The interplay of contextual leadership and teacher-related organizational outcomes: The mediating role of group cohesion

Abstract

Recent studies have increasingly highlighted the need for contextual leadership practices within educational settings, however, there remains a notable lack of clarity regarding the specific influence of these practices on crucial organizational outcomes. The present study seeks to address this gap by investigating the relationships between contextual leadership and three key school outcomes: organizational citizenship behavior, group identity, and autonomous motivation for teaching. Additionally, the study examines group cohesion as a potential mediator in these relationships. To achieve this, a cross-sectional survey involving 1617 teachers was conducted, and the data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. The findings indicate positive correlations between contextual leadership and the three targeted outcomes: Organizational citizenship behavior, group identity, and autonomous motivation for teaching. Moreover, the study confirms the mediating role of group cohesion in these relationships. The finding underscores the importance of fostering shared identity and purpose within educational institutions to enhance desired outcomes. This study's implications extend to theoretical and practical domains, offering valuable insights for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. Ultimately, the study advocates for a strategic focus on cultivating a cohesive and purpose-driven community to optimize educational achievements and teacher engagement.

Keywords

Educational leadership school leadership Chinese education educational leadership in China contextual leadership

Introduction

Besides teaching, school leadership is the second most important school-related factor influencing student achievement (Hallinger, 2018; Hallinger and Huber, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2020). A recent report by the Wallace Foundation claims that while research has established the importance of school leadership as a significant influence on school effectiveness, it may not have been specified strongly enough, given the scale and scope of its significance (Grissom et al., 2021). Hanushek and Rivkin (2010) compare leadership factors with teacher effects and conclude that the impact of leadership on student achievement is nearly as significant as that of teacher effects. It is not surprising that leadership has been among the most widely observed and studied phenomena (Burns, 1978). Scholars have explored the phenomenon from various vantage points and produced impressive theoretical conceptualizations. Leadership is a complex multidimensional phenomenon with a myriad of conceptualizations and definitions that have been perpetuated over the years. It has been explored since the time of Plato, yet there is no consensus on its nature and form, and there exists no single theory or model of leadership that could be considered universal (Noman et al., 2017, 2018). The field of educational leadership in particular “has been a site of internecine epistemic disputes and persistent disagreement about analytical foci, theoretical perspectives, and methods and methodology” (Evans, 2022: 414). Definitions and models abound, to the extent that the lack of consensus creates more confusion than clarity and further muddles the phenomenon of leadership practice (Uhl-Bien and Pillai, 2007).

Conventional leadership research often focuses analysis predominately on the individual level, examining the behaviors and traits of heroic leaders (House and Aditya, 1997; Yukl, 2012). However, organizational outcomes inherently stem from complex systemic interactions between leaders, followers, and contextual aspects of the environment. This study aims to address this gap by investigating how specific contextual factors shape and interact with school leaders’ behaviors, rather than positioning context itself as the primary subject of inquiry. We frame the key research question around understanding the relationships between context, leadership approaches enacted at the individual level, and desired organizational outcomes. However, we acknowledge the limitations of individual-centric perspectives and recognize that leadership phenomena are socially constructed within broader cultural systems and relational dynamics (Noman and Gurr, 2020; Sutherland et al., 2022). By complementing wider critical examinations of methodological individualism with a contextualized analysis of leadership behaviors, we seek to provide practical insights while surfacing opportunities for further systemic investigation.

The recent conceptualization of leadership—the new wave of leadership—calls for discarding its leader-centric, heroic posture for a conceptualization wherein leadership is enacted in response to contextual factors (Alfayez et al., 2021; Bush, 2018; Noman et al., 2018; Oc, 2018; Sutherland et al., 2022). By contextual leadership practices, we refer to the situated actions and behaviors of leaders that take into account the unique circumstances, settings, structures, and needs of an organization. This contextual view suggests leadership is not a one-size-fits all endeavor but rather requires adapting to the ever-changing conditions leaders face (Noman et al., 2024; Oc, 2018). We argue this contextualized perspective allows for a more nuanced assessment of leadership effectiveness attuned to the complex dynamics within specific organizations. Leadership settings are inhabited and culturally influenced by human beings working in social settings that are in every moment influenced by and open to being changed by their social and political environments (Dinh et al., 2014; Leithwood et al., 2019). Considerable theoretical and empirical evidence highlights the role of context in shaping leadership practices (e.g., Dinh et al., 2014; Oc, 2018; Noman and Gurr, 2020; Noman et al.,, 2017). The leadership-context relationship underscores the most recent conversations on leadership, irrespective of whether these conversations are on leadership viewpoints, roles, behaviors or styles (Leithwood et al., 2019).

During the last two decades, several studies have established that contextual leadership practices of school principals are effective (Bush, 2018; Hallinger, 2018; Lakomski and Evers, 2022; Leithwood et al., 2019). While there exists a growing theoretical and empirical leadership literature on contextual leadership, there is still a lack of clarity on the effects of contextual leadership practices on organizational outcomes (e.g., Alfayez et al., 2021; Alqahtani et al., 2021; Noman et al., 2017, 2018). Among the teacher-related organizational outcomes for schools, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), group identity (GRID) and autonomous motivation for teaching (AMT) have attracted much attention in school effectiveness literature. Teachers’ OCB, GRID, and AMT are crucial to school effectiveness and overall efficiency (Cheasakul and Varma, 2016; Roth et al., 2007). OCB was proposed by Organ (1977), who conceptualized it as “individual behavior that is discretionary, not directly or explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization.” Past studies have demonstrated that leaders play an essential role in enhancing OCB (Ahmed, 2021; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2008) by creating a conducive and open working environment wherein the followers demonstrate extra-role behaviors. However, how contextual leadership practices affect OCB is not known; hence it is worthwhile to study the relationship and fill this important gap in the literature. On the other hand, effective leaders shape GRID of their followers, promoting a sense of belonging (Hogg, 2023), establishing shared values, objectives, and mission, fostering inclusivity and respect (Hogg and Van Knippenberg, 2003; Hogg et al., 2012). Effective leaders lead by example, embodying group principles and behaviors, motivating others to identify with the group (Steffens et al., 2021; Turner et al., 1987) and encourage constructive interactions and communication among group members. Similarly, AMT is found to be correlated with several positive outcomes, such as a sense of personal accomplishment (Roth et al., 2007) and work engagement (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014) which leads to better educational outcomes for students (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). School leaders support or thwart teachers’ needs through their actions, thereby influencing several outcomes of teachers’ functioning (Klassen et al., 2012; Van den Berghe et al., 2014).

Theoretical framework and hypothesis

Autonomous motivation for teaching

Humanistic opinions, including that of self-determination theory, conjecture that autonomous motivation is vital for the growth and well-being of individuals (Gagné et al., 2022; Passanisi et al., 2022; Vo et al., 2022). A significant body of research illustrates the advantages of autonomous motivation behavior of individuals for positive outcomes in various professional spheres, including education (Kaplan and Madjar, 2017). AMT is conceptualized as teachers’ perceptions, feelings, and thoughts on the motivation behind their personal engagement in teaching (Roth et al., 2007). Studies have demonstrated a strong connection between teachers’ need satisfaction and autonomous teaching behavior. The need for satisfaction mainly depends upon school environments that support or frustrate teachers’ needs (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Autonomous teaching behavior leads to several positive professional outcomes among teachers (Ryan and Deci, 2017), such as a sense of self-accomplishment (Roth et al., 2007), higher level of well-being and satisfaction with their profession (Nie et al., 2015), a sense of commitment with their work (Fernet et al., 2016), and encouragement to promote autonomous behavior of learning among their students (Roth et al., 2007). Controlled motivation, the opposite of autonomous motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2017), emanates from several reasons, including curricular expectations, negative student behavior, or pressure from the leaders. Autonomy-thwarting, controlled leadership style is associated with complicated leader-follower relationships, sub-par performance, lower sense of well-being, and a higher level of intention to leave (Pizzolitto et al., 2022; Schaubroeck et al., 2017). On the other hand, AMT develops a sense of personal accomplishment (Roth et al., 2007) and work engagement (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014), leading to better learning outcomes (Van den Berghe et al., 2014). School leaders support or thwart teachers’ needs through their actions, thereby influencing several outcomes of teachers’ functioning (Klassen et al., 2012; Van den Berghe et al., 2014). Therefore, we propose the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Contextual leadership is positively associated with followers’ AMT.

Organizational citizenship behavior

OCB is theorized as discretionary behaviors, not stipulated as job requirements, exhibited by employees to support organizational objectives. OCB provides considerable benefits to educational institutions through teachers’ extra-role behavior (Nguyen et al., 2022), including enhanced student achievements (Hanson et al., 2022) and a better sense of self-fulfilment and self-efficacy among teachers (Ullah et al., 2021). School leadership plays an essential role in determining the OCB of teachers, as demonstrated by the findings of recent studies (Ahmed, 2021; Ho and Le, 2020; Podsakoff et al., 2000; Walumbwa et al., 2008) by creating a conducive and open working environment wherein the followers demonstrate extra-role behaviors (Avolio and Gardner, 2005). However, how contextual leadership practices affect OCB is not known; hence it is worthwhile to study the relationship and fill this important gap in the literature. Accordingly, we propose the hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Contextual leadership is positively associated with OCB.

Group identity

Group identity (GRID) constitutes a fundamental component of human psychology, which is significantly influenced by leaders who cultivate a sense of affiliation and shared comprehension within a group. According to Tajfel (1979), the groups to which individuals belong play a crucial role in shaping their pride and self-esteem. These groups contribute to our sense of social identity, granting us a feeling of belonging within the broader social sphere (Hogg, 2023). Proficient leaders accomplish this by elucidating a collective identity and purpose that resonates with group members, thereby establishing definitive values, objectives, and mission (Hogg and Van Knippenberg, 2003; Hogg et al., 2012). They foster shared norms and values by instilling explicit expectations and cultivating inclusivity and reverence. Through the promotion of constructive interactions and effective communication, leaders foster a robust group cohesion among their teams. Leaders function as exemplars, embodying the group's principles and behaviors, thereby inspiring others to align themselves with the group's identity (Steffens et al., 2021; Turner et al., 1987). They commemorate group achievements and uphold traditional customs, thereby reinforcing the shared identity and ensuring its continuous existence. Additionally, leaders duly acknowledge and appreciate individual contributions, providing opportunities for the manifestation of unique skills and talents, thereby reinforcing personal identity within the collective. Through the implementation of these strategies, leaders assume a pivotal role in shaping and augmenting GRID, thereby engendering a sense of unity, belonging, and dedication among group members (Hogg, 2023). Hence we propose

Hypothesis 3: Contextual leadership is positively associated with GRID.

Group cohesion

The importance of group cohesion (COHE) in achieving organizational success cannot be overstated. As indicated by Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009), COHE refers to a dynamic process whereby a group exhibits a tendency to remain together and stay united in pursuing both organizational goals and meeting the affective needs of its members. Additionally, COHE involves the inclination of group members to establish social bonds, ultimately resulting in a sense of unity and coherence within the group. Numerous previous studies have consistently shown that higher levels of COHE have a positive impact on various aspects of group performance. For instance, Durneac (2012) found that increased COHE leads to improved group performance. Furthermore, Durneac (2012) also observed that higher levels of COHE contribute to greater conformity to the group's norms, while Abuke et al. (2014), emphasized that group cohesion is closely aligned with the pursuit of group objectives. Hence, we hypothesize:

Hypothesis 4: Contextual leadership is positively associated with COHE.

Leadership plays a crucial role in fostering COHE. Leaders who prioritize the development of strong relationships and cultivate a positive group culture can enhance group cohesion, resulting in improved group performance, alignment with group objectives, and the promotion of organizational objectives (Sridhar et al., 2021). Group cohesion is also closely associated with GRID, OCB, and autonomous motivation. Casey-Campbell and Martens (2009) argue that group cohesion, by creating shared experiences and fostering a sense of camaraderie, strengthens GRID and increases members’ investment in the group's success. While high COHE is generally considered independent of autonomous behavior, its positive effects on autonomous behavior have not been extensively examined. Durneac (2012) suggests that high group cohesion can facilitate autonomous behavior in certain contexts, as group members may be more inclined to support each other's independent actions and decision-making. Moreover, a cohesive group can provide better support and resources that enable members to act autonomously, such as sharing information, expertise, and providing feedback and guidance. Research has consistently demonstrated a positive correlation between COHE and OCB. Podsakoff et al. (2000) highlight that when employees feel a strong sense of connection and commitment to their work group, they are more likely to engage in behaviors that benefit both the group and the organization as a whole.

Therefore we further propose the following three hypothesis

Hypothesis 5: Group cohesion mediates the relationship between contextual leadership and followers’ OCB.

Hypothesis 6: Group cohesion mediates the relationship between contextual leadership and followers’ AMT.

Hypothesis 7: Group cohesion mediates the relationship between contextual leadership and followers’ GRID.

Methodology

A cross-sectional survey design using quantitative research methods was employed for this study. This section describes the sample and data collection procedure, introduces variables and measures, and explains the data analysis steps (Figure 1).

Data collection

This study was conducted in one of the southern provinces of China. A total of 48 secondary schools were selected through stratified random sampling to participate in the study. All teachers from the selected schools were invited to participate in the study. Teachers were given access to the questionnaire online, which typically took 25–30 min for a teacher to respond. In total, 1701 teachers participated in the study, and 1617 valid responses were collected. The demographic information of the respondents is provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Demographical information of the participants.

Category	Frequency	%
Gender
Male	384	23.7
Female	1233	76.3
Age
Under 30	300	18.6
31–40	394	24.4
41–50	669	41.4
Above 50	254	15.7

Note: N = 1617.

Measures

The questionnaire included five scales to measure the study's key variables, translated into Chinese using Brislin (1970) back-translation method to maximize semantic accuracy. While rigorously translated, and the scale validation processes undertaken limit risks of major cultural distortions, the findings nonetheless should be interpreted as reflections of affiliations with conceptual paradigms nurtured in Western cultural contexts. We qualify results in this light rather than making overreaching claims of universal cross-cultural validity, given potential for subtle divergences in social constructions of measured constructs across settings. The coefficient alpha for the scales range from 0.87 to 0.97. The translated scales were imported into Questionnaire Star, a Chinese online questionnaire service, to collect data. The following five scales were used:

Contextual leadership practices scale

Contextual Leadership Practices Scale (CLPS): For this study, a 13-item scale called CLPS was created. A 7-point scale, 1- Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Occassionaly, 4-Sometimes, 5-Frequently, 6-Usually, 7-All the time was used. An example item is “My principal ensures teachers’ readiness in collaborating”. The CLPS demonstrates strong psychometric properties in reliably measuring the situated leadership practices enacted within the complex social settings of educational institutions.

Autonomous motivations for teaching scale

To measure the motivations for the teaching of the participants, we utilized the AMT Scale (Roth et al., 2007), which has exhibited high levels of validity and reliability in multiple studies and is widely employed. Although the original scale includes 16 items divided into four subscales, we only used 7 items to measure two factors: external and intrinsic motivation, with the subscale of intrinsic motivation indicating elevated levels of AMT. A 7-point scale, 1- Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Occassionaly, 4-Sometimes, 5-Frequently, 6-Usually, 7-All the time was used. An example item is “My leader can give me an assignment without supervision, knowing that I will complete it.”

Organizational citizenship behavior scale

In order to measure OCB, we employed the 10-item scale created by (Spector et al., 2010), which asked participants to evaluate how often they engaged in actions such as mentoring, coaching, or aiding their colleagues. A 7-point scale, 1- Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Occassionaly, 4-Sometimes, 5-Frequently, 6-Usually, 7-All the time was used. An example item is “I help co-workers learn new skills and share job knowledge.”

Group identity

In order to measure the GRID of teachers, we employed the GRID scale developed by Sani et al. (2015). Several studies, as reported in Sani et al. (2015) confirm excellent internal reliability of the scale (α normally ranges from 0.85 to 0.92). The four items in this scale are measured on a 7-point Likert scale, 1- Not at all, 2-Very little, 3-Less, 4-Neutral, 5-Somewhat, 6-A lot, 7-Extremely. An example item is “How similar do you feel to the group as a whole in terms of general attitudes and opinions?”

Group cohesion

To measure group cohesion, we used Bollen and Hoyle (1990) group cohesion scale. Since our primary focus was on the sense of belonging of the teachers, we only used items measuring this factor. A 7-point scale, 1- Never, 2-Rarely, 3-Occassionaly, 4-Sometimes, 5-Frequently, 6-Usually, 7-All the time, was used. An example item is “I would like to work with my group members in future as well.”

Analytical strategy

We examined the relationships between research variables and hypotheses through structural equation modeling (SEM) utilizing AMOS 25 software. SEM is a useful tool for evaluating the relationship between multiple variables and assessing the fit of the measurement model. To evaluate the goodness of fit of the measurement model, we reported the ratio of the chi-square to the degree of freedom (χ2/SD), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), standardized root mean residual (SRMR), Tucker Lewis Index (TLI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), and Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI). In line with Hu and Bentler (1999) recommendations, we considered a χ2/SD rating <3.0, RMSEA and SRMR ≤ 0.08, and TLI and CFI > 0.95 as indicators of a good model fit. Moreover, we took the threshold of greater than 0.95 as excellent fit as suggested by Kline (2005) for GFI. Furthermore, to calculate the direct, indirect, and total effects of the variables in the measurement model, we utilized bootstrapping with 2000 iterations, as recommended by Hayes (2018).

Findings

Descriptive statistics

Means, standard deviations, and correlations are presented in Table 2. The correlations between the constructs were positive and statically significant at 0.01 level. Moreover, according to Cohen (1988), Pearson correlation r = 0.10 indicates small effect, 0.30 medium effect, and 0.50 large effect. The r of CL, AMT, OCB, COHE, and GRID are above the small effect size, which provides initial support for our hypotheses.

Table 2.

Means, standard deviations, and correlation matrix (N = 1617).

Variables	Mean	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1 Gender	1.76	0.43	–
2 Age	2.54	0.97	−0.26**	–
3 CL	6.18	1.09	0.01	0.01	–
4 AMT	5.84	1.07	0.04	0.06*	0.24**	–
5 OCB	5.73	1.08	−0.02	0.11**	0.46**	0.35**	–
6 COHE	6.05	1.08	0.02	0.08**	0.54**	0.33**	0.55**	–
7 GRID	6.32	0.88	−0.01	0.11**	0.58**	0.38**	0.62**	0.81**	–

Note: **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).; age: 1 = <30, 2 = 31–40, 3 = 41–50, 4 = >50; gender: 1 = male; 2 = female. CL: contextual leadership; AMT: autonomous motivations for teaching; OCB: organizational citizenship behavior; COHE: group cohesion; GRID: group identity.

Measurement model

The initial assessment of the measurement model was performed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), which comprised 5 latent variables and 37 manifest variables. These variables included 13 contextual leadership indicators, 10 OCBs indicators, 4 GRID indicators, 3 group cohesion indicators, and 8 AMT indicators. During the evaluation of the measurement model, one indicator of AMT and one indicator of OCB were removed due to nonsignificant loading, as suggested by Hair et al. (2010). The convergent validity was assessed through the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) and the value of AVE were all above the threshold value, 0.50. Composite reliability values for all constructs were found to be greater than and 0.70 (Shrestha, 2021). The CFA results demonstrated an acceptable model fit (χ2 = 1109.73; χ2/df = 2.07; GFI = 0.96; RESEA = 0.03; TLI = 0.99; CFI = 0.99) (Table 3).

Table 3.

Reliability and convergent validity.

	Cronbach alpha	Composite reliability	Average variance extracted
Contextual leadership	0.970	0.969	0.706
Autonomous motivation for teaching	0.912	0.911	0.595
Group cohesion	0.874	0.882	0.714
Organizational citizenship behaviors	0.934	0.930	0.575
Group identity	0.913	0.916	0.732

Hypothesis testing

The R² values represent the proportion of variance in the dependent variables accounted for by the independent variables (Collier, 2020). As per the results, the R² values for AMT, OCB, COHE, and GRID are 0.177, 0.454, 0.347, and 0.838, respectively, indicating that the model has good predictive power (Falk and Miller, 1992). The model fit statistics analysis also indicates an acceptable fit (refer to Table 4).

Table 4.

Results of structural model path coefficient (direct relationships).

	Standardized estimates	t-value	p	Decision
H1: Contextual Leadership → Autonomous Motivation for Teaching	0.023	0.730	0.465	Failed
H2: Contextual Leadership → Organizational Citizenship Behavious	0.164	6.056	***	Supported
H3: Contextual Leadership → Group Identity	0.109	5.620	***	Supported
H4: Contextual Leadership → Group Cohesion	0.589	23.547	***	Supported
Squared multiple correlation (R²)
Autonomous motivation for teaching	0.177
Organizational citizenship behavious	0.454
Group identity	0.838
Group cohesion	0.347
Model fit statistics
χ2 = 1231.40, χ2/df = 2.41, GFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.30, TLI = 0.98, CFI = 0.99

Note: ***P < 0.001. RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation; TLI: Tucker Lewis Index; CFI: Comparative Fit Index; GFI: Goodness-of-Fit Index

Further, we examined the direct relationships between the variables and tested the related hypotheses. According to Table 4, we found a significant positive influence of CL on OCB (ß = 0.164, t = 6.056, p < 0.001), GRID (ß = 0.109, t = 5.620, p < 0.001), and COHE (ß = 0.589, t = 23.547, p < 0.001), providing support for H2, H3, and H4. However, the influence of CL on AMT was found to be non-significant (ß = 0.023, t = 0.730, p = 0.465), which leads to the rejection of H1.

Lastly, to test the mediation effects, direct and indirect effects were examined (See Table 5). H5, H6, and H7 evaluate whether COHE mediates the association among CL and OCB, AMT, and GRID, respectively. To test H5, the indirect effect of CL to OCB is 0.255 and falls between the lower bound confidence interval is 0.208 and the upper bound is 0.309. The confidence interval did not cross zero (Collier, 2020); therefore, the indirect effect is significant at the p < 0.001 level. Considering the direct effect from CL to OCB is significant (ß = 0.126, p < 0.001); therefore, COHE partially mediates the relationship of CL to OCB, and H5 is supported. Likewise, to test H6, the indirect effect of CL to AMT is significant (ß = 0.213, p < 0.001); therefore, H6 is supported. Meanwhile, the direct effect of CL to AMT is not significant (ß = 0.021, p = 0.465). Thus, COHE fully mediates the relationship of CL to AMT. H7 is supported because the indirect effect of CL to GRID is significant (ß = 0.386, p < 0.001). With the significant direct effect of CL to GRID (ß = 0.084, p < 0.001), it reveals that COHE partially meditates the relationship of CL to GRID. Overall, H5, H6, and H7 are all accepted. The results of the mediation analysis are presented in Table 5 (Figure 2).

Table 5.

Summary of mediation results.

Hypothesized relationships	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Confidence interval		p-value	Conclusion
Hypothesized relationships	Direct effect	Indirect effect	Lower	Upper	p-value	Conclusion
H5: CL→COHE→OCB	0.126 (***)	0.255	0.208	0.309	<.001	Partial mediation
H6: CL→COHE→AMT	0.021 (0.465)	0.213	0.164	0.271	<.001	Full mediation
H7: CL→COHE→GRID	0.084 (***)	0.386	0.337	0.441	<.001	Partial mediation

Note: The value in parenthesis is p-value. ***p < 0.001; Unstandardized coefficients reported. Values in parentheses are t-values. Bootstrap sample = 5000 with replacement. CL: contextual leadership; AMT: autonomous motivation for teaching; COHE: group cohesion; OCB: organizational citizenship behavious; GRID: group identity.

Discussion

We began this study with three primary objectives. First, to understand the relationship between contextual leadership at the individual level, defined in this paper as school leaders’ context-specific practices and behaviors aimed at achieving organizational outcomes, and three major teacher-related organizational outcomes: OCB, GRID and AMT. While we acknowledge critiques of heroic, individualistic leadership constructs, this paper provides an evidentiary basis regarding the impact of context-driven leadership behaviors rather than engaging in conceptual debates. Second, to understand the relationship between these contextual leadership behaviors and group cohesion. And finally, to understand how group cohesion mediates between contextual leadership and the three teacher-related organizational outcomes. By focusing specifically on leadership practices enacting within localized school contexts, we aim to complement wider discussions questioning methodological individualism with an examination of how context-attentive leadership, enacted at the individual level, relates to crucial teacher outcomes and perceptions.

The positive relationship between contextual leadership and group cohesion aligns with previous research highlighting the importance of leadership behaviors that are responsive to the specific needs and circumstances of followers (Riisla et al., 2021; Sridhar et al., 2021; Walk, 2023). This finding supports the notion that when principals demonstrate contextual leadership by adapting their approaches to the unique characteristics of their schools, it fosters a sense of unity and collaboration among teachers. The identification of group cohesion as a significant mediator between contextual leadership and various outcomes is particularly noteworthy. It adds to the understanding of the mechanisms through which leadership influences teacher-related organizational outcomes. By establishing group cohesion as a mediating factor, the findings highlight the role of social dynamics within teacher groups in translating the effects of contextual leadership into positive outcomes.

The achievement of teachers and schools is inherently contingent upon the unwavering dedication of teachers to the school's goals and values (Bryk et al., 2010; Özdemir et al., 2023), as well as their OCB, which is their willingness to transcend the boundaries of prescribed duties and extend themselves to actively contribute to transformative endeavors (Tajfel, 1979). Within this context, the findings indicate that schools cannot anticipate the complete spectrum of behaviors required to realize their objectives solely through formally articulated job descriptions (Belogolovsky and Somech 2010: 914). The findings clearly demonstrate a strong indirect effect of contextual leader's practices on teacher's OCB. Contextual leaders focus on developing an environment where teachers work together in cohesion, feel connected and supported, and thus engage in discretionary behaviors that benefit the organization, such as sharing ideas, providing assistance, and actively contributing to organizational goals (Alqahtani et al, 2018; Noman et al., 2021). The OCB exhibited by teachers encompass a diverse range of activities that encompass acts of support extended towards colleagues, supervisors, and students, while also extending to broader contributions aimed at advancing the overall functioning of the educational institution (Alqahtani et al., 2018; Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000). These behaviors are ingrained within the fabric of daily routines and play a critical role in ensuring the efficient operation of schools. Such actions include not only the implementation of specialized preparations tailored to students at varying levels of academic proficiency but also proactive involvement in suggesting and advocating for improvements, as well as active engagement in transformative initiatives (Nasra and Heilbrunn, 2016; Somech and Drach-Zahavy, 2000).

Sense of autonomy has been linked with several favorable outcomes, from increased sense of motivation to increased creativity, innovation, and satisfaction (Collie and Carroll, 2023; Gagné et al., 2022; Passanisi et al., 2022; Vo et al., 2022). The findings reveal that by establishing a strong sense of group cohesion, contextual leaders create a supportive and collaborative atmosphere where teachers feel comfortable expressing their ideas and opinions. This psychological safety encourages teachers to exercise autonomy in their instructional methods, curriculum design, and pedagogical approaches. They are more likely to experiment with innovative teaching strategies, tailor their lessons to meet the needs of individual students, and exercise their professional judgment (Roth et al., 2007; Ryan and Deci, 2017). When teachers feel connected and cohesive with their colleagues, they are more inclined to engage in collaborative learning, share best practices, and engage in professional development opportunities. This collective knowledge-sharing empowers teachers to make informed decisions and take ownership of their teaching practices, leading to greater autonomy in the classroom. Furthermore, group cohesion fosters a sense of shared mission and common goals among teachers. When teachers identify strongly with the values and objectives of the educational organization, they are more motivated to pursue autonomous behavior (Roth et al., 2007). They take initiative in seeking professional growth opportunities, engaging in reflective practices, and adapting their teaching approaches to align with the needs of their students and the organization's goals (Jansen in de Wal et al., 2014; van den Berghe et al., 2014).

Significance of the findings

The significance of these findings lies in their practical implications foremost for school leaders themselves. Principals can utilize contextual leadership strategies that promote teacher cohesion and address unique needs within their schools. For example, leaders may provide additional mentoring for early-career teachers, foster collaborative environments through team-building efforts, and develop supportive evaluation policies. Additionally, researchers should continue investigating connections between leadership style, school context factors, and other outcomes to provide leaders with evidence-based reform options tailored to their settings. On the other hand, policymakers need to allow flexibility in the implementation of reforms to accommodate variation across school contexts rather than taking a “one-size-fits-all” approach. By recognizing the contextual nature of effective leadership and providing customized supports, educational leaders and policymakers can positively impact school culture and teacher success. By highlighting the influence of contextual leadership on crucial outcomes like OCB and autonomous motivation, this study emphasizes for teachers the importance of contextual leaders who respond to their school's unique needs and challenges. Furthermore, in confirming group cohesion as a key mechanism impacted by leadership, the study suggests that leaders who actively cultivate shared identity and purpose can empower teachers through greater connection and teamwork.

Conclusion

Contextual leaders enhance group cohesion among teachers by creating a supportive culture, emphasizing shared goals and values, facilitating collaborative decision-making, providing support and resources, and fostering recognition. Through these actions, contextual leaders cultivate a strong GRID among teachers, where they feel connected, valued, and united in pursuit of common objectives.

Furthermore, the findings regarding the indirect positive relationships between contextual leadership and AMT, GRID, and OCB through the mediating effect of group cohesion provide empirical support for theoretical models that emphasize the importance of collective efficacy and social support within educational contexts. These findings suggest that when principals exhibit contextual leadership behaviors, it not only enhances group cohesion but also has a positive impact on teachers’ motivation, sense of identity, and their willingness to go above and beyond their formal job roles.

Limitations and future research

Despite a robust methodology, this study has a few limitations. Being a cross-sectional research design, we cannot claim definitive causal inference on the relationship between the variables. Nonetheless, causality can be derived from existing theories that leadership affects followers’ attitudes and beliefs. This quantitative study is limited in capturing the deeper complexities and sociocultural dynamics within unique leadership settings that shape outcomes. The cross-sectional design provides only a snapshot rather than tracking how leadership practices evolve over time. We suggest future researchers conduct longitudinal or experimental research for more conclusive findings on causal direction.

For this study, we hypothesized group cohesion as a mediator however we suggest that future researchers include additional variables that potentially mediate or moderate the association between contextual leadership and, OCB, GRID, and AMT. Similarly, future researchers may benefit from using other important dependent variables such as job satisfaction, teachers’ self-efficacy, or intrinsic motivation. While our model demonstrates strong goodness of fit, we acknowledge that complex models risk reduced generalizability despite improving fit. As such, we emphasized explained variance over fit alone during model selection, but future iterations should incorporate stronger compressibility checks through predictive cross-validation with holdout data to optimize the balance between explained variance and parsimony. Also, risks of semantic affinity between measurement terms and hypotheses present opportunities to strengthen falsification checks in future work.

Finally, since the study was conducted in China, the influence of cultural context and values such as collectivism, traditionality, and power distance needs to be considered. There are indications that the findings of this study will hold across cultures since AMT, GRID, and OCB have been extensively studied in China with little influence on the local culture. Similarly, most leadership models—transformational, transactional, and distributive—have also been extensively studied in China with little deviation from the existing findings elsewhere.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Mohammad Noman

Kaili Fang

Author biographies

Mohammad Noman is an assistant professor of Educational Leadership at the College of Education, Wenzhou-Kean University, China. He also serves as the Coordinator for the Graduate programs in Educational Leadership. His research primarily focuses on educational leadership and cognitive sciences, examining their application in both school and higher education contexts.

Jianmei Xu is a professor of education at the School of Education, Hangzhou Normal University, Zhejiang, China. Her research interests encompass teacher education, professional learning communities, and educational policy. Widely published, she has actively participated in numerous national and international conferences, contributing to the advancement of educational research.

Amrita Kaur is an assistant professor of Psychology at the College of Liberal Arts, Wenzhou-Kean University, China. She is the Program Coordinator for the departmentof psychology at the university. Her primary research area revolves around teaching, learning, and assessment in higher education. Moreover, she explores topics such as students as partners, learning motivation and engagement, and cross-cultural studies for learning.

Kaili Fang is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Educational Leadership, Wenzhou-Kean University, China. Having served as a school teacher for several years, she possesses valuable practical experience in education. Her research centers on educational leadership and its effectiveness in both schools and institutions of higher education, aiming to contribute meaningfully to the field.

References

Abuke

Wöber

Scott

, et al. (2014). Knowledge sharing in revenue management teams: Antecedents and consequences of group cohesion. International Journal of Hospitality Management 41: 149–157.

Ahmed

(2021) Teacher empowerment and organisational citizenship behaviour in public schools in Saudi Arabia. Management in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/08920206211030929

Alfayez

, et al. (2021). Principal’s learning-centred leadership practices and teacher’s wellbeing: a self-determination theory perspective. Educational Studies 1–19.

Alqahtani

Noman

Kaur

(2021) Core leadership practices of school principals in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(2): 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220965829

Avolio

Gardner

(2005) Authentic leadership development: Getting to the root of positive forms of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly 16: 315–338.

Belogolovsky

Somech

(2010) Teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior: Examining the boundary between in-role behavior and extra-role behavior from the perspective of teachers, principals and parents. Teaching and Teacher Education 26(4): 914–923. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.032

Bollen

Hoyle

(1990) Perceived cohesion: A conceptual and empirical examination. Social Forces 69: 479–504.

Brislin

(1970) Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1(3): 185–216. https://doi.org/10.1177/135910457000100301

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

, et al. (2010) Organizing Schools for Improvement: Lessons From CHICAGO. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.

10.

Burns

(1978) Leadership. New York: Harper & Row.

11.

Bush

(2018) Editorial: Leadership and context: Why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 46(1): 3–4.

12.

Casey-Campbell

Martens

(2009) Sticking it all together: A critical assessment of the group cohesion-performance literature. International Journal of Management Reviews 11(2): 223–246.

13.

Cheasakul

Varma

(2016) The influence of passion and empowerment on organisational citizenship behavior of teachers mediated by organisational commitment. Contaduría y Administración 61(3): 422–440.

14.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

15.

Collie

Carroll

(2023) Autonomy-pressure profiles among teachers: Changes over a school term, leadership predictors, and workplace outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education 124: 103998.

16.

Collier

(2020) Applied Structural Equation Modeling Using AMOS: Basic to Advanced Techniques, 1st ed. New York, NY: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003018414.

17.

Dinh

Lord

Gardner

, et al. (2014) Leadership theory and research in the new millennium: Current theoretical trends and changing perspectives. The Leadership Quarterly 15: 36–62.

18.

Durneac

(2012) Group cohesion and performance: A bank analysis. Acta Universitatis Danubius 8(4): 32–40.

19.

Evans

(2022) Is leadership a myth? A ‘new wave’ critical leadership-focused research agenda for recontouring the landscape of educational leadership. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 50(3): 413–435.

20.

Falk

Miller

(1992) A Primer for Soft Modeling. United States of America: University of Akron Press.

21.

Fernet

Torrès

Austin

, et al. (2016) The psychological costs of owning and managing an SME: Linking job stressors, occupational loneliness, entrepreneurial orientation, and burnout. Burnout Research 3(2), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.burn.2016.03.002

22.

Gagné

Parker

Griffin

, et al. (2022) Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory. Nat Rev Psychol 1: 378–392.

23.

Grissom

Egalite

Lindsay

(2021) How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research. New York: The Wallace Foundation. Available at: http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis.

24.

Hair

Black

Babin

, et al. (2010) Multivariate Data Analysis, 7th ed. New York, NY: Pearson.

25.

Hallinger

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

26.

Hallinger

Huber

(2012) School leadership that makes a difference: International perspectives. School Effectiveness and School Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice 23(4): 359–367.

27.

Hanson

Niqab

Arif

(2022) Organizational citizenship behaviour (OCB) in educational settings: A narrative review. JISR Management and Social Sciences & Economics 20(1): 21–42.

28.

Hanushek

Rivkin

(2010) Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review 100(2): 267–271. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.267

29.

Hayes

(2018) An Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press.

30.

ANH

(2020) Investigating the relationship between benevolent leadership and the organisational citizenship behaviour of academic staff: The mediating role of leader-member exchange. Management in Education. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620980000

31.

Hogg

(2023) Walls between groups: Self-uncertainty, social identity, and intergroup leadership. Journal of Social Issues: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12584.

32.

Hogg

Van Knippenberg

(2003) Social identity and leadership processes in groups. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 35: 1–52.

33.

Hogg

Van Knippenberg

Rast

(2012) The social identity theory of leadership: Theoretical origins, research findings, and conceptual developments. European Review of Social Psychology 23: 258–304.

34.

House

Aditya

(1997) The social scientific study of leadership: Quo vadis? Journal of Management 23(3): 409–473.

35.

Bentler

(1999) Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6: 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

36.

Jansen in de Wal

den Brok

Hooijer

, et al. (2014) Teachers’ engagement in professional learning: Exploring motivational profiles. Learning and Individual Differences 36: 27–36.

37.

Kaplan

Madjar

(2017) The motivational outcomes of psychological need supportamong pre-service teachers: Multicultural and self-determination theory perspectives. Frontiers in Education 2: 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2017.00042

38.

Klassen

Perry

Frenzel

(2012). Teachers''relatedness with students: An underemphasized component of teachers'‘ basicpsychological needs. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(1), 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026253

39.

Kline

(2005) Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

40.

Lakomski

Evers

(2022) The importance of context for leadership in education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 50(2): 269–284.

41.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 5–22.

42.

Leithwood

Sun

Schumacker

(2019) How school leadershipinfluences student learning: A test of “the four paths model”. Educational Administration Quarterly 56: 570–599.

43.

Nasra

Heilbrunn

(2016) Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior in the Arab educational system in Israel: The impact of trust and job satisfaction. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(3): 380–396.

44.

Nguyen

PND

Tran

DNT

(2022) Does organisational citizenship behavior predict organisational commitment of employees in higher educational institutions? Frontiers in Education 7: 909263.

45.

Nie

Chua

Yeung

, et al. (2015) The importance of autonomy support and the mediating role of work motivation for well-being: Testing self-determination theory in a Chinese work organisation. International Journal of Psychology 50(4): 245–255.

46.

Noman

Awang Hashim

Shaik Abdullah

(2018) Contextual leadership practices: The case of a successful school principal in Malaysia. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(3): 474–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745880

47.

Noman

Gurr

(2020) Contextual leadership and culture in education. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education.

48.

Noman

Hashim

Sarimah

(2017) Principal’s coalition building and personal traits brings success to a struggling school in Malaysia. The Qualitative Report.

49.

Noman

Kaur

Zhang

Teng

Liu

(2024) Leading to succeed: contextual leadership practices of semi-urban school principals in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education 1–20.

50.

(2018) Contextual leadership: A systematic review of how contextual factors shape leadership and its outcomes. The Leadership Quarterly 29(1): 218–235.

51.

Organ

(1977) A reappraisal and reinterpretation of the satisfaction-causes-performance hypothesis. Academy of Management Review 2(1): 46–53.

52.

Özdemir

Sezgin

Kılınç

AÇ

, et al. (2023) A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices: The mediation of teacher collective efficacy and the moderation of uncertainty avoidance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432231177536

53.

Passanisi

Buzzai

Pace

(2022) Special education teachers: The role of autonomous motivation in the relationship between Teachers’ efficacy for inclusive practice and teaching styles. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19: 10921.

54.

Pizzolitto

Verna

Venditti

(2022) Authoritarian leadership styles and performance: a systematic literature review and research agenda. Manag Rev Q. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-022-00263-y

55.

Podsakoff

MacKenzie

Paine

, et al. (2000) Organisational citizenship behaviors: A critical review of the theoretical and empirical literature and suggestions for future research. Journal of Management 26(3): 513–563.

56.

Riisla

Wendt

Babalola

, et al. (2021) Building cohesive teams—the role ofLeaders’ bottom-line mentality and behavior. Sustainability 13: 8047.

57.

Roth

Assor

Kanat-Maymon

, et al. (2007) Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 99(4): 744–761.

58.

Ryan

Deci

(2017) Self-determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

59.

Sani

Madhok

Norbury

, et al. (2015) Greater number of group identifications is associated with lower odds of being depressed: Evidence from a Scottish community sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology 50(9): 1389–1397

60.

Schaubroeck

Shen

Chong

(2017) A dual-stage moderated mediation model linking authoritarian leadership to follower outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology 102: 203–214.

61.

Shrestha

(2021) Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis. American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 9(1): 4–11.

62.

Somech

Drach-Zahavy

(2000) Understanding extra-role behavior in schools: The relationships between job satisfaction, sense of efficacy and teachers’ extra-role behavior. Teaching and Teacher Education 16(5-6), 649–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00012-3

63.

Spector

Bauer

Fox

(2010) Measurement artifacts in the assessment of counterproductive work behavior and organisational citizenship behavior: Do we know what we think we know? Journal of Applied Psychology 95(4): 781–790.

64.

Sridhar

Gorbonos

, et al. (2021) The geometry of decision-making in individuals and collectives. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 118: e2102157118.

65.

Steffens

Munt

Van Knippenberg

, et al. (2021) Advancing the social identity theory of leadership: A meta-analytic review of leader group prototypicality. Organizational Psychology Review 11(1): 35–72.

66.

Sutherland

Bolden

Edwards

(2022) Putting leadership in its place: Introduction to the special issue. Leadership 18(1): 3–12.

67.

Tajfel

(1979) Individuals and groups in social psychology. British Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology 18(2): 183–190.

68.

Turner

Hogg

Oakes

, et al. (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.

69.

Uhl-Bien

Pillai

(2007) The romance of leadership and the social construction of followership. In: Shamir

Pillai

Bligh

Uhl-Bien

(eds) Follower-centered Perspectives on Leadership: A Tribute to the Memory of James R. Greenwich, CT: Meindl, Information Age Publishing, pp.187–209.

70.

Ullah

Raza

Ali

, et al. (2021) Linking self-efficacy and organisational citizenship behavior: A moderated mediation model. International Journal of Organisational Leadership 10: 233–247.

71.

Van den Berghe L, Vansteenkiste M, Cardon G, et al. (2014) Research on self-determination in physical education: Key findings and proposals for future research. Physi-cal Education and Sport Pedagogy 19(1): 97–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2012.732563

72.

TTD

Tuliao

Chen

(2022) Work motivation: The roles of individual needs and social conditions. Behav Sci (Basel) 12(2): 49. PMID: 35200300; PMCID: PMC8869198.

73.

Walk

(2023) Leaders as change executors: The impact of leader attitudes to change and change-specific support on followers. European Management Journal 41(1): 154–163.

74.

Walumbwa

Avolio

Gardner

, et al. (2008) Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management 34(1): 89–126.

75.

Yukl

(2012) Leadership in Organisations, 8th ed. New York: Prentice-Hall.