British Educational Research Journal

Vol. 38, No. 5, October 2012, pp. 703–729

The multilevel impact of

transformational leadership on teacher
commitment: cognitive and
motivational pathways
Xavier Dumaya,b* and Benoı̂t Galandb
a b
Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research, Belgium; GIRSEF, Universite´
Catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

A growing body of research indicates that transformational leadership affects teachers’ commit-
ment to their school. The present study aims to investigate the processes explaining this effect at
the organisational level. Using a sample of 660 teachers within 50 primary French-speaking Bel-
gian schools, the authors test a model hypothesising that the impact of the school principal’s
transformational leadership (as an organisational-level construct) on teacher commitment to
school is mediated by school culture strength (cognitive pathway) and teacher collective efficacy
beliefs (motivational pathway). Results of multilevel analyses largely support the theoretical
model, but show that schools have a limited impact on teacher commitment.

1. Introduction
Organisational commitment (OC) has emerged as a central concept in the field of
organisational psychology during the past three decades (Brown, 1996; Allen &
Meyer, 1996; Bentein et al., 2005). This topic has been the subject of rigorous
research in different organisational settings, particularly in schools (see Reyes,
1990). OC is described as a psychological bond between the organisational mem-
bers and the organisation and a set of strong positive attitudes toward the organi-
sation manifested by dedication to goals and shared sense of values. According to
Mowday et al. (1982, p. 36), ‘OC develops as a result of some combination of

*Corresponding author. Belgian National Fund for Scientific Research and GIRSEF, Université
Catholique de Louvain, Place Montesquieu, 1, boı̂te 14, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium.
Email: xavier.dumay@uclouvain.be

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/12/050703-27

Ó 2012 British Educational Research Association
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2011.577889
704 X. Dumay and B. Galand

work experiences, perceptions of the organisation and personal characteristics,

which lead to positive feelings about an organisation which in turn becomes
commitment’.
Understanding the processes through which teachers commit to their school is
important for at least two reasons. First, teacher commitment to school can be
important for student achievement (Rosenholtz, 1985; Marks & Louis, 1997). As
stated by Rosenholtz (1989, p. 422), ‘when people experience low internal moti-
vation and commitment, they feel dissatisfied and subsequently they engage in a
variety of work behaviours that only reinforce task failure’. This hypothesis was
supported by Marks and Louis (1997), who found that teacher commitment to
school affects pedagogical quality and student academic performance. In other
words, it seems that teacher quality is not only related to ability and knowledge,
but also to commitment. This suggests the importance of investigating the condi-
tions that affect teacher commitment (Galand et al., 2007). Second, organisa-
tional social psychologists have shown that employees’ commitment is an
important predictor of the intention to quit and actual turnover. According to
Bentein et al. (2005), employee commitment is the ‘attitude component’ most
strongly associated with these two variables. Moreover, the contribution of organ-
isational commitment to these variables appears to be independent from the con-
tribution of other work attitudes such as job satisfaction (Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Consequently, teachers’ OC was defined as a key mechanism of teacher retention
and as such has been the focus of several policies during the last few decades
(Guarino et al., 2006). It has also been suggested that a lack of commitment to
school could be an obstacle to implementation of interventions or reforms
(Useem et al., 1997).
Within the education field, numerous studies have explored the predictors of
teacher commitment. Various teacher and school factors have been under scrutiny.
In this article, our aim is to extend the research on the impact of organisational
processes on teachers’ OC in two ways. First, we extend this research by investi-
gating the effect of principals’ leadership on teacher commitment using a multi-
level framework, as recommended by many leadership researchers (Judge et al.,
2004). In most previous studies, organisational variables are considered either at
the teacher level or at the school level. Organisational practices are therefore con-
sidered either as individual perceptions in a given organisational context or as de
facto homogeneous organisational practices. Second, we extend the research of
organisational effects on teachers’ OC by proposing a theoretical model that
explores the reasons why principals’ transformational leadership may influence
teachers’ OC. The transformational leadership theory (Bass & Avolio, 1997) offers
a full-range model that describes the quality of communication and exchanges
between the leader and the team members. Previous research has consistently
shown that transformational leadership has a large effect on OC (Dee et al., 2006)
and singularly that principals’ transformational leadership influences significantly
teachers’ OC (Caprara et al., 2003; Ross & Gray, 2006). However, very few
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 705

studies have explored the socio-psychological mechanisms underlying this effect

(Ross & Gray, 2006).
In the first section of this article, we review briefly the main predictors of the
teachers’ OC, by distinguishing between teachers and school predictors. Second,
we present the theoretical model tested in this article. This model is articulated
around the contribution of the principal’s leadership in the emergence and the
development of teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs (motivational pathway) and cul-
ture strength (cognitive pathway). Third, multilevel analyses are used to test the
model. Finally, we discuss the results and draw the main implications.

2. Predictors of teacher commitment: a brief review

2.1. Teacher predictors
Three kinds of teacher characteristics have been examined in the literature: teach-
ers’ exogenous characteristics (e.g. gender and age), endogenous characteristics
(e.g. level of experience or employment status), and finally teachers’ beliefs about
their job or their school.
Chan et al. (2008) underlined that the study of gender did not produce consis-
tent findings. However, meta-analyses of teacher attrition and retention predictors
(Guarino et al., 2006; Borman & Dowling 2008) tend to show that female teachers
have consistently higher attrition rates than male teachers. It seems that female
teachers’ decision to leave their job is not so much linked to their commitment to
their job or their school, and rather associated with exogenous reasons, like preg-
nancy or child-rearing (see Kirby et al., 1991). The impact of age on teacher com-
mitment is not well documented in the literature, making it difficult to make any
conclusions about its effect.
Findings about the impact of teacher experience are more abundant and provide
a clearer pattern of results, at least when teaching experience is measured as a cat-
egorical variable: it appears that teachers at the beginning of their career (first five
years) or at the end of it (near retirement) are less committed to their job and their
school, producing a U-shaped pattern of commitment and attrition with respect to
experience (Guarino et al., 2006). This pattern of results could explain why studies
considering teacher experience as a continuous variable produce contradictory
findings (Fresko et al., 1997; Ma & MacMillan, 2001; Chan et al., 2008). Few
studies took into account teacher employment status and qualifications. Ma and
MacMillan (2001) found that part-time permanent teachers are less committed to
their job than part-time temporary teachers, but found no differences in teachers’
commitment between full-time temporary or full-time permanent compared to
part-time temporary teachers.
According to Chan et al. (2008), the teacher variable that provides the most
consistent results in predicting commitment is self-efficacy beliefs. Several studies
support the idea that the confidence of teachers in their ability to bring students to
learn is an important predictor of their commitment and satisfaction. This finding
706 X. Dumay and B. Galand

appears to be consistent despite the different operational definitions and measures

of teacher efficacy.

2.2. School predictors

Since the seminal work of Rosenholtz (1989) and Firestone and Pennell (1993),
some studies have paid attention to the influence of the school environment on
teacher commitment. The rationale of this line of research is that work motivation
and commitment have less to do with the personal qualities people bring to the
workplace than with the design and management of tasks within schools (Ingersoll,
2001). According to Rosenholtz (1989), school social organisation and patterns of
interactions between the principal and teachers may affect teacher commitment to
school, by encouraging teacher professional growth and making substantial contri-
butions to student learning.
Many organisational variables have been examined to understand the processes
through which teacher commitment develops: the principal’s leadership, teachers’
interactions, empowerment and involvement in decision-making, organisational
control and autonomy, culture strength, and collective efficacy beliefs. Globally,
these studies have supported the hypotheses set by Rosenholtz (1989). From a
methodological point of view, we can distinguish between two sets of studies: on
one hand, studies considering organisational variables as individual perceptions of
the school environment, and on the other hand, studies considering organisational
variables as aggregated perceptions of the school environment.
At the individual level, positive association has been found between teacher
commitment and perceptions of teamwork (Dee et al., 2006), perceptions of
professional interest and staff freedom (Huang & Waxman, 2009), perceived
opportunities of professional growth (Bogler & Somech, 2004), or perceived
administration control and organisational culture (Ma & MacMillan, 2001). Chan
and colleagues (2008) pointed out that the positive impact of reflexive dialogue on
teacher commitment is mediated by teachers’ social identification and self-efficacy.
The role of principal leadership has also been explored by several studies. Using
regression analyses on a sample of 170 teachers, Coladarci (1992) found that
teachers who work under a principal regarded positively in the areas of instruc-
tional leadership, school advocacy, decision making and relations with students
and staff are more committed to teaching. Koh et al. (1995) showed that transfor-
mational leadership has significant add-on effects to transactional leadership in the
prediction of organisational commitment.
At the aggregated level, Sanders et al. (2008) also suggested that the culture
strength, defined as the level of cultural norm sharedness, is related to employees’
attitudes and behaviours. They found a positive and significant relationship
between culture strength in human resources management practices (at the depart-
ment level) and affective commitment to the organisation (at the employee level).
No studies, however, tested this hypothesis in the educational field. Finally, collec-
tive efficacy beliefs were also found to be related to teacher commitment in some
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 707

studies. Using multilevel structural equation modeling analyses, Caprara et al.

(2003) corroborated a conceptual model in which individual and collective efficacy
beliefs are proximal and distal determinants of teachers’ job commitment. These
results are consistent with those of Goddard et al. (2000), Ross and Gray (2006),
and Ware and Kitsantas (2007).
Nevertheless, except for the two studies mentioned above, very few studies
have used the appropriate multilevel framework to study the impact of organisa-
tional characteristics (higher level variable) on teacher commitment (lower level
variable). Multilevel analyses have several advantages over the individual or
aggregated approaches presented above. First, it makes it possible to delineate
the part of the dependent variable variations that are associated with the organi-
sation level and to predict only this component of variation. Second, it fits the-
oretical predictions regarding the consistency of leadership behaviours across
situations and subordinates. Third, it reduces the risk of common source vari-
ance inflation, since the analyses are based on the relationships between shared
perception among organisation members in a group regarding their leader’s
behaviour and their individual responses to these behaviours (Walumbwa et al.,
2008).
In the next section, we will concentrate on the effect of transformational leader-
ship, as this largely studied variable captures several organisational dimensions
reviewed above. We argue that the impact of transformational leadership on OC is
mediated by schools’ culture strength and teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Cul-
ture strength is defined as a measure for within-school cohesion in culture percep-
tions.

3. Mediating processes between transformational leadership and organisa-

tional commitment
3.1. Cognitive pathway: culture strength
According to Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008), transformational leadership can be
related to culture strength in two ways. First, transformational leaders foster close
relationships with subordinates and create opportunities for sharing and clarifying
perceptions and interpretations of organisational events. In other words, transfor-
mational leaders sustain the sharing of interpretations between them and their fol-
lowers (Vancouver et al., 1994), as they help to make events meaningful for
followers. The second way is linked to the inspirational role of transformational
leaders. Since their action is framed by their values and their vision, they are
expected to exhibit greater consistency across situations in terms of their leader-
ship practices, so that they inspire the behaviors and thinking of their subordi-
nates. Some recent studies have supported the hypothesis of an impact of
transformational leadership on the culture strength (Zohar & Luria, 2004; Luria,
2008). Zohar and Tenne-Gazit (2008), for instance, found a strong correlation
708 X. Dumay and B. Galand

between transformational leadership and culture strength concerning the safety cli-
mate in a sample of 45 platoons of infantry soldiers from five different brigades.
To our knowledge, however, no study has tested explicitly the mediating effect
of the culture strength in the relationship between leadership and employees’ affec-
tive commitment to their organisation. Only Walumbwa et al. (2008) tested and
confirmed a model suggesting that procedural justice climate perceptions and
strength fully mediate the relationship between transactional leadership and follow-
ers’ OC. In the present study, we make the hypothesis that the impact of the prin-
cipal’s transformational leadership on teachers’ OC can also be mediated by
culture strength, since the reinforcement of the norm cohesion by the principal’s
transformational leadership raises in-group distinctiveness and makes identification
and commitment to the group easier (Kidwell et al., 1997).

Hypothesis 1a: The principal’s transformational leadership is positively associated

with school culture strength and teacher OC.
Hypothesis 1b: School culture strength is positively associated with teacher OC.
Hypothesis 1c: The effect of the principal’s transformational leadership on teacher
OC is mediated by school culture strength.

3.2. Motivational pathway: collective efficacy beliefs

Teacher efficacy refers to personal efficacy beliefs specific to the teachers’ profes-
sional behaviour (Ross & Gray, 2006). In this article, we are interested in efficacy
beliefs as a group construct. Goddard et al. (2000) argued that collective efficacy
(measured directly at the collective level and not as an aggregated measure of indi-
vidual self-efficacy) is a specific and distinct construct that may predict signifi-
cantly differences between schools in student achievement. For schools, collective
efficacy refers to the perceptions that the teachers’ team as a whole can execute
the courses of action necessary to have positive effects on students (Goddard et al.,
2000). According to Bandura’s theory (1997), the sources of collective efficacy
beliefs are similar to those of personal self-efficacy beliefs. The group’s mastery
experience is central, meaning that past level of schools’ success should influence
the teachers’ team beliefs in their ability to stimulate students’ learning. Goddard
et al. (2000) found, for instance, that the average prior achievement of a school
(considered as a proxy of mastery experience) has a significant impact on the level
of collective efficacy beliefs. But more than the actual collective performance, it is
the interpretation of the performance information that is the most important deter-
minant of collective efficacy beliefs (Vanlede et al., 2009). As outlined by Goddard
et al. (2000), the role of cognitive processes is pivotal: the same experiences may
lead to different efficacy beliefs in different individuals and groups. We hypothesise
that the principal may play a key role in the interpretation of the performance
information and in the evolution of the teachers’ collective efficacy beliefs. Leader-
ship actions can contribute to teacher efficacy in emphasising accomplishment,
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 709

giving frequent feedback and promoting an academic emphasis in the school (Ross
& Gray, 2006). Some recent evidence supports this hypothesis. Using a sample of
487 French Canadian teachers from 40 public high schools, Dussault et al. (2008)
found positive and significant correlations between the principal’s transformational
leadership and teachers’ collective efficacy. Demir (2008) showed also that the
transformational leadership behaviors of the principal explained 35% of the vari-
ance in teachers’ collective efficacy.
Some studies tested directly whether collective efficacy mediates the relation-
ship between the principal’s transformational leadership and individual attitudes.
Ross and Gray (2006) compared full and partial mediation models using a cross-
sample validation sample design. Their analyses computed at the school level on
3074 teachers and 218 elementary schools suggested that transformational lead-
ership has direct and indirect effects (through collective efficacy) on teacher com-
mitment to school mission and to professional learning community. Evidence
from non-educational settings also supports this mediation hypothesis. Using a
sample of 402 employees from the banking and finance sectors in China and
India, Walumbwa et al. (2004) found that collective efficacy partially mediated
the contribution of transformational leadership to OC. Finally, Avolio et al.
(2004) are the only researchers who examined a similar research question using
the appropriate multilevel framework. Their Hierarchical Linear Model (HLM)
analyses were computed on a sample of 520 staff nurses employed by a large
public hospital in Singapore. Their results suggest that psychological empower-
ment (which is conceptually close to self-efficacy) mediates the relationship
between transformational leadership and organisational commitment. This discus-
sion leads to the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 2a: The principal’s transformational leadership is positively associated

with teachers’ collective efficacy and teacher OC.
Hypothesis 2b: Teachers’ collective efficacy is positively associated with teacher
OC.
Hypothesis 2c: The effect of transformational leadership on teacher OC is mediated
by teachers’ collective efficacy.

In sum, few previous studies have used the analytic design required to test prop-
erly the effect of school organisational constructs on teachers’ commitment. The
few previous multilevel studies which exist indicated that a principal’s transforma-
tional leadership, culture strength, and collective efficacy might be among the
prominent organisational variables related to OC. Theoretical arguments sup-
ported by some recent findings suggest that culture strength and collective efficacy
mediate the effect of transformational leadership on OC. However, the only multi-
level studies partially supporting these hypotheses were performed outside the edu-
cational field. The model that our multilevel study aims to investigate in schools is
presented in Figure 1.
710 X. Dumay and B. Galand

H1a H1b

H2a H2b

Figure 1. Theoretical model of the principal’s transformational leadership impact on

teachers’ OC

4. Study
4.1. Methodology

4.1.1. Participants. This study was part of a larger research program on school
and teacher effectiveness in the French-speaking part of Belgium. A stratified ran-
dom sampling design was used. The sample consisted of 660 teachers from 50 pri-
mary schools. The schools were sampled using a two-stage procedure. First,
quintiles of the distribution of school social composition in the population were
calculated. The social composition index used to define our sample was an indi-
vidual-variable aggregated at school level. It is different from the academic compo-
sition index used later in the analyses. The individual-level variable combined
several measures of the socio-economic (parents’ income, type of occupation and
level of employment) and socio-cultural (parents’ level of educational attainment)
resources of the students’ families. This index is also used in politics as a tool for
compensatory policies in French-speaking Belgium. Then, schools were selected
randomly in each quintile and asked to take part in the research. This sample
appears to be representative of school composition distribution in the population.
Neither the mean (Z = 0.36, p = .64) nor the variance (chi-square = 59.46, p =
[.75; .90]) of the sample differ from the mean and the variance of the social com-
position in the school population of French-speaking Belgium.

4.1.2. Procedure. All the teachers from the primary schools in our sample were
invited to complete a self-reported questionnaire on the principal’s leadership,
school organisational characteristics, efficacy beliefs and OC within their school.
The questionnaire was filled in by the teachers in the presence of members of the
research team, in the midst of the school year (in February and March). The aver-
age number of teachers per school is 12 (M = 12.45; SD = 5.1).
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 711

4.1.3. Measures. As the main objective of this study is to get a better understanding
of the organisational dynamics underlying the development of teacher OC, we
tried to isolate as much as possible the part of the between schools variance in OC
specifically associated with organisational parameters. According to this idea, indi-
vidual teacher variables were selected using the main trends of results suggested in
the literature reviewed above. These teacher variables were used mainly as control
variables in the test of the proposed model.
Teachers’ variables (level-1 variables):
Gender. Gender was coded as follows: 0 = female and 1 = male. Seventy-five
per cent of the participants were women.
Age. A simple continuous measure of the teachers’ age in years was used (par-
ticipants were 25–63 years old, M = 41; SD = 9.5).
Teacher experience. Rather than using a continuous measure of teacher experi-
ence that would have been redundant with the age variable and in line with the
results presented in the introduction, we put emphasis on two key moments of the
teacher’s career. The first dichotomic variable is centered on the teacher’s career
entry and is coded 0 for the teachers who have less than five years of experience
(23% of the sample) and 1 for the teachers who have more than five years of expe-
rience. The second dichotomic variable puts emphasis on the teacher’s career end
and is coded 0 for the teachers who have more than 30 years of experience (26%
of the sample) and 1 for the teachers who have less than 30 years of experience.
Teacher employment status. The teacher employment status variable is also a
dichotomic one, with 0 representing teachers who have a non-fixed-term employ-
ment contract and 1 representing the teachers who hold a fixed-term employment
contract (75% of the sample).
Teacher self-efficacy beliefs. Teacher self-efficacy beliefs were measured by
items adapted from the Ohio State Teacher efficacy scale developed by Tschan-
nen-Moran, Woofolk-Hoy and Hoy (2001) and translated in French. Responses to
these items were given on a six-point agreement scale ranging from totally disagree
(1) to totally agree (6). Exploratory factorial analyses showed a two-factorial solu-
tion. The first factorial component relates to the collective efficacy in discipline
management (4 items; a = 0.87); the second one deals with the collective efficacy
in learning management (8 items; a = 0.85).
Organisational culture (as individual distance). A questionnaire of school culture
was especially designed (see Dumay, 2009, for a more detailed description of this
questionnaire), using Hargreaves’ (1995) typologies. Hargreaves (1995) proposed
two typologies to examine the relationships between school culture and student
achievement. The first typology is based on Bales’s (1952) idea that every group
simultaneously has to maintain pressure to keep members on task and to maintain
in the group some social harmony, which is easily disturbed by pressure to keep
on task. Groups deal with an instrumental function, or task achievement, but also
with an expressive function, or maintaining good social relationships. Schools have
various instrumental functions, especially those directed towards student cognitive
712 X. Dumay and B. Galand

achievement; and in the same way, schools have an expressive task of maintaining
social relationships so that they are satisfying, supportive and sociable. The second
typology opposes two ideal types, with the traditional school on one side and the
collegial school on the other side. Traditional schools are essentially organised on
a bureaucratic basis, while collegial ones are characterised by the sharing of power
and responsibility (Hargreaves, 1995, p. 32). Combining these two typologies, the
organisational culture scale asked teachers about the perceived importance of four
core values in their schools. The first two cultural values measured are related to
the first typology described by Hargreaves (1995). The first value concerns the sta-
tus of disciplinary guidelines and rules in schools (four items, e.g. ‘the respect of
the disciplinary norms (by the students) is central’). The second aspect of cultural
value is an indicator of how much emphasis was placed on academic achievement
(three items, e.g. ‘teachers have high expectations concerning their students’ per-
formance’). The two next aspects of the school culture values are associated with
the second typology defined by Hargreaves. The first element refers to the status
of innovation within schools (six items, e.g. ‘teachers are keen to experiment with
new pedagogical methods’). The second element measures cultural values in terms
of teacher collaboration and collegiality (six items, e.g. ‘collaboration between
teachers is highly valued’). Responses to these items were given on a six-point
agreement scale ranging from totally disagree (1) to totally agree (6). Exploratory
factorial analyses showed a four-factorial solution fitting the expected factorial
structure. To construct a measure of individual distance with the collective norms
within schools, each scale was simply entered in the analyses as group-centered.
For this reason, these scales are not presented in the level-1 correlation matrix
(see Table 1).
Organisational commitment (OC). OC (six items, a = 0.85) was measured
using the affective commitment subscale of Allen and Meyer’s model (1990).
According to Meyer et al. (2004), this form of commitment predicts better than
the other two dimensions of commitment (continuance and normative) behaviors
like absenteeism, turnover and employee performance. The items were translated
into French and slightly adapted to the teaching profession. Responses to these
items were given on a six-point agreement scale ranging from totally disagree
(1) to totally agree (6). This subscale of organisational commitment relates highly

Table 1. Correlations between level-1 continuous variables

1. 2. 3. 4.

1. Organisational commitment 1
2. Self-efficacy in discipline management .39⁄⁄⁄ 1
3. Self-efficacy in learning management .23⁄⁄⁄ .54⁄⁄⁄ 1
4. Age
.02 .02 .09⁄⁄ 1

⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Notes. < .05; < .01; < .001.
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 713

to the OC measure from Mowday et al. (1979). An exploratory factorial analysis

applied on this subscale confirms the one-factorial solution. Correlations between
continuous level-1 variables can be found in Table 1.
School variables:
School academic composition. The school academic composition variable was
based on a mathematics achievement test performed by the sixth grade students of
each school at the beginning of the academic year. This test covered three
domains: number (27 items), geometry (9 items) and problem solving (16 items)
and appeared to be highly reliable (a = 0.91). Academic composition is operation-
alized by the students’ average achievement in mathematics, and next standardized
to permit the computation of effect size. The school student body characteristics
are often used as covariates in the analyses on the determinants of teachers’ atti-
tudes and attrition. Academic composition was used rather than ethnic or socio-
cultural composition, since evidence related to school-average achievement is the
most consistent (Borman & Dowling, 2008).
Transformational leadership. Twenty-four items (charisma, consideration for
individuals and intellectual stimulation scales) from the multifactor leadership
questionnaire (5X – short; Bass & Avolio, 1997) were used to measure transforma-
tional leadership constructs. The teachers answered on a Likert scale with six lev-
els. Although this instrument aims to measure three underlying constructs, an
exploratory factorial analysis applied to this set of items revealed a two-factorial
solution with loadings which do not fit the expected underlying factorial structure.
For this reason, and since the scale is highly reliable when conceptualized as a
one-factor solution (a = 0.97), we used the factorial score as the transformational
leadership index. The aggregated properties of the scale are examined in order to
ensure that the aggregated measure is reliable and represents a dimension actually
shared at school level. The intra-class correlation (ICC(1)) of a one-way ANOVA
for this scale is high (ICC(1) = 0.32), thus making aggregation meaningful. The
aggregation is made in reference to an additive composition model (Chan, 1998).
Culture strength. Following Chan’s (1998) dispersion composition models, the
culture strength measure was captured by the variance of the teachers’ school cul-
ture perceptions. An index of within-school agreement (by means of average devia-
tion measure (ADMj)) was computed on the four dimensions of the schools’
organisational culture questionnaire. The computation of ADMj involves two
steps. In the first step, we computed the average deviation for each scale item, and
in the second step, we calculated the average deviation for the J items of each
scale. The higher the ADMj score, the higher the within-group dispersion and the
lesser the within-group agreement. Because this index is a direct measure of
within-school variability, prior to testing our hypotheses, we multiplied the values
provided by the ADMj index regarding each cultural scale by
1, so that scores
represented higher within-school agreement. According to Gonzalez-Roma et al.
(2002), the ADMj index has several advantages compared with the James et al.
(1984) interrater agreement index. First, it does not require an a priori specifica-
tion of a null response range of interrater agreement. Second, the ADMj index
714 X. Dumay and B. Galand

provides estimates of the interrater agreement in the metric of the original

response scale. A principal components analysis (PCA) applied on the four ADMj
indexes (one for each cultural scale) yielded a one-factorial solution that explains
more than 60% of the total variance, making it possible to use a single construct
of culture strength.
Collective efficacy. The collective sense of efficacy scale was adapted from the
Collective Teachers Belief scale developed by Tschannen-Moran et al. (2001).
This construct measures the belief that teachers hold about their capacity to
achieve meaningful student learning in spite of whatever obstacles arise and make
learning difficult. It includes an assessment of the collective perception of the
school’s capacity for student discipline (4 items; a = 0.89), as well as for instruc-
tional practices (8 items; a = 0.92). The aggregated properties of the scale are
examined in order to ensure that the aggregated measure is reliable and represents
something actually shared at school level. The intra-class correlations (ICC(1)) of
a one-way ANOVA for these two scales are respectively 0.17 and 0.15, thus mak-
ing aggregation relevant. The aggregation is made in reference to an additive com-
position model (Chan, 1998). Correlations between level-2 variables can be found
in Table 2.

4.1.4. Analytic strategy. Multilevel analyses were applied (HLM 6.2, Bryk & Rau-
denbush, 1992), and not multilevel stuctural equation modelling (SEM), given the
limited size of our sample at the school level. We used two-level intercepts-as-out-
comes models, with teachers as level-1 (n1 = 660) and schools as level-2 (n2 =
50). Such models hypothesize a predictive effect of group-level variables (transfor-
mational leadership, culture strength and collective efficacy) on individual variables
(teacher OC). The ICC(1) of the items measuring the dependent variable ranged
from .08 to .12. According to the standards proposed by Hox (2002), these values
can be considered as moderate grouping effect and justify the use of multilevel
modelling. The ICC(1) of the transformational leadership and collective efficacy
items range respectively between .28 and .47, and between .14 and .21.

Table 2. Correlations between level-2 variables

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

1. School composition 1
2. Transformational leadership 0 1
3. Culture strength .11 .32⁄ 1
4. Collective efficacy (Learning management)
.02 .30⁄ .59⁄⁄⁄ 1
5. Collective efficacy (Discipline management) .04 .39⁄⁄ .41⁄⁄ .15 1

⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Notes. < .05; < .01; < .001.
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 715

First of all, a null model (without explanatory variables) is fitted to provide esti-
mates of variance components at each level (teacher and school levels).
Null model
Yij ¼ b0j þ rij
Where:
Yij: OC
b0j: Intercept for school j.
i: Teacher index
j: School index.

Next, the individual variables are entered into the model as predictors in two
steps. First, only some of the individual characteristics are introduced. Next, indi-
vidual teachers’ self-perceptions are added (self-efficacy and individual organisa-
tional culture distance). Teacher self-efficacy beliefs and individual distance from
the school organisational culture are entered in our analyses to dissociate their role
with the one played respectively by collective efficacy and the teams’ culture
strength at the upper level.
Level-1 model (individual characteristics)

Yij ¼ b0j þ b ðTeachers’ characteristicsÞ þ rij

Level-1 model (individual and self-perceptions characteristics)

Yij ¼ b0j þ b1 ðTeachers’ characteristicsÞ þ b2 ðTeachers’ self -perceptionsÞ þ rij

The final step of the analyses is the test of mediation hypotheses. Following
Baron and Kenny’s (1986) recommendations, we entered for each predicted path
(1) the independent variable as the only predictor (transformational leadership),
(2) mediators as the only predictors (either culture strength or collective efficacy)
and (3) the independent variable (transformational leadership) and one of the
mediators (culture strength or collective efficacy) together. In each analysis, school
composition was used as covariate (cov). Finally, a full model integrating both
mediators was tested.
Level-2 model (mediation analyses)

b0j ¼ c00 þ c01 ðcovÞ þ c02 ðindepÞ þ l0j

b0j ¼ c00 þ c01 ðcovÞ þ c02 ðmediatorÞ þ l0j
b0j ¼ c00 þ c01 ðcovÞ þ c02 ðindepÞ þ c03 ðmediatorÞ þ l0j

4.1.5. Results. A necessary precondition when testing variables at different levels of

analysis is that there must be a significant within- and between-groups variance in
the outcome variables (Hox, 2002). Therefore, before testing our hypotheses, we
analyzed a null model. The null model partitions the variance into the outcome
716 X. Dumay and B. Galand

variable in its within-school and between-school components. Its analysis points

out that only 5.2% of the total variance in teachers’ OC is associated with schools.
The between-schools variance in teacher commitment to school appears to be
small, but is highly significant (w2 (52) = 88.12; p < .001).
Next, level-1 predictors were entered into the analyses following two successive
steps. In the first step, we introduce only teachers’ characteristics. The results reveal
(see Table 3) that age, gender and employment status, but not experience, have a
significant impact on OC. Together, these teachers’ characteristics explain 3.9% of
teacher commitment variance. The effect of a one-year difference in age is very
small (b = 0.02; p < .001). If we assume a linear relationship between age and tea-
cher commitment, the level of OC for a teacher five years older would be .10 SD
greater than the one for the younger teacher. The results also show that after con-
trolling for their age, work experience and employment status, men are less commit-
ted to their school than are women (b = – 0.14; p < .001). Finally, the multilevel
analysis suggests that controlling for age, gender, and experience, teacher employ-
ment status influences OC significantly, meaning that teachers who hold a non-
fixed-term employment contract are more committed to their school than those
who hold a fixed-term employment contract (b = 0.41; p < .001). In the second
step, teachers’ self-perceptions were added to the model. The results reveal that age
and employment status (but not gender) remain significant predictors of teacher
commitment. Moreover, the analyses also show that teachers who feel more confi-
dent in their ability to help their students learn reported higher OC (b = 0.09; p <
.05). However, the relationship between self-efficacy beliefs in discipline manage-
ment and teacher commitment appears non-significant (b = 0.06; ns).
Only 4.8% of the variance in OC is accounted for by the linear combination of
teachers’ gender, age, employment status and self-efficacy beliefs. Interestingly,
these individual variables do not explain between-schools variance in teachers’
OC. The between-schools variance in teacher commitment remains clearly differ-
ent from zero (w2 = 83.47; p < .001), despite the introduction of the main individ-
ual predictors suggested in the literature. So in the next steps of our analyses, we
introduce school variables (school organisational and body characteristics) in order
to try to explain this part of the variance.
Importantly for our next analyses, the transformational leadership appears signif-
icantly related to the teachers’ OC (b = 0.13; p < .01). Tables 2 and 4 present the
results associated with the test of the first set of hypotheses. Testing the first con-
dition set by Baron and Kenny (1986), hypothesis 1a predicted that transforma-
tional leadership would be significantly associated with the level of culture strength
within schools. This hypothesis was tested using correlation analyses. Table 2
results confirm that transformational leadership is significantly associated with the
level of culture strength within school (r = 0.32, p < .05). The next hypotheses are
tested using multilevel modeling, with academic composition as covariate. This
covariate predicts significantly OC (b = 0.09; p < .01). Supporting condition 2 for
mediation, the HLM results show that, as predicted by hypothesis 1b, the level of
culture strength is significantly and positively related to the teacher OC (b = 0.18;
 Table 3. Null model and models with level-1 control predictors

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Null model Teacher characteristics Teacher characteristics,
model self-efficacy and
individual norm model
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

FIXED
Intercept 0.02 0.04
0.19 0.11
0.19 0.12
Teacher variables

Gender
0.14⁄ 0.07
0.13 0.07

Age 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00
Teacher experience:
–beginning teachers vs. others
0.18 0.14
0.15 0.14
–finishing teachers vs. others 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.11

Employment status:
–temporary vs. definite 0.40⁄⁄⁄ 0.14 0.35⁄⁄ 0.14

Self-efficacy:
–learning 0.08⁄ 0.04
–discipline 0.06 0.04

Norm distance:
–collaboration
0.04 0.04
–innovation
0.03 0.03
Multilevel impact of transformational leadership

–discipline 0.02 0.03

–performance 0.06 0.04
717

(Continued)
 718

Table 3. (Continued)
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Null model Teacher characteristics Teacher characteristics,
model self-efficacy and
individual norm model
X. Dumay and B. Galand

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

RANDOM
Residual variance
Teacher level 94.8% 90.9% 90%
School level 5.2% 5.2% 5.2%
Total variance accounted for 3.9% 4.8%
w2 (dl) 88.122 (52)⁄⁄⁄ 87.451 (52)⁄⁄⁄ 87.178 (52)⁄⁄⁄
⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Notes. < .05; < .01; < .001.
 Table 4. First mediation model: cognitive pathway

Model 4a Model 4b Model 4c

Teacher variables and Teacher variables and Teacher variables, TL
TL model CS model and CS model
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

FIXED
Intercept
0.18 0.11
0.14 0.11
0.14 0.11

Teacher variables
Gender
0.13 0.07
0.13 0.07
0.13 0.07
Age 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00

Teacher experience:
–entry in career vs. others
0.15 0.14
0.15 0.13
0.15 0.14
–end of career vs. others 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.16 0.11

Employment status:
–temporary vs. definite 0.34⁄⁄⁄ 0.13 0.31⁄ 0.13 0.30⁄ 0.13

Self-efficacy:
–learning 0.08 0.04 0.08⁄ 0.04 0.08 0.04
–discipline 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.03

Norm distance:
–collaboration
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.04
–innovation
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
–discipline 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03
Multilevel impact of transformational leadership

–performance 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04

719

(Continued)
 720

Table 4. (Continued)
Model 4a Model 4b Model 4c
Teacher variables and Teacher variables and Teacher variables, TL
TL model CS model and CS model
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE
X. Dumay and B. Galand

School variables
Academic composition 0.08⁄⁄ 0.03 0.07⁄ 0.03 0.07⁄ 0.03
Transformational 0.12⁄⁄⁄ 0.04 0.07 0.04
leadership 0.18⁄⁄⁄ 0.03 0.15⁄⁄⁄ 0.04
Culture strength

RANDOM
Residual variance 90% 90% 90%
Teacher level 3.9% 1.4% 1.3%
School level 6.1% 8.6% 8.7%

Total variance accounted for

w2 (dl) 76.685 (50)⁄⁄ 61.936 (50) 59.182 (49)

⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Notes. < .05; < .01; < .001. TL = transformational leadership; CS = culture strength.
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 721

p < .01). Finally, to test the mediation hypothesis, principal’s transformational

leadership and school culture strength were both entered in the same model.
Results reveal that hypothesis 1c is also supported. That is, when regressed on tea-
cher OC with transformational leadership, the effect of culture strength is signifi-
cant (b = 0.16; p < .01), whereas the impact of transformational leadership
becomes non-significant (b = 0.07, ns). The full model explains 75% of between-
schools variance in teachers’ OC. The between-schools variance in OC is no
longer different from zero (w2 (48) = 59.18, ns).
Tables 2 and 5 present the results for the second set of hypotheses. As shown in
Table 2, the first condition for mediation analysis (hypothesis 2a) is met. Transfor-
mational leadership is significantly and positively related to teachers’ collective effi-
cacy (collective efficacy in learning management: r = .30, p < .05; collective
efficacy in discipline management: r = .39, p < .01). Next, supporting the condi-
tion 2 for mediation and hypothesis 2b, the results reveal that both forms of col-
lective efficacy predict significantly OC (collective efficacy in learning
management: b = .12, p < .01; collective efficacy in discipline management: b =
.15; p < .01). Finally, to test the mediation hypothesis, principal transformational
leadership and teacher collective efficacy were both entered in the same model.
Results reveal that hypothesis 2c is also supported. That is, when regressed on tea-
cher OC with transformational leadership, the effects of both forms of collective
efficacy are significant (collective efficacy in learning management: b = .11, p <
.01; collective efficacy in discipline management: b = .14, p < .01), whereas the
influence of transformational leadership becomes non-significant (b = 0.03, ns).
This full model explains 75% of between-schools variance in teachers’ OC, making
the between-schools difference non-significant (w2 (48) = 55.03, ns).
Finally, in model 6, our results show that the impact of the culture strength on
teacher commitment to their school becomes itself non-significant (b = 0.08, ns)
when both mediators are entered simultaneously into the prediction model, sug-
gesting that the effect of culture strength on teacher OC could be mediated by the
level of teacher collective efficacy or is due to its association with collective effi-
cacy. The relationship between the level of culture strength and the level of collec-
tive efficacy appears to be strong, even when controlling for the level of
transformational leadership behaviors (partial r = .56 between culture strength and
collective efficacy in learning management; partial r = .31 between culture strength
and collective efficacy in discipline management).

4.2. Discussion and conclusion

The main objective of this study was to better understand the processes through
which transformational leadership behaviors influence teacher OC. Following
Chan’s (1998) additive composition models, transformational leadership was con-
sidered as a group-level construct. Using a multilevel framework, we proposed that
the impact of a principal’s transformational leadership is fully mediated by the
 Table 5. Second mediation model (motivational pathway) and full model
722

Model 5a Model 5b Model 5c Model 6

Teacher variables Teacher variables Teacher variables, TL Teacher variables,
and TL model and CE and CE TL, CE and CS
Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

FIXED
Intercept
0.18 0.11
0.13 0.10
0.13 0.10
0.13 0.10

Teacher variables
Gender
0.13 0.07
0.13 0.07
0.13 0.07
0.13 0.07
X. Dumay and B. Galand

Age 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00 0.01⁄⁄⁄ 0.00

Teacher experience:
–entry in career vs. others
0.15 0.14
0.19 0.13
0.19 0.13
0.17 0.13
–end of career vs. others 0.18 0.11 0.17 0.11 0.25 0.11 0.16 0.11

Employment status:
–temporary vs. definite 0.34⁄⁄ 0.13 0.34⁄⁄⁄ 0.13 0.34⁄⁄ 0.13 0.31⁄⁄ 0.12

Self-efficacy:
–learning 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.04 0.25 0.04 0.08 0.04
–discipline 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.25 0.03 0.04 0.03

Norm distance:
–collaboration
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.04
0.04 0.04
–innovation
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.03 0.03
0.02 0.03
–discipline 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03
–performance 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.06 0.046 0.06 0.04

(Continued)
School variables
Academic composition 0.18⁄⁄ 0.03 0.08⁄⁄ 0.02 0.083⁄⁄ 0.027 0.07⁄ 0.02
Transformational leadership 0.12⁄⁄⁄ 0.04 0.036 0.042 0.03 0.04
Collective efficacy: 0.12⁄⁄⁄ 0.03 0.112⁄⁄ 0.032 0.07⁄ 0.03
–learning 0.15⁄⁄ 0.03 0.144⁄⁄ 0.042 0.11⁄⁄ 0.04
–discipline 0.08 0.05
Culture strength

RANDOM
Residual variance 90% 90% 90% 90%
Teacher level 3.9% 1.3% 1.3% 0.9%
School level 6.1% 8.7% 8.7% 9.1%

Total variance accounted for

w2 (dl) 76.685 (50)⁄⁄ 55.559 (49) 55.031 (48) 52.247 (47)

⁄ ⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Notes. < .05; < .01; < .001. TL = transformational leadership; CS = culture strength; CE = collective efficacy.
Multilevel impact of transformational leadership
723
724 X. Dumay and B. Galand

level of culture strength (cognitive pathway) and the level of collective efficacy
(motivational pathway).
Since the seminal research of Podsakoff et al. (1996), few studies have examined
the processes through which leadership behaviors affect work-related outcomes
within a multilevel framework, and none in the educational field. Only Walumbwa
and colleagues (2008) showed that procedural justice climate perceptions and
strength completely mediated the relationships between contingent reward leader
behavior and followers’ levels of organisational commitment, while Avolio et al.’s
(2004) study suggested that psychological empowerment, considered as a group-
level construct, mediated the relationship between transformational leadership and
OC. Otherwise, the mediating role of collective efficacy and climate strength was
previously tested either at the individual (Pillai & Williams, 2004) or at the organi-
sational level (Walumbwa et al., 2004).
Our results show that the proportion of variance in organisational commitment
at school level is less than that reported in other organisational settings. Using a
sample of bank employees, Walumbwa et al. (2008) found, for instance, that 20%
of the variance in variables like OC and satisfaction with supervisor lies between
departments. Our result may be explained by specific characteristics of the schools
which are depicted as loosely coupled systems (Weick, 1976). This characteristic
of schools remains particularly relevant in the case of the Belgian educational sys-
tem, where audit regimes, performance targeting and monitoring through inspec-
tion are not highly developed modes of regulation. In such a system, it could be
that the nature of the psychological bond between the teachers is not necessarily
constructed at the school level but could be anchored at micro levels (e.g. grade,
subject matter, informal group, etc.). This small school effect questions the rele-
vance of policies targeting schools as the level of intervention to mobilize teachers
in order to improve teaching and learning (Rosenholtz, 1989; Guarino et al.,
2006). However, the portion of variance in teacher OC lying between schools is
comparable to the portion of variance accounted for by teacher individual charac-
teristics and perceptions largely studied in the literature (about 5%). Moreover,
between-schools differences are independent of these individual variables. Never-
theless, other variables than those measured in this study need to be considered to
account for a larger portion of variance in teacher OC. Particular attention could
be paid to factors external to the organisations potentially related to teacher OC,
such as perceived accountability (Riketta & Landerer, 2002; Lanivich et al., 2010).
Results for the individual predictors indicate a very small positive effect of age
on teacher OC, a small effect of gender in favor of women, a small positive effect
of self-efficacy for students’ learning, and a moderate positive effect of non-fixed-
term contract. Concerning this last result, it should be noted that in the French-
speaking Belgian system, it is very easy for beginning teachers to move from one
school to another, but school change becomes more complicated once teachers get
a permanent contract. More important for the focus of this article, results at the
school level show a small positive effect of transformational leadership on teacher
OC and a very small positive effect of academic composition. The small contextual
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 725

effect of the principal’s leadership raises questions about what is measured by indi-
vidual perception of this leadership. However, results also contribute to elucidate
the paths through which the principal’s transformational leadership influences tea-
cher OC. First, they show that the influence of the principal’s transformational
leadership is mediated by the level of culture strength within schools. This last
result extends the results on climate or culture strength which are mostly studied
as a moderator of the relationship between different organisational behaviours (cli-
mate content) or processes (leadership behaviors) and some work-related out-
comes (OCB, organisational citizenship behaviour, job satisfaction). It also sheds
light on the cognitive mechanisms associated with the impact of the transforma-
tional leadership, while most research concentrates on the motivational pathways
through which transformational leadership behaviors may affect work-related out-
comes. It confirms the need to investigate the effects of leadership on both affects
and cognitions (Lord & Emrich, 2000) as possible interconnected mechanisms
underlying the impact of leadership behaviors on workers’ motivation and perfor-
mance. Second, the influence of the principal’s transformational leadership on OC
appears to be fully mediated by the level of collective efficacy. This result confirms
those of earlier studies (Walumbwa et al., 2004; Ross & Gray, 2006) computed at
the organisational level only, and extends them in a multilevel framework. The
effect size (.1 < b < .2) associated with the impact of both mediators on OC
appears to be smaller than most of the effect sizes typically reported in the organi-
sational literature (.1 < b < .4). However, given that only a few multilevel studies
are available, it is impossible at this stage to know whether the smaller effect size
reported in our study is due to the multilevel setting applied to the data or to the
specificity of the organisational setting in which we tested our hypotheses (i.e. Bel-
gian schools).
Interestingly, our results also suggest that the cognitive and motivational path-
ways are interconnected. It seems that the more schools are characterized by cul-
ture strength, the more teachers feel they can, as a team, enhance students’
learning. This last result confirms those of Lee et al. (2002), who found that group
cohesion and the strength of a group’s norms are positively related to general
group-level efficacy beliefs. But it also extends the hypotheses set by Gibson and
Earley (2007) about the relationship between teams’ cohesion, collective efficacy
and actual performance. For these authors, the effect of team cohesion on collective
efficacy is moderated by the level of task interdependence. This means that the
level of team cohesion is specifically important in organisations or teams character-
ized by a high level of task interdependence. Contradicting this hypothesis, our
results suggest that the level of culture strength can be a key mediator of the trans-
formational leadership behaviors’ impact on teacher OC in schools, while the stud-
ied schools are rather characterized by a very low level of task interdependence.
Doing it, they question the moderator role of task interdependence and extend the
hypothesis of a relationship between team cohesion and collective efficacy to organ-
isations in which the coordination process is implicit (Rico et al., 2008).
726 X. Dumay and B. Galand

The results of our study are obviously limited in several ways. The correla-
tion design used in this research does not give any information about the cau-
sal ordering of the relationships between the principal’s transformational
leadership, culture strength, collective efficacy and teachers’ OC. We suggest
further studies either to use a longitudinal design (see, for instance, Bommer
et al., 2005) or to manipulate the transformational leadership behaviors (see,
for instance, Barling et al., 1996) to evaluate the causal impact of the trans-
formational leadership behaviors on the proposed mediators and on the depen-
dent variable. Moreover, because part of our data came from the same
individuals and involved perceptual data (teachers provided ratings of their
perceptions of the principal’s transformational leadership, school culture and
collective self-efficacy), there is a risk of common-source bias. A common-
source bias refers to the fact that the correlation between the variables is
potentially amplified when the same people answer the questions measuring
the different constructs. However, the likelihood that the common-source bias
explains our pattern of results is limited in several ways. First, by averaging
teachers’ evaluations of the leadership behaviors and collective efficacy beliefs,
and calculating indexes of culture strength, we reduced common-source bias.
Second, following Podsakoff et al.’s (2003) recommendations, we used Har-
man’s (1967, cited in Podsakoff et al., 2003) single-factor statistical procedure
to address this problem. A principal components analysis applied on the differ-
ent items constituting the predicting scales of our model (transformational
leadership, both scales of collective efficacy and OC) reveals the presence of
four factors, suggesting again that common method/source was not a serious
problem in this study. Nonetheless, future studies should look at further sepa-
rating these measures, either through time or through the use of separate
subsamples. We also recommend the use of behavioural measures or proxies
like the employees’ intention to quit their organisation. Moreover, our exami-
nation of the cognitive mechanisms underlying the impact of the transforma-
tional leadership behaviors is limited to an ‘individual’ approach of the
collective cognition (see Lord & Emrich, 2000). We suggest that further explo-
rations of cognitive mediators integrate a collective definition and operational-
ization of the collective cognition, and highlight the important role of team
mental representations and learning processes. We encourage particularly
researchers to better understand the role of these cognitive processes in rela-
tion with the intellectual stimulation component of the transformational leader-
ship model. We can indeed suggest that the socio-cognitive conflicts and
framing processes associated with the intellectual stimulation produced by lead-
ers are important mechanisms in the emergence and the reinforcement of
groups’ norms and collective mental representations. Finally, comparative stud-
ies aimed at explaining the variations in the strength of the associations
between predictors of OC in different professional fields or educational systems
could be very useful to better understand the psychological and organizational
processes leading to OC.
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 727

References
Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance
and normative commitment to the organization, Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1–18.
Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1996) Affective, continuance and normative commitment to the
organization: an examination of construct validity, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 252–
276.
Avolio, B. J., Zhu, W., Koh, W. & Bhatia, P. (2004) Transformational leadership and organiza-
tional commitment: mediating role of psychological empowerment and moderating role of
structural distance, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25(8), 951–968.
Bales, R. F. (1952) Some uniformities of behaviour in small social systems, in: G. E. Swanson,
T. Newcombe & E. L. Hartley (Eds) Reading in social psychology (New York, Holt, Rinehart
& Winston), 321–323.
Bandura, A. (1997) Self-efficacy: the exercise of control (New York, Freeman).
Barling, J., Weber, T. & Kelloway, E. K. (1996) Effects of transformational leadership training
on attitudinal and financial outcomes: a field experiment, Journal of Applied Psychology, 81,
827–832.
Baron, R. M. & Kenny, D. A. (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psy-
chology research: conceptual, strategic and statistical considerations, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.
Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1997) Full range leadership development: manual for the MLQ (Palo
Alto, CA, Mind Garden).
Bentein, K., Vandenberg, R., Vandenberghe, C. & Stinglhamber, F. (2005) The role of change
in the relationship between commitment and turnover: a latent growth modeling approach,
Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 468–482.
Bogler, R. & Somech, A. (2004) Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational
commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools,
Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 277–289.
Bommer, W., Rich, G. & Rubin, R. (2005) Changing attitudes about change: the effects of
transformational leadership on employee cynicism about organizational change, Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 733–753.
Borman, G. D. & Dowling, N. M. (2008) Teacher attrition and retention: a meta-analytic and
narrative review of the research, Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 367–409.
Brown, R. B. (1996) Organizational commitment: clarifying the concept and simplifying the
existing construct typology, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49, 230–251.
Bryk, A. S. & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992) Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis
methods (London, Sage).
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L. & Steca, P. (2003) Efficacy beliefs as determi-
nants of teachers’ job satisfaction, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 821–832.
Chan, D. (1998) Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: a typology of composition models, Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(2),
234–246.
Chan, W. Y., Lau, S., Nie, Y., Lim, S. & Hogan, D. (2008) Organizational and personal pre-
dictors of teacher commitment: the mediating role of teacher efficacy and identification with
school, American Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 597–630.
Coladarci, T. (1992) Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching, Experimental Edu-
cation, 60(4), 323–337.
Dee, J. R., Henkin, A. B. & Singleton, C. A. (2006) Organizational commitment of teachers in
urban schools: examining the effects of team structures, Urban Education, 41(6), 603–627.
Demir, K. (2008) Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: the moderating role of
collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy, Eurasian Journal of Educational Research,
8(3), 93–112.
Dumay, X. (2009) Antecedants and consequences of schools’ culture for student achievement,
Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(4), 523–555.
Dussault, M., Payette, D. & Leroux, M. (2008) Principals’ transformational leadership and
teachers’ collective efficacy, Psychological Reports, 102(2), 401–410.
728 X. Dumay and B. Galand

Firestone, W. A. & Pennell, J. R. (1993) Commitment, working conditions and differential

incentive policies, Review of Educational Research, 63(4), 489–525.
Fresko, B., Kfir, D. & Nasser, F. (1997) Predicting teacher commitment, Teaching and Teacher
Education, 13(4), 429–438.
Galand, B., Lecocq, C. & Philippot, P. (2007) School violence and teacher professional disen-
gagement, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 465–477.
Gibson, C. B. & Earley, P. C. (2007) Collective cognition in action: accumulation, interaction,
examination and accommodation in the development and operation of group efficacy beliefs
in the workplace, Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 438–458.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K. & Hoy, A. W. (2000) Collective teacher efficacy: its meaning,
measure and impact on student achievement, American Educational Research Journal, 37(2),
479–507.
Gonzalez-Roma, V., Peiro, J. M. & Tordera, N. (2002) An examination of the antecedents and
moderator influences of climate strength, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 465–473.
Guarino, M. G., Santibanez, L. & Daley, G. A. (2006) Teacher recruitment and retention: a
review of the recent empirical literature, Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 173–208.
Hargreaves, D. H. (1995) School culture, school effectiveness and school improvement, School
Effectiveness & School Improvement, 6, 23–46.
Hox, J. (2002) Multilevel analysis: techniques and applications (Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum).
Huang, S. L. & Waxman, H. C. (2009) The association of school environment to student teach-
ers’ satisfaction and teaching commitment, Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 235–243.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001) Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: an organizational analysis,
American Educational Research Journal, 38(3), 499–534.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G. & Wolf, G. (1984) Estimating within-group reliability with and
without response bias, Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 85–98.
Judge, T. A., Piccolo, R. F. & Ilies, R. (2004) The forgotten ones? The validity of consideration
and initiating structure in leadership research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 36–51.
Kidwell, R., Mossholder, K. & Bennett, N. (1997) Cohesiveness and organizational citizenship
behavior: a multilevel analysis using work groups and individuals, Journal of Management, 23
(6), 775–793.
Kirby, S., Girssmer, D. & Hudson, L. (1991) Sources of teacher supply: some new evidence
from Indiana, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 256–268.
Koh, W. L., Steers, R. M. & Terborg, J. R. (1995) The effects of transformational leadership
on teacher attitudes and student performance in Singapore, Journal of Organizational Behav-
ior, 16(4), 319–333.
Lanivich, S. E., Brees, J. R., Hochwarter, W. A. & Ferris, G. R. (2010) P-E fit as moderator of
the accountability–employee reactions relationships: convergent results over two samples,
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 77(3), 425–436.
Lee, C., Tinsley, C. H. & Bobko, P. (2002) An investigation of the antecedents and conse-
quences of group-level confidence, Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 1–26.
Lord, R. G. & Emrich, C. G. (2000) Thinking outside the box by looking inside the box
extending the cognitive revolution in leadership theory, Leadership Quarterly, 11(4), 551–
579.
Luria, D. (2008) Climate strength: how leaders form consensus? Leadership Quarterly, 19, 42–
53.
Ma, X. & MacMillan, R. B. (2001) Influence of workplace conditions on teachers’ job satisfac-
tion, Journal of Educational Research, 93(1), 39–47.
Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1997) Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? Teach-
ers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools, American Journal of Education,
107(4), 532–575.
Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E. & Vandenberghe, C. (2004) Employee commitment and motivation:
a conceptual and integrative model, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.
Mowday, R. T., Porter, L. W. & Steers, R. M. (1982) Employee–organization linkages: the psy-
chology of commitment, absenteeism and turnover (New York, Academic Press).
Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M. & Porter, L. W. (1979) The measurement of organizational com-
mitment, Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
 Multilevel impact of transformational leadership 729

Pillai, R. & Williams, E. A. (2004) Transformational leadership, self-efficacy, group cohesive-

ness, commitment and performance, Journal of Organizational Change Management, 17(2),
144–159.
Podsakoff, P. M., Mackenzie, S. & Bommer, W. (1996) Transformational leader behaviors and
substitutes for leadership as determinants of employee satisfaction, commitment, trust and
organizational citizenship behaviors, Journal of Management, 22(2), 259–298.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. C., Lee, J. & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) Common method biases
in behavioral research: a critical review of the empirical and theoretical literature and sugges-
tions for future research, Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Reyes, P. (1990) Individual work orientation and teacher outcomes, Journal of Educational
Research, 83(6), 327–335.
Rico, R., Sanchez-Manzanares, M., Gil, F. & Gibson, C. (2008) Team implicit coordination
process: a team knowledge-based approach, Academy of Management Review, 33(1), 163–
184.
Riketta, M. & Landerer, A. (2002) Organizational commitment, accountability, and work behav-
iour: a correlational study, Social Behavior and Personality, 30(7), 653–660.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985) Effective schools: interpreting the evidence, American Journal of Educa-
tion, 93, 352–387.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989) Conditions that affect teacher quality and commitment: implications
for teacher induction programs, The Elementary School Journal, 89(4), 421–439.
Ross, J. A. & Gray, P. (2006) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organiza-
tional values: the mediating effects of collective teacher efficacy, School Effectiveness & School
Improvement, 17(2), 179–199.
Sanders, K., Dorenbosch, L. & de Reuver, R. (2008) The impact of individual and shared
employee perceptions of HRM on affective commitment, Personnel Review, 37(4), 412–425.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woofolk-Hoy, A. & Hoy, W. K. (2001) Efficacy: its meaning and mea-
sure, Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202–248.
Useem, E. L., Christman, J. B., Gold, E. & Simon, E. (1997) Reforming alone: barriers to orga-
nizational learning in urban school change initiatives, Journal of Education for Students Placed
at Risk, 2, 55–78.
Vancouver, J. B., Millsap, R. E. & Peters, P. A. (1994) Multilevel analysis of organizational goal
congruence, Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(5), 666–679.
Vanlede, M., Bourgeois, E., Galand, B. & Philippot, P. (2009) Sources of academic self-effi-
cacy-beliefs: the role of the specificity level of autobiographical memories about academic
performance, Cahier de Recherche en Education et Formation, 67, 4–11.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wang, P., Lawler, J. J. & Shi, K. (2004) The role of collective efficacy in
relations between transformational leadership and work outcomes, Journal of Occupational
and Organizational Psychology, 77, 515–530.
Walumbwa, F. O., Wu, C. & Orwa, B. (2008) Contingent reward transactional leadership, work
attitudes and organizational citizenship behavior: the role of procedural justice climate per-
ceptions and strength, Leadership Quarterly, 19, 251–265.
Ware, H. & Kitsantas, A. (2007) Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of profes-
sional commitment, Journal of Educational Research, 100, 303–310.
Weick, K. E. (1976) Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 21(1), 1–19.
Zohar, D. & Luria, G. (2004) Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety
practices: scripts as proxy of behavior patterns, Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(2), 322–
333.
Zohar, D. & Tenne-Gazit, O. (2008) Transformational leadership and group interaction as cli-
mate antecedents: a social network analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 744–757.