International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Development

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

Improving teacher career satisfaction through distributed leadership in

China: The parallel mediation of teacher empowerment and
organizational commitment
Hao Yao a, Lichao Ma b, *
a
Institute of Higher Education, Tongji University, China
b
Institute of Education, Tsinghua University, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Based on a survey of 522 primary and secondary school teachers in mainland China, the study explored the effect
Distributed leadership of distributed leadership on teacher career satisfaction, and examined the mediation of teacher empowerment
Teacher career satisfaction and organizational commitment using structural equation modeling. It was found that the implementation of
Teacher empowerment
distributed leadership could exert a significant positive impact on teacher career satisfaction in the Chinese
Organizational commitment
Structural equation model
cultural context. In addition, distributed leadership could positively influence career satisfaction indirectly
through the full mediation of teacher empowerment and organizational commitment, and teacher empowerment
had a greater mediating effect than organizational commitment.

1. Introduction decision-making or collaborating with teachers to promote instructional

With the trend towards decentralization and deconcentration of
school organizational structures, the traditional centralized leadership
began to evolve into the model of decentralized leadership (Harris and
DeFlaminis, 2016; Sahin, 2018). Distributed leadership, as a leadership
approach that involves the participation of multiple participants within
an organization (Printy and Liu, 2020), has gradually become a hit in
educational leadership research.
Distributed leadership was introduced into educational research in
China at the beginning of the 21st century (Zhang, 2019), and has
exerted the profound influence on educational reform in China (Liu
et al., 2021b). In 2013, China’s Ministry of Education published the
Professional Standards for Principals of Compulsory Education Schools,
which for the first time explicitly proposed to support teachers’ partic­
ipation in school management in the form of policy (Zheng et al., 2019;
Qian et al., 2017). In 2022, China’s newly revised Draft Revision of the
Teacher Law (Draft for Public Comments) also emphasized teachers’
participation in the democratic management of schools. Over the past 20
years, the role of Chinese school leaders has changed from the
decision-maker or manager in the traditional model (Wong, 2003;
Walker et al., 2012). Instead, they faced many new tasks and took on
additional roles, such as supporting teachers to participate in
reform (Zheng et al., 2019; Qian et al., 2017). Under the influence of the
distributed leadership from Western countries, Chinese school man­
agement has gradually shifted from focusing on the roles of adminis­
trative leaders to teachers’ leadership potential. In addition, teachers
and informal leaders have been encouraged to participate in school
leadership and decision-making in school affairs, reflecting the fact that
distributed leadership has developed in Chinese schools (Xiang, 2017;
Bryant and Rao, 2019). Nevertheless, it is not yet known how the
application of distributed leadership affects teachers’ career satisfaction
in the Chinese context.
Although there are several studies examining the impact of distrib­
uted leadership on teacher quality improvement, teacher professional
learning or student outcomes (Hallinger and Heck, 2010; Buttram and
Farley-Ripple, 2016; Belliba et al., 2021; Bekta et al., 2020), the rela­
tionship between distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction
has yet to be explored. Regarding the impact of distributed leadership on
teacher career satisfaction, a few studies analyzed the mediation of
teacher autonomy, collaboration (Torres, 2019; Liu et al., 2021a) and
self-efficacy (Sun and Xia, 2018; Liu et al., 2021a). It should be noted,
however, that understanding distributed leadership cannot be micro­
scopically based on individual emotions or behaviors, but should be
explained in the context of broader organizational empowerment and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: malc21@mails.tsinghua.edu.cn (L. Ma).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102960
Received 16 November 2022; Received in revised form 24 October 2023; Accepted 26 November 2023
Available online 5 December 2023
0738-0593/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yao and L. Ma
commitment. On the one hand, distributed leadership in the Chinese
school context is a form of collaborative leadership in which principals
and teachers jointly lead the development of their school, closing up the
boundaries between the leader and the led (Bolden, 2011; Jambo and
Hongde, 2020). Under the mode of distributed leadership, collective
learning and organizational climate can effectively contribute to
teachers’ organizational commitment (Xiu et al., 2022). On the other
hand, based on Empowerment Theory (Somech, 2005), distributed lead­
ership creates a school environment of mutual respect and collaboration
through internal teacher empowerment, which contributes to increased
self-efficacy and career satisfaction, thus optimizing teachers’ emotional
state (Bellibas and Liu, 2017).
It is necessary to distinguish between distributed leadership practices
in different cultural contexts (Hairon and Goh, 2015). The modes of
interaction, collaboration and decision-making between leaders and
subordinates are different in particular contexts (Lahtero et al., 2017;
Nguyen and Hunter, 2018). The practical implications of distributed
leadership may also differ across cultures (Hairon and Goh, 2015; Liu
et al., 2018). Therefore, it is necessary for international scholars to
clarify the practice of distributed leadership and its effects on teachers’
career satisfaction in the Chinese cultural context.
In summary, empirical studies on the relationship between distrib­
uted leadership and teacher career satisfaction are rare in the Chinese
cultural context, and there is a large gap in the literature when it comes
to the role of teacher empowerment and organizational commitment.
Based on school management reform in China, this paper attempts to
answer the following questions:
(1) Does distributed leadership have a positive effect on teacher
career satisfaction in the Chinese context?
(2) Does teacher empowerment play a mediating role between
distributed leadership and career satisfaction?
(3) Does organizational commitment play a mediating role between
distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction?
2. Literature review and hypothesis
2.1. Distributed leadership in the Chinese context
Hulpia et al. (2011) summarized the main characteristics of
distributed leadership as the execution of leadership functions with
different individual sources, the ability to participate in
decision-making, and the collaboration and resource sharing of leader­
ship teams. Under the mode of distributed leadership, various leadership
functions can be dynamically assigned to the vast majority of organi­
zational members, so as to promote their active participation in making
decisions about school affairs (Pascale and Anit, 2018; Hartley, 2010;
Harris and DeFlaminis, 2016). Particularly, principals and teachers
share leadership responsibilities and authority to form a collective
leadership (Xiu et al., 2022).
The characteristics of Chinese educational leadership practices can
be described as following: (1) Chinese education has long been influ­
enced by Confucianism (Mu et al., 2013; Schulte, 2021), encouraging
individuals to establish good virtues and develop moral disciplines in
organizations. Authority, obedience and loyalty form the hierarchical
structure of social organizations, which promotes a that distributed leadership was democratic and participatory, because it
dominant-subordinate relationship between the principals and teachers
(Law, 2012). As a result, Chinese principals are more likely to be
respected by teachers (Law, 2012; Liu et al., 2021a). (2) Unlike the
Western education system, the selection of principals and vice-principals
in Chinese primary and secondary schools are usually decided by the
local education administration according to the internal promotion
procedures of civil servants (Kwan and Walker, 2009; Wang et al.,
2022). Because local governments in China intend to choose school
leaders who are more likely to serve the political agendas to implement
education reforms (Wilson and Xue, 2013). Therefore, principals may
2
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
not fully represent the interests of the teacher community in China
(Zhang, 2019). (3) The selection mechanism for teacher leaders
(teachers with partial leadership authority, not principals) in Chinese
schools is unique in that teachers with long experience or senior titles
are generally given priority to be selected as leaders (Liu et al., 2021b).
In conclusion, compared to educational leadership practices of western
countries, China prefers centralized leadership which is also related to
China’s long-standing top-down centralized educational management
system (Jiang and Luo, 2021; Liu et al., 2021b).
2.2. Distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction
Career satisfaction is the emotional perception of the organization’s
staff to their job, which emphasizes the emotional component of their
attitudes (Judge et al., 2001). Teacher career satisfaction is defined as a
pleasant or positive emotional state caused by a their evaluation of work
experience (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2011; Kapa and Gimbert, 2018).
Toropova et al. (2021) pointed out that teacher career satisfaction was
the subjective value judgment of teachers resulting from the gap be­
tween what teachers obtained from their jobs (such as working condi­
tions, benefits, career development opportunities) and what they
expected to get. With regard to the influencing factors, previous studies
revealed that teacher career satisfaction could be affected by both in­
dividual factors and school environment. The former includes teachers’
background (Klassen and Chiu, 2010; Kapa and Gimbert, 2018), teach­
ing experience (Maele and Houtte, 2012), professional commitment (Lu
and Mustafa, 2021), job burnout (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2014) and
teaching efficacy (Troesch and Bauer, 2017). While, the latter includes
working climate (Bascia and Rottmann, 2011), administrative support
(Tickle et al., 2011), organizational involvement atmosphere (Weasmer,
2002). About the relationship of principals’ leadership style and teacher
career satisfaction, leadership is a crucial predictor of teacher career
satisfaction (Liu et al., 2021b; Liu et al., 2021c). For example, Dou et al.
(2018) considered that teacher career satisfaction was optimized by
transformational leadership or distributed leadership. There were other
studies revealing a significant positive influence of distributed leader­
ship on teacher career satisfaction based on U.S. data (Torres, 2019) or
Singapore data (Torres, 2018) from the 2013 TALIS data.
Therefore, the hypothesis 1 (H1) is proposed: Distributed leadership
can directly and positively impact teacher career satisfaction.
2.3. The mediation of teacher empowerment
By the 1990 s, teacher empowerment had become two of distinctive
slogans along with the professionalization of teaching, pushing educa­
tional leaders to surrender power to share with teachers (Avidov-Ungar
et al., 2014; King, 2019). On the one hand, from the perspective of
power, teacher empowerment means giving teachers more autonomy in
making decisions about the values, learning content and methodology
(Oktay, 2013). On the other hand, from the perspective of profession­
alism, teacher empowerment is the ability for teachers to manage their
own professional growth and to adapt to the professional development
environment (Pearn, 2007; Bogler and Somech, 2005). Some studies
suggested that principal leadership style had an impact on teacher
empowerment (Hatcher, 2005). For instance, Sales et al. (2017) believed
shifted school goals from the top of the organizational hierarchy to
teacher community. Zhang (2020) furtherly confirmed it enabled
teachers to share power and professional autonomy. Tay et al. (2021)
also found that leadership style was significantly associated with
empowerment teachers received, and teacher had more autonomy to
plan their professional development under the distributed leadership.
Therefore, the hypothesis 2 (H2) is proposed: Distributed leadership
has a positive effect on teacher empowerment.
Previous studies also reflected the relationship between teacher
empowerment and career satisfaction. Zembylas and Papanastasiou
H. Yao and L. Ma
(2005) constructed a theoretical framework to analyze the effects of four
dimensions of teacher empowerment (professional growth, decision
making, promotion, and status) on teachers’ career satisfaction, and
examined a positive association between them. Al-Yaseen and
Al-Musaileem (2015) investigated a strong relationship between teacher
empowerment and career satisfaction, which was inhibited when
schools were constrained of centralized control. Similarly, Blackley et al.
(2021) believed that when principals gave teachers full autonomy in
their professional development and involved them in decision-making to
create a democratic and cooperative climate, teachers’ career satisfac­
tion was likely to be higher. A study from China indicated that despite
China’s centralized education system, ideas of teacher empowerment
from western countries have been imported into China over the past few
decades, and limited teacher empowerment could still significantly
predict career satisfaction (Jiang et al., 2019).
Thus, the hypothesis 3 (H3) is proposed：Teacher empowerment has
a positive effect on career satisfaction.
Teacher empowerment may play a mediating role in the relationship
between distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction. As the
school management style shifts from centralized and authoritarian to
distributed leadership, teachers are shared with more power such as
professional autonomy and decision-making (Hulpia and Devos, 2009)
to reduce their isolation and enhance the professional motivation or
positive emotional perceptions (Angelle, 2010). Especially in the Chi­
nese context, influenced by the Chinese culture of collectivism and
Confucianism, distributed leadership provides favorable conditions for
collegial cooperation and teacher professionalization (Wong, 2010).
Meanwhile, Chinese teachers regularly participate in school-based
research and group learning activities, and distributed leadership can
further expand the collegial interaction (Carpenter, 2015). It is benefi­
cial to create an environment of equal cooperation and promote
self-efficacy to generate higher career satisfaction (Yin and Zheng,
2018).
Therefore, the research hypothesis 4 (H4) is proposed: Teacher
empowerment mediates the relationship between distributed leadership
and career satisfaction.
2.4. The mediation of organizational commitment
Organizational commitment, embodying teachers’ attitudes of
identification and commitment to work, is a psychological factor that
motivates them to continue professional behavior (Kirkic and Balci,
2021). Previous studies concluded that principal leadership style was
closely associated with teachers’ organizational commitment (Ibrahim
et al., 2014; Ishak and Romle, 2015). Distributed leadership made it
easier to improve the organizational commitment (Hulpia et al., 2012;
Akdemir and Ayik, 2017; Liu et al., 2021a). According to Social Ex­
change Theory (Nazir et al., 2018), when teachers perceive the sup­
portive work resources and harmonious interpersonal relationships
brought by the school organization, they usually show higher organi­
zational commitment (Chow, 2018). Because traditional Chinese culture
particularly emphasizes the obligation of individuals who receive social
support to give back to the organization by making the contributions
expected by the organization (Zheng et al., 2020).
Thus, the study proposes the hypothesis 5 (H5)：Distributed Lead­
ership has a positive effect on organizational commitment.
Referring to Self-identity Theory, when an individual feels a sense of
identification with the organization, the career satisfaction tends to keep
a positive state (Berezina et al., 2020). Some studies also confirmed the
positive relationship between organizational commitment and career
satisfaction (Sesen and Basim, 2012; Onder et al., 2019). Specifically,
organizational commitment reflects that teachers have deep feelings for
the school organization and identify with the goals and values of it. So
they are willing to actively devote time and energy, which enables them
to obtain a sense of belonging from the school organization. All these
concluded that teachers’ affective commitment may have a positive
3
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
impact on their career satisfaction (Pietsch et al., 2018; Araoz and
Ramos, 2021).
Thus, the hypothesis 6 (H6) is proposed: Teacher organizational
commitment has a positive effect on career satisfaction.
Distributed leadership is the prerequisite for teachers’ organizational
commitment. The practice of distributed leadership in school manage­
ment helps teachers to share expertise and enhance collaboration
(Pearce et al., 2009; King, 2019). Liu (2020) pointed out that distributed
leadership motivated teachers to fully participate in collaborative
decision-making in instructional management and teaching affairs in
order to increase emotional, normative, and aspirational commitment to
the organization, further promoted their career satisfaction (Pietsch
et al., 2018; Araoz and Ramos, 2021).
Therefore, the hypothesis 7 (H7) is proposed: Teacher organizational
commitment mediates the relationship between distributed leadership
and career satisfaction.
2.5. Framework
This study constructs the conceptual framework with the aim to
providing an extensive understanding of the relationship between
distributed leadership and teachers’ career satisfaction. The hypothe­
sized model is shown in Fig. 1.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
Data was collected from teachers in primary and secondary schools
in China, and the questionnaires were completed voluntarily in different
provinces in January 2022. Through the questionnaire instructions,
participants were told that this data was anonymous, and only for
research purposes. To ensure that the questionnaires were completed
truthfully and effectively, some polygraph questions were included. A
total of 568 questionnaires were collected from 6 provinces such as
Shanghai, Henan Province and Gansu Province in China. After careful
screening, 46 questionnaires with invalid answers were eliminated, and
522 valid questionnaires were retained, with an effective rate of 91.9%.
In terms of the background characteristics of teachers, there were
234 male teachers (44.8%) and 288 female teachers (55.2%). As for
educational background, there were 489 teachers (82.0%) with bachelor
degree, 28 teachers (5.4%) with graduate degree, and 66 below under­
graduate. About teaching experience, 58 teachers (11.1%) taught for
less than 5 years, 81 teachers (15.5%) for 6–10 years, 54 teachers
(10.3%) for 11–15 years, 66 teachers (12.6%) for 16–20 years, 123
teachers (23.6%) for 21–25 years, and 26 teachers (26.8%) for 26 years
or more. For administrative positions, 322 teachers (61.7%) held
administrative positions or were head teachers, while 200 teachers
(38.3%) did not hold any position. Table 1 presents the demographic
distribution of the samples.
Fig. 1. Conceptual Framework.
H. Yao and L. Ma International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960

Table 1 et al., 2011). X2, Df, X2/Df, GFI, CFI, TLI, and RMSEA are the model fit
Demographic characteristics of the sample (N = 522). indices that must be reported. As relative indices, X2 and Df have no
N % absolute standard. X2/Df is generally set as a standard of less than 10,
with a more stringent standard of less than 5 (Hooper et al., 2008). GIF is
Gender
Female 288 55.2% considered to be satisfactory when the value is greater than 0.90
Male 234 44.8% (Tanaka and Huba, 1985). In addition, because a second-order model is
Education Background set in this paper, the standard of GFI can be lowered to 0.8. In terms of
Below undergraduate 66 12.6% CFI, Schermelleh-Engel et al. (2003) identified the standard as greater
Bachelor degree 489 82.0%
Graduate degree 28 5.4%
than 0.9. Bentler (1995) considered the bottom-line criterion for TLI to
Teaching Years be 0.9 and Maccallum et al. (1996) considered the bottom-line criterion
< 5 year 58 11.1% for RMSEA to be 0.08. All items of this study were measured on 5-point
6–10 year 81 15.5% Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree, and the
11–15 year 54 10.3%
confirmatory factor analysis results for all scales are shown in Table 2.
16–20 year 66 12.6%
21–25 year 123 23.6% Distributed leadership scale. Distributed leadership was measured by
＞26 year 140 26.8% the comprehensive items describing teachers’ perceptions of leadership
Administrative Positions in the school. We used Heck & Hallinger’s (2009) distributed leadership
Yes 322 61.7% scale with teachers’ perceived orientation and referred to Xiu et al.
No 200 38.3%
(2022) to make it more applicable to the Chinese cultural context. The
designed distributed leadership scale contained 13 items including three
3.2. Instruments dimensions. (1) Organizational empowerment (Cronbach’s α = 0.955)
manifested itself in a school organization that empowered its internal
This study referred to previous measurement scales, and modified members with professional autonomy and independence for the teachers
some items to ensure those were appropriate for Chinese teachers and and the possibility of any member of the organization to join the leader
well understood by participants, finally reconstructing four scales team. (2) Decision cooperation (Cronbach’s α = 0.894), which indicated
including distributed leadership scale, teachers’ career satisfaction that the school leadership decision-making function was not owned and
scale, teacher empowerment scale, and organizational commitment exercised by one individual alone, but teachers were able to make
scale. Distributed leadership, teacher empowerment and organizational collaborative decisions to promote school development. (3) Teacher
commitment all included sub-scales, so second-order models were involvement (Cronbach’s α = 0.907), which meant that teachers were
designed to make the structural equation model more streamlined and involved in school leadership and management and promoted a broad
reduce the estimated parameters. Undoubtedly, utilizing a second-order and equal dialogue between teacher-principals. Since previous studies
model in structural equation modeling (SEM) has several benefits, have typically set distributed leadership as a second-order model (Liu
including enhanced interpretability and increased stability of measure­ and Philip, 2021), our research focuses on the overall structure of
ments (Aaker and Bagozzi, 1979). However, it is essential to note that distributed leadership and sets it as a second-order model. Fit indices of
simplifying the SEM may lead to a worse fit for the second-order model second-order factor model achieved satisfactory results (χ2/df=3.937,
when compared to the first-order model. To determine whether the CFI=0.972, GFI=0.925, RMSEA=0.075 and TLI=0.966). Furthermore,
second-order model is appropriate, we computed the target coefficient the target coefficient was 1, which suggested that there was no differ­
through dividing the chi-square value of the fully correlated model ence between the fit of the second-order model and the first-order
(saturated model) by the chi-square value of the second-order model. model. Meanwhile, the standardized factor loadings of all latent vari­
The target coefficient provided a criterion for evaluating the appropri­ ables were significant (p < 0.001，β = 0.654–0.935),
ateness of the second-order model. The closer the target index is to 1, the SMC= 0.428–0.874，CR= 0.975, AVE= 0.737.
more representative the second-order model (Marsh and Hocevar, 1985; Career satisfaction. Using the framework and items developed by Xiu
Orosz et al., 2016). et al. (2022) to measure teachers’ career satisfaction in China (Cron­
Among all the indicators in CFA, The factor load value (β) is sup­ bach’s α = 0.77). This scale was firstly derived from the project designed
posed to be greater than 0.7, and 0.6 is the acceptable bottom limit. by Ho and Au (2006) to measure teachers’ career satisfaction. In this
Moreover, the square multiple correlation (SMC) of the variables in the study, Cronbach’s α = 0.938, the standardized factor loadings of all
measurement model should be greater than 0.4. The composite reli­ latent variables were significant（p < 0.001，β = 0.833–0.938）,
ability (CR) value is the combination of the reliability of all measure­ SMC= 0.694–0.880, CR= 0.943, AVE= 0.806.
ment variables, 0.7 is the acceptable limit (Marsh et al., 2014). The Teacher empowerment. The measurement of teacher empowerment
average of variance extracted (AVE) value is the average of the referred to Yin et al.’s (2013) indicators. This scale was originally
explanatory power of the calculated latent variable to the measured designed by Short and Rinehart’s (1992) school participant empower­
variables; it has been suggest that it should be greater than 0.5 (Hair ment scale and then Yin et al. (2013) adapted it for Chinese teachers. Lee

Table 2
Confirmatory factor analysis.
Dim Item Z Item Reliability CR AVE

Std SMC

Distributed Leadership Organizational Empowerment 6 27.677–29.426 0.844–0.925 0.712–0.856 0.939 0.794

Decision Cooperation 4 18.155–34.631 0.654–0.935 0.428–0.874 0.911 0.722
Teacher Involvement 4 19.271–31.025 0.688–0.882 0.473–0.819 0.936 0.709
Career Satisfaction 4 26.344–28.719 0.833–0.938 0.694–0.880 0.943 0.806
Teacher Empowerment Professional Development 4 21.734–28.808 0.755–0.916 0.570–0.839 0.905 0.705
Autonomous Decision 5 13.605–16.357 0.632–0.856 0.400–0.733 0.847 0.529
Influence Colleagues 4 20.229–22.138 0.767–0.903 0.588–0.815 0.912 0.723
Organizational Commitment Affective Commitment 4 20.900–27.143 0.786–0.932 0.618–0.869 0.920 0.742
Normative Commitment 4 16.559–24.101 0.675–0.895 0.456–0.801 0.886 0.662
Ideal Commitment 4 17.782–19.335 0.701–0.918 0.491–0.843 0.899 0.691

4
H. Yao and L. Ma International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960

et al. (2011) also selected this scale in a study of teacher empowerment
in curriculum reform in China. In this study, the scale of teacher
empowerment contained 13 items of 3 dimensions, including profes­
sional development (Cronbach’s α = 0.903), autonomous decision
(Cronbach’s α = 0.841) and influence colleagues (Cronbach’s
α = 0.910). The variable of teacher empowerment was also a
second-order model, whose fit indices were acceptable: χ2/df= 5.847,
CFI= 0.905, GFI= 0.945, RMSEA= 0.079 and TLI= 0.927. The target
coefficient was 1 and the standardized factor loadings of all latent var­
iables were significant (p < 0.001，β = 0.632–0.916),
SMC= 0.400–0.839, CR= 0.959, AVE= 0.645.
Organizational commitment. This scale referred to Jing and Zhang’s
(2014) organizational commitment scale for teachers, which was
derived from the organizational commitment scale for Chinese em­
ployees developed by Wang (2004) and then modified by incorporating
Jackson’s (2019) framework. This scale was divided into 3 dimensions
including affective, normative and ideal commitment. To be specific,
affective commitment reflected an individual’s belonging and attach­
ment to the organization and it was regarded as the most salient form of
commitment (Meyer and Allen, 1991). Normative commitment is the
totality of internalized normative pressures to act in a way that meets
organizational goals and interests, which is regarded as a weaker form of
commitment than emotional commitment.(Meyer and Parfyonova,
2010). Ideal commitment emphasized the importance of individual
pursuit of ideal realization and concern for whether the expertise could
be brought into full play in the organization, and the ability to achieve
personal ideals through the achievement of organizational goals (Gal­
anaki et al., 2019). In this study, the affective commitment scale
included four aspects including emotional accumulation, willingness to
contribute, giving effort, and loyalty to organization. The Cronbach’s
α = 0.920. The normative commitment scale also had four items such as
sense of responsibility, moral discipline, loyalty to school and love of
school, and Cronbach’s α = 0.871. The ideal commitment scale was
consisted of four indicators (usefulness of learning, promotion oppor­
tunities, further education opportunities, and ideal fulfillment), whose
Cronach’s α = 0.893. The variable of organizational commitment was
also a second-order model, and the fit indices were good: χ2/df= 6.869,
CFI= 0.912, GFI= 0.923, RMSEA= 0.079 and TLI= 0.918. The target
coefficient was 1 and the standardized factor loadings of all latent var­
iables were significant (p < 0.001，β = 0.675–0.932),
SMC= 0.456–0.869, CR= 0.965, AVE= 0.698.
3.3. Data analysis
The study adopted structural equation modeling (SEM) and boot­
strapping method to analyze the data. SEM is mainly concerned with the
structure of some latent variables that cannot be directly observed
(DeShon, 1998). In the framework, distributed leadership is an exoge­
nous latent variable, teacher career satisfaction is an endogenous latent
variable. Both teacher empowerment and organizational commitment
are mediating variables. We hypothesized direct and indirect effects of
distributed leadership on the four endogenous latent variables and uti­
lized bootstrapping method with 5000 iterations to detect confidence
intervals for the 95% estimation results. The impact size of the path
coefficients was classified according to Lachowicz et al. (2018) recom­
mendations, so effects at 0.14 as small, effects at 0.39 as medium, and
effects at 0.59 as large.
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics and correlation test
Table 3 presents the descriptive statistics and correlations of the all
variables and respective dimensions. For distributed leadership, teach­
ers scored relatively low on teacher involvement (M=3.466). As for
teacher satisfaction, overall teachers scored relatively high (M=4.070).
In terms of teacher empowerment, teachers scored relatively low on
autonomous decision making (M=3.416). Moreover, for organizational
commitment, teachers scored lowest on ideal commitment (M=3.708).
In addition, subdimensions of distributed leadership were positively
correlated with career satisfaction and showed significant correlations
with teacher empowerment and organizational commitment. It sup­
ported the subsequent analysis of the structural equation model.
4.2. Results of model fitting
To simply show the model fit indices, representative indices (X2, Df,
X2/Df, GFI, CFI, TLI and RMSE) would be selected to report. The model
yielded satisfactory model fit indices: X2/Df= 3.785, GFI= 0.902,
CFI= 0.912, TLI= 0.910, RMSEA= 0.073. The model fit indices all met
the corresponding criteria. Therefore, the results of model fitting were
appropriate to theoretical framework.
4.3. Structural model test
As shown in Fig. 2., distributed leadership was significantly and
positively associated with teacher empowerment (β = 0.915, p < 0.001)
and organizational commitment (β = 0.655, p < 0.001). Meanwhile,
teacher empowerment (β = 0.439, p < 0.001) and organizational
commitment (β = 0.425, p < 0.001) were also significantly and posi­
tively correlated with teachers’ career satisfaction respectively, but
there was no significant positive relationship between distributed
leadership and teacher career satisfaction (β = 0.006, p > 0.05).
Therefore, H1 was not supported, and H2, H3, H5, H6 were supported.
4.4. Mediating effect test
To examine the mediating effect of teacher empowerment and
organizational commitment, the bias-corrected nonparametric percen­
tile Bootstrapping method was used (Wen et al., 2010). Mediating effect

Table 3
Means, standard deviations and correlations among variables in the research.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Organizational Empowerment —
2. Decision Cooperation .890 * * —
3. Teacher Involvement .817 * * .850 * * —
4. Teacher Satisfaction .615 * * .630 * * .592 * * —
5. Professional Development .802 * * .813 * * .806 * * .650 * * —
6. Autonomous Decision .624 * * .651 * * .702 * * .559 * * .748 * * —
7. Influence Colleagues .628 * * .655 * * .675 * * .586 * * .767 * * .759 * * —
8. Affective Commitment .544 * * .536 * * .479 * * .594 * * .543 * * .391 * * .455 * * —
9. Normative Commitment .553 * * .559 * * .534 * * .604 * * .562 * * .460 * * .469 * * .827 * * —
10. Ideal Commitment .758 * * .735 * * .712 * * .615 * * .802 * * .634 * * .677 * * .596 * * .643 * * —
mean 3.739 3.740 3.466 4.070 3.656 3.416 3.659 4.229 4.162 3.708
SD 0.990 0.910 0.996 0.908 0.904 0.939 0.884 0.851 0.854 0.930

Note:* *p < 0.01.

5
H. Yao and L. Ma
Fig. 2. Path coefficient of SEM.
estimates were calculated for each sample and 95% confidence intervals
were estimated for the mediating effect (seen Table 4). It’s shown that
the total effect of distributed leadership on teacher career satisfaction
was 0.686 (Z > 1.96, 95%CI=[0.61, 0.724]), while the mediation of
teacher empowerment (β = 0.402, Z > 1.96, 95%CI=[0.235,0.606])
and organizational commitment (β = 0.278, Z > 1.96, 95%CI=[0.216,
0.384]) both reached statistical significance level. Specifically, the
mediating effect of teacher empowerment was calculated to be 55.6% of
total effect, and organizational commitment 43.4%, which supported H4
and H7. However, the direct effect of distributed leadership on teachers’
career satisfaction was no longer significant (β = 0.006, Z < 1.96, 95%
CI= [− 0.230,0.219]). In summary, the effect of distributed leadership
on teachers’ career satisfaction was exerted through the fully mediating
role of teacher empowerment and organizational commitment, and the
mediating effect of teacher empowerment was slightly greater than that
of organizational commitment.
5. Conclusion and discussion
Based on the Chinese context, this study investigated primary and
secondary school teachers in China, and examined the positive impacts
of distributed leadership on teacher empowerment, organizational
commitment and career satisfaction. Additionally, the mediating roles of
teacher empowerment and organizational commitment between
distributed leadership and career satisfaction were tested. The current
Table 4
Mediating results in the SEM.
Distributed Leadership →Career Satisfaction Point BootStrap
（mediation effect test） Estimate SE
Total effect 0.686 0.026
Direct effect 0.006 0.131
Indirect effect（Teacher Empowerment） 0.402 0.108
Indirect effect（Organizational Commitment） 0.278 0.049
6
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
findings provided several important messages.
First, there was a moderate to high positive correlation between
distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction. This finding is
consistent with several previous studies (Sun and Xia, 2018; Xiu et al.,
2022; Liu et al., 2021a), and confirms the practicality of distributed
leadership in Chinese schools, particularly highlighting the importance
of returning from a focus on the leaders to shared leadership among
teachers (Carpenter, 2015). With the spread of distributed leadership
from Western countries to China, the management model has gradually
shifted from a hierarchical structure of leadership management to a
shared collective leadership in primary and secondary schools in
Shanghai, China (Qian et al., 2017). In contemporary Chinese school
education, the educational philosophy of “teachers as leaders” and
“teacher empowerment” are consistent with the spirit of distributed
leadership (Wang and Ho, 2018). From the perspective of social inter­
action theory, decentralization helps to improve interactions among
teachers. Under the traditional bureaucratic education management
system in China, teachers are less willing to share their views due to the
authority of leaders. However, when teachers are given decision-making
power in schools, they actively communicate with each other and
interact with school leaders with a sense of respect, which contributes to
improving their career satisfaction (Liu, 2020; Xiu et al., 2022). In
addition, distributed leadership gives teachers a certain degree of au­
tonomy in the classroom, such as determining course content, choosing
teaching methods and assessing student learning, all of which empower
Z Bootstrapping 95% CI Mediation effect
proportion
Lower Upper
26.385 0.615 0.724 -
0.046 -0.230 0.219 -
3.722 0.235 0.606 55.6%
5.673 0.216 0.384 43.4%
H. Yao and L. Ma
teachers to have higher expectations as well as satisfaction with their
career development (Frostenson, 2015). In a word, schools that has
adopted distributed leadership particularly focus on building a collab­
orative and shared cultural climate to facilitate teachers’ participate in
the decision-making (Liu and Werblow, 2019), which also creates a
cornerstone for improving teacher career satisfaction.
Second, distributed leadership had a significant positive impact on
teacher empowerment and organizational commitment. On the one
hand, distributed leadership could give teachers the right to professional
development, autonomy in decision making, and facilitated collegial
collaboration and sharing, which is in line with the studies by Holloway
et al. (2017) and Tay et al. (2021). For example, Holloway et al. (2017)
pointed out that distributed leadership emphasized a power-sharing
mode of decision-making that viewed teachers’ participation in school
decision-making as an important way to promote education reform, and
suggested that principals should be committed to empowering teachers
to plan school development and promote personal professional devel­
opment. In the Chinese cultural context, the traditional hierarchical
administrative system and centralized leadership are rooted in the
Confucianism, so principals tend to adopt a top-down authoritative
leadership model in practice (Law, 2013). With the emergence of
drawbacks in bureaucratic management and the introduction of Western
decentralization ideas, the positive impact of distributed leadership on
teacher empowerment has been gradually valued (Liu et al., 2023). On
the other hand, distributed leadership contributed to teachers’ organi­
zational commitment, suggesting that empowered leadership helped to
defuse conflict among teachers, strengthen internal trust, and promote
organizational cohesion. Another study by Hulpia et al. (2009) also
proved that teachers felt loyalty to the school in both formal and
informal settings, when professional discussions were based on mutual
trust and all leaders were supportive to the teachers. Several studies
have attempted to explain why implementing distributed leadership
could increase teachers’ organizational commitment. For instance, Liu
et al. (2021b) believed that teachers exhibited a higher level of recog­
nition and trust in the school organization when they perceived that
their autonomy needs were met and their professionalism was recog­
nized, which was precisely the benefits that distributed leadership could
bring. In addition, a highly autonomous environment enables teachers
to freely express themselves, maintain their personal teaching style and
ensure the efficiency and flexibility of their work, which helps promote
their organizational commitment Wermke and Höstfält, 2014).
Third, teacher empowerment and organizational commitment were
significantly and positively related to teacher career satisfaction. The
finding that Chinese teachers’ perceived empowerment positively in­
fluences their career satisfaction is similar to other studies in different
countries (Ahrari et al., 2021; Al-Yaseen and Al-Musaileem, 2015).
Ahrari et al.’s (2021) study also asserted that teacher empowerment was
related to their professional growth and career stress, and that decen­
tralization of organizational power in schools allowed teachers to have
higher professional identity, which ultimately helped teacher gain
higher career satisfaction. Traditionally, Chinese teachers had relatively
little access to power in schools under the centralized education system.
However, in recent decades, the distributed leadership culture and so­
cial values in Western countries have been imported to China, which is
reflected in the reform of China’ education system (Zheng et al., 2019).
For instance, the document Deepening Education and Teaching Reform to
Comprehensively Improve the Quality of Compulsory Education issued by
the Chinese Ministry of Education in 2019 clearly proposed to protect
teachers’ authority according to the law, and urged the principals to
frequently visit classrooms to listen to teaching, participate in and guide
teachers’ teaching, and strive to improve educational and instructional
leadership. It is obvious that the education reform in China is attaching
more and more importance to distributed leadership and teacher
empowerment. Moreover, teachers’ organizational commitment was
also positively associated with their career satisfaction, which is
consistent with previous studies (Onder et al., 2019; Araoz and Ramos,
7
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
2021). Some researchers attempted to analyze how organizational
commitment affects teachers’ career satisfaction from the perspectives
of self-efficacy (Demir, 2020) and psychological capital (Karakus et al.,
2019).
A surprising finding is that, distributed leadership cannot directly
promote career satisfaction, but only has an indirect positive impact
through the fully mediating effect of teacher empowerment and orga­
nizational commitment. In relevant studies where teacher autonomy,
teacher collaboration or self-efficacy were considered as mediating
variables, distributed leadership had a weak direct effect on teacher
career satisfaction (Sun and Xia, 2018; Liu et al., 2021a). Our study
suggested that the direct effect of distributed leadership on career
satisfaction was no longer significant after teacher empowerment and
organizational commitment were included as mediating variables. Un­
like the previously studied mediating variables (such as teacher auton­
omy, teacher collaboration, and self-efficacy), teacher empowerment
and organizational commitment may act as more important mediators
(Nayir, 2012; Balyer et al., 2017). The indirect relationship between
principal leadership and individual teachers fully highlights Chinese
characteristics. Many previous studies have revealed it as the Chinese
principals and teachers do not interact frequently in Chinese schools
(Qian et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2019). Principals in China are more
concerned with the overall development of the school and staff, and they
focus more on the middle leaders. Principals may distribute power to
teachers, but only when teachers feel authentically empowered and
make contributions within the organization will their career satisfaction
increase. This may provide a cultural context perspective to explain the
indirect impact between distributed leadership and teachers’ career
satisfaction in China.
6. Implications
A consensus has been reached among scholars that school leadership
has an indirect effect on student achievement (Hallinger and Heck,
2010; Harris et al., 2017). The findings of our study complement a
growing body of evidence that confirms that school leadership also has
indirect effects on teacher career satisfaction (Torres, 2018; Liu et al.,
2021a). In addition, originated from Western countries, distributed
leadership has been proven to generate positive practicality in various
countries, but its practical effects in the Chinese context have not yet
been fully presented to the international academic community. Our
study proved to international scholars the indirect value of distributed
leadership in promoting teacher career satisfaction in China, and
extended the international educational leadership literature by affirm­
ing a chain mediating model which suggested that distributed leadership
exerted significant indirect effects on career satisfaction via teacher
empowerment and organizational commitment.
The study also has several implications for practitioners. First, it is
founded that school leaders that try to promote teachers’ career satis­
faction appear to incorporate elements that are associated with
empowerment and decentralization, especially delegating power to
teachers and encouraging them to participate in decision-making in
school affairs. This inspires principals to transform the traditional
educational leadership model and appropriately integrate elements of
distributed leadership, in order to improve teachers’ career satisfaction.
Second, this study emphasizes the positive correlation between organi­
zational commitment and career satisfaction. When teachers have
deeper feelings and identification with the school organization, they are
more willing to spend time and energy promoting school improvement,
and their career satisfaction will also be higher. This emphasizes that
school leaders should pay attention to teachers’ attitudes and values
towards the organization, and take measures to improve their organi­
zational commitment as much as possible. Last but not least, distributed
leadership can only indirectly affect teachers’ career satisfaction
through the mediating effect of empowerment and organizational
commitment, which means that adopting distributed leadership in
H. Yao and L. Ma
Chinese schools does not necessarily bring an increase in teacher career
satisfaction. Instead, only when teachers feel truly empowered and in­
crease their recognition of the school can their satisfaction be improved.
Therefore, school principals should closely monitor teachers’ under­
standing and attitude towards school leadership model to ensure that the
positive effects of distributed leadership can be fully realized.
7. Limitations and future research
First, the sample size was relatively limited, and future research can
further increase the number of respondents, thereby increasing the
reliability and generalizability of empirical results. Second, the data
were collected by a questionnaire survey and participants made self-
assessments according to their subjective perceptions, which may lead
to self-report deviation. Moreover, the use of structural equation model
to test four variables essentially reflects a correlation rather than an
influence relationship. In the future, researchers can use causal infer­
ence methods to more accurately analyze the predictive relationships
among distributed leadership, teacher empowerment, organizational
commitment and career satisfaction. Finally, the non-significant re­
lationships between distributed leadership and teacher career satisfac­
tion after adding teacher empowerment and organizational commitment
as he mediating variables could be attributed to a great variety of fac­
tors, which was difficult to efficiently explain by the quantitative data of
this study. Future studies can supplement qualitative data (such as
interview) to gain deeper insights to explain the underlying reasons
behind this phenomenon.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such
publishing agreement and applicable law.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
References
Aaker, D.A., Bagozzi, R.P., 1979. Unobservable variables in structural equation models
with an application in industrial selling. J. Mark. Res. 16 (2), 147–158. https://doi.
org/10.1177/002224377901600201.
Ahrari, S., Roslan, S., Zaremohzzabieh, Z., Rasdi, R.M., Samah, A.A., 2021. Relationship
between teacher empowerment and career satisfaction: A Meta-Analytic path
analysis. Cogent Educ. 8 (1), 1898737 https://doi.org/10.1080/
2331186X.2021.1898737.
Akdemir, Z.A., Ayik, A., 2017. The impact of distributed leadership behaviors of school
principals on the organizational commitment of teachers. Univers. J. Educ. Res. 5
(12), 18–26. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2017.051402.
Al-Yaseen, W.S., Al-Musaileem, M.Y., 2015. Teacher empowerment as an important
component of career satisfaction: a comparative study of teachers’ perspectives in al-
farwaniya district, kuwait. Comp.: A J. Comp. Int. Educ. 45 (6), 863–885. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2013.855006.
Angelle, P.S., 2010. An organizational perspective of distributed leadership: a portrait of
a middle school. RMLE Online 33 (5), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19404476.2010.11462068.
Araoz, E., Ramos, N., 2021. career satisfaction and organizational commitment in
teachers of the Peruvian Amazon. Educ. Form. 6 (1) https://doi.org/10.25053/
redufor.v6i1.3854.
Avidov-Ungar, O., Friedman, I., Olshtain, E., 2014. Empowerment amongst teachers
holding leadership positions. Teach Teach 20 (6), 704–720. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13540602.2014.885706.
Balyer, A., Ozcan, K., Yildiz, A., 2017. Teacher empowerment: school administrators
roles. Eurasia J. Educ. Res. 17 (70), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.14689/ejer.2017.70.1.
8
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
Bascia, N., Rottmann, C., 2011. What’s so important about teachers’ working conditions?
the fatal flaw in North American educational reform. J. Educ. Policy 26 (6),
787–802. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2010.543156.
Bekta, F., Kln, A.A., Gumu, Sedat, 2020. The effects of distributed leadership on teacher
professional learning: mediating roles of teacher trust in principal and teacher
motivation. Educ. Stud. 48 (5), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03055698.2020.1793301.
Belliba, M.S., Gumu, S., Liu, Y., 2021. Does school leadership matter for teachers’
classroom practice? the influence of instructional leadership and distributed
leadership on instructional quality. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 32 (3), 387–412. https://
doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119.
Bellibas, M., Liu, Y., 2017. Multilevel analysis of the relationship between principals’
perceived practices of instructional leadership and teachers’ self-efficacy
perceptions. J. Educ. Adm. 55 (1), 49–69. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2015-
0116.
Bentler, P.M. 1995. EQS: Structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate
Software.
Berezina, E., Gill, C., Bovina, I., 2020. A study of the association between identity, life
engagement and well-being among young asian adults. Soc. Identit-.-. 26 (5),
608–623. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504630.2020.1783225.
Blackley, C., Redmond, P., Peel, K., 2021. Teacher decision-making in the classroom: the
influence of cognitive load and teacher affect. J. Educ. Teach. 47 (4), 548–561.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2021.1902748.
Bogler, R., Somech, A., 2005. Organizational citizenship behavior in school: how does it
relate to participation in decision making? J. Educ. Adm. 43 (5), 420–438. https://
doi.org/10.1108/09578230510615215.
Bolden, R., 2011. Distributed leadership in organizations: a review of theory and
research. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 13 (3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-
2370.2011.00306.x.
Bryant, D.A., Rao, C., 2019. Teachers as reform leaders in Chinese schools. Int. J. Educ.
Manag. 33 (4), 663–677. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2017-0371.
Buttram, J.L., Farley-Ripple, E.N., 2016. The role of principals in professional learning
communities. Leadersh. Policy Sch. 15 (2), 192–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/
15700763.2015.1039136.
Carpenter, D., 2015. School culture and leadership of professional learning communities.
Int. J. Educ. Manag. 29 (5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0046.
Chow, I.H.S., 2018. The mechanism underlying the empowering leadership-creativity
relationship. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 39 (2), 202–217. https://doi.org/10.1108/
LODJ-03-2016-0060.
Demir, S., 2020. The role of self-efficacy in career satisfaction, organizational
commitment, motivation and job involvement. Eurasia J. Educ. Res. 20 (85),
205–224. https://doi.org/10.14689/EJER.2020.85.10.
DeShon, R.P., 1998. A cautionary note on measurement error corrections in structural
equation models. Psychol. Methods 3 (4), 412–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-
989X.3.4.412.
Dou, D., Devos, G., Valcke, M., 2018. The relationships between school autonomy gap,
principal leadership, teachers career satisfaction and organizational commitment.
Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 45 (6), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1741143216653975.
Frostenson, M., 2015. Three forms of professional autonomy: de-professionalisation of
teachers in a new light. Nord. J. Stud. Educ. Policy 2015 (2), 28464. https://doi.org/
10.3402/nstep.v1.28464.
Galanaki, E., Papagiannakis, G., Rapti, A., 2019. Good is not good, when better is
expected: discrepancies between ideal and actual collectivism and their effect on
organizational commitment. Eur. Manag. Rev. 17 (1), 171–184. https://doi.org/
10.1111/emre.12347.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M., Sarstedt, M., 2011. PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet. J. Mark.
Theory Pract. 19 (2), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.2753/MTP1069-6679190202.
Hairon, S., Goh, J.W., 2015. Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership: Is
the search over? Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 43 (5), 693–718. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1741143214535745.
Hallinger, P., Heck, R.H., 2010. Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. Sch. Leadersh.
Manag. 30 (2), 95–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214.
Harris, A., DeFlaminis, J., 2016. Distributed leadership in practice: evidence,
misconceptions and possibilities. Manag. Educ. 30 (4), 141–146. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0892020616656734.
Harris, A., Jones, M., et al., 2017. Exploring principals’ instructional leadership practices
in Malaysia：insights and implications. J. Educ. Adm. 55 (2), 207–221. https://doi.
org/10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0051.
Hartley, D., 2010. Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Educ. Manag. Adm.
Leadersh. 38 (1), 138–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143210038001030.
Hatcher, R., 2005. The distribution of leadership and power in schools. Br. J. Sociol.
Educ. 26 (2), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000294200.
Ho, C.L., Au, W.T., 2006. Teaching satisfaction scale: measuring career satisfaction of
teachers. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 66 (1), 172–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0013164405278573.
Holloway, J., Nielsen, A., Saltmarsh, S., 2017. Prescribed distributed leadership in the
era of accountability: the experiences of mentor teachers. Educ. Manag. Adm.
Leadersh. 46 (4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216688469.
Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., Mullen, M.R., 2008. Structural equation modelling: guidelines
for determining model Fit. Electron. J. Bus. Res. Methods 6 (1), 53–60. https://doi.
org/10.3109/03005364000000039.
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., 2009. Exploring the link between distributed leadership and career
satisfaction of school leaders. Educ. Stud. 35 (2), 153–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03055690802648739.
H. Yao and L. Ma
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., Keer, H.V., 2009. The influence of distributed leadership on
teachers’ organizational commitment: A multilevel approach. J. Educ. Res. 103 (1),
40–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670903231201.
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., Van Keer, H., 2011. The relation between school leadership from a
distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the
source of the leadership function. Educ. Adm. Q. 47 (5), 728–771. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0013161×11402065.
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., Rosseel, Y., Vlerick, P., 2012. Dimensions of distributed leadership
and the impact on teachers’ organizational commitment: a study in secondary
education. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42 (7), 1745–1784. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1559-1816.2012.00917.x.
Ibrahim, M.S., Ghavifekr, S., Ling, S., Siraj, S., Azeez, M.I., 2014. Can transformational
leadership influence on teachers’ commitment towards organization, teaching
profession, and students learning? a quantitative analysis. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. 15
(2), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-013-9308-3.
Ishak, Y., Romle, A.R., 2015. The mediating effect of career satisfaction on the link
between leadership style and organizational commitment. Aust. J. Basic Appl. Sci.,
2015 9 (4), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-1057.
Jackson, N., 2019. Organizational commitment. In: Palgrave Macmillan (Ed.),
Organizational Justice in Mergers and Acquisitions. Springer, pp. 219–247. https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92636-0_9.
Jambo, D., Hongde, L., 2020. The effect of principal’s distributed leadership practice on
students’ academic achievement: A systematic review of the literature. Int. J. High.
Educ. 9 (1), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.5430/IJHE.V9N1P189.
Jiang, J., Luo, Z., 2021. Leadership styles and political survival of Chinese communist
party elites. Soc. Sci. Electron. Publ. 83 (2), 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1086/
710144.
Jiang, Y., Li, P., Wang, J., Li, H., 2019. Relationships between kindergarten teachers’
empowerment, career satisfaction, and organizational climate: a chinese model.
J. Res. Child. Educ. 33 (2), 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02568543.2019.1577773.
Jing, L., Zhang, D., 2014. Does organizational commitment help to promote university
faculty’ s performance and effectiveness? Asia Pac. Educ. Res. 23 (2), 201–212.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-013-0097-6.
Judge, T.A., Thoresen, C.J., Bono, J.E., Patton, G.K., 2001. The career satisfaction-job
performance relationship: a qualitative and quantitative review. Psychol. Bull. 127
(3), 376–407. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.127.3.376.
Kapa, R., Gimbert, B., 2018. career satisfaction, school rule enforcement, and teacher
victimization. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 29 (1), 150–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243453.2017.1395747.
Karakus, M., Ersozlu, A., Demir, S., Usak, M., Wildy, H., 2019. A model of attitudinal
outcomes of teachers’ psychological capital. Psihologija 52 (4), 363–378. https://
doi.org/10.2298/psi181114008k.
King, F., 2019. Professional learning: empowering teachers? Prof. Dev. Educ. 45 (2),
169–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1580849.
Kirkic, K.A., Balci, T.D., 2021. Organizational commitment levels of preschool teachers
and administrators’ leadership styles. Probl. Educ. 21st Century 79 (2), 207–219.
https://doi.org/10.33225/pec/21.79.207.
Klassen, R.M., Chiu, M.M., 2010. Effects on teachers’ self-efficacy and career satisfaction:
teacher gender, years of experience, and job stress. J. Educ. Psychol. 102 (3),
741–756. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019237.
Kwan, P., Walker, A., 2009. Are we looking through the same lens? Principal recruitment
and selection. Int. J. Educ. Res. 48 (1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijer.2009.03.003.
Lachowicz, M.J., Preacher, K.J., Kelley, K., 2018. A novel measure of effect size for
mediation analysis. Psychol. Methods 23 (2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/
met0000165.
Lahtero, T.J., Lang, N., Alava, J., 2017. Distributed leadership in practice in Finnish
schools. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 37 (3), 217–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13632434.2017.1293638.
Law, W., 2012. Educational leadership and culture in China: dichotomies between
Chinese and Anglo-American leadership traditions? Int. J. Educ. Dev. 32 (2),
273–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2011.04.007.
Law, W., 2013. Culture, gender and school leadership: school leaders’ self-perceptions in
China. Comp.: A J. Comp. Int. Educ. 43 (3), 295–322. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057925.2012.687891.
Lee, J.C., Yin, H., Zhang, Z., Jin, Y., 2011. Teacher empowerment and receptivity in
curriculum reform in china. Chin. Educ. Soc. 44 (4), 64–81. https://doi.org/
10.2753/CED1061-1932440404.
Liu, S., Philip, H., 2021. Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and
teacher learning in China. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 49 (2), 214–233. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1741143219896042.
Liu, J., Qiang, F., Kang, H., 2023. Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and well-being in
schools: a study of relations among teachers in Shanghai. Humanit. Soc. Sci.
Commun. 10 (1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-01696-w.
Liu, L., Yang, C., Huang, D., 2021a. How do empowered leaders influence the career
satisfaction of kindergarten teachers in china? evidence from mediation analysis.
Front. Psychol. 11, 586943 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.586943.
Liu, S., Keeley, J.W., Sui, Y., Sang, L., 2021b. Impact of distributed leadership on teacher
job satisfaction in China: The mediating roles of teacher autonomy and teacher
collaboration. Stud. Educ. Eval. 71, 101099 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
stueduc.2021.101099.
Liu, Y., Werblow, J., 2019. The operation of distributed leadership and the relationship
with organizational commitment and job satisfaction of principals and teachers: A
multi-level model and meta-analysis using the 2013 TALIS data. Int. J. Educ. Res. 96,
41–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.05.005.
9
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
Liu, Y., Bellibas, M.S., Printy, S., 2018. How school context and educator characteristics
predict distributed leadership: A hierarchical structural equation model with 2013
TALIS data. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 46 (3), 401–423. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1741143216665839.
Liu, P., 2020. Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through distributed leadership
in Chinese urban primary schools. Int. J. Educ. Manag. 34 (7), 1171–1183. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0431.
Liu, Y., Belliba, M.S., Gumu, S., 2021c. The effect of instructional leadership and
distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and career satisfaction: mediating
roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educ. Manag. Adm.
Leadersh. 49 (3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438.
Lu, Q., Mustafa, Z., 2021. Toward the impact of efl teachers’ self-efficacy and collective
efficacy on students’ engagement. Front. Psychol. 12 (744586) https://doi.org/
10.3389/fpsyg.2021.744586.
Maccallum, R.C., Browne, M.W., Sugawara, H.M., 1996. Power analysis and
determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods 1
(2), 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130.
Maele, D.V., Houtte, M.V., 2012. The role of teacher and faculty trust in forming
teachers’ career satisfaction: Do years of experience make a difference? Teach.
Teach. Educ. 28 (6), 879–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.001.
Marsh, H., Morin, A., Parker, P., Kaur, G., 2014. Exploratory structural equation
modeling: an integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor
analysis. Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 10 (1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/
annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.
Marsh, H.W., Hocevar, D., 1985. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study
of self-concept: First- and higher order factor models and their invariance across
groups. Psychol. Bull. 97 (3), 562–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-
2909.97.3.562.
Meyer, J.P., Allen, N.J., 1991. A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 1 (1), 61–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/
1053-4822(91)90011-Z.
Meyer, J.P., Parfyonova, N.M., 2010. Normative commitment in the workplace: a
theoretical analysis and re-conceptualization. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 20 (4),
283–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2009.09.001.
Mu, G.M., Zheng, X., Jia, N., Li, X., Wang, S., Chen, Y., He, Y., May, L., Carter, M.,
Dooley, K., Berwick, A., Sobyra, A., Diezmann, C., 2013. Revisiting educational
equity and quality in China through Confucianism, policy, research, and practice.
Aust. Educ. Res. 40 (3), 373–389. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-013-0113-0.
Nayir, K.F., 2012. The relationship between perceived organizational support and
teachers’ organizational commitment. Eurasia J. Educ. Res. 12 (48), 97–116.
Nazir, S., Qun, W., Hui, L., Shafi, A., 2018. Influence of social exchange relationships on
affective commitment and innovative behavior: role of perceived organizational
support. Sustainability 10 (12), 4418. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10124418.
Nguyen, T.D., Hunter, S., 2018. Towards an understanding of dynamics among teachers,
teacher leaders, and administrators in a teacher-led school reform. J. Educ. Change
19 (4), 539–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9316-x.
Oktay, A., 2013. Decentralization in - and of- education. Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci. 106
(10), 777–782. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.12.089.
Onder, M.E., Akcil, U., Cemaloglu, N., 2019. The relationship between teachers’
organizational commitment, career satisfaction and whistleblowing. Sustainability
11 (21), 5995. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11215995.
Orosz, G., Toth-Kiraly, I., Bathe, B., 2016. Four facets of facebook intensity - the
development of the multidimensional facebook intensity scale. Personal. Individ.
Differ. 100, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.11.038.
Pascale, B., Anit, S., 2018. A new perspective for understanding school managers’ roles:
The impact of principals’ boundary activities on the effectiveness of school
management teams. Teach. Coll. Rec. 120 (3), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/
016146811812000301.
Pearce, C.L., Manz, C.C., Sims, H.P., 2009. Where do we go from here? is shared
leadership the key to team success? Organ. Dyn. 38 (3), 234–238. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.orgdyn.2009.04.008.
Pearn, C., 2007. Empowering classroom teachers for the 21st century: meeting the
challenge of advancing children’s mathematical development1. Eur. J. Teach. Educ.
22 (2–3), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/0261976899020277.
Pietsch, M., Tulowitzki, P., Koch, T., 2018. On the differential and shared effects of
leadership for learning on teachers’ organizational commitment and career
satisfaction: a multilevel perspective. Educ. Adm. Q. 55 (5), 705–741. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013161×18806346.
Printy, S., Liu, Y., 2020. Distributed leadership globally: the interactive nature of
principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educ. Adm. Q. 57 (2), 290–325.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161×20926548.
Qian, H., Walker, A., Yang, X., 2017. Building and leading a learning culture among
teachers: a case study of a Shanghai primary school. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.
45 (1), 101–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215623785.
Sahin, A., 2018. The opinions of school principals on decentralization in education. Turk.
J. Educ. 7 (2), 55–85. https://doi.org/10.19128/turje.345444.
Sales, A., Moliner, L., Amat, A.F., 2017. Collaborative professional development for
distributed teacher leadership towards school change. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 37 (3),
254–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1209176.
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., Muller, H., 2003. Evaluating the fit of structural
equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures.
Methods Psychol. Res. 8 (2), 23–74.
Schulte, B., 2021. Education and society in Post-Mao China. Asia Pac. J. Educ. 41 (1),
215–217. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1841984.
H. Yao and L. Ma
Sesen, H., Basim, N.H., 2012. Impact of satisfaction and commitment on teachers’
organizational citizenship. Educ. Psychol. 32 (4), 475–491. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01443410.2012.670900.
Short, P.M., Rinehart, J.S., 1992. School participant empowerment scale: assessment of
level of empowerment within the school Environment. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 52 (4),
951–960. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004018.
Skaalvik, E.M., Skaalvik, S., 2011. Teacher career satisfaction and motivation to leave
the teaching profession: Relations with school context, feeling of belonging, and
emotional exhaustion. Teach. Teach. Educ. 27 (6), 1029–1038. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2011.04.001.
Skaalvik, E.M., Skaalvik, S., 2014. Teacher self-efficacy and perceived autonomy:
relations with teacher engagement, career satisfaction, and emotional exhaustion.
Psychol. Rep. 114 (1), 68–77. https://doi.org/10.2466/14.02.PR0.114k14w0.
Somech, A., 2005. Teachers’ personal and team empowerment and their relations to
organizational outcomes: contradictory or compatible constructs? Educ. Adm. Q. 41
(2), 237–266.
Sun, A., Xia, J., 2018. Teacher-distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy and career
satisfaction: a multilevel sem approach using the 2013 Talis data. Int. J. Educ. Res.
92, 86–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.09.006.
Tanaka, J.S., Huba, G.J., 1985. A fit index for covariance structure under arbitrary GLS
estimation. J. Br. J. Math. Stat. Psychol. 38, 197–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.2044-8317.1985.tb00834.x.
Tay, L.Y., Ramachandran, K., Ong, W.L.M., Towndrow, P.A., 2021. Empowerment
through distributed leadership in reconciliating tensions and dilemmas in teacher
professional development. Teach. Dev. 25 (5), 647–668. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13664530.2021.1939133.
Tickle, B.R., Chang, M., Kim, S., 2011. Administrative support and its mediating effect on
us public school teachers. Teach. Teach. Educ. 27 (2), 342–349. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2010.09.002.
Toropova, A., Myrberg, E., Johansson, S., 2021. Teacher career satisfaction: the
importance of school working conditions and teacher characteristics. Educ. Rev. 73
(1), 71–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2019.1705247.
Torres, D.G., 2018. Distributed leadership and teacher career satisfaction in Singapore.
J. Educ. Adm. 56 (1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2016-0140.
Torres, D.G., 2019. Distributed leadership, professional collaboration, and teachers’
career satisfaction in U.S. schools. Teach. Teach. Educ. 79, 111–123. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.12.001.
Troesch, L.M., Bauer, C.E., 2017. Second career teachers: career satisfaction, job stress,
and the role of self-efficacy. Teach. Teach. Educ. 67, 389–398. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.tate.2017.07.006.
Walker, A., Hu, R., Qian, H., 2012. Principal leadership in China: an initial review. Sch.
Eff. Sch. Improv. 23 (4), 369–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09243453.2012.678863.
Wang, M., Ho, D., 2018. Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education
in China. Int. J. Leadersh. Educ. 23 (4), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13603124.2018.1529821.
Wang, Y., 2004. Observations on the organizational commitment of Chinese employees:
comparative studies of state-owned enterprises and foreign-invested enterprises. Int.
J. Hum. Resour. Manag. 15 (4–5), 649–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/
0958519042000192889.
10
International Journal of Educational Development 104 (2024) 102960
Weasmer, W.J., 2002. Maintaining career satisfaction: engaging professionals as active
participants. Clear. House 75 (4), 186–189. https://doi.org/10.2307/30189736.
Wen, Z., Marsh, H.W., Hau, K., 2010. Structural equation models of latent interactions:
an appropriate standardized solution and its scale-free properties. Struct. Equ.
Model.: A Multidiscip. J. 17 (1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10705510903438872.
Wermke, W., Höstfält, G., 2014. Contextualizing teacher autonomy in time and space: a
model for comparing various forms of governing the teaching profession. J. Curric.
Stud. 46 (1), 58–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2013.812681.
Wilson, M., Xue, X., 2013. School leader perspectives on leadership learning preparation
and continuing professional development in the Chinese province of Fujian. Educ.
Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 41 (6), 800–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1741143213494187.
Wong, J.L.N., 2010. Searching for good practice in teaching: a comparison of two
subject-based professional learning communities in a secondary school in shanghai.
Comp.: A J. Comp. Int. Educ. 40 (5), 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057920903553308.
Wong, L.N., 2003. Changing roles and shifting authority of principals in China: a mixed
role of manager and clan leader. Educ. Soc. 21 (2), 37–54. https://doi.org/10.7459/
ES/21.2.04.
Xiang, Q.I., 2017. Policy and practice of the decentralization of basic education in China:
the shanghai case. Front. Educ. China 12 (4), 445–467. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11516-017-0033-2.
Xiu, Q., Liu, P., Yao, H., Liu, L., 2022. The relationship between distributed leadership
and teacher commitment to change: the mediating roles of professional learning
communities and career satisfaction. Asia Pac. Educ. Rev. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12564-022-09747-8.
Yin, H., Zheng, X., 2018. Facilitating professional learning communities in China: do
leadership practices and faculty trust matter? Teach. Teach. Educ. 76, 140–150.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.002.
Yin, H.B., Lee, J.C., Jin, Y., Zhang, Z., 2013. The effect of trust on teacher empowerment:
the mediation of teacher efficacy. Educ. Stud. 39 (1), 13–28. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03055698.2012.666339.
Zembylas, M., Papanastasiou, E.C., 2005. Modeling teacher empowerment: the role of
career satisfaction. Educ. Res. Eval. 11 (5), 433–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/
13803610500146152.
Zhang, W., 2019. School leadership development in China: a case study of schools in one
district education bureau. Education 3-13 47 (5), 505–519. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03004279.2018.1502335.
Zhang, X., 2020. Assessment for learning in constrained contexts: how does the teacher’s
self-directed development play out? Stud. Educ. Eval. 66 (100909) https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100909.
Zheng, X., Yin, H., Liu, Y., 2019. The relationship between distributed leadership and
teacher efficacy in China: the mediation of satisfaction and trust. Asia-Pac. Educ.
Res. 28 (6), 509–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-019-00451-7.
Zheng, X., Shi, X., Liu, Y., 2020. Leading teachers’ emotions like parents: relationships
between paternalistic leadership, emotional labor and teacher commitment in China.
Front. Psychol. 11 (519) https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00519.