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

At the organizational level, the research identifies transformational leadership by school principals as a pivotal catalyst in motivating teachers to adopt inclusive education practices. In societies characterized by collectivism and significant power distance—such as China—leaders traditionally hold considerable sway over staff behaviors and attitudes. Principals who embody transformational qualities do more than merely enforce policies; they inspire, intellectually stimulate, and individually support teachers, fostering an environment where inclusion transcends policy and becomes an authentic shared value. The study corroborates previous qualitative findings by quantifying this impact and highlighting how adherence to principals’ inclusive visions translates into teachers perceiving inclusion not as an optional add-on but as an intrinsic aspect of their professional responsibilities.

Yet, this dynamic unfolds against the backdrop of a historically entrenched examination-driven culture that prioritizes standardized test results above pedagogical innovation. This context imposes significant constraints, acting as cognitive and systemic brakes on leaders and teachers alike. Despite relatively low baseline levels of transformational leadership and teachers’ inclusive intentions reported in the study, the evidence reveals that when principals genuinely adopt and enact inclusive leadership behaviors, substantial positive changes in teacher motivation emerge. Under visionary and supportive leadership, educators begin to see inclusive instruction as compatible with core educational goals, making strides toward reconciling traditional educational mandates with the imperatives of diversity and equity.

A salient feature of this investigation is its emphasis on the role of the school’s inclusion climate—a collective perception of how inclusive values are realized in the everyday functioning of the school community. The findings reveal that transformational principals do not simply influence teachers directly; they shape the broader organizational culture, setting an inclusive tone that permeates norms, practices, and shared expectations. This inclusive climate acts as a fertile ground where teachers feel emotionally and professionally supported to address varied student needs. Principals’ influential role in establishing this climate aligns with leadership theories asserting that school heads essentially ‘set the tone’ for institutional culture, reinforcing the imperative for principals to be strategic culture shapers as well as instructional leaders.

Further advancing this understanding, mediational analyses illuminate a nuanced pathway linking transformational leadership, inclusive climate, and teacher efficacy. Teacher efficacy—the belief in one’s capability to execute inclusive teaching effectively—emerges as a critical psychological construct mediating leadership’s influence on teachers’ intentions. Within an inclusion-friendly climate, teachers experience greater collegial exchange, access increased resources, and feel safer experimenting with innovative instructional adaptations for students with special educational needs (SEN). This positive feedback loop reduces teachers’ anxieties and elevates their confidence, which is crucial in collectivist environments where professional self-beliefs are importantly shaped by social relationships and communal expectations.

Beyond organizational factors, the investigation foregrounds the profound role of teacher-level variables, with efficacy standing out as a primary individual determinant of intention to implement inclusive pedagogy. This finding underscores a well-established narrative in educational psychology: self-efficacy is not simply a motivator but a requisite precursor to behavioral change. The study fills a critical gap by empirically validating this connection within the Chinese inclusive education context, a setting marked by unique cultural pressures and pedagogical challenges. By demonstrating that teachers who perceive themselves as efficacious are significantly more likely to intend inclusive teaching, the researchers point toward the value of interventions targeting teachers’ emotional and cognitive resources as a means to foster sustainable inclusion.

The interplay between transformational leadership and teacher efficacy further reinforces the holistic nature of school change. Principals who demonstrate transformational behaviors provide emotional, intellectual, and administrative support that enriches teachers’ efficacy beliefs. This dynamic echoes the principles of social cognitive theory, where support from influential figures functions as a powerful source of efficacy enablers. Particularly in collectivist societies, the social fabric of workplace relationships critically informs individual beliefs, thus magnifying the impact of inclusive leadership on teacher confidence and readiness to innovate.

However, the study also delineates boundaries of influence, revealing that while the inclusive school climate is instrumental in building teacher efficacy, it alone does not directly inspire teachers’ behavioral intentions toward inclusion. This intriguing insight reveals the complex and layered nature of teacher motivation, suggesting that a welcoming environment is necessary but insufficient without concurrently nurturing teachers’ intrapersonal competencies and psychological readiness. Essentially, it is the convergence of a supportive climate and robust efficacy that yields authentic commitment to inclusive teaching.

Moreover, this chain-mediated relationship—the movement from transformational leadership through inclusive climate and teacher efficacy to teachers’ inclusive intentions—highlights a sequential process of professional growth and organizational change. At its core, it illustrates how systemic leadership efforts coalesce at the individual psychological level to produce tangible shifts in teaching practices. Without bolstering teacher efficacy, the effect of leadership on intentions remains fragmented, thus stalling the transformative potential of inclusion-focused policies.

The implications of these findings are profound, particularly for educational policymakers and school leaders aiming to foster inclusive schooling in challenging socio-cultural landscapes. The research advocates for the cultivation of principals’ transformational leadership capacities, combined with the intentional design of school climates that genuinely embody inclusive values. Equally important is investment in professional development that strengthens teachers’ self-efficacy, enabling them to confidently navigate the complexities of differentiated instruction and behavioral management in diverse classrooms.

Finally, the study resonates with the cautionary assertion from inclusion scholars: unless teachers feel capable of meeting diverse learners’ needs, inclusive initiatives risk generating anxiety and resistance rather than empowerment and success. Building efficacy is not merely an adjunct to inclusion efforts; it is foundational. In essence, schools must strive to create ecosystems where leadership, culture, and individual belief systems align synergistically toward the shared goal of true educational inclusion.

In conclusion, this comprehensive exploration of teachers’ inclusive education intentions in Mainland China delineates the critical interplay between organizational leadership, school climate, and teacher efficacy. It offers a scientifically robust, culturally sensitive model that advances global understanding of why and how teachers choose to embrace inclusive practices. As education systems worldwide grapple with the complexities of diversity and equity, these insights provide a valuable roadmap to harness leadership and psychological mechanisms in service of inclusive transformation.

Subject of Research: Investigating the factors that influence teachers’ intentions to implement inclusive education practices, focusing on transformational leadership by principals, school inclusion climate, and teacher efficacy within Mainland China’s educational context.

Article Title: Facilitating teachers’ inclusive education intentions: the roles of transformational leadership, school climate, and teacher efficacy.

Article References:
Wang, T., Deng, M. & Tian, G. Facilitating teachers’ inclusive education intentions: the roles of transformational leadership, school climate, and teacher efficacy.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 636 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04977-8

Image Credits: AI Generated