Schools, as loosely coupled organizations (Weick, 1976) that employ specifically skilled professionals, face challenges in establishing and enforcing clear, quantifiable performance metrics for teachers. Additionally, these days, schools strive to adapt to ever-growing public demands resulting from demographic, social, and cultural transformation (Banks, 2015; Zembylas, 2010; Zimmerman, 2022). Consequently, teachers who voluntarily exceed their formal role responsibilities play a crucial role in enhancing school effectiveness and driving school improvement.

Such behavior is referred to as Organizational Citizenship Behavior (OCB) and can be defined as «individual behavior that is discretionary, not explicitly recognized by the formal reward system, and that in the aggregate promotes the effective functioning of the organization» (Organ, 1988, p. 4). Compared to the extensive research on this subject within business organizations, the study of such behavior in school settings has received minimal attention. Addressing this gap is particularly important given the unique characteristics of schools, which necessitate an independent examination of concepts originally formed in the context of business organizations.

Examples of OCB among teachers are professional learning and collaboration. They are significant factors in school improvement processes (Bonsen & Berkemeyer, 2014; Somech & Oplatka, 2014). Improving students’ learning can be considered the ultimate goal of school development, which also requires learning processes among teachers (Feldhoff & Radisch, 2021; Terhart, 2010). Additionally, OCB for teachers means that they allocate time towards the conceptualization and execution of classroom methodologies, participate in school functions like meetings or committee involvement, engage in dialogues with other educators, and take part in the creation of school-wide mission statements (Dipaola & Tschannen-Moran, 2001; Feather & Rauter, 2004; Kilinc, 2014; Windlinger et al., 2014).

Leaders play a critical role in fostering an environment that encourages followers to engage in citizenship behaviors. In the educational context, research has primarily linked teachers’ OCB to two leadership styles: transformational leadership and participative leadership (Somech & Oplatka, 2014). Transformational leaders inspire their followers by leveraging idealized influence, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration (Bass, 1985). This leadership approach is characterized by the ability to connect with followers on an emotional level, appealing to their values and aspirations. Participative leadership involves a leader who encourages their followers to participate in decision-making or, at the very least, shares their influence with the followers (Koopman & Wierdsma, 1998; Somech, 2005).

However, a systematic approach to consolidate existing research linking school leadership and teachers’ OCB is missing to this day. Moreover, very limited empirical insights are available regarding OCB among principals themselves. Therefore, this study aims to fill this gap by conducting a systematic review focusing on the influence of school leadership on teachers’ OCB. The study is guided by three primary research questions:

(1) How do different leadership styles of school leaders influence teachers’ OCB?

(2) What are the moderators and mediators between leadership and teachers’ OCB?

(3) What are the OCB dimensions that school leaders engage in?

The systematic review will be conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines to ensure a rigorous and transparent approach (Page et al., 2021). A systematic search will be performed across multiple academic databases, including Scopus, Web of Science, EBSCO, Ovid (containing ERIC), and Sage. The following search query was applied to the mentioned databases: (ocb OR "organizational citizenship behavior" OR "organisational citizenship behaviour" OR "extra-role behavior" OR "extra role behavior" OR "extra-role behaviour" OR "extra role behaviour") AND (((school* OR teach* OR education* OR "K-12") AND (leader* OR manag* OR supvervis* OR administrat* OR director*)) OR ("head teacher*" OR principal* OR headteacher*)). The search yielded a total of 1320 articles, the abstracts of which are currently being screened. Inclusion criteria focus on peer-reviewed articles published in the last two decades that specifically address the relationship between school leadership and teachers’ OCB. The review process involves screening titles and abstracts, followed by a full-text review of selected articles. Data extraction will be performed to summarize findings related to the research questions. The quantitative studies (regarding research questions 1 and 2) will be analyzed, compared, and aggregated using the tools of meta-analysis, whereas for the qualitative studies (regarding research question 3), thematic analysis will be employed to identify key themes and insights.

While the literature review is still in progress, a few expected findings can be mentioned. In the educational context, numerous studies have demonstrated a positive relationship between transformational leadership and teachers' OCB (Oğuz, 2010; Purwanto et al., 2021). Nguni et al. (2006) found that transformational leadership significantly impacts teachers' OCB, with job satisfaction acting as a mediator in this relationship. Furthermore, certain traits of principals foster a supportive work environment, thereby strengthening teachers' emotional connection to the school and increasing their likelihood of exhibiting OCB. For example, principals who are caring, sensitive, considerate, and empathetic are more likely to encourage OCB among teachers (Oplatka, 2006). Participative leadership style can be intuitively linked to OCB. When teachers participate in decision-making, they value procedural justice as higher and experience a greater sense of trust in the organization. This is because they can advocate for their own interests and gain insight into decision-making processes, which might otherwise be opaque. Furthermore, participation and involvement create membership and, therefore, identification. Social exchange processes might prompt individuals to exert more effort behaviorally for a group they identify with, as a means to reciprocate and sustain the group's satisfaction of their social-identity-related needs (Blader & Tyler, 2009). With regard to specific manifestations of principal OCB, very limited empirical insights are available. Nutov and Somech (2017) derived four possible dimensions of principal OCB in a qualitative study, however, this study remains isolated to this day.

Banks, J. A. (2015). Multicultural Education. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) (pp. 18–21). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.92097-X Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. Free Press. Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(2), 445–464. Bonsen, M., & Berkemeyer, N. (2014). Lehrerinnen und Lehrer in Schulentwicklungsprozessen. In E. Terhart, H. Bennewitz, & M. Rothland (Eds.), Handbuch der Forschung zum Lehrerberuf (2nd ed., pp. 920–936). Waxmann. Dipaola, M., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Schools and Its Relationship to School Climate. Journal of School Leadership, 11. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268460101100503 Feather, N. T., & Rauter, K. A. (2004). Organizational citizenship behaviours in relation to job status, job insecurity, organizational commitment and identification, job satisfaction and work values. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1348/096317904322915928 Feldhoff, T., & Radisch, F. (2021). Why must everything be so complicated? Demands and Challenges on Methods for Analyzing School Improvement Processes. In A. Oude Groote Beverborg, T. Feldhoff, K. Maag Merki, & F. Radisch (Eds.), Concept and design developments in school improvement research. Longitudinal, multilevel and mixed methods and their relevance for educational accountability (pp. 9–25). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69345-9_2 Kilinc, A. C. (2014). A Quantitative Study of the Relationship between Distributed Leadership and Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Perceptions of Turkish Primary School Teachers. Journal of Curriculum and Teaching, 3(2), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.5430/jct.v3n2p69 Koopman, P. L., & Wierdsma, A. F. M. (1998). Participative Management. In A Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology. Psychology Press. Nguni, S., Sleegers, P., & Denessen. (2006). Transformational and Transactional Leadership Effects on Teachers’ Job Satisfaction, Organizational Commitment, and Organizational Citizenship Behavior in Primary Schools: The Tanzanian Case. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 145–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565746 Nutov, L., & Somech, A. (2017). Principals Going above and Beyond: Understanding Organizational Citizenship Behavior among School Principals. Journal of School Leadership, 27(2), 184–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461702700202 Oğuz, E. (2010). The relationship between the leadership styles of the school administrators and the organizational citizenship behaviours of teachers. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 1188–1193. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.305 Unfortunately, the remaining references from the alphabetically ordered list did not fit within the given word restriction.