The research, published in the journal Discover Education, was grounded in Full Range Leadership Theory, a widely used framework that conceptualizes leadership as a spectrum spanning three broad styles. Transformational leadership, at the active and inspirational end, motivates followers through idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration. Transactional leadership operates through structured exchanges: contingent rewards for meeting agreed standards and management-by-exception, in which leaders intervene when performance deviates from expectations. At the passive end sits laissez-faire leadership, marked by delayed decisions, absent supervision, and an avoidance of responsibility altogether.

To measure these styles, the researchers adapted the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, the standard instrument developed by Bass and Avolio, and paired it with the classic 18-item Organizational Commitment Questionnaire developed by Allen and Meyer, which captures three distinct dimensions of workplace attachment. Affective commitment reflects emotional attachment to the school; continuance commitment reflects the perceived cost of leaving; and normative commitment reflects a felt moral obligation to stay. Questionnaires were translated into Afaan Oromo and independently back-translated to guarantee linguistic equivalence, and pilot testing confirmed acceptable internal consistency across all scales.

The statistical verdict on leadership practice was unambiguous. One-sample t-tests, benchmarked against the theoretical midpoint of 3.00 on a five-point scale, showed that principals’ transformational leadership scored far below expectations, with a mean of just 2.06 and an effect size of 7.15, an unusually large deviation. Transactional leadership also fell significantly below the midpoint at 2.76, with contingent rewards rated particularly low at a mean of 1.94, suggesting that recognition and performance-based incentives are rarely deployed. Laissez-faire behavior, by contrast, exceeded the midpoint at a mean of 3.28, with item-level analysis showing consistent agreement across indicators of leadership avoidance, delayed decision-making, and restricted supervisory engagement.

Teachers’ organizational commitment followed a similarly discouraging pattern. Overall commitment registered dramatically below the scale midpoint, with a t-value of -26.636 and a large effect size of 1.92. Continuance commitment, at a mean of 2.73, was the strongest of the three dimensions, but the researchers interpret this as a warning sign rather than a strength: teachers appear to stay because leaving carries personal and professional costs, not because they feel emotionally bound to their schools or obligated to their mission. Affective and normative commitment, the dimensions most closely tied to discretionary effort and organizational citizenship, were weaker still.

Correlation analysis then probed whether leadership style and commitment move together. Transformational leadership showed a modest but statistically significant positive association with normative commitment, hinting that visionary and supportive behavior can strengthen teachers’ sense of moral obligation. Transactional leadership produced a split result: a positive, significant correlation with continuance commitment but a negative, significant correlation with normative commitment, consistent with reward-based exchanges reinforcing stay-or-leave calculations while doing little for principled dedication. Laissez-faire leadership correlated negatively with affective and continuance commitment and with overall commitment, aligning with the international consensus that passive leadership erodes staff motivation.

Multiple regression added an important and humbling nuance. The combination of transformational and transactional styles significantly predicted normative commitment, but the model explained only 3.3 percent of the variance. Transformational leadership contributed a positive coefficient and transactional leadership a negative one, yet neither predictor reached individual significance. Leadership, the authors conclude, is statistically related to commitment but is only one thread in a much larger organizational fabric that includes working conditions, professional development opportunities, school climate, institutional support, and teachers’ personal circumstances.

That nuance matters for policy. Ethiopia’s Ministry of Education has reported that only about 30.2 percent of primary school leaders possess the necessary leadership competencies, and prior Ethiopian studies have linked weak principal preparation, political interference, and inadequate institutional support to low teacher commitment. The Haramaya findings echo this national picture at the local level and suggest that leadership training alone, while necessary, will not suffice. The researchers recommend embedding transformational leadership competencies, instructional leadership, collaborative decision-making, and regular performance feedback into ongoing professional development, and incorporating leadership performance into principal evaluation and school quality assurance systems.

The study’s design carries caveats that temper causal claims. The cross-sectional, correlational approach cannot establish whether passive leadership lowers commitment or whether disengaged teachers simply perceive their principals more negatively; reverse causality remains possible. All data came from self-report questionnaires, leaving results vulnerable to social desirability and common method bias, and the single-woreda sample limits generalizability. The authors also note that no validated cut-off scores exist for the commitment scale, so the low scores should be read as relatively depressed commitment rather than categorical inadequacy, and they call for longitudinal, multilevel, and mixed-methods designs to untangle the mechanisms at work.

Even with those limitations, the signal is hard to ignore. In a system where nearly seven in ten school leaders are considered under-prepared, the passive leadership documented in Haramaya Woreda appears to coexist with a teaching workforce that stays out of inertia rather than conviction. The study’s central message is that reclaiming teacher commitment in Ethiopian primary schools will require leaders who show up: setting a shared vision, rewarding achievement deliberately, and replacing avoidance with active, supportive engagement in the daily life of their schools.

Subject of Research: Principals' leadership styles and teachers' organizational commitment in Ethiopian primary schools.

Article Title: Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ organizational commitment in primary schools of Haramaya Woreda, Ethiopia

Article References: Arab, A., Asegu, D. A., Abamalik, H. D., Mosisa, C., & Basha, G. (2026). Principals’ leadership styles and teachers’ organizational commitment in primary schools of Haramaya Woreda, Ethiopia. Discover Education, 5(1), Article 900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-026-02117-1

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44217-026-02117-1

Keywords: transformational leadership, transactional leadership, laissez-faire leadership, organizational commitment, primary schools, principals, teacher retention, Ethiopia, educational leadership, teacher motivation, school management, Discover Education