Unpacking the effects of culture on school leadership and teacher learning in China

Abstract

Teacher professional learning plays a critical role in education reform by enabling teachers to refine their professional skills and keep up with changing content knowledge, pedagogy, and trends in schooling. This study examines how and under what conditions principal instructional leadership contributes to teachers’ professional learning in mainland China. Data collected from 1194 teachers in 64 primary and middle schools in mainland China were analyzed using structural equation modeling and bootstrapping tests. The research tested a moderated mediation model of instructional leadership effects on teacher professional learning in which teacher self-efficacy was included as the mediator and power distance orientation of teachers as the moderator. The results reaffirmed the partial mediation model, finding significant direct and indirect effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher professional learning. Further model testing found that the individual power distance orientation of teachers acted as a significant moderator of principal instructional leadership effects on both teacher self-efficacy and professional learning. When teachers perceived lower power distance in relations with their principals, the effects of principal instructional leadership were stronger than for counterparts who perceived high power distance. Implications for understanding the contextualized nature of school leadership during an era of cultural change are discussed.

Keywords

Instructional leadership teacher efficacy teacher professional learning power distance moderated mediation principal leadership

Introduction

During the 1980s and 1990s education reform was a largely “Western” phenomenon. However, over the past 20 years, societies on every continent have engaged in systematic efforts to improve the quality of education systems (Hallinger, 2010; Rotberg, 2010; Qian et al., 2017). This global trend in educational policy and practice has challenged scholars to develop better theories for understanding how school reform policies and practices (e.g. leadership, curriculum, teaching parent involvement) impact schooling in different societies (Dimmock and Walker, 2000, 2005; Kennedy, 2010; Law, 2012; Tan, 2018; Zheng, Yin, & Loeb, 2017).

This trend extends to the field of educational leadership, where scholars have accepted the challenge to advance our understanding of how cultural and institutional contexts shape leadership practices and outcomes (Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2017; Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger and Leithood 1998; Walker and Dimmock, 2012). Scholars have begun to generate a body of research that “contextualizes” school leadership practices (e.g. Guo and Lu, 2018; Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Ng et al., 2015; Pan et al., 2017; Qian et al., 2017). These studies have examined how perceptions of “effective school leadership” vary across cultures (Chen, 2008; Walker, 2010; Wong, 2003), and affirm the relevance of applying a cultural lens in empirical studies of school leadership (Truong, Hallinger, and Sanga, 2017; Walker, 2014; Walker and Qian, 2018).

The most common theoretical lens that has been applied in cultural studies of school leadership is “power distance” (e.g. Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Guo and Lu, 2018; Hallinger, 2004; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Dimmock, 2012). Power distance refers to culturally influenced beliefs held by individuals concerning the role of status, authority, and power in interpersonal relations (Hofstede, 2010). Research has shown that the power distance orientation of individuals shapes their reactions to leader behaviors (Chen et al., 2014; Kirkman et al., 2009; Yoon, 2012).

The influence of power distance has also been studied in school settings. For example, in “low power distance societies” (e.g. America, Australia, Israel, United Kingdom), teachers expect to operate with greater autonomy and to be able to exercise their voice freely and openly. There is a concomitant expectation for their principals to be “accessible” and involve them in decision-making (Daniels and Greguras, 2014). In contrast, in high power distance societies (e.g. China, Vietnam, South Africa, Brazil), teacher–principal relationships tend to be characterized by deference to status, rank and authority (Hallinger, 2004; Truong et al., 2017). Principals place a lower value on involving teachers in decision-making, and teachers tend to accept principals’ directives without raising questions or expressing open disagreement (Hallinger, 2004; Ng et al., 2015; Qian et al., 2016; Truong et al., 2017).

The current study examined the impact of power distance on principal–teacher interactions in China. More specifically, we developed and tested a theoretical model of how principal instructional leadership influences teacher professional learning in a traditionally hierarchical society. Three research questions guided this study:

What are the effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy and teacher professional learning?

Does the level of power distance in teacher–principal relationships influence the effect of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy?

Does the level of power distance in teacher–principal relationships moderate the effects of principal instructional leadership on the professional learning of teachers through teacher self-efficacy?

In this research, data were collected from 1194 teachers in 64 primary and middle schools in the city of Qingdao, China. Structural equation modeling was used to test the “conditional indirect effects” (moderated mediation) of instructional leadership effects on teacher professional learning where teacher self-efficacy was included as a mediator and power distance as a moderator.

The study makes three contributions to a burgeoning stream of research that examines how instructional leadership contributes to teachers’ positive work behaviors. First, we elaborate how teacher self-efficacy operates as an underlying psychological mechanism through which principal instructional leadership promotes teacher learning in the workplace. Second, the research extends research that has examined how power distance acts as a “boundary condition” that shapes the exercise of school leadership (Guo and Lu, 2018; Nguyen, Ng, & Yap, 2017; Qian et al., 2016; Truong et al., 2017). Third, by focusing on power distance at the “individual level of analysis,” we demonstrate how variation in the cultural orientation of teachers “within a society” can moderate the effectiveness of leadership behavior.

Conceptual framework

Figure 1 presents the conceptual framework that guided this study. The framework is centered on a widely studied mediation model of principal instructional leadership effects (see Hallinger and Heck, 1996). In our model, teacher self-efficacy is posited as a mediator of principal leadership and teacher professional learning as the distal dependent variable. Because we propose that leadership effects are both direct and indirect, this is termed a “partial mediation model” (Hallinger and Heck, 1996).

This partial mediation model receives support from prior empirical studies conducted in several different Asian societies (Hallinger, Hosseingholizadeh, Hashemi, and Kouhsari, 2018; Liu, Hallinger and Feng, 2016; Piyaman, Hallinger and Viseshsiri, 2017; Zheng, Yin, & Li, 2019; Zheng, Yin, and Liu, 2019). The current study extends these prior efforts by including “teacher power distance orientation” as a proposed moderator of the mediation model.

Instructional leadership

In this study “instructional leadership” refers to leadership practices of the principal that aim to enhance the capacity of teachers to teach effectively and for students to succeed (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Hallinger and Murphy (1985) proposed three dimensions in the instructional leadership role: Defines a School Mission, Manages the Instructional Program, and Promotes a Positive School Learning Climate. All three dimensions incorporate leadership practices that potentially influence the professional learning of teachers. Principals can inspire and motivate teachers to learn by developing a learning-focused mission for the school. As instructional leaders, principals are responsible for gaining the resources needed to support teacher learning and for organizing “time to learn.” Principals may provide coaching directly as well as organizing a system of coaching and mentoring in the school. Finally, instructional leaders model their own learning and convey the importance of learning for adults as well as students (Barth, 1990).

Teacher self-efficacy

Teacher self-efficacy refers to a teacher’s beliefs in his/her capability to complete teaching tasks successfully, develop professionally, and influence student engagement and learning (Ashton and Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1977; Hoy and Spero, 2005; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). The theoretical foundations for teacher efficacy lie in Bandura’s (1977, 2006) social cognitive theory. Findings from prior studies conducted in schools suggest that teacher self-efficacy is associated with a range of positive outcomes for both teachers and students: more specifically, teacher self-efficacy is positively associated with teacher commitment, job satisfaction, engagement in professional learning, work engagement, student motivation, and learning (Chan et al., 2008; Collie et al., 2012; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001; Yin et al., 2013).

Scholars have also found that the self-efficacy of individual teachers, as well as teachers as a group (i.e. collective teacher efficacy) is influenced by context factors in the school such as quality of leadership, autonomy, and school climate and culture (Calik et al., 2012; Collie et al., 2012; Nir and Kranot, 2006; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy, 2001). Teacher beliefs about their ability to have a positive impact on students, as well as their own capacity and opportunities to develop and grow in the job, are influenced by school norms and practices of their leaders (Goddard et al., 2015; Ross and Gray, 2006; Wahlstrom and Louis, 2008). Indeed, a growing body of research confirms that principal instructional leadership can have a positive impact on teacher self-efficacy and knock-on effects on commitment and teacher learning (Hallinger et al., 2018; Liu & Hallinger, 2018; Liu et al., 2016; Piyaman et al., 2017; Ross and Gray, 2006).

Teacher professional learning

We use the term “teacher professional learning” to refer to formal and informal learning in the workplace, as opposed to teacher pre-service preparation or external academic programs. Research on “professional learning” focuses on the “self-directed learning behavior” of teachers individually and in collaboration with colleagues. The continuing learning of teachers is increasingly recognized as a professional responsibility which contributes to teacher quality and sustainable school improvement (Barth, 1990; Dinham, 2007; Elmore and Burney, 1997; Lieberman and Pointer Mace, 2008; Parise and Spillane, 2010). In mainland China, the Professional Standards for Teachers in Chinese Primary and Secondary Schools (Ministry of Education, 2012a, b) state explicitly that teachers have a responsibility to pursue professional learning throughout their careers. Consistent with this institutional priority, Tan (2012) concluded that one of the “secrets” of Shanghai’s PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) success was a strong system-wide investment in teacher development.

In this study, “teacher professional learning” refers to the collegial exchange of work-related knowledge, skills, and experiences aimed at enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (Kwakman, 2003; Little, 2012; Louis, 2007). “Routine forums” for teacher learning include planning and assessment meetings, coaching/mentoring feedback sessions, teacher research groups, and curriculum development teams (Kwakman, 2003; Paine and Fang, 2006; Parise and Spillane, 2010; Qian and Walker, 2013; Vescio et al., 2008). This conceptualization reflects the widely adopted Chinese approach to teacher development which emphasizes learning in the workplace (Chen, 2017; OECD, 2014; Paine and Fang, 2006; Qian et al., 2016; Tan, 2012; Wang, 2016; Zheng, Yin, and Li, 2019). Understanding how to motivate, support, and sustain teacher learning has, therefore, emerged as a high-value target for research in both Western (e.g. Frost, 2006; Geijsel et al., 2009; Kwakman, 2003; Parise and Spillane, 2010; Thoonen et al., 2012; Vescio et al., 2008) and Chinese societies (Liu and Hallinger, 2018; Liu et al., 2016; Paine and Fang, 2006; Qian et al., 2016; Qian and Walker, 2013; Zheng, Yin, & Li, 2019).

Power distance orientation

While this mediation model has been affirmed across several different societies, no studies conducted to date have explored how socio-cultural norms affect this set of professional interactions (Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2017; Hallinger, 2018). Cultural value orientations, or “individually held cultural beliefs,” play an often overlooked role in understanding how cultural value orientation serves either as an enabler or barrier to the enactment of leadership practices (Guo and Lu, 2018; Kirkman et al., 2009).

Hofstede (2010) proposed five dimensions of culture that vary at the country level of analysis: power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity, and long-term orientation. This study focused on the cultural dimension of “power distance” due to its centrality in the leader–follower relationship. Although other cultural dimensions are also relevant (e.g. collectivism/individualism, uncertainty avoidance), we assert that power distance is most directly related to the relationships between principals and teachers (Guo and Lu, 2018; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Qian, 2018). For this reason, it has gained the most traction among Hofstede’s dimensions in prior cultural studies of school leadership (Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Ng et al., 2015; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Dimmock, 2002).

Nonetheless, scholars have not yet reached consensus about the nature of power distance effects. Some researchers have suggested that followers with high power distance orientation tend to treat their leaders with greater respect and compliance (Li et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2017; Truong et al., 2017; Wang and Guan, 2018). This argues for the effectiveness of more directive leadership styles in such contexts. Other scholars have suggested that followers who evidence a low power distance orientation would be more receptive to participative or transformational leadership styles due to their emphasis on trust, openness, and individual consideration (Kirkman et al., 2009).

China has been identified as a high power distance society with a score of 80 on Hofstede’s cultural dimensions index. By way of comparison, scores on Hofstede’s power distance index for the USA and Israel are 40 and 13 respectively. Consistent with this cultural orientation, in 1985 China launched the “principal responsibility system,” in which principals reserve the right to make the final decision on school-level matters (Wong, 2003; Zheng, Yin, & Liu, 2019). Teachers, therefore, tend to be reluctant to participate in decision-making, aspiring to be “good citizens” and avoid “unnecessary misunderstanding” (Walker et al., 2012; Zheng, Yin, & Li, 2019).

Perhaps influenced by global education trends, in 2013 the Ministry of Education issued a new set of Professional Standards for Compulsory Education School Principals. These standards encourage principals to pay more attention to the voices of teachers in school-level decision-making. Considering this context of changing power relationships in Chinese schools, ourstudy explores the interaction of power distance and instructional leadership.

In this study, power distance is analyzed at an individual level. Researchers increasingly argue that variations in cultural values such as power distance at the individual level in the same society can be larger than between societies (Dorfman and Howell, 1988). Thus, scholars have begun to analyze variables such as power distance at the individual level in order to understand within-society variation in patterns of social interaction (Chen et al., 2014; Clugston et al., 2000; Kirkman et al., 2009; Lian et al., 2012; Tsui, 2012; Yoon, 2012). This approach seems particularly germane in the case of schooling in China where the cultural tradition of high power distance institutionalized in the 1985 policies has been challenged in new policies that seek to foster teacher participation in decision-making (Guo and Lu, 2018).

Teachers who experience high power distance tend to view the organizational hierarchy as natural and accept top-down orders and instructions without overt dissent. While these teachers may not always agree with a decision or directive, they “dare not” speak up or question the principal. They accept that the authority comes with the principal’s role. Relationships with superiors are characterized by respect, fear, awe, compliance, and obedience. Therefore, these teachers will tend to maintain more distance in socio-professional relations with their principals (Hallinger, 2004; Truong et al., 2017; Walker and Dimmock, 2002).

In contrast, teachers who perceive low power distance tend to assume that their voice counts and, therefore, act with greater autonomy in their professional decision-making. These teachers may also experience higher degrees of “self-efficacy” since this reflects a belief in their ability to “make a difference” in professional settings. These teachers are more likely to communicate and collaborate with their principals when engaged in professional decision-making and learning. Thus, we propose that there is likely to be interaction between the cultural context, teachers’ sense of self-efficacy, and their engagement in self-directed professional learning.

Method

Participants and procedures

We collected data from teachers in 64 primary and middle schools in the city of Qingdao in northeast China. Participation in the research was voluntary and not rewarded. Teachers returned anonymous questionnaires to the researchers in sealed envelopes.

In total, 1600 questionnaires were distributed and 1194 returned, yielding a response rate of 74.6%. Consistent with the broader population of teachers in Qingdao, 30% of the respondents were male and 70% female (see Table 1). The mean length of teaching experience was 14.99 years (not tabled). A majority of the sample (82.9%) held a bachelor’s degree, 13.4% held a high school diploma, and 3.7% a graduate degree. Finally, 5% of the respondents held senior professional rank, 42.3% first-grade professional rank, and 52.7% second/third-grade professional rank or no rank.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the teacher sample and population.

	n	%
Teacher gender
Female	836	70.0
Male	358	30.0
Teacher age
<28	226	18.9
29–39	509	42.6
40–50	341	28.6
>51	118	9.9
Teacher education
High school diploma	160	13.4
Bachelor’s degree	990	82.9
Graduate degree	44	3.7
Professional rank
Senior	60	5.0
First grade	505	42.3
Second/third grade or no rank	629	52.7

Measures

All variables in this study were conceptualized as individual-level constructs. Each was assessed using a Likert scale: 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree, except instructional leadership which was assessed with a response scale of Almost Never to Alnost Always. All scale items were translated into Chinese and then back-translated to English by two bilingual (English–Chinese) speakers to obtain equivalent meaning (Brislin, 1980).

Independent variable: instructional leadership

The Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) instrument (Hallinger, 1982/1990/2015) was selected as the instrument for collecting data on principals’ instructional leadership. This study used the 22-item PIMRS Teacher Short Form (α=0.966), already validated in China (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). A sample item is “Develops a focused set of annual school-wide goals.”

Mediating variable: teacher self-efficacy

We adapted a 10-item scale developed by Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2001) to measure teacher self-efficacy. A pilot study conducted with Chinese principals and teachers identified two items that did not transfer well into the Chinese context. In response to the item, “How well can you establish a classroom management system with each group of students?”, teachers responded that they did not group students for the purposes of instruction. The item “How much can you do to control disruptive behavior in the classroom?” was perceived as too similar to another item in the scale. Therefore, these two items were deleted. After deletion of these items, the full-scale reliability was α=0.921.

Dependent variable: teacher professional learning

Teacher professional learning was conceptualized as learning that results from workplace activities through which teachers gain access to and act upon new ideas, skills, attitudes, and methods of teaching and learning. We employed 16 items drawn from scales developed by Kwakman (2003) and Schechter and Qadach (2012). A sample item was: “I work together with colleagues to share teaching experiences” (α=0.939).

Moderator variable: power distance orientation

Power distance orientation is defined as the extent to which individuals accept that supervisors have authority to direct their actions and power is distributed unequally in social relations (Dorfman and Howell, 1988; Hofstede, 2010). In this research, we used Kirkman et al.’s (2009) eight-item scale (α=0.872) to assess teacher perceptions of the power distance orientation in their schools. A sample item was: “In most situations, school leaders should make decisions without consulting teachers.” Positive scores on the power distance scale reflected “large power distance” in social relations.

Control variable: teacher age

Teacher age (1=<28, 2=29–39, 3=40–50, 4=>51) was included as a categorical control variable. In our previous studies in China, teacher age demonstrated a negative relationship with teacher professional learning with younger teachers evidencing greater activity in professional learning than more senior teachers.

Analytical strategy

All analyses were executed using Mplus 8.1 (Muthén and Muthén, 2017) with maximum likelihood estimations. Initially, descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations between the variables were calculated. Prior to testing the proposed model, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the proposed model to ensure construct distinctiveness.

We used bootstrapping to test the mediated effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy (Preacher and Hayes, 2008). The bootstrapping method estimates indirect effects within a set of variables using repeated random sampling based on the original data. By repeating the process 1000 times, the confidence intervals (CIs) around the estimated effects can be computed. The indirect effect is significant when the CI does not include zero. In the present study, we computed 95% CIs for the indirect effects of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy.

Next we used latent moderated structural equation modeling (LM-SES) to test for the conditional indirect effects of power distance on the mediation model (Cheung and Lau, 2017). LM-SES produces more accurate parameter estimates and CIs than multiple regression. It also allows modeling of second-order factors with multiple dimensions (Muthén and Muthén, 2017). LM-SES does not, however, provide traditional indices to assess overall model fit (Cheung and Lau, 2017). Therefore, before running the LM-SES analysis, we first confirmed that the “main effects only models” fit the data well. Indices used to determine model fit included: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA<= 0.06), Comparative Fit Index (CFI >= 0.9), and Standardized Root Mean Square Residuals (SRMR<= 0.08) recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999). We did not include chi-square (χ²) because it is sensitive to sample size (Joreskog and Sorbom, 1994). The criterion for the value of χ²/df is from less than two to five (Ullman, 2013).

In the next step, we evaluated a model with latent interaction between instructional leadership and power distance orientation, as well as from this latent interaction to teacher self-efficacy (Cheung and Lau, 2017; Hayes, 2015). According to Cheung and Lau (2017), bias-corrected bootstrap CIs should be created for each estimated parameter because both the interaction term and the mediating effects are not normally distributed. Through bootstrapping, the distribution of effects is approximated empirically and used for calculating CIs.

Finally, the conditional indirect effect of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy was estimated at low (−1 SD), medium (mean), and high (+1 SD) moderator levels in order to understand the nature of the moderated mediation effects. Moderated mediation indices and conditional indirect effects were evaluated using bias-corrected bootstrap CIs based on 1000 bootstrap samples (Cheung and Lau, 2017; Hayes, 2015).

Results

Preliminary analyses

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics, bivariate correlations, and Cronbach’s alphas for all the variables. The mean scores show a high level of instructional leadership (mean = 4.169), teacher self-efficacy (mean = 4.239), and teacher professional leadership (mean = 4.313). The results are quite similar to those of prior studies conducted in emerging regions (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Correlations among the variables were in the expected direction. Notably, there was a positive correlation between teacher age and power distance orientation. Younger teachers tended to perceive lower power distance in interactions with their principals than more senior teachers. All of the variables have acceptable internal consistency with alphas above 0.8.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlations among study variables.

Variable	Age	IL	TSE	PD	TPL
1 Age	--
2 Instructional leadership	−0.053	(α=0.966)
3 Teacher self-efficacy	0.103***	0.468***	(α=0.921)
4 Power distance	0.084**	−0.316***	−0.159**	(α=0.872)
5 Teacher prof. learning	0.002	0.502***	0.777***	−0.180***	(α=0.939)
M	2.29	4.169	4.239	2.538	4.313
SD	0.886	0.787	0.601	0.966	0.579

n = 1149. Teacher age: 1=<28, 2=29–39, 3=40–50, 4=>51.

IL = instructional level, TSE = teacher self-efficacy, PD = power distance, TPL = teacher professional learning.

Educational level: 1 = high school diploma, 2 = bachelor degree, 3 = graduate degree.

Professional rank: 1 = senior, 2 = first grade, 3 = second/third grade or unranked.

M = mean, SD = standard deviation; alpha coefficients for constructs are shown in parentheses on the diagonal.

*p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001 (two-tailed).

To our surprise, the mean level of power distance orientation was only 2.538 out of 5. This indicates a moderate level of power distance orientation, and was lower than we had expected. Hofstede’s (2010) earlier research characterized China as a 'high power distance society'. However, China has experienced ideological reform during the past two decades and the views of new generations of teachers in China may reflect these changes in the broader society. Several other research studies on “individual power distance orientation” conducted in mainland China in recent years also evidenced greater “within society difference” than in the past with power distance scores below three (He and Zhang, 2017; Rong et al., 2015; Wang et al., 2015).

CFA revealed that the proposed four-factor model yielded a good fit to the data: χ²/df = 4.78, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.881, SRMR = 0.048, RMSEA = 0.056. All factor loadings were statistically significant, with standardized loadings ranging from 0.570 to 0.856.

Measurement of the research constructs in this study came from a single source (i.e. teachers). We, therefore, took several steps to minimize the likelihood of common method bias. First, we performed Harman’s single-factor test, which is a form of exploratory factor analysis using all items (Harman, 1967). A single factor did not emerge from this analysis, and the first factor explained only 35.6% (less than 50%) of the variance. There were seven factors with eigenvalues over 1.0, which collectively explained 63.4% of the variance. This pattern of results suggests that the threat of common method bias was low.

Second, not all of the self-reported variables were subject to “upward bias” whereby higher scores are perceived as socially desirable (Conway and Lance, 2010). For example, if we survey principals about the degree to which they use instructional leadership style, they may overstate their enactment of these behaviors due to social desirability. However, teachers, the response group in this study, tend to offer a less biased judgment of their principals (Hallinger and Wang, 2015). Third, questions about power distance in a Chinese context are likely to be perceived as neutral. Consequently, despite reliance on data from a single source, common method bias may not constitute a significant problem in this study.

Model testing

We addressed the research questions in three interdependent steps. We first tested the partial mediation model to determine if teacher self-efficacy acted as a significant mediator of instructional leadership effects on teacher professional learning. Next, we tested whether power distance moderated the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. Finally, we tested whether power distance moderated the strength of the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher professional learning mediated by teacher self-efficacy.

Testing the mediated effects model

The first research question aimed to assess the efficacy of the proposed partial mediation model of principal instructional leadership effects on teacher professional learning, with teacher self-efficacy as the mediating variable. CFA confirmed that the mediation model had good model fit on several indices: χ²/df = 4.56, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.904, RMSEA = 0.055, SRMR = 0.040. This suggests that the proposed model was sound from a statistical standpoint.

Next we calculated bootstrapped CI estimates for the indirect effects of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy (see Figure 2). The results indicate that the “direct effect” of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning was statistically significant but small in magnitude (β = 0.145, 95% CI [0.089, 0.198], not crossing zero). This means that the enactment of instructional leadership practices by principals was associated with a small direct effect on the professional learning practices of teachers. The bootstrap analyses further revealed a statistically significant, moderate “indirect effect” of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy (β = 0.388, 95% CI [0.346, 0.433], not crossing zero). Thus, in response to the first research question, these results support a “partially mediated relationship” between principal instructional leadership and teacher professional learning, in which teacher self-efficacy acts as a meaningful mediator of leadership effects.

Testing moderation of instructional leadership effects on teacher self-efficacy

The second research question asked if and how the power distance orientation of teachers conditioned or moderated the effect of instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy. In practical terms, this analysis sought to determine if high or low power distance in social relations between teachers and principals influenced the positive effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy. LM-SES tests found that the individual power distance orientation of teachers had a significant “negative moderating effect” on the positive relationship between instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy (β = −0.086, 95% CI [−0.151, −0.012], not crossing zero; SE = 0.035, p = 0.013 < 0.05) (see Figure 2 and Table 3).

Table 3.

Unstandardized coefficients for testing main effects and mediating effects.

	Teacher self-efficacy	Teacher professional learning
Instructional leadership	0.398*** [0.328, 0.470]	0.108 [0.066, 0.151]
Power distance	0.005 [−0.036, 0.037]	---
Interaction: IL × PD	−0.086* [−0.151, −0.012]	---
Teacher professional learning	0.773*** [0.683, 0.881]	---

95% bias-corrected CIs reported as: [Lower limit CI, Upper limit CI].

n = 1194, sample bootstrap = 1000, *p< 0.05, **p< 0.01, ***p< 0.001.

To facilitate interpretation of these interactions, we plotted the relationships among the three variables included in this analysis: power distance, instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy. As indicated in Figure 3, this analysis shows that instructional leadership has a more positive association with teacher self-efficacy when the power distance orientation perceived by teachers is lower than when it is higher. This means that when teachers perceived greater power distance in their relationships with principals, the principal’s instructional leadership had a less positive impact on their self-efficacy.

Testing for moderation of the partial mediation model

We followed a similar approach to examine if and how power distance perceived by teachers conditioned or moderated the partial mediation model tested in the first step (see Figure 2). Consistent with prior moderation mediation studies (Cheung and Lau, 2017; Hayes and Preacher, 2013), we used bootstrapping to analyze the moderating effects of teacher power distance orientation on the mediation model at three levels of power distance (−1 standard deviation, mean, and +1 standard deviation).

The bootstrapping results in Table 4 show that higher levels of power distance in relations between teachers and principals were associated with weaker indirect effects of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy (β = 0.075, SE = 0.081, p = 0.360 > 0.05, 95% CI [−0.073, 0.248], crossing zero). Conversely, when power distance orientation in teacher–principal relations was lower, the indirect effects of instructional leadership were stronger (β = 0.208, SE = 0.034, 95% CI [0.148, 0.279], not crossing zero). Thus, we conclude first that the power distance orientation of teachers does act as a moderator of the leadership mediation model. Second, the results support the view that lower power distance in principal–teacher relations enhances leadership effects on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning.

Table 4.

Conditional indirect effects of instructional leadership on teacher professional learning at various levels of moderator power distance orientation.

	Estimate	SE(boot)	95% LLCI	95% ULCI
+1 Standard deviation	0.075	0.081	−0.073	0.248
Mean	0.141	0.056	0.041	0.251
−1 Standard deviation	0.208	0.034	0.148	0.279

95% bias-corrected CIs reported as: [lower limit CI (LLCI), upper limit CI (ULCI)]

Discussion

In concert with the evolution of educational leadership and management into a global field of study, a new generation of research has begun to inquire into how the cultural context of schools shapes educational leadership (e.g. Dimmock and Walker, 2000, 2005; Ng et al., 2015; Nguyen et al., 2017; Qian et al., 2017; Truong et al., 2017). The current study, conducted in mainland China, sought to build upon this emerging body of largely qualitative research. More specifically, we examined how power distance orientation, a key dimension of Chinese culture (Hofstede, 2010), moderates the effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning. In this section we review limitations of the study, and offer our interpretation of the findings.

Limitations of the study

First, the cross-sectional nature of our study yielded associations among variables in the proposed model. This precludes us from making strong causal inferences. Use of a combination of time-series and cross-sectional research designs may enable future researchers to conduct a dynamic evaluation of the causal direction of relationships among the constructs we investigated in this study.

Second, we inferred differences in the interpersonal leadership strategies of principals based on the interaction between teachers’ perceptions of power distance and changes in results associated with the moderated mediation model. However, the study lacked a direct measure of the interpersonal leadership styles of the principals. Future studies could supplement the measure of instructional leadership with scales designed to assess differences in the principals’ interpersonal leadership styles (e.g. involvement of teachers in decision-making, communication style etc.).

Finally, this study only examined a single mediator, teacher self-efficacy. Other mediators such as trust, commitment, and agency have also been found to mediate the effects of school leadership (Hallinger et al., 2018; Leithwood et al., 2010; Piyaman et al., 2017; Ross and Gray, 2006). Replication of this type of model testing with multiple mediators would offer insight into how power distance influences related to leadership processes. Similarly, other dependent variables could be tested as well.

Interpretation and implications of the findings

Although research on the interaction of culture and leadership has become increasingly popular in the global leadership literature, it is only beginning to be studied empirically in the field of educational leadership (Clarke and O'Donoghue, 2017; Hallinger, 2018; Walker and Dimmock, 2012). The authors began this study with a mediation model of school leadership effects whose efficacy had been established in prior research. Our results reaffirmed the robustness of a partial mediation model in which principal instructional leadership evidenced significant weak direct effects and moderate indirect effects on teacher professional learning through teacher self-efficacy.

However, we believe that the key contribution of this study lies in establishing empirically how the power distance orientation of teachers “moderates” the effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning in China. More specifically, we found that principal instructional leadership effects on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning were significantly stronger or weaker, depending on the level of power distance in social relations perceived by teachers. When power distance in teacher–principal relationships was perceived to be high (i.e. greater social distance), the potentially positive effects of principal instructional leadership on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning were weakened. In contrast, when individual teachers perceived themselves as “less distant” from their principals (i.e. lower power distance), instructional leadership practices tended to have a more positive influence on teacher self-efficacy and professional learning. Thus, the study lends insight into how interpersonal relationships in the school enable or constrain the efforts of principals to engage teachers in productive professional learning.

Our results suggest several implications. First, this study reaffirms teacher self-efficacy as a high value path through which principals can foster the professional learning of teachers. Many school leaders may be unaware of the essential role they play in motivating, organizing, and supporting the learning of their teachers, or of the impact this can have on student learning. Successful instructional leaders inspire teachers to believe they can make a difference and provide tangible support for teacher efforts to develop new knowledge and skills. They take risks, participate in learning with teachers, and share their own efforts to put learning into practice. Thus, these results contribute to a growing body of research that elaborates how principals can support the professional learning of teachers.

Second, the study has implications for research into the cultural context of (school) leadership. Our results demonstrated that even within China’s “high power distance culture,” there is significant individual variation in the social distance perceived by teachers in relations with their principals. This argues against assuming that the “modal” or traditional leadership style employed in a particular culture is either the most effective or adopted by all members. This conclusion takes on particular significance during a period of “cultural change” when national values may become more fluid, and educational goals and policies are shifting. Indeed, we can interpret the findings to suggestthat when particular outcomes are considered desirable (e.g. teacher professional learning), the accepted norms of a particular culture (e.g. high power distance) may act as an impediment to “effective leadership.”

This further suggests that conceptualizations of “effective instructional leadership” must not only describe the focal practices of school leaders (e.g. creating a school mission, managing the instructional program), but also the contextualized nature of their interpersonal relationships with stakeholders (Dimmock and Walker, 2005; Farh and Cheng, 2000; Nguyen et al., 2017; Walker, 2003). Principals may exercise instructional leadership using different “interpersonal styles,” and the suitability of different styles will vary according to the cultural context. In the case of the current study, we inferred that teachers’ responses to the instructional leadership of principals were associated with different levels of power distance in their social relations. This finding strengthens prior assertions that successful enactment of instructional leadership is dependent on cultural and institutional features of the school context (Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2017; Day, 2007; Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger and Heck, 1996, 2011; Ng et al., 2015).

Another implication lies in documenting the nature of teacher and principal responses to “real-time cultural change” (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Hallinger and Walker, 2017; Ng et al., 2015). We found that, even within the context of China’s Confucian culture, there is significant variation in the power distance orientation perceived by individual teachers. Indeed, there was a significant relationship between the age and cultural orientation of teachers, with younger teachers more likely to perceive lower power distance in relations with principals. This finding holds significance during an era when both cultural values and educational policies are changing in mainland China.

Within China’s Confucian culture, principals have traditionally played the role of “great man/woman” in their schools and communities. Most are accustomed to enacting a top-down, directive management role that entails maintaining social distance between themselves and their teachers (Liden, 2012). However in China’s evolving cultural-institutional context, the traditional system of “principal responsibility” is undergoing change (Dimmock and Walker, 2000; Zheng, Yin, & Liu, 2019). Our findings suggest that principals who adapt to these changing conditions by enacting a more collaborative leadership role may be more successful at achieving new goals.

These findings further imply that during this era of rapid change, assumptions of the past must be subject to continuous reassessment. This highlights the importance of ongoing professional development that challenges principals and teachers to reflect on the relevance of existing practices and supports the adoption of new attitudes and practices. For example, our findings suggest that Chinese principals may benefit from development experiences that cause them to reflect on their leadership styles and which highlight other styles they might adopt. Our study further suggests the relevance of leadership development that engages principals in learning how to elicit teachers’ voices and foster productive teacher participation in decision-making.

These findings, if substantiated in further studies, also have implications for the enactment of school leadership in other nations facing cultural change. For example, societies in Asia (e.g. Malaysia), Africa (e.g. Nigeria), and Latin America (e.g. Mexico) also evidence similar tendencies towards high power distance orientation and cultural change. Thus, the results of this study could well describe the changing contextual conditions in other societies. Thus, we suggest that scholars in other parts of the world may also wish to explore this evolving dynamic between culture and leadership in education.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by MOE (Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China) Project of National Education Sciences Planning [Grant No. EFA 180458].

ORCID iD

Philip Hallinger

References

Ashton

Webb

(1986) Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student Achievement. New York: Longman.

Bandura

(1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review 84(2): 191–215.

Bandura

(2006) Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1(2): 164–180.

Barth

(1990) Improving Schools From Within. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Brislin

(1980) Translation and content analysis of oral and written materials. Methodology 389–444.

Calik

Sezgin

Kavgaci

Cagatay Kilinc

(2012) Examination of relationships between instructional leadership of school principals and self-efficacy of teachers and collective teacher efficacy. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice 12(4): 2498–2504.

Chan

Lau

Nie

Lim

Hogan

(2008) Organizational and personal predictors of teacher commitment: The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy and identification with school. American Educational Research Journal 45(3): 597–630.

Chen

(2017) Guoji bijiao shiyu xia de jiaoshi jiaoxuexiaonenggan [Teachers’ teaching efficacy on the international perspective: Evidences from TALIS survey]. Quanqiu Jiaoyu Zhanwang [Global Education] 46(4): 11–23.

Chen

Liao

Wen

(2014) Why does formal mentoring matter? The mediating role of psychological safety and the moderating role of power distance orientation in the Chinese context. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 25(8): 1112–1130.

10.

Chen

(2008) The cross-cultural fit of the learning-centered leadership framework and assessment for Chinese principals. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, USA.

11.

Cheung

Lau

(2017) Accuracy of parameter estimates and confidence intervals in moderated mediation models: A comparison of regression and latent moderated structural equations. Organizational Research Methods 20(4): 746–769.

12.

Clarke

O’Donoghue

(2017) Educational leadership and context: A rendering of an inseparable relationship. British Journal of Educational Studies 65(2): 167–182.

13.

Clugston

Howell

Dorfman

(2000) Does cultural socialization predict multiple bases and foci of commitment? Journal of Management 26(1): 5–30.

14.

Collie

Shapka

Perry

(2012) School climate and social–emotional learning: Predicting teacher stress, job satisfaction, and teaching efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(4): 1189–1204.

15.

Conway

Lance

(2010) What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology 25(3): 325–334.

16.

Daniels

Greguras

(2014) Exploring the nature of power distance implications for micro- and macro-level theories, processes, and outcomes. Journal of Management 40(5): 1202–1229.

17.

Day

(2007) Sustaining success in challenging contexts: Leadership in English schools. Journal of Educational Leadership 43(6): 59–70.

18.

Dimmock

Walker

(2000) Globalisation and societal culture: Redefining schooling and school leadership in the twenty-first century. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 30(3): 303–312.

19.

Dimmock

Walker

(2005) Educational Leadership: Culture and Diversity. London: SAGE.

20.

Dinham

(2007) How schools get moving and keep improving: Leadership for teacher learning, student success and school renewal. Australian Journal of Education 51: 263–275.

21.

Dorfman

Howell

(1988) Dimensions of national culture and effective leadership patterns: Hofstede revisited. Advances in International Comparative Management 3: 127–150.

22.

Elmore

Burney

(1997) Investing in Teacher Learning: Staff Development and Instructional Improvement in Community School District# 2, New York City. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

23.

Farh

Cheng

(2000) A cultural analysis of paternalistic leadership in Chinese organizations. In: Li

Tsui

Weldon

(eds) Management and Organizations in the Chinese Context. London: Macmillan, 84–127.

24.

Frost

(2006) The concept of “agency” in leadership for learning. Leading & Managing 12(2): 19–28.

25.

Geijsel

Sleegers

Stoel

Krüger

(2009) The effect of teacher psychological and school organizational and leadership factors on teachers’ professional learning in Dutch schools. The Elementary School Journal 109(4): 406–427.

26.

Goddard

Sook Kim

Miller

(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.

27.

Guo

(2018) Assessing instructional leadership from two mindsets in China: Power distance as a moderator. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability 30: 433–455.

28.

Hallinger

(1982/1990/2015) Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Bangkok: Philip Hallinger.

29.

Hallinger

(2004) Meeting the challenges of cultural leadership: The changing role of principals in Thailand. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 25(1): 61–73.

30.

Hallinger

(2010) Making education reform happen: Is there an 'Asian way'? School Leadership & Management 30(5): 401–408.

31.

Hallinger

(2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.

32.

Hallinger

Heck

(1996) Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly 32(1): 5–44.

33.

Hallinger

Heck

(2011) Exploring the journey of school improvement: Classifying and analyzing patterns of change in school improvement processes and learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22(1): 1–27.

34.

Hallinger

Hosseingholizadeh

Hashemi

, et al. (2018) Do beliefs make a difference? Exploring how principal self-efficacy and instructional leadership impact teacher efficacy and commitment in Iran. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(5): 800–819.

35.

Hallinger

Leithood

(1998) Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on school leadership. Peabody Journal of Education 73(2): 126–151.

36.

Hallinger

Murphy

(1985) Assessing the instructional management behavior of principals. The Elementary School Journal 86: 217–248.

37.

Hallinger

Wang

(2015) Assessing Leadership for Learning With the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale. Dordrecht: Springer.

38.

Hallinger

Walker

(2017) Leading learning in Asia–emerging empirical insights from five societies. Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 130–146.

39.

Harman

(1967) Modern Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

40.

Hayes

(2015) An index and test of linear moderated mediation. Multivariate Behavioral Research 50(1): 1–22.

41.

Hayes

Preacher

(2013) Conditional process modeling: Using structural equation modeling to examine contingent causal processes. In: Hancock

Mueller

(eds) Structural Equation Modeling: A Second Course, 2nd ed. Greenwich: Information Age, 217–264.

42.

Zhang

(2017) The “trickle-down” model of ethical leadership on employees’ CWB in China: Power distance orientation as moderator. Management Review 29(8): 179–186.

43.

Hofstede

(2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

44.

Hoy

Spero

(2005) Changes in teacher self-efficacy during the early years of teaching: A comparison of four measures. Teaching and Teacher Education 21(4): 343–356.

45.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6(1): 1–55.

46.

Joreskog

Sorbom

(1994) Structural Equation Modeling With the Simplis Command Language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.

47.

Kennedy

(2010) School-based curriculum development for new times: A comparative analysis. In: Law

(ed) Schools as Curriculum Agencies. Leiden: Brill Sense, 1–18.

48.

Kirkman

Chen

Farh

Chen

Lowe

(2009) Individual power distance orientation and follower reactions to transformational leaders: A cross-level, cross-cultural examination. Academy of Management Journal 52(4): 744–764.

49.

Kwakman

(2003) Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education 19: 149–170.

50.

Law

(2012) Educational leadership and culture in China: Dichotomies between Chinese and Anglo-American leadership traditions? International Journal of Educational Development 32(2): 271–282.

51.

Leithwood

Patten

Jantzi

(2010) Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly 46(5): 671–706.

52.

Yam

Long

(2015) When and why empowering leadership increases followers’ taking charge: A multilevel examination in China. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 32(3): 645–670.

53.

Lian

Ferris

Brown

(2012) Does power distance exacerbate or mitigate the effects of abusive supervision? It depends on the outcome. Journal of Applied Psychology 97: 107–123.

54.

Liden

(2012) Leadership research in Asia: A brief assessment and suggestions for the future. Asia Pacific Journal of Management 29(2): 205–212.

55.

Lieberman

Pointer Mace

(2008) Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education 59: 226–234.

56.

Little

(2012) Professional community and professional development in the learning-centered school. In: Kooy

van Veen

(eds) Teacher Learning That Matters: International Perspectives. London: Routledge, 22–46.

57.

Liu

Hallinger

(2018) Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational Administration Quarterly 54(4): 501–528.

58.

Liu

Hallinger

Feng

(2016) Supporting the professional learning of teachers in China: Does principal leadership make a difference? Teaching and Teacher Education 59: 79–91.

59.

Louis

(2007) Changing the culture of schools: Professional community, organizational learning, and trust. Journal of School Leadership 16: 477–487.

60.

Ministry of Education (2012a) Minister of Education’s Notice on “Professional Standards for K-9 Teachers”. Available at: http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s6991/201212/xxgk_145603.html (in Chinese) (accessed 2 August 2019).

61.

Ministry of Education (2012b) Minister of Education’s Notice on “Professional Standards for K-9 Principals”. Available at: http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/201302/t20130216_147899.html (in Chinese) (accessed 2 August 2019).

62.

Muthén

(2017) Mplus User’s Guide, 8th ed. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

63.

FSD

Nguyen

Wong

KSB

Choy

KWW

(2015) Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School Leadership & Management 35(4): 388–407.

64.

Nguyen

DFS

Yap

(2017) Instructional leadership structure in Singapore: A co-existence of hierarchy and heterarchy. Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 147–167.

65.

Nir

Kranot

(2006) School principal’s leadership style and teachers’ self-efficacy. Planning and Changing 37: 205–218.

66.

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) TALIS 2013 Results: An International Perspective on Teaching and Learning. Paris: OECD.

67.

Paine

Fang

(2006) Reform as hybrid model of teaching and teacher development in China. International Journal of Educational Research 45: 279–289.

68.

Pan

HLW

Nyeu

Cheng

(2017) Leading school for learning: Principal practices in Taiwan. Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 168–185.

69.

Parise

Spillane

(2010) Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers’ practice. The Elementary School Journal 110: 323–346.

70.

Piyaman

Hallinger

Viseshsiri

(2017) Addressing the achievement gap: Exploring principal leadership and teacher professional learning in urban and rural primary schools in Thailand. Journal of Educational Administration 55(6): 717–734.

71.

Preacher

Hayes

(2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods 40(3): 879–891.

72.

Qian

Walker

(2013) How principals promote and understand teacher development under curriculum reform in China. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41: 304–315.

73.

Qian

Walker

(2017) The west wind vs the east wind: Instructional leadership model in China. Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 186–206.

74.

Qian

Walker

Yang

(2016) Building and leading a learning culture among teachers: A case study of a Shanghai primary school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45: 101–122.

75.

Rong

Sui

Yang

(2015) The effect of leadership emotional intelligence on group performance and employee attitude: Mediating effect of justice climate and moderating effect of group power distance. Acta Psychologica Sinica 47(9): 1152–1161.

76.

Ross

Gray

(2006) Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating effects of collective teacher self-efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 17(2): 179–199.

77.

Rotberg

(ed.) (2010) Balancing Change and Tradition in Global Education Reform. Plymouth, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

78.

Schechter

Qadach

(2012) Toward an organizational model of change in elementary schools: The contribution of organizational learning mechanisms. Educational Administration Quarterly 48: 116–153.

79.

Tan

(2012) Learning From Shanghai: Lessons on Achieving Educational Success. Dordrecht: Springer.

80.

Tan

(2018) Examining school leadership effects on student achievement: The role of contextual challenges and constraints. Cambridge Journal of Education 48(1): 21–45.

81.

Thoonen

Sleegers

Oort

Peetsma

(2012) Building school-wide capacity for improvement: The role of leadership, school organizational conditions, and teacher factors. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23: 441–460.

82.

Truong

Hallinger

Sanga

(2017) Confucian values and school leadership in Vietnam: Exploring the influence of culture on principal decision making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(1): 77–100.

83.

Tschannen-Moran

Hoy

(2001) Teacher self-efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching & Teacher Education 17(7): 783–805.

84.

Tsui

(2012) Contextualizing research in a modernizing China. In: Huang

Bond

(eds) Handbook of Chinese Organizational Behavior: Integrating Research, Theory, and Practice. London: Edward Edgar Publishing Limited, 29–47.

85.

Ullman

(2013) Structural equation modeling. In: Tabachnick

Fidell

(eds) Using Multivariate Statistics, 5th ed. Boston: Pearson, 681–785.

86.

Vescio

Ross

Adams

(2008) A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 24: 80–91.

87.

Wahlstrom

Louis

(2008) How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly 44(4): 458–495.

88.

Walker

(2003) Developing cross-cultural perspectives on education and community. In: Begley

Johnason

(eds) The Ethical Dimensions of School Leadership. Netherlands: Kluwer Press: 145–160.

89.

Walker

(2010, January) Culture, Influence and (School) Leader Development. Paper presented at Asia Leadership Roundtable 2010. Available at: https://www.eduhk.hk/apclc/roundtable2010/paper/Walker%20-%20Roundtable%20.pdf (accessed 10 August 2019).

90.

Walker

(2014) Cross-cultural comparative educational leadership and management: Aligning the elements. Canadian and International Education 43(1): 1–5.

91.

Walker

Dimmock

(2012) School Leadership and Administration: The Cultural Context. London: Routledge.

92.

Walker

Qian

(2018) Deciphering Chinese School Leadership: Conceptualisation, Context and Complexities. New York: Routledge.

93.

Walker

Qian

(2012) Principal leadership in China: An initial review. School Effectiveness & School Improvement 23(4): 369–399.

94.

Wang

Pan

Zheng

(2015) The effect of ethical leadership to followers’ unethical behaviors: The moderating effect of power distance and the mediating effect of moral. Modern Management Science 1: 97–99.

95.

Wang

Guan

(2018) The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology 9: 357.

96.

Wang

(2016) School leadership and professional learning community: Case study of two senior high schools in northeast China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36: 202–216.

97.

Wong

(2003) Changing roles and shifting authority of principals in China: A mixed role of manager and clan leader. Education and Society 21(2): 37–54.

98.

Yin

Lee

Jin

Zhang

(2013) The effect of trust on teacher empowerment: The mediation of teacher self-efficacy. Educational Studies 39(1): 13–28.

99.

Yoon

(2012) Predicting employee voice behavior: An exploration of the roles of empowering leadership, power distance, organizational learning capability, and sense of empowerment in Korean organizations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, USA.

100.

Zheng

Chen

Loeb

(2017) What aspects of principal leadership are most highly correlated with school outcomes in China? Educational Administration Quarterly 53(3): 409–447.

101.

Zheng

Yin

(2019) Exploring the relationship among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 47(6): 843–859.

102.

Zheng

Yin

Liu

(2019) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher self-efficacy in China: The mediation of satisfaction and trust. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 28(6): 509–518.