The effect of school leadership on educational outcomes has long attracted the attention of scholars. However, the measurement of the effects of leadership on specific educational and school outcomes has proven to be a challenge, mainly due to conceptual and methodological issues. Nevertheless, research on the topic is necessary in order to facilitate the informed adoption of leadership models and/or practices in education in that policy makers often lack the evidence that can serve as the basis for the promotion of specific approaches to leadership. Several criticisms have emerged regarding the extent to which popular leadership models are backed by sufficient evidence. Moreover, research is necessary in order to ensure that leadership models are timely and relevant to educational policy and practice as opposed to “dead ideas” still walking among us (Haslam, Alvesson & Reicher, 2024).

Transformational leadership is a leadership style closely linked to a process of change, transformation, motivation and innovation in individuals and organisations. It is characterised by an explicit focus on the role of the leaders in the development of followers. Transformational leaders manage to motivate others to achieve more than originally planned or intended; they create a supportive organisational climate where individual needs and differences are acknowledged and respected (Bass, 1998). The building of trust and respect motivates followers to work for the accomplishment of shared goals. Thus, transformational leaders motivate followers to focus on the common good, through commitment to the mission and vision of the organisation. Since its emergence, transformational leadership has been investigated in fields such as psychology, business administration, sociology and education. Studies in education have examined the link between transformational leadership and specific educational outcomes (see, for example, Kilinç et al., 2022; Li & Karanxha, 2022; Polatcan, Arslan & Balci, 2021).

In this context, we present the findings of two studies on the effect of transformational leadership on educational outcomes. Both studies were conducted in Cyprus using the theoretical framework of the full range model of leadership proposed by Bass and his colleagues (see, for example, Bass, & Avolio, 1994; Avolio & Bass, 2004). The first study investigates the link between transformational/transactional/passive-avoidant leadership behaviours, teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness and teachers’ job satisfaction (Menon, 2014). Data collected from teachers provide evidence on the extent to which transformational school leadership is linked to teacher job satisfaction. The latter is an important indicator of teacher motivation and commitment to the profession. Moreover, data on teacher perceptions can provide a more objective way of assessing school leader effectiveness in comparison to self-reported measures.

The second study investigates the link between transformational and transactional school leadership, on the one hand, and teacher self-efficacy, on the other.  Self-efficacy is an important variable in that, individuals with higher levels of self-efficacy are more motivated and more likely to succeed as a result. Self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be stronger than the actual abilities of individuals in determining motivation, action and accomplishment (Bandura, 1986).

The findings of the two studies are linked to implications and recommendations for educational policy and practice. Moreover, the paper discusses future directions for research on transformational leadership, with reference to the limitations of transformational leadership both in terms of theoretical underpinnings and research approaches to its study.

For both studies, primary data were collected through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) from public secondary school teachers in Cyprus. The MLQ was developed by Bass (1985) in order to measure transformational and transactional leader behaviour. It has been widely used to assess the component factors of the model proposed by Avolio and Bass (2004) and to investigate the nature of the relationship between transactional/transformational leadership styles and other variables. Despite several criticisms, the current version of the MLQ (Form 5X) remains the most popular instrument in research on transformational and transactional leadership. In the first study, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) was adapted to the context of Cyprus and administered to a sample of secondary school teachers. Several questions were added to the instrument in order to measure job satisfaction and perceived school leader effectiveness. The sample consisted of 438 secondary education teachers employed at 10 secondary schools in Cyprus. The 10 schools were selected to represent different regional and socioeconomic background characteristics. Thus, urban, suburban and rural schools were included in the sample. Within each school, all teachers were instructed to fill the questionnaire. In the second study, the MLQ was administered to 683 secondary education teachers employed in 32 upper secondary schools in Cyprus. Teacher self-efficacy was measured through Bandura’s Teacher Self-Efficacy Scale (Bandura, 2006), which examines the self-efficacy beliefs of teachers regarding the following: “self-efficacy to influence decision making; instructional self-efficacy; disciplinary self-efficacy; efficacy to enlist parental involvement; efficacy to enlist community involvement; efficacy to create a positive school climate.” The instrument was adapted to the educational system of Cyprus, in relation to the roles and responsibilities of school teachers. Urban, suburban and rural schools were included in the sample in an attempt to arrive at a representative sample in terms of student residence and/or socioeconomic background. Advanced methods of statistical analysis were used in both studies. These included confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modelling. MPLUS was used for model fitting testing in the two studies.

The main findings are presented separately for each study. In relation to the first study, the results provide support for a three-factor structure model consisting of transformational, transactional and passive-avoidant forms of leadership, representing three distinct components of leadership behaviour. Teachers’ perceptions of leader effectiveness and teachers’ overall job satisfaction were found to be significantly linked to the leadership behaviours included in the full range model of leadership. As regards the second study, the results show that transformational and transactional leadership can be combined in a second-order factor and that this factor is a strong predictor of teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. Consequently, this study provides evidence in support of a strong link between transformational/transactional leadership and teacher self-efficacy. Moreover, based on the findings, transformational and transactional leadership appear to be interconnected. The findings are discussed in the context of previous research on the topic and implications for educational theory and practice are drawn. The significance of the findings for educational policy and practice is highlighted, while acknowledging the need for revisiting the conceptualisation and operationalisation framework associated with transformational school leadership. Overall, our findings point to the fact that transformational and transactional school leadership should be further investigated in studies of factors influencing teacher job satisfaction and teacher self-efficacy as well as additional educational variables and outcomes. Studies conducted in Cyprus can inform the European and international literature on the topic in that unlike many Western and/or European countries, Cyprus is a small country with a highly centralised education system

Avolio, B. J. & Bass, B. M. (2004). Multifactor leadership questionnaire: Third edition manual and sampler set. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden, Inc. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359-373. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman. Bandura, A. (2006). Guide for constructing self-efficacy scales. In T. Urdan & F. Pajares (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 307-337). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age Publishing. Bass, B. M. (1998). Transformational leadership: Industry, military, and educational impact. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership. Sage. Haslam, A.S., Alvesson, M. & Reicher, S.D. (2024). Zombie leadership: Dead ideas that still walk among us. Leadership Quarterly 1048-9843: 101770 doi:/10.1016/j.leaqua.2023.101770 Kilinç A. C., Polatcan M., Savaş G., & Er E. (2022). How transformational leadership influences teachers’ commitment and innovative practices: Understanding the moderating role of trust in principal. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership. doi: /10.1177/17411432221082803 Li Y., & Karanxha Z. (2022). Literature review of transformational school leadership: Models and effects on student achievement (2006-2019). Educational Management Administration & Leadership. doi: 10.1177/17411432221077157 Menon Eliophotou, M. (2014). The relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(4), 509-528. doi: /10.1108/JEA-01-2013-0014 Polatcan, M., Arslan, P., & Balci, A. (2021). The mediating effect of teacher self-efficacy regarding the relationship between transformational school leadership and teacher agency. Educational Studies. doi: 10.1080/03055698.2021.1894549