erdoğ an U and Dönmez B (2015) Adaptation of collective teacher efficacy scale into Turkish: validity and
reliability study. Educational Administration: Theory & Practice 21(3): 345–366.
Fancera SF and Bliss JR (2011) Instructional leadership influence on collective teacher efficacy to improve
school achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 10(3): 349–370.
Geijsel FP, Sleegers PJC, Stoel RD, et al. (2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational
and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal
109(4): 406–427.
George JM and James LR (1993) Personality, affect, and behavior in groups revisited: comment on aggrega-
tion, levels of analysis, and a recent application of within and between analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology 78(5): 798–804.
Goddard RD (2002) Collective efficacy and school organization: a multilevel analysis of teacher influence in
schools. Theory and Research in Educational Administration 1: 169–184.
Goddard RD, Hoy WK and Woolfolk Hoy A (2000) Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning, measure, and
impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal 37(2): 479–507.
Goddard YL, Goddard RD, Bailes LP, et al. (2019) From school leadership to differentiated instruction: a
pathway to student learning in schools. The Elementary School Journal 120(2): 197–219.
Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in edu-
cational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1):
25–48.
Guskey TR (1988) Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional
innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education 4(1): 63–69.
Hair J, Black W, Babin B, et al. (2010) Multivariate data analysis, 7th ed Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall Inc.
18 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Hallinger P (2003) Leading educational change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transform-
ational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education 33(3): 329–352.
Hallinger P (2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.
Hallinger P, Gümüş S and Bellibaş MŞ (2020) Are principals instructional leaders yet?’ A science map of the
knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122: 1629–1650.
Hallinger P and Heck RH (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: a review of empirical
research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.
Hallinger P and Kantamara P (2001) Exploring the cultural context of school improvement in Thailand. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement 12(4): 385–408.
Hallinger P and Leithwood K (1998) Unseen forces: the impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody
Journal of Education 73(2): 126–151.
Hallinger P and Murphy J (1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The
Elementary School Journal 86(2): 217–247.
Harman HH (1976) Modern Factor Analysis. USA: University of Chicago Press.
Harris A (2005) Teacher leadership: more than just a feel-good factor? Leadership and Policy in Schools 4:
201–219.
Hattie J (2009) Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement. London
and New York: Routledge.
Heck RH and Hallinger P (2014) Modeling the longitudinal effects of school leadership on teaching and learn-
ing. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 653–681.
Hofstede G (1980) Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede Model in context. Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture. Available at: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8
İ lhan ÜD and Yemiş ci DA (2020) The relationship between national culture, organizational culture, and occu-
pational safety culture: a review of Turkey from the perspective of Hofstede’s power distance and uncer-
tainty avoidance dimensions. Journal of Management and Economics 27(3): 703–724.
Karacabey MF, Bellibaş MŞ and Adams D (2022) Principal leadership and teacher professional learning in
Turkish schools: examining the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy and teacher trust.
Educational Studies 48(2): 253–272.
Kılınç AÇ, Polatcan M, Savaş G, et al (2022) How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commit-
ment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 0(0): 1–20. DOI: 10.1177/17411432221082803.
Klassen RM, Usher EL and Bong M (2010) Teachers’ collective efficacy, job satisfaction, and job stress in
cross-cultural context. The Journal of Experimental Education 78: 464–486.
Leithwood K (2012) The Ontario Leadership Framework 2012 with a Discussion of the Research
Foundations. Toronto, ON, Canada: Institute for Educational Leadership and the Ontario Ministry of
Education.
Leithwood K, Louis KS, Anderson S and Wahlstrom K (2004) How leadership influences student learning:
review of research. The Wallace Foundation. Available at: https://www.wallacefoundation.org/
knowledge-center/Documents/How-Leadership-Influences-Student-Learning.pdf
Leithwood K, Sun J and Schumacker R (2020) How school leadership influences student learning: a test of
“The Four Paths Model”. Educational Administration Quarterly 56(4): 570–599.
Liu S, Hallinger P and Feng D (2016b) Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: does trust
matter? Journal of Educational Administration 54(6): 661–682.
Liu S, Hallinger P and Feng D (2016a) Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: does prin-
cipal leadership make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education 59: 79–91.
MacKinnon DP, Lockwood CM and Williams J (2004) Confidence limits for the indirect effect: distribution of
the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research 39: 99–128.
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 19

Marks HM and Printy SM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transform-
ational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly 39(3): 370–397.
Marzano RJ, Pickering D and Pollock JE (2001) Classroom Instruction That Works: Research-Based
Strategies for Increasing Student Achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Meyer A, Richter D and Hartung-Beck V (2022) The relationship between principal leadership and teacher
collaboration: investigating the mediating effect of teachers’ collective efficacy. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership 50(4): 593–612.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2017) Teacher strategy paper. Available at: https://oygm.meb.gov.tr/
meb_iys_dosyalar/2018_05/25170118_Teacher_Strategy_Paper_2017-2023.pdf.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018) Turkey’s 2023 education vision. Available at: http://
2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr/doc/2023_EGITIM_VIZYONU.pdf.
Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2021/2022) National education statics formal education. Available
at: https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2022_09/15142558_meb_istatistikleri_orgun_egitim_2021_
2022.pdf.
Muthén LK and Muthén BO (1998–2017) Mplus user’s Guide, 8th ed Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Ninković SR and Knež ević Florić OČ (2018) Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as
predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership
46(1): 49–64.
OECD (2019a) PISA 2018: insights and interpretations. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%
202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf.
OECD (2019b) TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Available at: https://timss2019.
org/reports/wp-content/themes/timssandpirls/download-center/TIMSS-2019-International-Results-in-
Mathematics-and-Science.pdf.
OECD (2019c) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris:
TALIS, OECD Publishing.
Pietsch M and Tulowitzki P (2017) Disentangling school leadership and its ties to instructional practices–an
empirical comparison of various leadership styles. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 28(4):
629–649.
Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, et al. (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical
review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5): 879–903.
Polatcan M (2020) The adaptation of professional learning activities scale to Turkish: The validity and reliabil-
ity study. International Journal of Contemporary Educational Research 7(2): 281–290.
Rigby JG, Larbi-Cherif A, Rosenquist BA, et al. (2017). Administrator observation and feedback: does it lead
toward improvement in inquiry-oriented math instruction? Educational Administration Quarterly 53(3):
475–516.
Ross JA and Gray P (2006) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: the
mediating effects of collective teacher self-efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2):
179–199.
Saylık A (2019) Hofstede’nin kültür boyutları ölçeğ inin Türkçeye uyarlanması; geçerlik ve güvenirlik
çalış ması. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğ itim Dergisi 8(3): 1860–1881.
Shengnan L and Hallinger P (2021) Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning
in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 214–233.
Shrout PE and Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin
86(2): 420–428.
Somech A and Drach-Zahavy A (2000) Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: the relationships
between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy, and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher
Education 16: 649–659.
20 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 0(0)

Sørlie MA and Torsheim T (2011) Multilevel analysis of the relationship between teacher collective
efficacy and problem behaviour in school. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22(2):
175–191.
Stronge JH, Ward TJ, Tucker PD, et al. (2007) What is the relationship between teacher quality and student
achievement? An exploratory study. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education 20(3-4): 165–184.
Supovitz J (2014) Building a lattice for school leadership: the top to bottom re-thinking of leadership devel-
opment in England (Research Report No. 83). Retrieved from Consortium for Policy Research in Education
website. Available at: http://cpre.org/sites/default/files/researchreport/2027_leadershipengland.pdf.
Thoonen EE, Sleegers PJ, Oort FJ, et al. (2011) How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motiv-
ation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly 47(3): 496–536.
Tschannen-Moran M and Barr M (2004) Fostering student learning: the relationship of collective teacher effi-
cacy and student achievement. Leadership and Policy in Schools 3(3): 189–209.
Tschannen-Moran M and Hoy AW (2001) Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education 17(7): 783–805.
Walker A and Dimmock C (1999) A cross-cultural approach to the study of educational leadership: an emer-
ging framework. Journal of School Leadership 9(4): 321–348.
Walker A and Dimmock C (2002) Moving school leadership beyond its narrow boundaries: developing a
cross-cultural approach. In: Leithwood K (eds) Second International Handbook of Educational
Leadership and Administration. Dordrecht: Springer, 167–202.
Walker A and Dimmock C (2012) Cross-cultural and comparative insights into educational administration and
leadership: an initial framework. In: Walker A and Dimmock C (eds) School leadership and administra-
tion. New York: Routledge, 13–32.
Walker AD and Qian H (2018) Deciphering Chinese School Leadership: Conceptualisation, Context and
Complexities. New York: Routledge.
Watts LL, Steele LM and Hartog DND (2020) Uncertainty avoidance moderates the relationship between
transformational leadership and innovation: a meta-analysis. Journal of International Business Studies
51(1): 138–145.
Yalçın MT and Atasoy R (2021) School leadership scale: a validity and reliability study. International Journal
of Karamanoglu Mehmetbey Educational Research 3(2): 103–112.
Yoo B, Donthu N and Lenartowicz T (2011) Measuring Hofstede’s five dimensions of cultural values at the
individual level: development and validation of CVSCALE. Journal of International Consumer Marketing
23(3-4): 193–210.
Zheng X, Yin H and Li Z (2019) Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional
learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership 47(6): 843–859.

Author biographies
Servet Özdemir is a professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Baş kent University,
Ankara, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of
Educational Administration, Selçuk University. He formerly worked as a Ministry of National
Education General Directorate for several years. His research focuses include organizational behav-
ior, educational leadership, and educational innovation.

Ferudun Sezgin is a professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Gazi University,

Ankara, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Administration,
Institute of Educational Sciences, Gazi University in 2006. His research interests include school
Özdemir et al.: A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices 21

culture, teacher psychological hardiness, school principal mentoring, teacher leadership, organiza-
tional commitment, and organizational citizenship.

Ali Cağ atay Kılınç is a professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Karabük
University, Turkey. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division
of Educational Administration, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey, in 2013. His research focus is
on educational leadership, school improvement, teacher learning, and practices.

Mahmut Polatcan is currently working as an associate professor in the Department of Educational

Sciences at Karabük University, Turkey. He received his PhD in Educational Administration,
Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara University, in 2017. His research interests include prin-
cipal leadership, teacher effectiveness and teacher professional learning, and instructional practices.

View publication stats