Distributed leadership, self-efficacy and wellbeing in schools: A study of relations among teachers in Shanghai

The study is situated in the context of increasing interest in workplace practices that enhance employee wellbeing and engagement. In schools, distributed leadership—emphasizing joint involvement, participation, and shared decision-making—has been linked to teacher empowerment, higher self-efficacy, and positive organizational change. Amid widespread concerns about teacher stress, burnout, and attrition, understanding mechanisms that promote teacher job and career wellbeing is critical. Prior research suggests distributed leadership can enhance self-efficacy and wellbeing, but evidence is limited on how teacher self-efficacy shapes the relationship between distributed leadership and wellbeing. This study addresses that gap using TALIS 2018 data from Shanghai secondary schools to test how teacher self-efficacy mediates the relationship between distributed leadership and two dimensions of teacher wellbeing: job wellbeing and career wellbeing. The research tests two hypotheses: (1) distributed leadership directly and positively affects teacher self-efficacy, job wellbeing, and career wellbeing; and (2) distributed leadership indirectly and positively affects job and career wellbeing via teacher self-efficacy.

The theoretical framework draws on educational and social psychology, particularly group and polyarchy theories, positioning distributed leadership as a key determinant of teacher wellbeing. Distributed leadership in schools involves fluid, hierarchy-neutral collaboration among administrators and teachers, allocating leadership responsibilities to build agency, reduce power distance, and foster organizational change. It has been associated with improved teacher performance, school development, student achievement, and teacher wellbeing. Teacher wellbeing is conceptualized as bi-dimensional: job wellbeing (teachers’ emotional experience of work conditions, tasks, and managerial styles) and career wellbeing (alignment of career experiences with expectations and broader societal valuation). Distributed leadership enhances wellbeing through increased autonomy, participation in decision-making, professional collaboration, and a sense of ownership, which bolster commitment and both job and career wellbeing. The review also positions teacher self-efficacy as a central mediating mechanism. Rooted in Bandura’s social cognitive theory, teacher self-efficacy influences instructional practice and student outcomes, mitigates stressors, and enhances motivation. Distributed leadership can improve self-efficacy by fostering positive collaborative climates, granting greater control over work, and providing supportive verbal persuasion and leader support. While self-efficacy is linked to favorable job and career outcomes, prior research rarely examines distributed leadership, self-efficacy, and wellbeing together, motivating the present mediation analysis.

Design: A partial least-squares structural equation model (PLS-SEM) was estimated to test mediation pathways among distributed leadership (independent variable), teacher self-efficacy (mediator), and teacher wellbeing (dependent variable, with job and career dimensions). Hypotheses tested: H1 (direct positive effects of distributed leadership on self-efficacy, job wellbeing, and career wellbeing) and H2 (indirect positive effects of distributed leadership on job and career wellbeing via self-efficacy). Data and sample: TALIS 2018 dataset (OECD) focusing on Shanghai lower-secondary teachers. From 3976 surveyed teachers, 177 cases with pair-wise missing data were omitted, yielding N = 3799. Sample characteristics: 74% female; 86% with bachelor’s degree or below; average total teaching experience 16.65 years; average years at current school 11.92. Measures: All constructs were modeled as latent variables using TALIS teacher questionnaire items on 4-point Likert scales. Distributed leadership: 8-item scale capturing participation opportunities for staff, parents, and students; shared responsibility; mutual support; shared beliefs and consistent enforcement; encouragement to lead initiatives. Reliability/validity: α = 0.952; KMO = 0.931; factor loadings 0.80–0.90; mean VIF = 3.94 (<5). Teacher self-efficacy: 13-item scale spanning student engagement, instruction, classroom management, and technology use. Reliability/validity: α = 0.952; KMO = 0.956; loadings 0.80–0.89; mean VIF = 3.14. Teacher wellbeing: two latent constructs. Job wellbeing (5 items, e.g., enjoyment, recommending school, job satisfaction): α = 0.867; KMO = 0.844; loadings 0.71–0.94; mean VIF = 2.42. Career wellbeing (8 items, e.g., profession valued, advantages outweigh disadvantages, policy influence, media valuation): α = 0.840; KMO = 0.822; loadings 0.61–0.89; mean VIF = 1.80. Analysis: SEM estimated in Stata 15.1 using PLS-SEM, modeling direct and indirect pathways with reduced measurement error via latent constructs. Variables were centered/standardized to mitigate multicollinearity. Mediation was assessed using Delta, Sobel, and Monte Carlo methods with 5000 bootstraps. Model fit was evaluated using χ², CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR.

Model fit indices indicated an acceptable fit: χ² = 13,724.325 (P < 0.001); CFI = 0.867; TLI = 0.857; RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.082. Direct effects (standardized coefficients): distributed leadership positively associated with teacher self-efficacy (β = 0.33, P < 0.001), job wellbeing (β = 0.51, P < 0.001), and career wellbeing (β = 0.45, P < 0.001), supporting H1. Teacher self-efficacy positively related to job wellbeing (β = 0.15, P < 0.001) but not to career wellbeing (β = −0.01, P = 0.69). Indirect effects: distributed leadership had a significant positive indirect effect on job wellbeing via self-efficacy (β = 0.05, P < 0.001), but not on career wellbeing (β = −0.002, P = 0.70). The mediated effect on job wellbeing is about 10% of the direct effect (0.05/0.51). Total effect of distributed leadership on job wellbeing was approximately 0.56 (P < 0.001; 95% CI: 0.55–0.57). Thus, H2 is partially supported: mediation occurs for job wellbeing but not for career wellbeing.

Findings address the research question by demonstrating that distributed leadership enhances teacher self-efficacy and both dimensions of wellbeing, but self-efficacy mediates only the link to job wellbeing. This suggests that self-efficacy operates as a psychosocial mechanism through which shared decision-making and empowerment improve teachers' day-to-day affect and satisfaction with their work context. However, career wellbeing appears more contingent on extrinsic and systemic factors (e.g., wages, promotion, policy voice, and societal valuation) that are less directly influenced by self-efficacy. The results underscore the significance of distributed leadership for building supportive school climates, teacher agency, and collaborative cultures that translate into improved job wellbeing, with more complex pathways to career wellbeing. These insights are relevant to policy efforts to attract and retain teachers: empowering teachers' voices and participation can improve job-related satisfaction and engagement, though additional levers may be necessary to impact broader career perceptions.

The study contributes by jointly modeling distributed leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and bi-dimensional teacher wellbeing, providing evidence from a large Shanghai sample that distributed leadership directly improves self-efficacy, job wellbeing, and career wellbeing, and that self-efficacy mediates the effect on job wellbeing but not on career wellbeing. The work advances a theoretical framework for understanding psychosocial mechanisms in school management practices and highlights the practical importance of empowering teachers in decision-making. Future research should address causal inference through longitudinal or experimental designs and broaden generalizability beyond urban lower-secondary contexts. Policymakers should combine distributed leadership with tangible career supports (e.g., compensation, promotion pathways, professional opportunities) to influence career wellbeing and retention.

Two primary limitations are noted: (1) the cross-sectional TALIS design limits causal interpretations of the PLS-SEM results; and (2) the Shanghai lower-secondary (urban) sample constrains generalizability to other regions, school levels, and contexts.