The mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership

Pakize Mısırcı; Fatih Bozbayındır

doi:10.1186/s40359-026-04328-5

. 2026 Mar 19;14:612. doi: 10.1186/s40359-026-04328-5

The mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership

Pakize Mısırcı ¹, Fatih Bozbayındır ^2,^✉

PMCID: PMC13123003 PMID: 41851825

Abstract

Background

This study aims to examine the direct relationships among learning-centred leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership, as well as the mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership.

Methods

The sample of the study consists of 513 teachers working in the southeast of Türkiye in the 2023–2024 academic year. The relationships among the variables were analyzed using structural equation modeling.

Results

The study concluded that learning-centred leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership are positively and significantly related. Moreover, positive psychological capital partially mediates the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership. The findings indicate that learning-centered leadership is significantly related to teacher leadership, both directly and indirectly through positive psychological capital.

Conclusions

In order to encourage teachers' leadership behaviours, it is important for school administrators to exhibit learning-centred leadership and implement initiatives to increase teachers' positive psychological capital. In future studies, factors affecting teacher leadership (individual and organisational) can be determined with larger and different samples or experimental and longitudinal studies.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04328-5.

Keywords: Positive psychological capital, Learning-centred leadership, Teacher leadership

Introduction

Education systems are embedded in a continuous process of renewal driven by the economic, cultural, and scientific evolution of societies. Accordingly, educational practices are shaped in alignment with societal needs and scientific advancements. One of the most prominent reflections of these changes is the transformation in school leadership and management. To enhance student achievement, school leaders are expected to adopt innovative instructional methods, support teachers’ professional development, and effectively oversee the instructional content [1]. In this context, the leadership approach of educational administrators should extend beyond managerial competencies to encompass a pedagogical perspective aimed at improving the effectiveness of teaching processes [2] stated that a leadership approach that fosters teachers' professional development enhances teachers' commitment to their roles and improves students' attitudes towards lessons. On the other hand [3], emphasize that positive psychological capital should be cultivated in connection with teachers' leadership style. Positive psychological capital (PPC) enhances teachers' commitment to their roles, professional perceptions, and job satisfaction. When aligned with learning-centred leadership (LBL), it can strengthen these processes and contribute to teacher leadership (TL). Success in education is directly linked to teachers' effective leadership practices and their ability to guide teaching processes. Consequently, the need for developing effective leadership approaches is becoming increasingly crucial [3, 4] emphasize that positive psychological capital should be developed in alignment with teachers' leadership style. Therefore, there is a need for leaders who foster positive outcomes through constructive practices within organizations, and who utilize and enhance both their own and their employees' positive psychological capital [5]. This study proposes an integrated theoretical model examining the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership through the mediating role of positive psychological capital. While previous studies [4, 6–9] have primarily focused on dyadic relationships among these variables, the present research extends the literature by considering all three constructs within a unified framework grounded in the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) model. Within this framework, learning-centred leadership is conceptualized as a job resource that fosters supportive and development-oriented working conditions. Positive psychological capital is positioned as a personal resource that strengthens teachers’ motivational capacity. Consistent with the JD-R motivational process, job resources enhance personal resources, which in turn promote positive work-related behaviours. In this respect, teacher leadership is conceptualized as a motivational outcome emerging from the activation of both contextual and personal resources. Accordingly, the aim of this study is to determine the extent to which learning-centred leadership predicts teacher leadership and to examine the mediating role of positive psychological capital in this relationship.

Literature review

Learning-Centred Leadership (LCL)

Learning-Centred Leadership (LCL) is conceptualized in the literature as a leadership model that integrates organizational learning with the professional development of teachers, positioning all school stakeholders as active contributors to school improvement [10, 11]. This approach emphasizes not only the enhancement of learning outcomes but also the cultivation of both individual and collective learning capacities within the school. A distinctive feature of LCL lies in its commitment to democratic participation, whereby teachers and other stakeholders are actively involved in shaping the school's development processes [12]. Additionally, LCL promotes equity by ensuring that all staff members have access to robust and equal professional learning opportunities [13]. Collectively, these studies underline that LCL moves beyond traditional hierarchical leadership models by fostering an inclusive, collaborative, and learning-focused school culture. Research indicates that LCL aims to create an environment that fosters learning for both teachers and students within the school [14–16]. Therefore, LCL supports teachers' professional development by providing necessary resources, promotes continuous learning through interactions with colleagues, and adopts an approach that enhances their skills [13, 17–19]. While LCL focuses on school management processes, it also aims to improve teachers' professional development and pedagogical competencies [20]. In this context, LCL can be defined as a process that emphasizes continuous development and cooperation.

Teacher Leadership (TL)

Teacher leadership is widely regarded as a key mechanism for enhancing both student learning and instructional quality. Rather than being confined to formal authority, it is defined as the active engagement of teachers in guiding educational processes, supporting colleagues, and shaping a positive and collaborative school culture [21]. Research highlights that teacher leadership is intrinsically linked to professional development and school integration, emphasizing teachers' roles not only as classroom practitioners but also as contributors to broader institutional change [22]. These perspectives collectively suggest that teacher leadership thrives in environments that value shared decision-making, collegial collaboration, and a sustained focus on improving teaching and learning. Collaboration, a key component of teacher leadership, plays a crucial role in enhancing the overall effectiveness of the school. In this context, teachers must collaborate not only with students but also with each other and school administrators [23]. Therefore, the teacher leader both guides colleagues and boosts their motivation by providing psychological support [24]. Furthermore, the teacher leader fosters collaboration within the school by encouraging other teachers to take on active leadership roles in the process of improving educational quality [25]. One of the key characteristics of teacher leaders is their ongoing professional development. Teacher leadership allows educators to showcase their leadership potential and contribute to change processes within the school, while simultaneously addressing teachers' psychological and professional [21], as well as enhancing teachers' motivation and job satisfaction [1]. The leadership role of teachers also influences the overall culture and working environment of the school [26] and the academic achievement of the school [4]. In this context, school administrators can enhance the success of the school by incorporating practices aimed at developing teachers' leadership skills and fostering collaboration [27].

Positive Psychological Capital (PPC)

PPC is a concept rooted in the fields of positive psychology and positive organizational behavior. According to [28], research on organizations, employees, and leaders has traditionally focused on "what is wrong" rather than "what is right." However, emphasizing individuals' strengths rather than their weaknesses contributes significantly to the development of more effective managers and the advancement of human resources. Positive organizational behavior refers to a strategic approach that aims to enhance both individual and organizational performance by systematically integrating measurable, developable, and manageable psychological strengths into workplace practices [29]. Within this framework, Positive Psychological Capital (PPC) represents an individual’s positive psychological state of development, encompassing core components such as self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience. Studies have shown that PPC not only contributes positively to employees’ attitudes and behaviors but also serves as a psychological resource that can be cultivated and effectively managed to improve job performance [29, 30, 31, 32, 33]. Rather than focusing on deficits, this perspective highlights the value of leveraging human strengths to foster both personal growth and organizational effectiveness.

Positive psychological capital, which encompasses various positive traits aimed at enhancing employee productivity, can be measured through six key psychological capacities: confidence, self-efficacy, hope, optimism, psychological resilience, and extraversion [33]. Confidence, in particular, enhances individuals' ability to cope with challenges and increases their tendency to take risks and seize new opportunities [28]. Self-efficacy refers to an individual's belief in their ability to successfully perform the behaviours necessary to achieve a specific goal [31] and to exert the necessary effort to succeed [8]. Hope encourages individuals to seek alternative solutions by distancing them from learned helplessness, helps them persist toward their goals, and supports them in overcoming obstacles [8, 31]. Optimism helps individuals attribute negative situations to temporary and external factors, allows them to evaluate their past experiences in a healthier way, and encourages them to approach life from a positive perspective [34–36]. Psychological resilience refers to an individual's ability to recover and grow in response to trauma or stressful events. It involves not only overcoming obstacles but also learning from these experiences [28, 37–39]. Finally, extraversion is a trait that enables individuals to engage actively in social interactions and plays a key role in strengthening social connections [40, 41]. Although the components of PPC are distinct structures, the effect of PPC, formed by the combination of these components, is greater than the sum of the individual effects of each component [33].

Hypotheses

LCL-TL

Teacher leadership (TL) refers to the ability of teachers to guide and motivate their colleagues, demonstrating leadership throughout the school [21, 42]. This process involves an understanding of effective leadership not only in the classroom but also within the broader structure of the school. Learning-centred leadership (LCL), on the other hand, encourages teachers' active participation in decision-making processes, allowing them to have a voice not only in educational matters but also in school management [26]. These two leadership models complement each other and enhance school success by supporting teachers' professional development [4, 7]. LCL helps teachers develop innovative practices, adopt a teamwork-based approach, and strive for collective success [43]. As a result, both TL and LCL are critical elements that support teachers' professional development [1]. Based on these theoretical and empirical relationships, it can be argued that LCL positively impacts TL (Hypothesis 1).

LCL-PPC

LCL is an approach in which leaders not only invest in their own development but also support individuals' learning processes by unlocking their potential. This leadership model enhances employees' psychological well-being and helps individuals strengthen elements of positive psychological capital, such as hope, self-efficacy, resilience, and optimism [8, 41] stated that leaders are key antecedents of positive psychological capital. In particular, leaders who encourage individuals to learn, foster open communication, and support innovative approaches help reinforce individuals' self-efficacy and resilience [44]. Leaders with PPC are more effective in implementing learning-centred leadership, as they are self-confident, motivating, and capable of making strategic decisions [9]. Based on these theoretical and empirical relationships, it can be argued that LCL positively impacts PPC (Hypothesis 2).

PPC-TL

Positive psychological capital (PPC) is a concept that enhances individuals' developmental potential by focusing on psychological resources such as self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism [7, 30]. There is a strong relationship between PPC and TL can reinforce these elements by guiding their colleagues, fostering a culture of collaboration, and providing a supportive environment [45]. Teachers with high levels of PPC are more resilient in the face of challenges, can motivate their peers through solution-oriented approaches, and are more likely to take on leadership roles in teaching processes [7]. This interaction enhances the sustainability of teacher leadership and contributes significantly to organizational success. Based on these theoretical and empirical relationships, it can be argued that PPC positively impacts TL (Hypothesis 3).

LCL-PPC-TL

Employees TL is not solely limited to pedagogical competencies; it is also closely associated with teachers' psychological well-being. TL has the potential to directly enhance school effectiveness by improving teacher morale and the quality of work life through increased participation and collaboration [46]. Given these characteristics, teachers’ PPC plays a crucial role in the emergence of effective leadership behaviours. The interaction between LCL, PPC, and TL fosters a more effective and sustainable leadership model within educational settings. While TL encourages educators to take on leadership responsibilities, LCL facilitates the implementation of innovative approaches in educational settings. Understanding the interaction between these two leadership models is essential for school administrators seeking to empower teachers and drive educational transformation.

The relationship among these three variables can be examined within the framework of the Job Demands–Resources (JD-R) Model, a widely used theoretical approach for explaining employee motivation and well-being in organizational settings [47]. According to the JD-R model, job demands require sustained effort, whereas job resources foster motivation, professional growth, and positive work outcomes. In addition, personal resources play a crucial role in activating the motivational process. Within this framework, learning-centred leadership (LCL) can be conceptualized as a job resource that supports teachers’ professional learning, autonomy, and instructional development. Positive psychological capital (PPC), comprising personal capacities such as self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience, represents a personal resource that strengthens teachers’ motivational potential. Consistent with the JD-R motivational pathway, job resources enhance personal resources, which in turn promote proactive and performance-related behaviours. From this perspective, the extent to which learning-centred leadership translates into teacher leadership may depend on teachers’ levels of positive psychological capital. Teachers with higher PPC are more likely to mobilize available job resources effectively and exhibit leadership behaviours such as initiative-taking, responsibility, and innovativeness. Accordingly, positive psychological capital is conceptualized as a mediating mechanism linking learning-centred leadership to teacher leadership. Overall, grounding the model in the JD-R framework provides a theoretically coherent explanation of how organizational and personal resources interact to foster leadership capacity in educational settings.

This study aims to address a significant gap in the educational leadership literature by examining the relationships among TL, LCL, and PPC. PPC enhances individuals’ leadership capacities by enabling them to draw on internal psychological resources such as self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism. In this context, the mediating role of PPC in the relationship between LCL and TL may contribute to the strengthening of leadership behaviours and the professional development of teachers. This study seeks to make a meaningful contribution to the literature by offering a deeper understanding of the relationships among these variables and exploring how PPC can function as an empowering factor in leadership practices. Specifically, it provides practical recommendations for leveraging the interaction between PPC and TL to foster a more positive school climate and enhance performance levels within schools. Accordingly, the primary aim of this study is to examine the direct relationships among LCL, PPC, and TL. Furthermore, it aims to investigate the mediating role of PPC in the relationship between LCL and TL.

In line with this aim, the following hypotheses were tested in the study, and the hypothesised model is presented in Fig. 1. According to the model presented in Fig. 1, the following hypotheses were formulated:

Learning-centred leadership is positively associated with teacher leadership.
Learning-centred leadership is positively associated with positive psychological capital.
Positive psychological capital is positively associated with teacher leadership.
Positive psychological capital mediates the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership.

This model illustrates the hypothesised relationships between learning-centred leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership. It also demonstrates the mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership.

Method

Research model

Relational survey model, a type of quantitative research design, was employed in this study. This model is used to assess an entire population or a representative sample in order to examine the relationships among elements within a given universe. The relational survey design aims to determine the existence and degree of association between two or more quantitative variables [48, 49]. A consistent change between variables indicates that they share common variance or change in tandem [50]. In this context, the study was designed using the relational survey model, as it sought to determine the nature, direction, and strength of the relationships between LCL, TL and PPC.

Study group

The sample of the study consists of secondary school teachers working in the southeast of Türkiye in the 2023–2024 academic year. In this study, the simple random sampling method was used, which ensures that each individual in the population has an equal and independent chance of being selected. This method is widely regarded as one of the most appropriate and valid techniques for obtaining a representative sample of the population [51]. A total of 513 teachers were selected through this method. Among the participants, 261 (50.9%) were female and 252 (49.1%) were male. In terms of age, 254 (49.5%) were between 20–30 years old, 186 (36.3%) were aged 31–40, 64 (12.5%) were aged 41–50, and 9 (1.8%) were 51 years or older. Regarding teaching experience, 248 teachers (48.3%) had 1–5 years, 144 (28.1%) had 6–10 years, 70 (13.6%) had 11–15 years, and 51 (9.9%) had more than 16 years of experience. Concerning educational qualifications, 365 teachers (71.2%) held a bachelor’s degree, while 148 (28.8%) had a postgraduate degree. Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Gaziantep University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Approval No: E-87841438–302.08.01–421292; Decision No: 53, dated 05.12.2023, Meeting No: 13). All procedures were carried out in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and particular attention was paid to upholding scientific research and publication ethics.

Data collection tools

LCL scale

The LCL (Learning-Centered Leadership) scale used in this study was developed by [52] and adapted into Turkish by [53]. This scale is a 5-point Likert-type instrument and consists of three primary dimensions: developing a vision for learning, providing support for the learning process, and managing and modeling the learning program. The items on the scale offer five response options, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

TL scale

The TL (Teacher Leadership) scale used in this study was developed by [43]. The scale consists of 25 items and is structured into three main dimensions: ‘organisational development’, ‘professional development’, and ‘collaboration with colleagues’. The organisational development dimension includes 9 items, the professional development dimension includes 11 items, and the collaboration with colleagues dimension includes 5 items. The scale follows a 5-point Likert-type format, with response options ranging from 1 (Never), 2 (Rarely), 3 (Sometimes), 4 (Frequently), to 5 (Always).

PPC scale

In this study, the PPC (Positive Psychological Capital) Scale developed by [54] was used to assess teachers' levels of PPC. This scale consists of 26 items and is structured into four main sub-dimensions. It follows a 5-point Likert-type format, with response options ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree), 2 (Somewhat Disagree), 3 (Undecided), 4 (Mostly Agree), to 5 (Strongly Agree).

Data analysis

The SPSS 20.0 software was used for the analysis of the data set. In the initial stage, missing data were identified and addressed using the serial averaging method. Subsequently, a box plot was analyzed, and kurtosis and skewness values were calculated to assess the normality of the data. Out of the 518 data points collected, 5 were identified as outliers in the box plot and were removed from the data set. The kurtosis and skewness values for the total scores of the variables in the data set, for which the analyses were conducted, are as follows: learning-centred leadership (skewness = −0.025; kurtosis = −0.388), teacher leadership (skewness = 0.223; kurtosis = −0.707), and positive psychological capital (skewness = 0.038; kurtosis = −1.270). According to [55], skewness and kurtosis values between −3 and + 3 are considered indicators of normal distribution. Therefore, it can be concluded that the data set in the study follows a normal distribution.

For the analysis of the data collected through the personal information form, frequency (N) and percentage (%) distributions, as well as descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for each variable, were calculated using SPSS 20.0. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was performed with AMOS 20.0 to examine the effect of learning-centred leadership as an exogenous (independent) variable, positive psychological capital as a moderator variable, and teacher leadership as an endogenous (dependent) variable. In the analyses conducted in accordance with the multicollinearity assumption, it was determined that the pairwise correlations between the variables were less than 0.80, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) value was less than 10 (1.33), and the Tolerance value was greater than 0.2 (0.74). These findings indicate that there is no multicollinearity problem [56]. As a result of meeting the assumptions, the Maximum Likelihood method was preferred for parameter estimations in structural equation modeling (SEM). The relationships between the variables in the study were analyzed through SEM. Within the framework of 95% confidence intervals, mediation analyses were conducted using the 5000 resampling (bootstrapping) method. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The goodness of fit for the SEM model was evaluated using the χ²/sd, SRMR, IFI, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA indices.

Reliability and construct validity

Cronbach’s α coefficients were calculated to assess the reliability of the scales and their sub-dimensions used in the study. The overall Cronbach’s α for the Learning-Centered Leadership Scale was 0.90. For its sub-dimensions, the coefficients were α = 0.71 for Developing a Vision for Learning, α = 0.78 for Providing Learning Support, and α = 0.79 for Managing and Modeling the Learning Program. The overall reliability coefficient for the Teacher Leadership Scale was α = 0.92, with α = 0.74 for Collaboration with Colleagues, α = 0.81 for Organizational Development, and α = 0.86 for Professional Development. Regarding the Positive Psychological Capital Scale, the overall α was calculated as 0.94. Its sub-dimensions showed reliability coefficients of α = 0.72 for Self-Efficacy, α = 0.78 for Optimism, α = 0.79 for Confidence, α = 0.79 for Extroversion, and α = 0.81 for Resilience. These findings indicate that the reliability coefficients for all scales and their respective sub-dimensions are at an acceptable to high level (α > 0.70). In the study, the data collected were obtained from the participants' own statements, which potentially leads to common method bias. Therefore, Common method bias (CMB) was checked through Harman's single factor test. The analysis revealed that the first component explained 28.16% of the variance, which is below the cut-off point of 50% [57]. Therefore, it can be stated that CMB is not a significant validity threat for this study. Within the scope of validity and reliability studies, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient, CR (composite reliability) and AVE (average variance extracted) values were calculated. As a result of the calculation, LCL (AVE = 0.35; CR = 0.91), PPC (AVE = 0.44; CR = 0.95) and TL (AVE = 0.35; CR = 0.95) values were obtained. According to [58], Cronbach's Alpha coefficient and CR values should be above 0.70 and CR value should be greater than AVE. However, it is also stated that cases where AVE is lower than 0.50 but CR is higher than 0.60 are also accepted [59].

To examine the construct validity of the scales, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted using the AMOS software. The fit indices obtained from the CFA were compared with established statistical criteria for evaluating structural equation models. The following thresholds were considered acceptable: χ²/df < 3, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and standardized root mean square residual (RMR) < 0.08, and incremental fit index (IFI), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI), and comparative fit index (CFI) > 0.90 [60]. Based on these criteria, the scales were deemed to have satisfactory construct validity. The fit indices resulting from the CFA are presented in Table 1. In addition, the standardised regression weights of each item in the scales are given in Appendix A.

Table 1.

Fit indices of the scales following confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)

Fit Index	Good Fit	Acceptable Fit	LCL	TL	PPC
χ²/df	≤ 2	≤ 3	2.15	2.18	2.59
RMR	≤ 0.05	0.06–0.08	0.06	0.07	0.05
RMSEA	≤ 0.05	0.06–0.08	0.048	0.049	0.06
IFI	≥ 0.95	0.94–0.90	0.94	0.92	0.93
TLI	≥ 0.95	0.94–0.90	0.93	0.91	0.92
CFI	≥ 0.95	0.94–0.90	0.94	0.92	0.93

Open in a new tab

Fit indices were interpreted according to the criteria suggested by İlhan and Çetin (2014); Meydan and Şeşen (2015)

LCL Learning-Centered Leadership, TL Teacher Leadership, PPC Positive Psychological Capital

The confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) results indicate that the measurement models for Learning-Centered Leadership (LCL), Teacher Leadership (TL), and Positive Psychological Capital (PPC) demonstrate overall acceptable to good model fit. Specifically, the χ²/df values for all three constructs (LCL = 2.15, TL = 2.18, PPC = 2.59) fall within the acceptable fit range (≤ 3), suggesting that the discrepancy between the observed and implied covariance matrices is within tolerable limits [61]. The RMR values for LCL (0.06) and TL (0.07) correspond to acceptable fit (0.06–0.08), while PPC (0.05) indicates good fit (≤ 0.05). Similarly, RMSEA values for LCL (0.048) and TL (0.049) indicate good fit, while the PPC value (0.06) is within the acceptable fit range (0.06–0.08), as recommended by Meydan and Şeşen (2015). In terms of incremental fit indices, all three models yielded IFI, TLI, and CFI values ranging from 0.91 to 0.94. While these values do not reach the good fit threshold (≥ 0.95), they are within the acceptable fit interval (0.90–0.94), supporting the adequacy of the models [61].

Results

This section, the descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients of the variables were examined, and the hypotheses formulated in line with the objectives of the study were tested. The results obtained from the analyses were subsequently interpreted. Table 2 below presents the findings related to Hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, which propose a positive relationship between teachers’ perceptions of LCL, PPC, and TL.

Table 2.

Correlation coefficients among teachers’ perceptions of learning-centered leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership

Variables	N	1	2
1. Learning-Centered Leadership (LCL)	513	-
2. Positive Psychological Capital (PPC)	513	0.50^**
3. Teacher Leadership (TL)	513	0.58^**	0.74^**

Open in a new tab

^**p <.01

Upon examining Table 2, a positive and moderate correlation was observed between LCL and PPC (r = 0.50, p < 0.01). Additionally, a positive and moderately significant relationship was found between LCL and TL (r = 0.58, p < 0.01). Finally, there was a strong and statistically significant positive correlation between LCL and TL (r = 0.74, p < 0.01).

The findings related to Hypothesis 4, which posits that Positive Psychological Capital mediates the relationship between Learning-Centered Leadership and Teacher Leadership, are presented in Table 3 below. The proposed model was tested using the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) method. The path coefficients were evaluated within the framework of mediation analysis. These coefficients are illustrated in Fig. 2. The results of the analysis indicated that the model demonstrated acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (χ²/df = 1.83, RMR = 0.06, RMSEA = 0.04, IFI = 0.90, TLI = 0.90, CFI = 0.90), suggesting that the data fit the hypothesized model well. These findings provide empirical support for the mediating role of Positive Psychological Capital in the relationship between Learning-Centered Leadership and Teacher Leadership. The consolidated table summarising the CFA and SEM model fit indices is given in Appendix A.

Table 3.

Regression coefficients for the relationships among variables

Paths	β	SE	t
LCL → TL	.65	.08	9,063***
LCL- → PPC	.55	.06	9.449***
PPC → TL	.67	.06	11.487***
LCL → PPC → TL	.29	.06	6.148***

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: β Standardized coefficient, SE Standard Error, LCL Learning-Centered Leadership, TL Teacher Leadership, PPC Positive Psychological Capital

^***p <.001

Within the scope of the mediation analysis, it was first found that the direct relationship between Learning-Centered Leadership and Teacher Leadership (β = 0.65, p < 0.01), as well as the direct relationship between Learning-Centered Leadership and Positive Psychological Capital (β = 0.55, p < 0.01), were statistically significant. Additionally, the direct relationship between Positive Psychological Capital and Teacher Leadership was also significant (β = 0.67, p < 0.01). These findings indicate that Positive Psychological Capital has a significant effect on Teacher Leadership, supporting the appropriateness of conducting a mediation analysis within the proposed model. The results of this analysis are illustrated in Fig. 2.

An examination of Fig. 2 reveals that Positive Psychological Capital serves as a mediating variable in the relationship between Learning-Centered Leadership and Teacher Leadership. This mediation reduces the direct effect of Learning-Centered Leadership on Teacher Leadership, with the standardized coefficient decreasing from 0.65 to 0.29. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that Positive Psychological Capital has a partial mediating role in this relationship. To further assess the validity of the model, the significance levels of the path (regression) coefficients were analyzed, as presented in Table 3.

An examination of Table 3 reveals that learning-centered leadership has a positive effect on both teacher leadership (β = 0.65, p < 0.001) and positive psychological capital (β = 0.55, p < 0.001). Additionally, positive psychological capital significantly influences teacher leadership (β = 0.67, p < 0.001). When positive psychological capital was included in the model as a mediating variable, the path coefficient between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership decreased. Nevertheless, this coefficient remained statistically significant (β = 0.29, p < 0.001). This finding suggests that positive psychological capital serves as a partial mediator in the relationship. The significance of this partial mediating effect was tested using the bootstrap method, and the results of this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4.

Bootstrap test results for the proposed model

Pats	β	SE	%95 Bootstrap CI	p
Direct effect
LCL → TL	.65	.06	[.18—.40]	***
LCL- → PPC	.55	.04	[.47—.63]	***
PPC → TL	.67	.05	[.55—.76]	**
Indirect effect
LCL → PPC → TL	.29	.04	[.29—.45]	***

Open in a new tab

Abbreviations: β Standardized coefficient, SE Standard Error, CI Confidence interval, LCL Learning-Centered Leadership, TL Teacher Leadership, PPC Positive Psychological Capital

^**p <.01

^***p <.001

Table 4 shows that the direct effect of learning-centered leadership on teacher leadership (β = 0.65; SH = 0.06; CI = [0.18–0.40.18.40]; p < 0.001) and positive psychological capital (β = 0.55; SE = 0.04; CI = [0.47–0.63.47.63]; p < 0.001) is significant. The direct path between positive psychological capital and teacher leadership (β = 0.67; SE = 0.05; CI = [0.55–0.76.55.76]; p < 0.01) was also significant. The study found that learning-centered leadership is indirectly associated with teacher leadership through positive psychological capital (β = 0.29; SE = 0.04; CI = [0.29–0.45.29.45]; p < 0.001).

Discussion and conclusion

The purpose of this study is to examine the relationships among learning-centered leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership. Additionally, the study aims to investigate the mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership using a structural equation modeling (SEM) approach. The first hypothesis posited a positive relationship between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership. The research findings indicate that learning-centered leadership is significantly associated with teacher leadership. This result is supported by previous research indicating a relationship between leadership and teacher leadership [10, 62–64]. The development of teacher leadership is largely influenced by supportive leadership and positive interpersonal relationships [65]. In this context [66], found that empowering and permissive administrative behaviors significantly impact principal–teacher interactions, thereby facilitating the development of teacher leadership. Similarly [67], reported that as school principals increased their supportive behaviors, teachers demonstrated higher levels of leadership-related behaviors in areas such as institutional development, professional growth, and collaboration with colleagues. One of the primary factors influencing the quality and effectiveness of teacher leadership is the leadership exhibited by school principals [68]. Accordingly, the support of school administration is considered a key determinant of successful teacher leadership [69]. School management can enhance teachers' leadership capacities by offering opportunities for professional development, which is a critical factor in the emergence of teacher leadership [70]. Learning-centered leadership plays a significant role in promoting teacher professional development. A review of the literature supports this connection; numerous studies have demonstrated that learning-centered leadership positively influences professional development [15, 71–79]. The findings of the present study are consistent with these results.

The second hypothesis of the study predicted a positive relationship between learning-centered leadership (LCL) and positive psychological capital (PPC). The findings confirmed this hypothesis. While PPC refers to individuals’ positive psychological states and personal strengths, teacher leadership (TL) reflects teachers’ influence on students, colleagues, and the broader school community. Numerous studies have demonstrated a strong association between these two constructs. Research supporting the relationship between leadership and positive psychological capital [80–98] supports the results of this study. In this context, school administrators can enhance teachers’ positive psychological capital by offering both social and academic support [99].

The third hypothesis of the study proposed a positive relationship between positive psychological capital (PPC) and teacher leadership (TL) [100] found a significant positive relationship between perceptions of psychological capital and expectations for teacher leadership. Furthermore, one of the defining characteristics of teacher leadership is teachers’ continuous self-improvement in response to ongoing changes. In other words, professional development is a key behavior associated with teacher leadership. In this context [101], concluded that the frequency of exhibiting creative and innovative behaviors is influenced by positive psychological capital, and [102] found that positive psychological capital has a significant effect on teachers’ innovative behaviors. When considering the results of this study alongside previous research, it is evident that measures should be implemented to create a supportive environment for teachers' positive psychological capital, thereby contributing to the development of teacher leadership [103].

The fourth hypothesis of the study is that teachers' PPC mediates the relationship between LCL and TL. The results of the analysis support this hypothesis. Based on this finding, it can be inferred that school principals' learning-centered leadership behaviors are associated with teachers' positive psychological capital, which in turn may be related to teacher leadership a key factor in school collaboration, school improvement, and teachers’ professional development. This finding aligns with previous studies, which suggest that the impact of leadership behaviors exhibited at school on professional behaviors, such as professional leadership and others, is indirect [104–108].

Research supports that various leadership styles have positive effects on psychological capital [109, 110] Approaches such as authentic, coaching-based, and resilient leadership strengthen psychological capital, thereby enhancing employees’ innovative behaviors, job satisfaction, and performance [111–113]. Moreover, PPC plays a significant mediating role between leadership and employee outcomes [114–116]. These findings demonstrate the strong relationship between leadership and positive psychology. In the context of leadership, positive psychological capital significantly influences individual performance and motivation [117]. Employees with high psychological capital tend to engage in more creative behaviors, require less supervision, and are less dependent on their leaders [118]. In this study, the role of positive psychological capital as a mediator between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership supports this notion, highlighting its importance in fostering teacher leadership. [119] identified several organizational factors influencing teacher leadership, including the relationships between employees, administrators, school climate, and opportunities within the school. In contrast, personal factors such as teachers' sense of responsibility, personality, and leadership capacity were also found to play a crucial role. In this context, positive psychological capital serves as a significant determinant of these personal factors and acts as a mediator in enhancing the effectiveness of organizational factors. Positive psychological capital is particularly influential in shaping personality [120, 121], making it a key factor in fostering teacher leadership.

Implications

In the context of this research, educational administrators should support not only teachers’ professional development but also their levels of positive psychological capital. Implementing strategies that enhance positive psychological capital can enable teachers to develop their leadership skills more effectively. This is because positive psychological capital contributes to more effective leadership practices in educational settings and serves as a crucial resource for increasing teachers’ leadership potential [122]. Educational administrators are expected to play a key role in maximizing teachers’ leadership potential by implementing practices aimed at enhancing their psychological capital. Teacher leaders are individuals with strong pedagogical competencies who possess the ability to influence and drive improvements in teaching and learning both within and beyond their schools, thereby impacting the practices of their colleagues [123]. To effectively enhance teacher leadership through positive psychological capital (PPC), school leaders should implement structured peer support systems that facilitate collaborative learning and emotional reinforcement among teachers. Regular workshops focusing on resilience, optimism, and stress management can systematically build teachers’ internal psychological resources. Furthermore, integrating PPC development into Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) ensures sustained engagement and capacity building. Leadership training programs should also incorporate modules specifically designed to develop leaders’ competencies in fostering PPC, thereby amplifying the indirect influence of learning-centred leadership on teacher leadership. In light of these findings and interpretations, strengthening teachers’ positive psychological capital—specifically their self-efficacy, optimism, hope, confidence, and psychological resilience—can significantly enhance the effectiveness of teacher leadership. Furthermore, the concept and importance of teacher leadership should be integrated into teacher education programs and positioned as a central area of focus in school development initiatives. Future research may explore the design and long-term impacts of effective programs aimed at fostering teachers’ psychological capital. Teachers in Türkiye experience burnout, stress, and loss of motivation due to factors such as increased workload, social isolation, and uncertainty—especially during the pandemic period [124–128]. PPC is an important protective factor in combating burnout by enhancing individuals’ psychological resilience and work motivation. Therefore, the Ministry of National Education and related institutions should develop and implement PPC-focused modules within in-service training programs. At the systemic level, education authorities should institutionalize PPC-focused components within in-service training curricula to ensure consistent skill development among educators. Embedding objectives aimed at improving teachers’ psychological well-being into school improvement plans will promote organizational environments supportive of psychological capital. These policy measures are essential for integrating psychological capital development into the broader educational system and fostering long-term, scalable improvements in teacher leadership.

Limitations and future directions

This study has several limitations that should be considered when interpreting the findings and designing future research. First, the use of self-report measures may introduce individual biases, as the data reflect teachers’ personal perceptions. To address this limitation, future studies are encouraged to incorporate alternative data collection methods such as observations, interviews, and third-party evaluations. Second, the sample was limited to teachers working in the province of in the southeast of Türkiye in the 2023–2024 academic year. Which restricts the generalizability of the findings to other regions or populations. Conducting similar studies in diverse geographical and cultural contexts may enhance the external validity of the results. Third, this study employed a cross-sectional design and relied on self-report instruments, which inherently restrict the ability to establish causal relationships. While the findings indicate significant associations among learning-centered leadership, positive psychological capital, and teacher leadership, the cross-sectional nature precludes definitive conclusions regarding causality and temporal sequencing. Consequently, it is recommended that future research utilize longitudinal or experimental methodologies to more robustly investigate the mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership. Such designs would provide deeper insights into the causal mechanisms and developmental trajectories underpinning these constructs. Finally, the scope of the study was limited to the effects of learning-centered leadership and positive psychological capital on teacher leadership. Future studies could expand on this by examining additional organizational and individual variables that may influence teacher leadership. School climate influences teachers’ perceptions, motivation, and interactions, shaping the impact of leadership styles. Cultural dynamics can also affect the relationship between leadership and psychological capital. Therefore, future research should examine school climate and cultural factors as mediators or moderators to better understand the relationship between learning-centered leadership and teacher leadership. This will clarify how leadership effects vary across different school and cultural contexts.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Material 1.^{(15.9KB, docx)}

Acknowledgements

This study is derived from the first author's master's thesis, conducted under the supervision of the second author.

Authors’ contributions

**PM:** She wrote the introduction, Results and discussion sections of the study and collected data. **FB**: He provided support in writing the introduction, findings and discussion sections of the study and supported in analyzing the data. **Corresponding author:** Fatih Bozbayındır.

Funding

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

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the first author.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Prior to data collection, ethical approval was obtained from the Gaziantep University Social and Human Sciences Ethics Committee (Approval No: E-87841438–302.08.01–421292; Decision No: 53, dated 05.12.2023, Meeting No: 13). All procedures were conducted in accordance with ethical standards, and care was taken to avoid any actions that would violate the principles of scientific research and publication ethics. This study was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles of the Declaration of Helsinki. In this context, informed consent was obtained from all participants. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study, in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1.Leithwood K, Jantzi D. A review of research on school leadership and student achievement. Educ Adm Q. 2006;42(5):694–724. [Google Scholar]
2.Marks HM, Printy SM. Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educ Adm Q. 2003;39(3):370–97. [Google Scholar]
3.Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership development. Positive Organ Scholarship. 2003;241(258):1–26. [Google Scholar]
4.Leithwood K, Jantzi D. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Educ Adm Q. 2000;36(2):112–49. [Google Scholar]
5.Bozbayındır F. Positivity elements within teacher groups. In: Kaya Y, Rasim T, editors. Positive organizational thinking in education. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing; 2023. p. 100–121. https://depo.pegem.net/9786256764842.pdf.
6.Çetin F, Basım NH. Organizational psychological capital: a scale adaptation study. Amme İdaresi Derg. 2012;45(1):121–37. [Google Scholar]
7.Inceler S. Teacher leadership: a conceptual review. J Educ Res. 2005;21(1):33–41. [Google Scholar]
8.Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol. 2007;60(3):541–72. [Google Scholar]
9.Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM. Psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2017;4:339–66. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324. [Google Scholar]
10.Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S, Kılınç AÇ. Principals supporting teacher leadership: the effects of learning-centred leadership on teacher leadership practices with the mediating role of teacher agency. Eur J Educ. 2020;55:200–16. 10.1111/ejed.12387. [Google Scholar]
11.Hallinger P, Murphy JF. The social context of effective schools. Am J Educ. 1986;94(3):328–55. 10.1086/443853.
12.Çilesiz A. Teachers' opinions on instructional leadership characteristics of school principals (The case of Samsun province) [master’s thesis]. Samsun: 19 Mayıs University; 2019. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=gyLHMouPes-CvnhRcjQsKYIIXs2WfGSkRqbQrqwLM1QIWNWUQ6gp3ByxQ19vcR80
13.Knapp MS, Copland MA, Ford B, Markholt A, McLaughlin MW, Milliken M, et al. Leading for learning sourcebook: Concepts and examples. 2003. 10.59656/EL-G2801.001
14.Can N. Teacher leadership and its obstacles. J Soc Sci Res. 2006;1(2):137–61. [Google Scholar]
15.Liu S, Hallinger P, Chen M. A study of the dimensions of learning-centered leadership. Educ Adm Q. 2016;52(1):7–43. 10.1108/JEA-02-2016-0015. [Google Scholar]
16.Polat L. Learning-centered leadership as a predictor of teacher professionalism [master’s thesis]. Karabük: Karabük University; 2020. [Google Scholar]
17.Cravens XC. The cross-cultural fit of the learning-centered leadership framework and assessment for Chinese principals [dissertation]. Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University; 2008. [Google Scholar]
18.Çelik E, Güngör N. The relationship between positive psychological capital, teacher leadership and professional commitment: a structured literature review. Turk J Educ Sci. 2019;17(1):1–19. [Google Scholar]
19.Saphier J, King M, D’Auria J. 3 strands form strong school leadership. Learn Prof. 2006;27(2):51. [Google Scholar]
20.Hargreaves A, Fink D. Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. J Sch Leadersh. 2006;16(5):550–65. 10.1177/105268460601600507. [Google Scholar]
21.York-Barr J, Duke K. Teacher leadership: a review of research. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(3):255–316. [Google Scholar]
22.Dimock MA, Jacobson GC. Checks and choices: the House bank scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. J Polit. 1995;57(4):1143–59. [Google Scholar]
23.Kocabaş İ. The effect of teachers’ leadership skills on school success. Int J Educ Res. 2014;5(3):45–62. [Google Scholar]
24.Tschannen-Moran M, Barr M. Fostering student learning: the relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadersh Policy Sch. 2004;3(3):189–209. 10.1080/15700760490503706. [Google Scholar]
25.Wener A, Campbell T. The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: a review of the literature. Rev Educ Res. 2017;87(1):134–71. [Google Scholar]
26.Harris A, Muijs D. Improving schools through teacher leadership. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]
27.Moller L. Experiences of students, teachers, and administrators in a distance education course. Int J Educ Technol. 1999;1(2):1–13. [Google Scholar]
28.Luthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2002;23:695–706. 10.1002/job.165. [Google Scholar]
29.Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad Manage Perspect. 2002;16:57–72. [Google Scholar]
30.Luthans F, Luthans KW, Luthans BC. Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Bus Horiz. 2004;47(1):45–50. 10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007. [Google Scholar]
31.Luthans F. Emerging positive organizational behavior. J Manage. 2007;33(3):321–49. [Google Scholar]
32.Friend SB, Johnson JS, Luthans F, Sohi RS. Positive psychology in sales: integrating psychological capital. J Mark Theory Pract. 2016;24(3):306–27. [Google Scholar]
33.Tösten R. Examination of teachers’ perceptions on positive psychological capital [dissertation]. Gaziantep: Gaziantep University; 2015. [Google Scholar]
34.Peterson C, Steen TA. Optimistic explanatory style. In: Lopez SJ, Snyder CR, editors. Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 313–22. [Google Scholar]
35.Çetinkaya Y. The relationship between optimism and life satisfaction. Turk J Psychol. 2017;35(4):110–23. [Google Scholar]
36.Karaca F. Positive psychological capital and individual optimism. Turk J Psychol. 2012;28(2):45–58. [Google Scholar]
37.Masten AS. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. 2001;56:227–38. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol Inq. 2004;15:1–18. [Google Scholar]
39.Bonanno GA. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol. 2004;59(1):20–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Bacanlı F. Psikolojik testler ve ölçme. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2007. [Google Scholar]
41.Costa PT, McCrae RR. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory. Psychol Assess. 1992;4(1):5. [Google Scholar]
42.Anfara VA, Angelle P. Teacher leadership in educational reform: the role of teachers as change agents. Leadersh Policy Sch. 2007;6(4):387–404. [Google Scholar]
43.Beycioğlu K. School restructuring: a study on leadership and school culture. Eğt ve Bilim. 2009;34(154):60–7. [Google Scholar]
44.Spillane JP, Healey K. Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distributed perspective: an exploration of some study operations and measures. Elem Sch J. 2010;111(2):253–81. [Google Scholar]
45.Podmostko M. Leadership unbound: A profile of leadership in teacher-led schools. Education Commission of the States; 2000. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443173.pdf.
46.Frost D, Harris A. Teacher leadership: towards a research agenda. Camb J Educ. 2003;33(3):479–98. 10.1080/0305764032000122078. [Google Scholar]
47.Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499–512. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies; 2011. [Google Scholar]
49.Karasar N. Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2008. [Google Scholar]
50.Tekbıyık A. Relational research method. In: Özmen H, Karamustafaoğlu O, editors. Research methods in education. 2nd ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık; 2019. p. 64–1178. [Google Scholar]
51.Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün ÖE, Demirel F, Karadeniz Ş, Çakmak EK. Scientific research methods in education. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık; 2024. [Google Scholar]
52.Liu S, Hallinger P, Feng D. Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: does trust matter? J Educ Adm. 2016;54(6):661–82. [Google Scholar]
53.Kılınç AÇ, Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S. Adaptation of the learning-centered leadership scale (LCLS) to Turkish: validity and reliability study. Inonu Univ J Fac Educ. 2017;18(3):132–44. [Google Scholar]
54.Tösten R, Özgan H. The scale of positive psychological capital: a reliability and validity study. Ekev Acad J. 2014;59:429–42. [Google Scholar]
55.Şencan H. Scientific writing. 1st ed. Istanbul: Çantay Yayınevi; 2002. [Google Scholar]
56.Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Oriental Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]
57.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 2013;46(1–2):1–12. [Google Scholar]
59.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. 10.2307/3151312. [Google Scholar]
60.Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Structural equation modeling, AMOS applications. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2015. [Google Scholar]
61.İlhan M, Çetin B. Comparing the analysis results of the structural equation models (sem) conducted using LISREL and AMOS. J Meas Eval Educ Psychol. 2014;5(2):26–42. 10.21031/epod.31126. [Google Scholar]
62.DaşcıSönmez E, Cemaloğlu N, Kahraman G. Teachers’ professional learning: do instructional leadership and teacher leadership make a difference in Türkiye? Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024. 10.1177/17411432241280124. [Google Scholar]
63.Ding Z, Thien LM. Assessing the antecedents and consequences of teacher leadership: a partial least squares analysis. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022. 10.1080/13603124.2022.2068191. [Google Scholar]
64.Pan HLW, Chen WY. How principal leadership facilitates teacher learning through teacher leadership: determining the critical path. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2021;49(3):454–70. 10.1177/1741143220913553. [Google Scholar]
65.Eckert J, Daughtrey A. Teacher leadership development: Tracking one district’s progress over three years. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2019; 27(42). Available from: 10.14507/epaa.27.4130.
66.Szeto E, Cheng A. Principal–teacher interactions and teacher leadership development: beginning teachers’ perspectives. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2017;21(3):363–79. 10.1080/13603124.2016.1274785. [Google Scholar]
67.Ovacıklı S. The investigation of the relationship between primary school principals' supportive behaviours regarding teacher leadership and teacher leadership. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University; 2018. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=as2oTjW5jfr9IKSvmCdJYoEqGwj6ncoo24HUZoyHyJ-OtiEsaSwQ0_x4RIOS6ZAC
68.Nguyen D, Harris A, Ng D. A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): evidence, patterns, and implications. J Educ Adm. 2019;58(1):60–80. 10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023. [Google Scholar]
69.Taylor M, Klein EJ, Munakata M, Trabona K, Rahman Z, McManus J. Professional development for teacher leaders: using activity theory to understand the complexities of sustainable change. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2018;22(6):685–705. 10.1080/13603124.2018.1492023. [Google Scholar]
70.Barth SG, Criswell BA, Smith WM, Rushton GT. Modeling how professional development interacts with teacher leaders’ outcome expectancies and school environment perceptions. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2024; 1–25. 10.1080/13603124.2024.2307877.
71.Alazmi AA, Hammad W. Modeling the relationship between principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Kuwait: the mediating effects of trust and teacher agency. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2023;51(5):1141–60. 10.1177/17411432211038. [Google Scholar]
72.Aslan M, Arısoy E, Gören T. The relationship between learning-centered leadership and professional learning: a study on SAC teachers. J Theor Educ Sci. 2023;16(1):142–62. 10.30831/akukeg.1179861. [Google Scholar]
73.Hammad W, Abu Shindi Y, Morad H, Al-Mahdy YFH, Al-Harthi K. Promoting teacher professional learning in Egyptian schools: the contribution of learning-centered leadership. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2024;27(6):1209–27. 10.1080/13603124.2021.1969038. [Google Scholar]
74.Hendawy Al-Mahdy YF, Hallinger P, Emam M, Hammad W, Alabri KM, Al-Harthi K. Supporting teacher professional learning in Oman: the effects of principal leadership, teacher trust, and teacher agency. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024;52(2):395–416. 10.1177/17411432211064428. [Google Scholar]
75.Kalman M, Şimşek Ö. The mediating effect of school climate in the relationship between school principals' learning-centered leadership and teacher professional learning in Türkiye. KEDI J Educ Policy. 2023; 20(2). Available from: 10.22804/kjep.2023.20.2.004.
76.Kulophas D, Hallinger P. Does leadership make a difference in teacher learning: a contextual analysis of learning centered leadership in rural Thailand. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2021;27(6):1494–514. 10.1080/13603124.2021.198091. [Google Scholar]
77.Talebizadeh SM, Hosseingholizadeh R, Bellibaş MŞ. Analyzing the relationship between principals’ learning-centered leadership and teacher professional learning: the mediation role of trust and knowledge sharing behavior. Stud Educ Eval. 2021;68:100970. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100970. [Google Scholar]
78.Thien LM, Uthai M, Yeap SB. Does middle leaders’ learning-centred leadership matter in promoting teacher professional learning? A partial least squares analysis. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2022. 10.1177/17411432221115522. [Google Scholar]
79.Thien LM, Uthai M, Yeap SB. Does middle leaders’ learning-centred leadership matter in promoting teacher professional learning? A partial least squares analysis. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024;52(4):854–77. 10.1177/174114322211155. [Google Scholar]
80.Çobanoğlu N, Bozbayındır F. A study on shared leadership and positive psychological capitals of teachers at primary and secondary schools. Universal J Educ Res. 2019;7(5):1265–74. 10.13189/ujer.2019.070512. [Google Scholar]
81.Eser İ, Summak MS. The relationship between teachers’ positive psychological capital and ethical leadership perception with job integration. J Contemp Manag Sci. 2020;7(2):180–205. [Google Scholar]
82.Hyunah O, Chung J. The effect of authentic leadership and transformational leadership on job crafting: with the mediating effect of positive psychological capital and organizational identification. Korean Leadersh Rev. 2017;8(4):21–60. [Google Scholar]
83.Kim MJ, Chang CI. The effect of shared leadership on positive psychological capital and organizational commitment. Korean Rev Corp Manag. 2022;13(2):183–205. [Google Scholar]
84.Kyungseok K. The structural relationship among vice principals’ emotional leadership, teachers’ positive psychological capital, and teachers’ commitment to teaching as perceived by secondary school teachers. J Learn-Centered Curric Instr. 2017;17(7):357–82. [Google Scholar]
85.Neyişci N, Güneş FT. The relationship between school principals’ quantum leadership behaviors and teachers’ psychological capital levels. Pegem J Educ Instr. 2022;12(4):1–11. [Google Scholar]
86.Li YB, Wu TJ, Lin CP. Authentic leadership and knowledge sharing in state-owned enterprises of China: an empirical study. J Interdiscip Math. 2017;20(3):881–94. 10.1080/09720502.2017.1361615. [Google Scholar]
87.Li M, Moon-Hong K. The impact of shared leadership on innovation behavior in the Chinese luxury hotel industry: mediating effect of positive psychological capital. J Distrib Manage. 2020;23(6):65–82. 10.17961/jdmr.23.06.202012.65. [Google Scholar]
88.Myung-Su K, Chun-Soo J. The effects of authentic leadership on employee positive psychological capital and affective commitment. Korean J Hum Resour Dev. 2012;15(1):99–122. [Google Scholar]
89.Park SH. The mediating effect of positive psychological capital on the influence of principal’s servant leadership on teacher job engagement. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2022;13(6):4331–46. [Google Scholar]
90.Rego P, Lopes MP, Nascimento JL. Authentic leadership and organizational commitment: the mediating role of positive psychological capital. J Ind Eng Manag. 2016;9(1):129–51. 10.3926/jiem.1540. [Google Scholar]
91.Sangtai K, Kim TD. Relationship among transformational leadership, positive psychological capital and job satisfaction of employees in sport center organizations. J Korea Ent Ind Assoc. 2014;8(3):167–77. [Google Scholar]
92.Sang Hoon O, Sung-Wook Y. The effects of authentic leadership on innovation behavior and job satisfaction through positive psychological capital. Q J Def Pol Stud. 2019;35(1):155–88. [Google Scholar]
93.Sung-Gil Y. The effects of authentic leadership on learning organization and positive psychological capital: focusing on the mediation role of learning organization. J Hosp Tour Stud. 2017;19(4):41–63. [Google Scholar]
94.Şengüllendi MF, Şehitoğlu Y. The relationship between transformational leadership and positive psychological capital: The moderating role of education level. Yıldız J Soc Sci Inst. 2017;1(2):112–26. [Google Scholar]
95.Vural Özkan G. The relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ positive psychological capital levels. J Behav Work. 2024;9(1):26–41. [Google Scholar]
96.Yalçın S, Akan D, Yıldırım İ. Investigating the relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles and teachers’ positive psychological capital levels according to teachers’ perceptions. Karadeniz J Soc Sci. 2018;10(18):157–74. [Google Scholar]
97.Yollu S, Korkmaz M. The mediating role of moral courage in the relationship between authentic leadership and teachers’ positive psychological capital. J Theor Educ Sci. 2024;17(3):698–718. 10.30831/akukeg.1321356. [Google Scholar]
98.Zheng L, Quan L. On the mediating effect of positive psychological capital in the relationship between self-leadership and learning engagement of Chinese university students. J Learn-Centered Curric Instr. 2024;24(23):511–20. [Google Scholar]
99.Külekçi Akyavuz E. Teachers’ perceptions of positive psychological capital: a mixed method approach. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2021;7(3):933–53. 10.46328/ijres.2020. [Google Scholar]
100.Ergül HF. The relationship between positive psychological capital and teacher leadership. EKEV Acad J. 2020;84:325–36. [Google Scholar]
101.Vural ÖG. An examination of the role of positive psychological capital and positive organizational variables in development of creative and innovative behaviors in organizations [dissertation]. Istanbul: Istanbul University; 2016. [Google Scholar]
102.Su Y, Abd Rani NS. Empowering leadership and psychological capital: drivers of teachers’ innovative behavior among international school teachers in Beijing City. Uniglobal J Soc Sci Humanit. 2025;4(1):69–78. 10.53797/ujssh.v4i1.8.2025. [Google Scholar]
103.Akkaya R, Çetin M. Entrepreneurial leadership, teacher entrepreneurship and positive psychological capital: a structural equation model test in educational organizations. Pamukkale Univ J Fac Educ. 2024;60:337–66. 10.9779/pauefd.1196728. [Google Scholar]
104.Baig SA, Iqbal S, Abrar M, Baig IA, Amjad F, Zia-ur-Rehman M, et al. Impact of leadership styles on employees’ performance with moderating role of positive psychological capital. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2019;32(9–10):1085–105. 10.1080/14783363.2019.1665011. [Google Scholar]
105.Çilek A, Kılınç AÇ, Erdoğan O, Arslan K, Sezgin F. Linking principal support and teacher resilience to teacher leadership in Türkiye: the mediating role of teacher work engagement. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2025. 10.1177/17411432241308679. [Google Scholar]
106.Shu-Ling C, Zikani M. Ethical leadership, psychological capital, work engagement and job satisfaction: the moderating role of moral identity in the Malawi government sector. Int Rev Public Adm. 2023;28(3):288–307. 10.1080/12294659.2023.2261297. [Google Scholar]
107.Xu J. Enhancing student creativity in Chinese universities: the role of teachers’ spiritual leadership and the mediating effects of positive psychological capital and sense of self-esteem. Think Skills Creat. 2024;53:101567. 10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101567. [Google Scholar]
108.Zhang L, Wu T, Liu L, Ren P, Lin C. The relationship between Chinese preschool principal leadership styles and teacher leadership: exploring the mediating effect of psychological capital. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1006184. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
109.Makhamra K, El Nawajha Z. Perceived resonant leadership and its relationship to psychological capital among secondary school teachers of the Jerusalem Municipality. Hebron University Research Journal (HURJ): B- (Humanities). 2024. 10.60138/5119220242. [Google Scholar]
110.Al Dosari BB, Omar KM. Impact of leadership behavior on psychological capital (evidence from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA). 2024;2024:1–7. [Google Scholar]
111.Apriliana G, Hartijasti Y. Exploring the mediating role of psychological capital: the impact of authentic leadership and perceived organisational toward organisational citizenship behaviour. BISMA (Bisnis dan Manajemen). 2024. 10.26740/bisma.v17n1.p1-25.
112.Savickaitė-Kazlauskė E, Bendaraviciene R. The role of coaching-based leadership, appreciation, and gratitude in enhancing psychological capital and organisational thriving in Lithuanian organisations. J Adv Res Leadership. 2024;3(1):1–18. [Google Scholar]
113.Wang Y, Bao C, Luo X, Ren M. Does resilient leadership enhance job thriving among Chinese teachers? The role psychological capital and emotional intelligence. Acta Psychol Amst. 2025;259:105297. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
114.Su W, Hahn J. Self-leadership and psychological capital as mediators in the influence of leader motivating language on everyday innovative behavior. Int J Bus Commun. 2025;62(2):379–401. 10.1177/23294884221119453. [Google Scholar]
115.Cui P, Chang S, Tian G, Li Z, Cheng C, Chang L, et al. The mediating effects of psychological capital and career success in the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction among nurse managers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2025;24:961. 10.1186/s12912-025-03616-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
116.Amjad S, Yasin R, Munir Y, Atif M. Knowledge-oriented leadership, organizational trust and psychological capital: a gateway to innovative performance: a multisource approach. Manag Res Rev. 2025;48(8):1231–56. 10.1108/MRR-06-2024-0468. [Google Scholar]
117.Walumbwa FO, Peterson SJ, Avolio BJ, Hartnell CA. An investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job performance. Pers Psychol. 2010;63(4):937–63. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01193.x. [Google Scholar]
118.Gupta V, Singh S. Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2014;25(10):1373–94. 10.1080/09585192.2013.870311. [Google Scholar]
119.Liu P, Xiu Q, Tang L, Zhang Y. Understanding teacher leadership identity: the perspectives of Chinese high school teachers. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2021;28(1):149–66. 10.1080/13603124.2021.2006792. [Google Scholar]
120.Brandt T, Gomes JF, Boyanova D. Personality and psychological capital as indicators of future job success? Liiketal Aikakausk. 2011;3:263–89. [Google Scholar]
121.Nambudiri R, Shaik R, Ghulyani S. Student personality and academic achievement: mediating role of psychological capital (PsyCap). Int J Educ Manag. 2020;34(4):767–81. 10.1108/IJEM-12-2018-0385. [Google Scholar]
122.Şahin M, Güngör E. The relationship between positive psychological capital and leadership: a study on teacher leadership in education. J Educ Instr Stud World. 2016;6(3):31–41. [Google Scholar]
123.Gül T, Criswell B, Demir K. Impacts of teacher-driven professional development on teacher leadership identity. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022;28(4):875–902. 10.1080/13603124.2022.2052754. [Google Scholar]
124.Akten S. Examining of burnout levels of teachers working in the field of special education during the COVID-19 pandemic process. Trakya Educ J. 2024;14(2):806–19. 10.24315/tred.1393253. [Google Scholar]
125.Fidan M. Teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic. MM Int J Educ Sci. 2021;5(1):1–14. 10.46762/mamulebd.789097. [Google Scholar]
126.Kara M, Bozkurt B. School administration during the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and lessons learned. Turk Egitim Bilim Derg. 2021;19(2):1076–103. 10.37217/tebd.969888. [Google Scholar]
127.Karadeniz G, Zabcı N. The effects of teachers’ experiences during the pandemic period, their well-being, stress levels and adaptation to distance education. MSGSU Soc Sci. 2020;2(22):301–14. [Google Scholar]
128.Özdemir N, Menekay M. Burnout in distance education teachers during the global pandemic period. GAB Acad. 2021;1(1):11–30. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Material 1.^{(15.9KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request from the first author.

[CR1] 1.Leithwood K, Jantzi D. A review of research on school leadership and student achievement. Educ Adm Q. 2006;42(5):694–724. [Google Scholar]

[CR2] 2.Marks HM, Printy SM. Principal leadership and school performance: an integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educ Adm Q. 2003;39(3):370–97. [Google Scholar]

[CR3] 3.Luthans F, Avolio BJ. Authentic leadership development. Positive Organ Scholarship. 2003;241(258):1–26. [Google Scholar]

[CR4] 4.Leithwood K, Jantzi D. The effects of transformational leadership on organizational conditions and student engagement with school. Educ Adm Q. 2000;36(2):112–49. [Google Scholar]

[CR5] 5.Bozbayındır F. Positivity elements within teacher groups. In: Kaya Y, Rasim T, editors. Positive organizational thinking in education. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Publishing; 2023. p. 100–121. https://depo.pegem.net/9786256764842.pdf.

[CR6] 6.Çetin F, Basım NH. Organizational psychological capital: a scale adaptation study. Amme İdaresi Derg. 2012;45(1):121–37. [Google Scholar]

[CR7] 7.Inceler S. Teacher leadership: a conceptual review. J Educ Res. 2005;21(1):33–41. [Google Scholar]

[CR8] 8.Luthans F, Avolio BJ, Avey JB, Norman SM. Positive psychological capital: measurement and relationship with performance and satisfaction. Pers Psychol. 2007;60(3):541–72. [Google Scholar]

[CR9] 9.Luthans F, Youssef-Morgan CM. Psychological capital: an evidence-based positive approach. Annu Rev Organ Psychol Organ Behav. 2017;4:339–66. 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113324. [Google Scholar]

[CR10] 10.Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S, Kılınç AÇ. Principals supporting teacher leadership: the effects of learning-centred leadership on teacher leadership practices with the mediating role of teacher agency. Eur J Educ. 2020;55:200–16. 10.1111/ejed.12387. [Google Scholar]

[CR11] 11.Hallinger P, Murphy JF. The social context of effective schools. Am J Educ. 1986;94(3):328–55. 10.1086/443853.

[CR12] 12.Çilesiz A. Teachers' opinions on instructional leadership characteristics of school principals (The case of Samsun province) [master’s thesis]. Samsun: 19 Mayıs University; 2019. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=gyLHMouPes-CvnhRcjQsKYIIXs2WfGSkRqbQrqwLM1QIWNWUQ6gp3ByxQ19vcR80

[CR13] 13.Knapp MS, Copland MA, Ford B, Markholt A, McLaughlin MW, Milliken M, et al. Leading for learning sourcebook: Concepts and examples. 2003. 10.59656/EL-G2801.001

[CR14] 14.Can N. Teacher leadership and its obstacles. J Soc Sci Res. 2006;1(2):137–61. [Google Scholar]

[CR15] 15.Liu S, Hallinger P, Chen M. A study of the dimensions of learning-centered leadership. Educ Adm Q. 2016;52(1):7–43. 10.1108/JEA-02-2016-0015. [Google Scholar]

[CR16] 16.Polat L. Learning-centered leadership as a predictor of teacher professionalism [master’s thesis]. Karabük: Karabük University; 2020. [Google Scholar]

[CR17] 17.Cravens XC. The cross-cultural fit of the learning-centered leadership framework and assessment for Chinese principals [dissertation]. Nashville (TN): Vanderbilt University; 2008. [Google Scholar]

[CR18] 18.Çelik E, Güngör N. The relationship between positive psychological capital, teacher leadership and professional commitment: a structured literature review. Turk J Educ Sci. 2019;17(1):1–19. [Google Scholar]

[CR19] 19.Saphier J, King M, D’Auria J. 3 strands form strong school leadership. Learn Prof. 2006;27(2):51. [Google Scholar]

[CR20] 20.Hargreaves A, Fink D. Redistributed leadership for sustainable professional learning communities. J Sch Leadersh. 2006;16(5):550–65. 10.1177/105268460601600507. [Google Scholar]

[CR21] 21.York-Barr J, Duke K. Teacher leadership: a review of research. Rev Educ Res. 2004;74(3):255–316. [Google Scholar]

[CR22] 22.Dimock MA, Jacobson GC. Checks and choices: the House bank scandal’s impact on voters in 1992. J Polit. 1995;57(4):1143–59. [Google Scholar]

[CR23] 23.Kocabaş İ. The effect of teachers’ leadership skills on school success. Int J Educ Res. 2014;5(3):45–62. [Google Scholar]

[CR24] 24.Tschannen-Moran M, Barr M. Fostering student learning: the relationship of collective teacher efficacy and student achievement. Leadersh Policy Sch. 2004;3(3):189–209. 10.1080/15700760490503706. [Google Scholar]

[CR25] 25.Wener A, Campbell T. The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: a review of the literature. Rev Educ Res. 2017;87(1):134–71. [Google Scholar]

[CR26] 26.Harris A, Muijs D. Improving schools through teacher leadership. Maidenhead: Open University Press; 2004. [Google Scholar]

[CR27] 27.Moller L. Experiences of students, teachers, and administrators in a distance education course. Int J Educ Technol. 1999;1(2):1–13. [Google Scholar]

[CR28] 28.Luthans F. The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior. J Organ Behav. 2002;23:695–706. 10.1002/job.165. [Google Scholar]

[CR29] 29.Luthans F. Positive organizational behavior: developing and managing psychological strengths. Acad Manage Perspect. 2002;16:57–72. [Google Scholar]

[CR30] 30.Luthans F, Luthans KW, Luthans BC. Positive psychological capital: beyond human and social capital. Bus Horiz. 2004;47(1):45–50. 10.1016/j.bushor.2003.11.007. [Google Scholar]

[CR31] 31.Luthans F. Emerging positive organizational behavior. J Manage. 2007;33(3):321–49. [Google Scholar]

[CR32] 32.Friend SB, Johnson JS, Luthans F, Sohi RS. Positive psychology in sales: integrating psychological capital. J Mark Theory Pract. 2016;24(3):306–27. [Google Scholar]

[CR33] 33.Tösten R. Examination of teachers’ perceptions on positive psychological capital [dissertation]. Gaziantep: Gaziantep University; 2015. [Google Scholar]

[CR34] 34.Peterson C, Steen TA. Optimistic explanatory style. In: Lopez SJ, Snyder CR, editors. Oxford handbook of positive psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2009. p. 313–22. [Google Scholar]

[CR35] 35.Çetinkaya Y. The relationship between optimism and life satisfaction. Turk J Psychol. 2017;35(4):110–23. [Google Scholar]

[CR36] 36.Karaca F. Positive psychological capital and individual optimism. Turk J Psychol. 2012;28(2):45–58. [Google Scholar]

[CR37] 37.Masten AS. Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development. Am Psychol. 2001;56:227–38. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.227. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR38] 38.Tedeschi RG, Calhoun LG. Posttraumatic growth: conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychol Inq. 2004;15:1–18. [Google Scholar]

[CR39] 39.Bonanno GA. Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? Am Psychol. 2004;59(1):20–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR40] 40.Bacanlı F. Psikolojik testler ve ölçme. Ankara: Nobel Yayın Dağıtım; 2007. [Google Scholar]

[CR41] 41.Costa PT, McCrae RR. Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: the NEO personality inventory. Psychol Assess. 1992;4(1):5. [Google Scholar]

[CR42] 42.Anfara VA, Angelle P. Teacher leadership in educational reform: the role of teachers as change agents. Leadersh Policy Sch. 2007;6(4):387–404. [Google Scholar]

[CR43] 43.Beycioğlu K. School restructuring: a study on leadership and school culture. Eğt ve Bilim. 2009;34(154):60–7. [Google Scholar]

[CR44] 44.Spillane JP, Healey K. Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a distributed perspective: an exploration of some study operations and measures. Elem Sch J. 2010;111(2):253–81. [Google Scholar]

[CR45] 45.Podmostko M. Leadership unbound: A profile of leadership in teacher-led schools. Education Commission of the States; 2000. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED443173.pdf.

[CR46] 46.Frost D, Harris A. Teacher leadership: towards a research agenda. Camb J Educ. 2003;33(3):479–98. 10.1080/0305764032000122078. [Google Scholar]

[CR47] 47.Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86(3):499–512. 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR48] 48.Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to design and evaluate research in education. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies; 2011. [Google Scholar]

[CR49] 49.Karasar N. Scientific research method. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık; 2008. [Google Scholar]

[CR50] 50.Tekbıyık A. Relational research method. In: Özmen H, Karamustafaoğlu O, editors. Research methods in education. 2nd ed. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık; 2019. p. 64–1178. [Google Scholar]

[CR51] 51.Büyüköztürk Ş, Akgün ÖE, Demirel F, Karadeniz Ş, Çakmak EK. Scientific research methods in education. Ankara: Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık; 2024. [Google Scholar]

[CR52] 52.Liu S, Hallinger P, Feng D. Learning-centered leadership and teacher learning in China: does trust matter? J Educ Adm. 2016;54(6):661–82. [Google Scholar]

[CR53] 53.Kılınç AÇ, Bellibaş MŞ, Gümüş S. Adaptation of the learning-centered leadership scale (LCLS) to Turkish: validity and reliability study. Inonu Univ J Fac Educ. 2017;18(3):132–44. [Google Scholar]

[CR54] 54.Tösten R, Özgan H. The scale of positive psychological capital: a reliability and validity study. Ekev Acad J. 2014;59:429–42. [Google Scholar]

[CR55] 55.Şencan H. Scientific writing. 1st ed. Istanbul: Çantay Yayınevi; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[CR56] 56.Field A. Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Oriental Press; 2009. [Google Scholar]

[CR57] 57.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003;88(5):879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR58] 58.Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares structural equation modeling: rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long Range Plann. 2013;46(1–2):1–12. [Google Scholar]

[CR59] 59.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. 10.2307/3151312. [Google Scholar]

[CR60] 60.Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Structural equation modeling, AMOS applications. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2015. [Google Scholar]

[CR61] 61.İlhan M, Çetin B. Comparing the analysis results of the structural equation models (sem) conducted using LISREL and AMOS. J Meas Eval Educ Psychol. 2014;5(2):26–42. 10.21031/epod.31126. [Google Scholar]

[CR62] 62.DaşcıSönmez E, Cemaloğlu N, Kahraman G. Teachers’ professional learning: do instructional leadership and teacher leadership make a difference in Türkiye? Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024. 10.1177/17411432241280124. [Google Scholar]

[CR63] 63.Ding Z, Thien LM. Assessing the antecedents and consequences of teacher leadership: a partial least squares analysis. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022. 10.1080/13603124.2022.2068191. [Google Scholar]

[CR64] 64.Pan HLW, Chen WY. How principal leadership facilitates teacher learning through teacher leadership: determining the critical path. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2021;49(3):454–70. 10.1177/1741143220913553. [Google Scholar]

[CR65] 65.Eckert J, Daughtrey A. Teacher leadership development: Tracking one district’s progress over three years. Educ Policy Anal Arch. 2019; 27(42). Available from: 10.14507/epaa.27.4130.

[CR66] 66.Szeto E, Cheng A. Principal–teacher interactions and teacher leadership development: beginning teachers’ perspectives. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2017;21(3):363–79. 10.1080/13603124.2016.1274785. [Google Scholar]

[CR67] 67.Ovacıklı S. The investigation of the relationship between primary school principals' supportive behaviours regarding teacher leadership and teacher leadership. [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Izmir: Dokuz Eylul University; 2018. https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/TezGoster?key=as2oTjW5jfr9IKSvmCdJYoEqGwj6ncoo24HUZoyHyJ-OtiEsaSwQ0_x4RIOS6ZAC

[CR68] 68.Nguyen D, Harris A, Ng D. A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): evidence, patterns, and implications. J Educ Adm. 2019;58(1):60–80. 10.1108/JEA-02-2018-0023. [Google Scholar]

[CR69] 69.Taylor M, Klein EJ, Munakata M, Trabona K, Rahman Z, McManus J. Professional development for teacher leaders: using activity theory to understand the complexities of sustainable change. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2018;22(6):685–705. 10.1080/13603124.2018.1492023. [Google Scholar]

[CR70] 70.Barth SG, Criswell BA, Smith WM, Rushton GT. Modeling how professional development interacts with teacher leaders’ outcome expectancies and school environment perceptions. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2024; 1–25. 10.1080/13603124.2024.2307877.

[CR71] 71.Alazmi AA, Hammad W. Modeling the relationship between principal leadership and teacher professional learning in Kuwait: the mediating effects of trust and teacher agency. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2023;51(5):1141–60. 10.1177/17411432211038. [Google Scholar]

[CR72] 72.Aslan M, Arısoy E, Gören T. The relationship between learning-centered leadership and professional learning: a study on SAC teachers. J Theor Educ Sci. 2023;16(1):142–62. 10.30831/akukeg.1179861. [Google Scholar]

[CR73] 73.Hammad W, Abu Shindi Y, Morad H, Al-Mahdy YFH, Al-Harthi K. Promoting teacher professional learning in Egyptian schools: the contribution of learning-centered leadership. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2024;27(6):1209–27. 10.1080/13603124.2021.1969038. [Google Scholar]

[CR74] 74.Hendawy Al-Mahdy YF, Hallinger P, Emam M, Hammad W, Alabri KM, Al-Harthi K. Supporting teacher professional learning in Oman: the effects of principal leadership, teacher trust, and teacher agency. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024;52(2):395–416. 10.1177/17411432211064428. [Google Scholar]

[CR75] 75.Kalman M, Şimşek Ö. The mediating effect of school climate in the relationship between school principals' learning-centered leadership and teacher professional learning in Türkiye. KEDI J Educ Policy. 2023; 20(2). Available from: 10.22804/kjep.2023.20.2.004.

[CR76] 76.Kulophas D, Hallinger P. Does leadership make a difference in teacher learning: a contextual analysis of learning centered leadership in rural Thailand. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2021;27(6):1494–514. 10.1080/13603124.2021.198091. [Google Scholar]

[CR77] 77.Talebizadeh SM, Hosseingholizadeh R, Bellibaş MŞ. Analyzing the relationship between principals’ learning-centered leadership and teacher professional learning: the mediation role of trust and knowledge sharing behavior. Stud Educ Eval. 2021;68:100970. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2020.100970. [Google Scholar]

[CR78] 78.Thien LM, Uthai M, Yeap SB. Does middle leaders’ learning-centred leadership matter in promoting teacher professional learning? A partial least squares analysis. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2022. 10.1177/17411432221115522. [Google Scholar]

[CR79] 79.Thien LM, Uthai M, Yeap SB. Does middle leaders’ learning-centred leadership matter in promoting teacher professional learning? A partial least squares analysis. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2024;52(4):854–77. 10.1177/174114322211155. [Google Scholar]

[CR80] 80.Çobanoğlu N, Bozbayındır F. A study on shared leadership and positive psychological capitals of teachers at primary and secondary schools. Universal J Educ Res. 2019;7(5):1265–74. 10.13189/ujer.2019.070512. [Google Scholar]

[CR81] 81.Eser İ, Summak MS. The relationship between teachers’ positive psychological capital and ethical leadership perception with job integration. J Contemp Manag Sci. 2020;7(2):180–205. [Google Scholar]

[CR82] 82.Hyunah O, Chung J. The effect of authentic leadership and transformational leadership on job crafting: with the mediating effect of positive psychological capital and organizational identification. Korean Leadersh Rev. 2017;8(4):21–60. [Google Scholar]

[CR83] 83.Kim MJ, Chang CI. The effect of shared leadership on positive psychological capital and organizational commitment. Korean Rev Corp Manag. 2022;13(2):183–205. [Google Scholar]

[CR84] 84.Kyungseok K. The structural relationship among vice principals’ emotional leadership, teachers’ positive psychological capital, and teachers’ commitment to teaching as perceived by secondary school teachers. J Learn-Centered Curric Instr. 2017;17(7):357–82. [Google Scholar]

[CR85] 85.Neyişci N, Güneş FT. The relationship between school principals’ quantum leadership behaviors and teachers’ psychological capital levels. Pegem J Educ Instr. 2022;12(4):1–11. [Google Scholar]

[CR86] 86.Li YB, Wu TJ, Lin CP. Authentic leadership and knowledge sharing in state-owned enterprises of China: an empirical study. J Interdiscip Math. 2017;20(3):881–94. 10.1080/09720502.2017.1361615. [Google Scholar]

[CR87] 87.Li M, Moon-Hong K. The impact of shared leadership on innovation behavior in the Chinese luxury hotel industry: mediating effect of positive psychological capital. J Distrib Manage. 2020;23(6):65–82. 10.17961/jdmr.23.06.202012.65. [Google Scholar]

[CR88] 88.Myung-Su K, Chun-Soo J. The effects of authentic leadership on employee positive psychological capital and affective commitment. Korean J Hum Resour Dev. 2012;15(1):99–122. [Google Scholar]

[CR89] 89.Park SH. The mediating effect of positive psychological capital on the influence of principal’s servant leadership on teacher job engagement. J Humanit Soc Sci. 2022;13(6):4331–46. [Google Scholar]

[CR90] 90.Rego P, Lopes MP, Nascimento JL. Authentic leadership and organizational commitment: the mediating role of positive psychological capital. J Ind Eng Manag. 2016;9(1):129–51. 10.3926/jiem.1540. [Google Scholar]

[CR91] 91.Sangtai K, Kim TD. Relationship among transformational leadership, positive psychological capital and job satisfaction of employees in sport center organizations. J Korea Ent Ind Assoc. 2014;8(3):167–77. [Google Scholar]

[CR92] 92.Sang Hoon O, Sung-Wook Y. The effects of authentic leadership on innovation behavior and job satisfaction through positive psychological capital. Q J Def Pol Stud. 2019;35(1):155–88. [Google Scholar]

[CR93] 93.Sung-Gil Y. The effects of authentic leadership on learning organization and positive psychological capital: focusing on the mediation role of learning organization. J Hosp Tour Stud. 2017;19(4):41–63. [Google Scholar]

[CR94] 94.Şengüllendi MF, Şehitoğlu Y. The relationship between transformational leadership and positive psychological capital: The moderating role of education level. Yıldız J Soc Sci Inst. 2017;1(2):112–26. [Google Scholar]

[CR95] 95.Vural Özkan G. The relationship between inclusive leadership and employees’ positive psychological capital levels. J Behav Work. 2024;9(1):26–41. [Google Scholar]

[CR96] 96.Yalçın S, Akan D, Yıldırım İ. Investigating the relationship between school administrators’ leadership styles and teachers’ positive psychological capital levels according to teachers’ perceptions. Karadeniz J Soc Sci. 2018;10(18):157–74. [Google Scholar]

[CR97] 97.Yollu S, Korkmaz M. The mediating role of moral courage in the relationship between authentic leadership and teachers’ positive psychological capital. J Theor Educ Sci. 2024;17(3):698–718. 10.30831/akukeg.1321356. [Google Scholar]

[CR98] 98.Zheng L, Quan L. On the mediating effect of positive psychological capital in the relationship between self-leadership and learning engagement of Chinese university students. J Learn-Centered Curric Instr. 2024;24(23):511–20. [Google Scholar]

[CR99] 99.Külekçi Akyavuz E. Teachers’ perceptions of positive psychological capital: a mixed method approach. Int J Res Educ Sci. 2021;7(3):933–53. 10.46328/ijres.2020. [Google Scholar]

[CR100] 100.Ergül HF. The relationship between positive psychological capital and teacher leadership. EKEV Acad J. 2020;84:325–36. [Google Scholar]

[CR101] 101.Vural ÖG. An examination of the role of positive psychological capital and positive organizational variables in development of creative and innovative behaviors in organizations [dissertation]. Istanbul: Istanbul University; 2016. [Google Scholar]

[CR102] 102.Su Y, Abd Rani NS. Empowering leadership and psychological capital: drivers of teachers’ innovative behavior among international school teachers in Beijing City. Uniglobal J Soc Sci Humanit. 2025;4(1):69–78. 10.53797/ujssh.v4i1.8.2025. [Google Scholar]

[CR103] 103.Akkaya R, Çetin M. Entrepreneurial leadership, teacher entrepreneurship and positive psychological capital: a structural equation model test in educational organizations. Pamukkale Univ J Fac Educ. 2024;60:337–66. 10.9779/pauefd.1196728. [Google Scholar]

[CR104] 104.Baig SA, Iqbal S, Abrar M, Baig IA, Amjad F, Zia-ur-Rehman M, et al. Impact of leadership styles on employees’ performance with moderating role of positive psychological capital. Total Qual Manag Bus Excell. 2019;32(9–10):1085–105. 10.1080/14783363.2019.1665011. [Google Scholar]

[CR105] 105.Çilek A, Kılınç AÇ, Erdoğan O, Arslan K, Sezgin F. Linking principal support and teacher resilience to teacher leadership in Türkiye: the mediating role of teacher work engagement. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. 2025. 10.1177/17411432241308679. [Google Scholar]

[CR106] 106.Shu-Ling C, Zikani M. Ethical leadership, psychological capital, work engagement and job satisfaction: the moderating role of moral identity in the Malawi government sector. Int Rev Public Adm. 2023;28(3):288–307. 10.1080/12294659.2023.2261297. [Google Scholar]

[CR107] 107.Xu J. Enhancing student creativity in Chinese universities: the role of teachers’ spiritual leadership and the mediating effects of positive psychological capital and sense of self-esteem. Think Skills Creat. 2024;53:101567. 10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101567. [Google Scholar]

[CR108] 108.Zhang L, Wu T, Liu L, Ren P, Lin C. The relationship between Chinese preschool principal leadership styles and teacher leadership: exploring the mediating effect of psychological capital. Front Psychol. 2022;13:1006184. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1006184. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR109] 109.Makhamra K, El Nawajha Z. Perceived resonant leadership and its relationship to psychological capital among secondary school teachers of the Jerusalem Municipality. Hebron University Research Journal (HURJ): B- (Humanities). 2024. 10.60138/5119220242. [Google Scholar]

[CR110] 110.Al Dosari BB, Omar KM. Impact of leadership behavior on psychological capital (evidence from Kingdom of Saudi Arabia). International Conference on Decision Aid Sciences and Applications (DASA). 2024;2024:1–7. [Google Scholar]

[CR111] 111.Apriliana G, Hartijasti Y. Exploring the mediating role of psychological capital: the impact of authentic leadership and perceived organisational toward organisational citizenship behaviour. BISMA (Bisnis dan Manajemen). 2024. 10.26740/bisma.v17n1.p1-25.

[CR112] 112.Savickaitė-Kazlauskė E, Bendaraviciene R. The role of coaching-based leadership, appreciation, and gratitude in enhancing psychological capital and organisational thriving in Lithuanian organisations. J Adv Res Leadership. 2024;3(1):1–18. [Google Scholar]

[CR113] 113.Wang Y, Bao C, Luo X, Ren M. Does resilient leadership enhance job thriving among Chinese teachers? The role psychological capital and emotional intelligence. Acta Psychol Amst. 2025;259:105297. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105297. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR114] 114.Su W, Hahn J. Self-leadership and psychological capital as mediators in the influence of leader motivating language on everyday innovative behavior. Int J Bus Commun. 2025;62(2):379–401. 10.1177/23294884221119453. [Google Scholar]

[CR115] 115.Cui P, Chang S, Tian G, Li Z, Cheng C, Chang L, et al. The mediating effects of psychological capital and career success in the relationship between leadership styles and job satisfaction among nurse managers: a cross-sectional study. BMC Nurs. 2025;24:961. 10.1186/s12912-025-03616-6. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[CR116] 116.Amjad S, Yasin R, Munir Y, Atif M. Knowledge-oriented leadership, organizational trust and psychological capital: a gateway to innovative performance: a multisource approach. Manag Res Rev. 2025;48(8):1231–56. 10.1108/MRR-06-2024-0468. [Google Scholar]

[CR117] 117.Walumbwa FO, Peterson SJ, Avolio BJ, Hartnell CA. An investigation of the relationships among leader and follower psychological capital, service climate, and job performance. Pers Psychol. 2010;63(4):937–63. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01193.x. [Google Scholar]

[CR118] 118.Gupta V, Singh S. Psychological capital as a mediator of the relationship between leadership and creative performance behaviors: empirical evidence from the Indian R&D sector. Int J Hum Resour Manag. 2014;25(10):1373–94. 10.1080/09585192.2013.870311. [Google Scholar]

[CR119] 119.Liu P, Xiu Q, Tang L, Zhang Y. Understanding teacher leadership identity: the perspectives of Chinese high school teachers. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2021;28(1):149–66. 10.1080/13603124.2021.2006792. [Google Scholar]

[CR120] 120.Brandt T, Gomes JF, Boyanova D. Personality and psychological capital as indicators of future job success? Liiketal Aikakausk. 2011;3:263–89. [Google Scholar]

[CR121] 121.Nambudiri R, Shaik R, Ghulyani S. Student personality and academic achievement: mediating role of psychological capital (PsyCap). Int J Educ Manag. 2020;34(4):767–81. 10.1108/IJEM-12-2018-0385. [Google Scholar]

[CR122] 122.Şahin M, Güngör E. The relationship between positive psychological capital and leadership: a study on teacher leadership in education. J Educ Instr Stud World. 2016;6(3):31–41. [Google Scholar]

[CR123] 123.Gül T, Criswell B, Demir K. Impacts of teacher-driven professional development on teacher leadership identity. Int J Leadersh Educ. 2022;28(4):875–902. 10.1080/13603124.2022.2052754. [Google Scholar]

[CR124] 124.Akten S. Examining of burnout levels of teachers working in the field of special education during the COVID-19 pandemic process. Trakya Educ J. 2024;14(2):806–19. 10.24315/tred.1393253. [Google Scholar]

[CR125] 125.Fidan M. Teaching profession during the COVID-19 pandemic. MM Int J Educ Sci. 2021;5(1):1–14. 10.46762/mamulebd.789097. [Google Scholar]

[CR126] 126.Kara M, Bozkurt B. School administration during the COVID-19 pandemic: challenges and lessons learned. Turk Egitim Bilim Derg. 2021;19(2):1076–103. 10.37217/tebd.969888. [Google Scholar]

[CR127] 127.Karadeniz G, Zabcı N. The effects of teachers’ experiences during the pandemic period, their well-being, stress levels and adaptation to distance education. MSGSU Soc Sci. 2020;2(22):301–14. [Google Scholar]

[CR128] 128.Özdemir N, Menekay M. Burnout in distance education teachers during the global pandemic period. GAB Acad. 2021;1(1):11–30. [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

The mediating role of positive psychological capital in the relationship between learning-centred leadership and teacher leadership

Pakize Mısırcı

Fatih Bozbayındır

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Supplementary Information

Introduction

Literature review

Learning-Centred Leadership (LCL)

Teacher Leadership (TL)

Positive Psychological Capital (PPC)

Hypotheses

LCL-TL

LCL-PPC

PPC-TL

LCL-PPC-TL

Fig. 1.

Method

Research model

Study group

Data collection tools

LCL scale

TL scale

PPC scale

Data analysis

Reliability and construct validity

Table 1.

Results

Table 2.

Table 3.

Fig. 2.

Table 4.

Discussion and conclusion

Implications

Limitations and future directions

Supplementary Information

Acknowledgements

Authors’ contributions

Funding

Data availability

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Consent for publication

Competing interests

Footnotes

References

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases