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

net/publication/364530063

Analysis of the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher

efficacy: a cultural comparison

Article  in  International Journal of Leadership in Education · October 2022

DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2022.2128431

CITATIONS READS

0 84

2 authors:

Metin Kaya Mustafa Demir

28 PUBLICATIONS   161 CITATIONS   
Bayburt University
16 PUBLICATIONS   75 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Metin Kaya on 03 November 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Leadership in Education
Theory and Practice

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tedl20

Analysis of the relationship between school

leadership and collective teacher efficacy: a
cultural comparison

Metin Kaya & Mustafa Demir

To cite this article: Metin Kaya & Mustafa Demir (2022): Analysis of the relationship between
school leadership and collective teacher efficacy: a cultural comparison, International Journal of
Leadership in Education, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2022.2128431

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2128431

Published online: 14 Oct 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 77

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tedl20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2128431

Analysis of the relationship between school leadership and

collective teacher efficacy: a cultural comparison
a b
Metin Kaya and Mustafa Demir
a
Department of Educatıonal Scıences, Medıpol Unıversıty, Istanbul, Turkey; bDepartment of Educational
Studies, Bayburt University, Bayburt, Turkey

ABSTRACT
This meta-analysis study aims to analyze the relationship between
school leadership and collective teacher efficacy in a cultural context.
The meta-analysis included a total of 47 studies in different cultures in
different countries. The results of the analysis for all 47 studies involved
suggested a medium-level relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy. The combined effect size was calculated for
all studies according to random effect models (ES = .48). And it is
concluded that the power distance and long-term orientation of coun­
tries positively predict the relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy. In addition, it is concluded that the indivi­
dualism tendency of countries negatively predicts the relationship
between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Moreover,
it is determined that the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity ten­
dencies of countries do not predict the relationship between school
leadership and collective teacher efficacy. In line with these results,
school managers working in countries that have high power distance,
collectivity, long-term investment, and limitation tendency should
benefit from these opportunities to carry out and complete the school
mission. School managers in countries that have low power distance,
collectivity, long-term investment, and limitation tendency should
develop different strategies.

Introduction
The role of traditional schools has gradually changed along with the evolution of
information society. The roles expected from school managers, teachers, and other
elements that shape schools have changed as they now have to meet the changing
needs and expectations of information societies. Because of that, the duties of modern
education shareholders have become increasingly complicated in today’s education
system. School managers are expected to ensure many essential elements of education
such as supporting teacher motivation, increasing student success, and creating
a success-oriented school culture (Bozkurt et al., 2021). Cooperation between teachers
and their leadership skills has also gained importance in the last decade. While school
managers are expected to have efficient leadership behaviors, teachers are expected to
have efficient behaviors in cooperation with other teachers.

CONTACT Metin Kaya metinkaya439@gmail.com Department of Educational Studies, Medıpol Unıversıty,

Istanbul, Turkey
© 2022 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

One of the most important factors that ensure a productive school environment and
sustainable learning is the leadership behaviors of school leaders (Karadağ, 2020).
Leadership can be defined as administrative skills that enable normal, ordinary people
to achieve extraordinary and fascinating activities (Kotter, 2007). Louis et al. (2009)
stated that leaders directly impact teacher cooperation. The related literature has different
findings about the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy.
In their research in the USA, Goddard et al. (2020) determined a low-level relationship
between educational leadership and collective teacher efficacy. For example, Thien et al.
(2021), conducted a similar study in Malaysia and determined a medium-level relation­
ship between the two. In their research in Turkey, Kurt et al. (2012) observed a medium-
level relationship between transformational leadership and collective teacher efficacy.
Ninković and Knežević Florić (2018) carried out a study in Serbia on the issue and found
that there is a strong relationship between the two. There is a similar relationship
between distributed leadership and collective teacher efficacy (Liu, 2019; Çoban &
Atasoy, 2020).
The efficient leadership features of school managers have important effects on school
functioning and student success (Akan, 2013). The success of students in a specific school
is sometimes higher than that of the other schools. It is not possible to explain this fact
only through the personal and social features of students. It is impossible to ignore the
fact that there is a relationship between student success and school leadership (Karadağ,
2020). This significant difference in terms of success can be understood when the
leadership behaviors of managers and teachers’ behaviors are examined. Everyone is
affected by the society and culture they are living in. School leaders and teachers are
similarly affected by the society they live in. In this respect, it can be said that different
cultures form differences in human behaviors (Karadağ, 2020). Based on this viewpoint,
this research focuses on analyzing the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and
school leadership while it employs an intercultural comparison through the analysis
process.
Modern teachers must support and understand each other more as they need to
establish strong cooperation because of technological improvements and the fast spread­
ing of information (Miller et al., 2010). Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009)
underline the importance of qualified cooperation among teachers. Coherent teacher
activities are closely related to the cooperation culture in schools. This cooperation style
is defined as a school environment in which workers support one another and improve
themselves constantly in their profession (Demir, 2008). Supporting cooperation culture
at schools is possible when collective efficacy beliefs, cooperation skills, self-efficacy
beliefs, and motivations of teachers are supported and reinforced (Demir, 2008; Lee
et al., 2011; Lim & Eo, 2014; Liu, 2021). School leaders emphasize cooperation among
teachers to improve school outputs.
Collective teacher efficacy, which has positive impacts on school output, is related to
the perception of teachers; when they believe that they will have more influence on
student success when they work together, they give more importance to cooperation
(Kocak & Özdemir, 2020). One of the most efficient ways of building strong collective
efficacy beliefs is to share experiences with a group of teachers (Liu, 2021). Although
teachers have some control over collective efficacy development, school leaders – gen­
erally- play the key role in establishing and supporting efficient cooperation (Miller et al.,
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 3

2010) and shaping the collective efficacy of teachers. Moreover, school leaders support
teachers’ self-efficiency perceptions while improving and reinforcing their collective
efficacy perceptions (Kurt, 2009).

School leadership
School leadership includes the emotional, mental, physical, and social development of
students, the professional development of teachers, and all of the activities that support
school activities and educational processes (Bozkurt et al., 2021). The efficiency of
schools, at the center of educational institutions, is closely related to the efficiency of
school managers who, are responsible for most school activities (Akan, 2013). One of the
duties of school managers is to establish a sustainable and well-built school education
program to increase and support teacher motivation and the academic success of
students (Bozkurt et al., 2021). Teachers might need administrative assistance to parti­
cipate in meaningful cooperation and overcome educational obstacles such as time,
structure, and social approval (Darling-Hammond & Richardson, 2009). School leaders
considerably lead significant inspiration and enthusiasm in the teaching/learning cycle to
develop, nurture, and retain influential leadership acts (El Bakkali, 2020). School man­
agers, likewise, are expected to guide teachers and students, support and inspire them
(Karadağ, 2020). The cooperation between the school leader and the teacher and the
cooperation between the teacher and the teacher affect teacher efficacy positively (Miller
et al., 2010).
The relationship between school leadership and student success is presented in the
literature (Karadağ, 2020; Miller et al., 2010). Leithwood et al. (2004) argue that school
leadership is the second most significant school-based factor that can improve student
performance, following the factor of educational methods. The efficient leadership
features of school managers significantly affect school functioning and student success
(Akan, 2013). In this respect, one of the most efficient elements of a successful school and
learning process is the leadership behaviors of school managers (Karadağ, 2020). Every
individual is shaped by the community and culture he/she is living in; school leaders are
similarly affected by the culture of the society in which they live (Dickson et al., 2003;
Leong & Fischer, 2011).

Teacher cooperation
The efficiency and success of educational activities are closely related to teachers’
performance. Teachers, as members of highly important elements of societies, have to
follow professional developments and cooperate successfully. Cooperation is defined as
the creation of a school environment in which teachers support one another (Demir,
2008). Cooperation among teachers, who are perceived as a sub-cluster of a professional
society, positively affects student success (Goddard et al., 2007; Supovitz et al., 2010). This
is why, teachers must work together as a team (Wang et al., 2017) and create
a cooperative society to increase student success throughout education (Goddard et al.,
2007; Keast & Mandell, 2009; Louis et al., 2009; Supovitz et al., 2010).
Cooperation supports teachers in the process of focusing on educational activities;
when teachers work individually and do not have coherent collaboration; their
4 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

professional improvement becomes slower (Pounder, 1999). On the other hand,

Darling-Hammond and Richardson (2009) emphasize the importance of teacher col­
laboration in improving the quality of education. Sharing knowledge quickly and
efficiently and evaluating new opportunities in the education process is closely related
to teacher collaboration (Miller et al., 2010). Creating a collaboration culture in schools
is important for developing teachers’ collaborative skills and reinforcing their collective
efficacy belief.

Collective teacher efficacy

Teachers collaborate in different ways to reach educational purposes. Initiatives such as
professional development communities and teamwork present unique opportunities to
teachers in terms of finding a solution to common problems (Goddard et al., 2015).
Collective teacher efficacy is the teacher’s belief about the idea that he/she will ensure
a more efficient education process when they are together (Demir, 2008). It can be said
that there is a collective teacher efficacy when teachers believe that they can improve
student learning when they work cooperatively (Goddard et al., 2000). Social systems like
schools require target-oriented activities and acting together; this is why, teachers should
combine their competencies and work together (Bandura, 1993, 2000). In other words,
collective teacher efficacy means that teachers have a collective belief; they think that they
create an educational difference when they act together (Schechter & Tschannen Moran,
2006). In this respect, it can be said that collective teacher efficacy is an extension of
teacher efficacy (Cameron, 2018). On the other hand, collective teacher efficacy is the
belief of teachers about the idea that they have a positive effect on student outputs when
they work as parts of a harmonious team (Kocak & Özdemir, 2020). According to the
studies in the literature, collective teacher efficacy is a predictor of student success
(Bandura, 1993; Goddard et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2011; Lim & Eo, 2014).
Teachers with more collective efficacy are likely to actively participate in professional
learning activities (Karacabey et al., 2020). Collective teacher efficacy is affected by
personal and environmental factors such as the emotional state of teachers, proficiency
level, professional seniority, administrative structure of school, and leadership behaviors
of school managers (Kocak & Özdemir, 2020). School managers have an important share
in increasing cooperation among teachers and shaping collective teacher efficacy. The
relationship between reinforcing collective teacher efficacy and leadership behaviors of
school managers is emphasized by various researchers (Cameron, 2018; Kurt, 2009)

Culture
Hofstede (2001) defines culture as the collective programming of the mind distinguishing
the members of one group or category of people from others. Although biological aspects
and general features of all human beings are similar, problems are solved in different
ways in different cultures (Hofstede, 2011). Based on this fact, Hofstede studied more
than 50 national cultures and developed Cultural Dimensions Theory. This theory
established a frame that works for understanding and explaining how cultural values
affect behaviors and why individuals in a specific culture act in specific ways. According
to this theory, there are six different dimensions of culture. These dimensions are:
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 5

Power distance index (PDI)

This dimension refers to the degree to which less powerful members of a society accept
and expect an unequal distribution of power. In other words, it is about the inequalities in
societies. It presents the level of acceptance of the inequality in the distribution of power
in societies. This difference is measured by the power distance. An increase in power
distance means that subordinates don’t compete with superiors; moreover, they con­
stantly expect guidance from them (Saylık, 2019; Saygan Tunçay and Süral Özer, 2020;
Tonbul and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

Individualism versus collectivism (IDV)

This dimension focuses on the perception of individuals about themselves and their
relationships with others. People in individualist societies are independent and they
separate themselves from the other members of the society. On the other hand, collecti­
vism represents a preference for a tightly-knit framework in society in which individuals
can expect the members of their society to look after them. The benefits of the members
of a society are more important than personal benefits. Bonds in collectivist communities
are strong (Öncül et al., 2016; Saylık, 2019; Saygan Tunçay and Süral Özer, 2020; Tonbul
and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

Uncertainty avoidance index (UAI)

This dimension expresses the degree to which the members of a society feel uncomfor­
table with uncertainty and how they cope with such situations. Societies that have high
uncertainty avoidance index tend to avoid risky and ambiguous situations. Such situa­
tions cause high stress and nervousness. They avoid risk as much as possible and protect
themselves. On the other hand, societies with a low uncertainty avoidance index tend to
be more tolerant to situations that they cannot control. Uncertainties are accepted as part
of daily life and they generally are flexible and comfortable in such cases (Saylık, 2019;
Saygan Tunçay and Süral Özer, 2020; Tonbul and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

Masculinity versus femininity (MAS)

Value attributed to humans and interaction between them is emphasized in this dimen­
sion. The masculine side of this dimension represents a preference in society for
achievement, heroism, assertiveness, and material rewards for success. Individuals gen­
erally focus on materialistic success. On the other hand, in feminine societies, interde­
pendency and equality are prominent elements. Establishing good relationships and
reaching a high quality of life in all parts of the society is targeted (Saygan Tunçay and
Süral Özer, 2020; Tonbul and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

Long term orientation versus short term normative orientation (LTO)

Societies must maintain some links with their past while dealing with the challenges of the
present and the future. Different societies prioritize these two goals in different manners.
Societies that have long-term orientation encourage thrift and prudence. Gains result from
stability and careful work. People respect the old and relationships with them are highly
valuable. Societies with long-term orientation tend to adapt their customs to modern life.
Societies with short-term orientation respect their traditions. They encourage spending
money and obtaining rapid income. Positions of individuals in society are not important,
6 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

and relationships are valuable only when there is an earning (Öncül et al., 2016; Saylık,
2019; Saygan Tunçay and Süral Özer, 2020; Tonbul and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

Indulgence versus restraint (IVR)

Indulgence stands for a society that allows relatively free gratification of basic and natural
human drives related to enjoying life and having fun. Restraint stands for a society that
suppresses gratification of needs and regulates it using strict social norms. Happiness-
based life is the priority in one part of this dimension while a culture limiting the desires
of humans is adopted in the other dimension. Basic, humane necessities of individuals
and their desires such as taking pleasure in life and happiness are approved in societies
that prioritize freedom. Societies that have high limitations suppress personal necessities
under social norms. Such societies give importance to moral discipline and individuals
tend to be more pessimistic (Öncül et al., 2016; Tonbul and Ölmez Ceylan, 2021).

In this study
Hofstede’s (2011) theory about cultural dimensions tries to classify countries according
to their cultural values. These cultural dimensions are suitable for the general analysis of
a country from a cultural point of view. Also, these cultural dimensions allow the cultural
analysis of school management and teacher behaviors. Cultural dimensions expressed as
Power Distance, Individualism versus Collectivism, Uncertainty Avoidance, Masculinity
versus Femininity, Long Term Orientation versus Short Term Normative Orientation, and
Indulgence versus Restraint can be considered as important factors behind both school
leader and teacher behaviors.
When all these dimensions are taken into consideration, it can be said that schools
aren’t merely places of education; they are the producers and transmitters of social
culture (Karadağ, 2020). In this respect, the behaviors of educational leaders are affected
by the culture of the society they are born into. These cultural aspects and differences are
easily detectable in the behaviors of individuals of a different culture (Karadağ, 2020).
There is an increasing trend toward research examining the relationship between leader­
ship and employee organizational behavior in a cultural context (Crede et al., 2019;
D’Innocenzo et al., 2016; Jackson et al., 2013; Li et al., 2021; Nicolaides et al., 2014; Wang
et al., 2014). It can be said that researches examining the relationship between school
leadership and collective teacher efficacy in a cultural context are not sufficient. The
relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy needs to be exam­
ined in a cultural context. The results of the examination are important for school
administrators to develop policies and strategies regarding school management accord­
ing to the cultural context they are in.

Research purpose
The focus of this study is to address the relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher’s efficacy in the context of Hofstede’s’s (2011) cultural dimensions. In
this direction, the purpose of this study is to comparatively analyze the relationship
between school leadership and collective teachers’ efficacy; the comparison is based on
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 7

cultural differences. Answers to the below-mentioned questions are sought for this
purpose:

(1) Is there a relationship between school leadership and collective teachers’ efficacy?
(2) Does the relationship between school leadership and collective teachers’ efficacy
vary according to moderator variables (cultural dimension, type of the leadership,
education level, year of publication, and research analysis unit)?

Method
This study, it is aimed to analyze the relationship between school leadership and
collective teachers efficacy in a cultural context. In line with this purpose, quantitative
researches in different cultures – in different countries-, focusing on school leadership
and collective teacher efficacy, are analyzed for this purpose. The meta-analysis method is
used for analyzing these researches. Meta-analysis is a research method focusing on
statistically combining the results of quantitative researches focusing on the same topic
(Borenstein et al., 2011; Card, 2015).

Data collection
Data of this study is collected from the electronic database. In this context, Web of
Science, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Education Source, and Scopus database are
used for the data in the shape of articles, while the Proquest database is used for the data
in the shape of a doctorate thesis. The statement ‘find it in the title’ is written while
searching in the database. The keywords ‘leadership or leader and collective teacher
efficacy or collective efficacy or collaboration or cooperation or teacher team’ are used.
Searches are completed on 11.8.2021. On the other hand, the searches and encodings are
carried out by the first researcher of the study.
Title and abstract sections of researches are analyzed according to the inclusion
criteria.

Inclusion criteria
(1) Researches should be published between the years 2006 and 2021 in English as full
text. Texts whose abstract is English while the rest is in a different language are
excluded.
(2) Research should be carried out at the levels of preschool, primary and secondary
education. Research at the level of higher education is excluded.
(3) Research should focus on the relationship between school leadership and collec­
tive teachers’ efficacy.
(4) Research should include statistical data to calculate the influence quantity.
Research that does not include a sufficient statistical index is excluded.
(5) Research should be based on the survey model. Researches that are intervened are
excluded. Researches with qualitative design are excluded.
(6) Researches participants should either be a teacher or school managers. The
analysis unit of the research can be at the level of participant or school.
8 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

Titles of the researches are read and the ones with the potential to be included are
carefully selected. The data flowchart of the research’s dataset is presented in Figure 1.
A total of 176 articles and 52 doctoral dissertations produced by databases according
to keywords were examined. It has been observed that 75 reports (articles and doctoral
dissertations) produced by the databases have the potential to meet the inclusion criteria
of this study. These 75 reports were examined in detail. In this review, reports that could
not be accessed in full text, did not contain appropriate statistical data, and were
conducted in a language other than English were excluded. Thus, 47 studies that met
the inclusion criteria of this study were selected.
Coding: Coding forms are created by the researchers to determine the general features
of the research. This coding form is made of three sections. The first section includes the
identification of the report. The second section is made of the dimensions of report year
released, report type, report analysis unit, education level of the research, leadership type,
and cultural dimensions of countries. Finally, the third section involves the statistical data
necessary to determine the impact size. The coding of the basic researches, in other
words, the reports, was done as follows. How the coding was done is briefly described
below.
Report type: The report type is coded as article and doctoral dissertations
Report year: The year in which the report is published is taken as a reference.

Web of Science, ERIC and orther Proquest ( n=52)

Identification

(n=176)

A data pool formed after repeated research

was removed (n=75)
Screening

After reviewing the summary Full text is not accessible or is

parts (n =73) paid (n=2)

Research that has the Excluded research

potential to meet the criteria Does not contain appropriate
Eligibility

(n =71) statistical data (n=11);

Qualitative research design (n=8)
A different language other than English
(n=5)
included (n =47)
Included

Figure 1. Data flowchart.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 9

Table 1. Some examples of countries according to cultural dimension indexes.

Country PDI IDV MAS UAI LTO IVR
Turkey 66 37 44 85 46 49
Chinese 80 20 66 30 87 24
ABD 40 91 62 46 26 68

Report’s analysis unit: If the analysis unit in the reports is the teacher or both teacher
and administrator, it is coded as the research at the personnel level. If the analysis unit is
school, it is coded as the research at the cluster level.
Education level: It refers to the level of education (for example, primary or second­
ary education) in which the research is conducted. Education levels determined by the
International Standard Classification of Education (UNESCO, 2011) are taken as
reference. If the research was carried out together at more than one education level,
for example, both basic education and secondary education, then it was coded as mixed
level.
School leadership type: Each leadership type is coded according to the leadership model
focused by the research. If research focuses on the transformational, instructional, distrib­
uted model, it is coded the same. Besides, leadership models that are not frequently repeated
(e.g. servant leadership, spiritual leadership, etc.) are coded as the other leadership type.
Cultural dimension of countries: Countries are coded according to the cultural
dimensions by taking Hofstede et al. (2010) index scores as reference. Each country is
coded according to six different cultural dimensions: Power Distance Index (PDI),
Individualism versus Collectivism (IDV), Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI),
Masculinity versus Femininity (MAS), Long Term Orientation versus Short Term
Normative Orientation (LTO), and Indulgence versus Restraint (IVR). Every culture
dimension is determined with one index. Some country examples according to cultural
dimension indexes are given in Table 1.
No coding is made if research is carried out in international schools (n = 2). Number of
studies according to the countries coded in this study, US (n = 21), Turkey (n = 11), Chine (n
= 4), Canada (n = 2), Malaysia (n = 2), India (n = 2), Germany (n = 1), Israeli (n = 1), Serbia
(n = 1), Oman (n = 1). Thus, this study covers 10 different countries. On the other hand, no
coding is made about the countries that aren’t included in the studies of Hofstede et al. (2010).

Data analysis
The analysis unit of this study is at the level of research. In other words, every research is
represented with one impact size. If the research involves more than one sampling, the
average impact size of the research is calculated. Similarly, the average impact size of
research is calculated if it is based on more than one leadership type with the participa­
tion of the same participants. In line with this information, the dataset of this research is
represented by 47 impact sizes produced from 47 kinds of research.
Pearson correlation coefficients (r), produced by the research during the calculation of
impact size are converted to Fisher’s z (Fz) values (r = Fz = ES). It is mentioned that using
a random model is more proper if researches included in the meta-analysis are different
from one another or they are obtained from different sampling groups (Field & Gillett,
2010). In this study, the independent studies included in the meta-analysis are obtained
10 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

from different sampling groups; this is why the random-effects model is used in the
analysis of mean impact size and heterogenic analysis. The range suggested by Funder
and Ozer (2019) is taken as a reference while evaluating the mean impact size.
Heterogeneity in meta-analysis studies results from sampling error and differences
between researches (Borenstein et al., 2011). Q statistics are used to determine the total
heterogenic value of research included in the dataset of the study. I2 value is calculated to
determine the heterogeneity level. Heterogeneity level is evaluated according to the I2 value
suggestions presented by Higgins et al. (2003). Year released, report type, analysis unit,
education level, educational leadership type, and cultural dimensions are determined to be
moderator variables. Q inter-groups test is used to determine if impact size statistically varied
according to categorical moderators. On the other hand, the meta-regression technique is
used for constant moderator variables. In this study, the cultural dimensions of countries are
represented by the index scores determined by Hofstede et al. (2010). As there was no
regression score of three studies included in the dataset, and there was no Indulgence
Versus Restraint (IVR) of a country (Israel), they aren’t included in the meta-regression
analysis. Impact size of each research and related statistical tests are carried out with CMA.2
package program.

The validity and reliability of the study

The validity and reliability of the calculated mean impact size are closely related to the
subjectivity of publishing (Bakioğlu & Göktaş, 2018). There are many publishing sub­
jectivity calculation tests. There are weak and strong sides of different subjectivity tests
(Borenstein et al., 2011). Validity and reliability analysis results of all the studies included
in the research are analyzed to ensure the reliability and validity of the meta-analysis
study. The funnel chart method is used to determine if the distribution of the dataset in

Funnel Plot of Standard Error by Fisher's Z

0,0

0,1
Standard Error

0,2

0,3

0,4

-2,0 -1,5 -1,0 -0,5 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0

Fisher's Z

Figure 2. Publication bias about the data set.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 11

Table 2. Duval tweedie trim and fill method test analysis of the dataset results.
Dataset Studies trimmed ES and 95% CI Q(t)
LL UP
Observed .48 .42 .53 1059.58
Adjucted 0 .48 .42 .53 1059.58

this study is symmetrical or not. On the other hand, Duval Tweedie trim and fill method
test is used. Findings of the tests on publishing subjectivity are reported. Publishing
subjectivity graphic about the distribution of impact size is presented in Figure 2.
When Figure 2 is analyzed, it is observed that the distribution of impact size according
to standard error is approximately symmetrical. On the other hand, Duval Tweedie trim
and fill method is used for analyzing publication bias. Findings of the method are
presented in Table 2.
According to Duval and Tweedie trim and fill method, there isn’t a publication bias in the
dataset.

Findings
In this section, firstly descriptive statistics and mean impact size are calculated and the
moderator analysis of the categorical variables is presented. Secondly, meta-regression
analyses are reported according to the continuous culture variables.

Descriptive statistics and mean impact size

The lowest sampling number is 33 in the researches whose analysis unit is a participant
(teacher) while the highest sampling number is 3976. The lowest sampling number is 22
in the researchers whose analysis unit is school while the highest sampling number is 238.
The dataset of this study has 47 impact sizes. The lowest impact size value is ES = .17
while the highest impact size is ES = .93.
The mean impact size between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy is ES
= .48 (LL = .42 UL = .53). In other words, the relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy is medium-level. It is calculated that the total heterogeneity size
of the dataset is Q(t) = 1059,58. On the other hand, it is observed that the heterogeneity of
the dataset is high (I2 = 95, 66).

Moderator analysis of the dataset

Moderator analyses of the mean impact size according to categorical variables are
presented in Table 3.
When Table 3 is analyzed, it is determined that the mean impact size doesn’t statistically
vary according to categorical variables (leadership type, education level, analysis unit, year
of publication, and report type). On the other hand, some other significant issues are
presented below. The relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy
is higher at the secondary school level when compared to the other groups (ES = .60 LL
= .45 UL = .75). On the other hand, the impact size obtained from the publishing is (ES
12 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

Table 3. Moderator analysis of the dataset.

Group k ES LL UL Q(b) df P
Leadership
Transformational 21 .50 .42 .58
Instructional 13 .47 .37 .57
Distributed 5 .41 .25 .56
Other 8 .47 .33 .61 1.11 3 .77
Level
Elementary 19 .47 .37 .56
High 9 .60 .45 .75
Mixed 19 .43 .33 .53 3.61 2 .16
Analysis Unit
School 9 .40 .26 .54
Personnel 38 .49 .43 .55 1.30 1 .25
Year
2006–2013 12 .42 .31 .54
2014–2021 35 .49 .43 .56 1.07 1 .30
Report Type
Dissertations 17 .40 .30 .50
Article 30 .51 .44 .59 3.31 1 .07
Q(b) = Q (Between).

= .51 LL = .44 UL = .59) higher than the size obtained from the doctorate theses (ES = .40
LL = .30 UL = .50). Meta-regression analysis results of the dataset are presented in Table 4.
Findings obtained from these analyses are presented below.
It is observed that power distance tendencies of the counties predict the positive
relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. There is
a positive relationship between power distance tendency and impact size (β = .0037, p
= .01). Impact size value increases in line with the increase in the countries’ power
distance tendencies. If a country’s power distance is high, the relationship between school
leadership and collective teacher efficacy is higher than that of the other countries.
It is observed that the individualism tendencies of countries predict the relationship
between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. The individualism tendency of
countries is avoidant (β = –.0029, p < .01). Impact size value decreases in line with the increase

Table 4. Meta-Regression analysis of constant variables of the dataset.

Variable (k) Β S.E LL UL Z P
PDI (44)
Slope .0037 .0015 .0008 .0066 2.4895 .01
Intercept .2649 .0872 .0937 .4359 3.0344 <.01
IDV (44)
Slope −.0029 .0001 −.0048 −.001 −3.03 <.01
Intercept .6462 .0653 .5181 .7743 9.8893 <.01
MAS (44)
Slope −.0045 .0035 −.0115 .0025 −1.2548 .21
Intercept .7193 .2021 .3232 1,1155 3.5588 <.01
UAI (44)
Slope .0009 .0015 −.0022 .0039 .5479 .58
Intercept .4207 .0931 .2383 .6032 4.5194 <.01
LTO (44)
Slope .0042 .0015 .0011 .0072 2.705 .01
Intercept .2945 .0707 .1563 .4336 4.1704 <.01
IVR (43)
Slope −.0041 .0003 −.0048 −.0035 −12.1799 <.01
Intercept .0643 .0182 .5686 .6401 33.1366 <.01
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 13

in individualism tendency. The relationship between school leadership and collective teacher
efficacy is lower in more individualist countries when compared to socialist countries.
It is determined that the long term orientation of countries predicts school leadership
and collective teacher efficacy. The relationship between country long term orientation
and impact size is positive (β = .0042, p = .01). Impact size value increases in line with the
increase in long term orientation. The relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy is higher in societies that tend to long-term activities when
compared to the societies that tend to short-term activities.
It is determined that the freedom tendency of countries predicts the relationship
between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. The relationship between
country freedom tendency and impact size is negative (β = –.0041, p < .01). Impact size
value decreases when freedom tendency increases. The relationship between school
leadership and collective teacher efficacy in more tolerant societies is lower when
compared to restrictive societies.
It is determined that uncertainty avoidance and masculinity tendencies of countries
do not predict the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy.
In other words, it is observed that there is no relationship between the impact size of
uncertainty avoidance and masculinity tendencies of countries.

Results and discussion

In this study, the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy is
analyzed in the context of culture. In line with this purpose, independent researches that
are obtained from a different database are analyzed. The meta-analysis method is used in
analyzing the data. Researches from different countries are analyzed with a meta-
regression technique according to the cultural dimensions approach of Hofstede et al.
(2010).
At the end of the study, it is found that there is a medium-level relationship between
school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. In their meta-analysis study including
different institutions, D’Innocenzo et al. (2016), Nicolaides et al. (2014) and Wang et al.
(2014) determined that there is a medium level relationship between shared leadership
and team effectiveness. The researches included in this study are only the ones obtained
from educational institutions. When the educational institutions and other institutions
are compared, it is interesting that there is a similar level relationship. In short, the results
of this study are in line with the results of meta-analyses focusing on the relationship
between collective teacher efficacy and leadership. In this direction, it is seen that there is
a relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy.
In this study, it is concluded that the power distance and long term orientation of
countries positively predict the relationship between school leadership and collective
teacher efficacy. Li et al. (2021) and Jackson et al. (2013) determined that the power distance
and long term orientation of countries positively predict the relationship between leader­
ship, employee engagement, and commitment. The results of these researches and the
results obtained in this research are similar. However, Crede et al. (2019) observed that
country power distance tendency doesn’t predict the relationship between leadership and
employee performance. The results of this research contradict this research’s results. This
study focuses on the activities of teachers as a group. This contradiction may have resulted
14 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

from the fact that the concept of employee performance involves individual performance
besides group performance. Power distance regulates the relationship between school
leadership and teacher collective efficacy as a cultural dimension. In countries with
a higher power distance, the relationship between school leadership and teacher collective
efficacy is stronger. On the other hand, the long term orientation tendency as a cultural
dimension also regulates the relationship between school leadership and teacher collective
efficacy. If the long term orientation tendency in countries is strong, the relationship
between school leadership and teacher collective efficacy is stronger.
In this study, it is concluded that the individualism tendency of countries negatively
predicts the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. On the
other hand, Crede et al. (2019) and Jackson et al. (2013) determined that the individu­
alism tendency of countries positively predicts the relationship between school leadership
and collective teacher efficacy. Li et al. (2021) found that the individualism tendencies of
countries don’t predict the relationship between leadership and employee engagement.
The results of that study contradicted this study. The source of this contradiction might
be the fact that this study merely includes educational institution employees. In this
study, it is determined that the independence tendencies of countries negatively predict
the relationship between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. Results of the
study carried out by Li et al. (2021) and Jackson et al. (2013) are in line with the results of
this study. Individualism as a cultural dimension regulates the relationship between
school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. In cultures with a higher tendency
toward individualism, the relationship between school leadership and teacher collective
efficacy weakens. On the other hand, the relationship between school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy is stronger in cultures where the tendency to collectivity is high.
In this study, it is determined that the uncertainty avoidance and masculinity tenden­
cies of countries do not predict the relationship between school leadership and collective
teacher efficacy. However, Li et al. (2021) and Crede et al. (2019) found that masculinity
tendencies of countries negatively predict the relationship between leadership, employee
engagement, and employee performance. These studies contradict this study. The source
of this contradiction might be the fact that these researches involve organizations like
industry and business besides public institutions, which is different from the content of
this study. On the other hand, Crede et al. (2019) and Watts et al. (2020) determined that
the uncertainty avoidance index of countries positively predicts the relationship between
leadership, innovation, and employee performance. Li et al. (2021) found that the
uncertainty avoidance index negatively predicts the relationship between leadership
and employee engagement. This might result from the fact that the organizational
behavior types that are associated with leadership are different. On the other hand, it is
remarkable that the tendency to avoid uncertainty predicts the relationship between
school leadership and collective teacher efficacy. It can be said that there is a need for
research examining the relationship between uncertainty avoidance tendency and school
leadership and collective teacher efficacy.
When all these results are carefully analyzed, it can be said that the culture of the society
that teachers and school managers are born into, power distance, individualism, long term
orientation, and freedom levels are factors that predict the relationship between collective
efficacy of teachers and school leadership. On the other hand, according to the study,
uncertainty avoidance index, femininity-masculinity levels don’t predict this relationship.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 15

Suggestions for practice

There is a medium-level relationship between school leadership and collective teacher
efficacy. So school managers should behave in a way that they approve and support the
collective efficacy belief of teachers. On the other hand, they should be role models on
cooperation; they should be able to analyze and behave according to the social norms and
culture of the society that they are in. They should behave strategically according to these
analysis results. The relationship between school leadership and collective teacher effi­
cacy can affect teachers’ commitment, participation, and performance depending on the
structure of the culture they are in. In this respect, school leaders should pay attention to
this influence of culture. School managers working in countries that have high power
distance, collectivity, long-term investment, and limitation tendency should benefit from
these opportunities to carry out and complete the school mission. School managers in
countries that have low power distance, collectivity, long-term investment, and limitation
tendency should develop different strategies. For instance, if there is a loose hierarchical
order in a school, a better, tighter hierarchical structure should be established. Similarly,
in-school reward mechanisms can be developed in cultures with low long-term invest­
ment tendencies. School managers should develop have strategies that ensure teacher
participation in administrative and educational decisions. In cultures with low collectiv­
ity levels, school managers should inspire teachers and have the ability to affect them to
establish and sustain a powerful school image.

Limitations and suggestions for future research

This study makes an important contribution to research on school leadership and
collective teacher efficacy by reviewing the large number of studies indexed in the Web
of Science, ERIC, Academic Search Complete, Education Source, and Scopus databases.
And also, the results of this study provide important information about the relationship
between leadership and teacher efficacy in different cultures. However, the study also has
some limitations, as all meta-analysis studies do. This study is limited to English studies
published between the years 2006 and 2021. Chinese, Spanish, Russian, Arabic languages
that are commonly used around the world can be included in future studies. On the other
hand, a meta-analysis group can be used and many different languages can be used in
research. A meta-synthesis study of qualitative research focusing on the relationship
between school leadership and collective teacher efficacy can be carried out. It will thus be
possible to deeply analyze the relationship between school leadership and collective
teacher efficacy. On the other hand, the cultural evaluation of this study is limited to
Hofstede et al. (2010). Similar studies in the future can be carried out based on the
cultural evaluation indexes of Global Leadership & Organizational Behavior Effectiveness
(GLOBE, 2021). Besides, this study is limited to some specific electronic resource
research bases. Google academic database is used in this study. More comprehensive
studies can be carried out in the future by using Google academic database.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
16 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

ORCID
Metin Kaya http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8287-4929
Mustafa Demir http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0159-8986

References
Akan, D. (2013). The relationship between school principals leadership styles and collective
teacher efficacy. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(10), 596–601.
Bakioğlu, A., & Göktaş, E. (2018). Bir eğitim politikası belirleme yöntemi: Meta Analiz. Medeniyet
Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 35–54.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational
Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P., & Rothstein, H. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-
analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
Bozkurt, S., Çoban, Ö., Özdemir, M., & Özdemir, N. (2021). How leadership, school culture,
collective efficacy, academic self-efficacy, and socioeconomic status affect student achievement.
Egitim ve Bilim, 46(207). https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2021.9338
Cameron, M. R. (2018). A Study of the relationship between transformational leadership practices
and collective teacher efficacy [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Akron.
Card, N. A. (2015). Applied meta-analysis for social science research. Guilford Publications.
Çoban, Ö., & Atasoy, R. (2020). Relationship between distributed leadership, teacher collaboration
and organizational innovativeness. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in
Education, 9(4), 903–911.
Crede, M., Jong, J., & Harms, P. (2019). The generalizability of transformational leadership across
cultures: A meta-analysis. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 34(3), 139–155.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational
Leadership, 66(5), 46–53.
Demir, K. (2008). Transformational leadership and collective efficacy: The moderating roles of
collaborative culture and teachers’ self-efficacy. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research
(EJER), 33(1), 92–112.
Dickson, M. W., Den Hartog, D. N., & Mitchelson, J. K. (2003). Research on leadership in a
cross-cultural context: Making progress, and raising new questions. The Leadership Quarterly,
14(6), 729–768.
D’Innocenzo, L., Mathieu, J. E., & Kukenberger, M. R. (2016). A meta-analysis of different forms of
shared leadership–team performance relations. Journal of Management, 42(7), 1964–1991.
El Bakkali, A. (2020). The power of distributed leadership styles in education practices: The new
challenges and perspectives of the Moroccan school. International Journal of Advance Study and
Research Work, 3(2), 9–18.
Field, A. P., & Gillett, R. (2010). How to do a meta-analysis. The British Journal of Mathematical
and Statistical Psychology, 63(3), 665–694.
Funder, D. C., & Ozer, D. J. (2019). Evaluating effect size in psychological research: Sense and
nonsense. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 2(2), 156–168. https://doi.
org/10.1177/2515245919847202
GLOBE. (2021). GLOBE culture dimensions, definitions, and scale ıtems. Retrieved from https://
www.globeproject.com.
Goddard, R. D., Bailes, L. P., & Kim, M. (2020). Principal efficacy beliefs for instructional leader­
ship and their relation to teachers’ sense of collective efficacy and student achievement.
Leadership and Policy in Schools, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1696369
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION 17

Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Sook Kim, E., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis
of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy beliefs in
support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501–530.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
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.
Higgins, J. P. T., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in
meta-analyses. BMJ, 327(7414), 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and orga­
nizations across nations. Sage.
Hofstede, G. (2011). Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings
in Psychology and Culture, Unit 2. Retrieved from http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/
iss1/8
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the
mind. Mcgraw-Hill Companies.
Jackson, T. A., Meyer, J. P., & Wang, X. H. (2013). Leadership, commitment, and culture: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 20(1), 84–106.
Karacabey, M. F., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Adams, D. (2020). Principal leadership and teacher profes­
sional learning in Turkish schools: Examining the mediating effects of collective teacher
efficacy and teacher trust. Educational Studies, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2020.
1749835
Karadağ, E. (2020). The effect of educational leadership on students’ achievement: A cross-cultural
meta-analysis research on studies between 2008 and 2018. Asia Pacific Education Review, 21(1),
49–64.
Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2009). Learning, language and leadership: Conduits to dynamic public
service networks. Presentation at the 13th International Research Society for Public Management
Conference, Fredericksberg, Denmark.
Kocak, S., & Özdemir, M. (2020). Evaluation of collective teacher efficacy from the perspective of
four-frame leadership model. Egitim ve Bilim, 45(203), 347–365.
Kotter, P.J. (2007). Leadership of matsushita (Tevfik Ertan, Trans.). Sistem Publications.
Kurt, T. (2009). Examination of relationships between transformational and transactional leader­
ship styles of school principals and collective efficacy and self-efficacy of teachers. [Unpublished
Doctoral Thesis],
Kurt, T., Duyar, I., & Calik, T. (2012). Are we legitimate yet? A closer look at the casual relation­
ship mechanisms among principal leadership, teacher self-efficacy and collective efficacy.
Journal of Management Development, 31(1), 71–86.
Lee, J. C. K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional
learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment
to students. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(5), 820–830.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership
influences student learning. Wallace Foundation.
Leong, L. Y. C., & Fischer, R. (2011). Is transformational leadership universal? A meta-analytical
investigation of multifactor leadership questionnaire means across cultures. Journal of
Leadership & Organizational Studies, 18(2), 164–174.
Li, P., Sun, J. M., Taris, T. W., Xing, L., & Peeters, M. C. (2021). Country differences in the
relationship between leadership and employee engagement: A meta-analysis. The Leadership
Quarterly, 32(1), 101458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101458
Lim, S., & Eo, S. (2014). The mediating roles of collective teacher efficacy in the relations of
teachers’ perceptions of school organizational climate to their burnout. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 44, 138–147.
 18 M. KAYA AND M. DEMIR

Liu, P. (2019). Building collective teacher efficacy through distributed leadership in Chinese
primary schools. International Studies İ̇ in Educational Administration (Commonwealth
Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 47(3), 70–87.
Liu, P. (2021). Principals’ transformational school leadership and collective teacher efficacy in Chinese
urban upper secondary schools. International Studies in Educational Administration
(Commonwealth Council for Educational Administration & Management (CCEAM)), 49(2), 50–68.
Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2009). How does leadership affect student achievement?
Results from a national survey. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Diego.
Miller, R. J., Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R., Larsen, R., & Jacob, R. (2010). Instructional leadership:
A pathway to teacher collaboration and student achievement. Online Submission. Retrieved
from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528591.pdf.
Nicolaides, V. C., LaPort, K. A., Chen, T. R., Tomassetti, A. J., Weis, E. J., Zaccaro, S. J., &
Cortina, J. M. (2014). The shared leadership of teams: A meta-analysis of proximal, distal, and
moderating relationships. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(5), 923–942.
Ninković, S. R., & Knežević Florić, O. Č. (2018). Transformational school leadership and teacher
self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 46(1), 49–64.
Öncül, M. S., Deniz, M., & İnce, A. R. (2016). The evaluation of hofstede’s organizational culture
model within the context of potential entrepreneurs’ environmental characteristics in which
they grew. Journal of Academıc Approaches, 7(1), 255–269.
Pounder, D. G. (1999). Teacher teams: Exploring job characteristics and work-related outcomes of
work group enhancement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 317–348. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013161X99353002
Saygan Tunçay, S., & Süral Özer, P. (2020). Classifications analysing culture. Third Sector Social
Economic Review, 55(1), 20–39.
Saylık, A. (2019). The adaptation of the hofstede’s culture dimensions scale Into Turkish: A
reliability and validity analysis. Uluslararası Türkçe Edebiyat Kültür Eğitim Dergisi, 8(3),
1860–1881.
Schechter, C., & Tschannen Moran, M. (2006). Teachers’ sense of collective efficacy: An interna­
tional view. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(6), 480–489.
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
Thien, L. M., Lim, S. Y., & Adams, D. (2021). The evolving dynamics between instructional
leadership, collective teacher efficacy, and dimensions of teacher commitment: What can
Chinese independent high schools tell us? International Journal of Leadership in Education,
1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1913236
Tonbul, Y., & Ölmez Ceylan, Ö. (2021). The school culture in the context of the hofstede's culture
classification investigation on aphorisms. Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 26, 104–
125. https://doi.org/10.14689/enad.26.5
UNESCO. (2011). International standard classification of education. Retrieved from http://uis.
unesco.org/sites/default/files/documents/international-standard-classification-of-education-
isced-2011-en.pdf.
Wang, L. Y., Li, J. Y., Tan, L. S., & Lee, L. (2017). Contextualizing teacher efficacy in a
high-performing system: A research agenda. British Journal of Educational Studies, 65(3),
385–403.
Wang, D., Waldman, D. A., & Zhang, Z. (2014). A meta-analysis of shared leadership and team
effectiveness. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 181–198.
Watts, L. L., Steele, L. M., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2020). Uncertainty avoidance moderates the
relationship between transformational leadership and innovation: A meta-analysis. Journal of
International Business Studies, 51(1), 138–145.

View publication stats