The influence of transformational leadership and teachers' trust in principals on teachers' working commitment

The study addresses how principals’ transformational leadership (TL) relates to teachers’ trust in principals (TT) and teachers’ working commitment (WC) within Malaysian Government Funded Religious Schools (GFRS), where enrollments and demands on teachers have grown. Grounded in leadership and social exchange perspectives, the research examines whether strong leadership fosters trust and commitment, which are central to school performance. Prior findings in GFRS contexts have been mixed regarding the levels of TL and WC, motivating an investigation into the levels of TL, TT, and WC and whether TT mediates the TL–WC relationship among GFRS teachers in Selangor.

The paper reviews concepts of leadership as influencing followers to achieve organizational goals and highlights transformational leadership’s components (charisma/idealized influence, individualized consideration, intellectual stimulation, inspirational motivation). Prior studies suggest TT is critical for productive schools and effective change, fostering open interactions and teacher self-efficacy. Commitment is defined as agreement with organizational mission and willingness to remain loyal, with low commitment linked to various performance issues. Prior evidence indicates TL can enhance TT and WC; however, findings in GFRS contexts are mixed, warranting examination of TT as a potential mediator between TL and WC. Social Exchange Theory underscores trust as central to sustained relationships, and prior models link TL components to TT.

Design: Quantitative survey research design. Permissions were obtained from the Education Policy Planning and Research Division, Ministry of Education Malaysia and the Selangor Education Office. Administration was face-to-face across nine districts in Selangor. Population and sampling: Population comprised 1277 teachers across all 23 GFRS in Selangor. Using Krejcie and Morgan guidelines, a sample of 297 teachers was selected via stratified random sampling by district, with proportional allocation (e.g., Gombak: (297/1277)*106 ≈ 25). Instrument: Adapted from established scales. Section A: demographics (4 items). Section B: TL measured via MLQ-based items across four dimensions—idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, individualized consideration, inspirational motivation (16 items total). Section C: TT measured using Trust in Teams and Trust in Leaders Scale (12 items; concern, integrity, reliability, competence). Section D: WC measured using items adapted from Mujir (2011) and Ami et al. (2016) (9 items; commitment to school, students, profession). All items on 5-point Likert scale. Data handling and analysis: Data cleaning performed; missing responses handled via expectation-maximization. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, means, SDs) summarized levels using predefined mean cutoffs. Inferential analyses included regression-based mediation using Baron and Kenny’s steps and bootstrapped indirect effects (PROCESS macro for SPSS; 5000 bootstrap samples). Predictive accuracy assessed via R2 following Cohen’s criteria (weak 0.02, moderate 0.13, substantial 0.26).

- Levels: TL high (M=4.077, SD=0.533); TT high (M=4.070, SD=0.521); WC high (M=4.188, SD=0.413). - TL dimensions: all high; inspirational motivation very high (M=4.272, SD=0.559). - TT dimensions: all high; competence highest (M=4.194, SD=0.572). - WC dimensions: all high; commitment to profession very high (M=4.567, SD=0.452). - Regression results: TL → TT significant (B=0.867, SE=0.026, p<0.05; R2=0.787 for TT model). TT → WC not significant (B=0.064, SE=0.085, p=0.452). TL → WC significant (B=0.361, SE=0.083, p<0.05), explaining 29% of WC variance (R2=0.290; substantial predictive accuracy). - Mediation: Indirect effect of TL on WC via TT not significant (B=0.055, SE=0.071, 95% CI [-0.080, 0.199]). - Hypotheses decisions: H01 rejected (TL affects TT); H02 supported (TT does not affect WC); H03 rejected (TL affects WC); H04 supported (no mediation by TT).

The findings show that GFRS principals in Selangor are perceived to practice high levels of transformational leadership, which is associated with higher teacher trust and directly higher working commitment. However, contrary to some prior literature that posits trust as a pathway to commitment, teachers’ trust in principals did not significantly predict commitment nor mediate the TL–WC relationship. The results suggest that TL may exert a direct influence on teachers’ commitment, while TT may not be the proximal driver of WC in this context. Potential explanations include the multidimensional and context-dependent nature of commitment, influenced by group dynamics, relationships among teachers and staff, interactions with parents and external stakeholders, and working conditions such as workload and role overlap. These contextual factors may attenuate or overshadow the role of trust in translating leadership into commitment in GFRS settings.

The study found high levels of transformational leadership, teachers’ trust in principals, and teachers’ working commitment in Selangor GFRS. Transformational leadership significantly and positively influenced both teachers’ trust and working commitment, but teachers’ trust did not significantly predict commitment and did not mediate the TL–WC relationship. This contributes evidence from a school context where TT is not the mechanism linking TL to WC, highlighting the complexity of commitment formation. Implications include reinforcing TL training for principals and encouraging supportive work environments. Future research should broaden sampling beyond Selangor GFRS, incorporate principals’ perspectives, and examine additional contextual factors such as inter-staff dynamics and workload to better understand how leadership translates into sustained teacher commitment.

- Generalizability is limited to GFRS in Selangor; findings may not extend to other educational contexts in Malaysia. - Cross-sectional survey limits causal inference beyond mediation analysis assumptions. - Measures of commitment focused on school, students, and profession; other contextual and relational factors were not directly measured. - Data are not publicly available due to confidentiality, potentially limiting external validation; future studies should consider larger and more diverse samples and include principals’ perspectives.