Education systems world wide deal with persisting teacher shortages (UNESCO, 2024). The related teacher turnover has detrimental effects on students learning, especially in disadvantaged populations (Atteberry et al., 2017). To retain their teachers, school leaders and policy makers should know how teachers commit to their work (Lambersky, 2016). Commitment is a volitional bond with a part of one’s work (i.e., a target) that reflects on dedication and responsibility (Klein et al., 2012). Teacher who have higher commitment have less turnover intentions (Moodie, 2025), report higher well-being (McInerney et al., 2015), and their students have higher academic achievements (Li et al., 2022). Previous research on teacher commitment has primarily focused on commitment directed at their organisation or commitment in general. However, organisations are composed of multiple constituencies with their own values and goals (Reichers, 1985). Consequently, the current study considers a range of potential commitments that teacher may have to broaden the understanding of how teachers relate to the various aspects of their complex work. This will show how commitment towards various targets can be experienced differently. According to Klein et al.'s (2022) commitment systems theory, teachers have these multiple commitments simultaneously in varying degrees which are connected to each other as a network. Commitments that lay closer to the centre of this network influence the meaning and direction of teachers’ commitment in general (Klein et al., 2022). For instance, committed teachers’ primary focus in their work are their students (Fransson & Frelin, 2016), which indicates that commitment to students has a central place in teachers’ commitment systems. By employing this network perspective, understanding of teachers’ commitment is expanded from looking at individual commitments to a more general functioning of teachers commitment as a whole. Furthermore, previous research provided valuable insights into the reason why teachers leave to profession (e.g., Amitai & Van Houtte, 2022; Pressley et al., 2026). Building on these findings, this study addresses why teachers intend to remain in the profession. These insights can equip school leaders to provide teachers with meaningful work.

To investigate how teachers commit to their work, this study asks two questions: how to teachers express their commitment to certain workplace targets and how do central commitments influence teachers’ commitment? These research questions were investigated through semi-structured interviews, which will be further addressed in the method section of this proposal.

In order to get a sense of how teachers’ experience their work-place commitments, the main components of Klein et al.'s (2012) definition of commitment (i.e., volition, responsibility, and dedication) need to be separately recognised in teachers’ accounts. Responsibility suggests that teachers care for a target (Klein et al., 2014). The role they take has characteristics that make them accountable over the target, which means that their relationship with these targets carries a degree of caution (Martin, 2007). Dedication is a sense of enthusiasm, inspiration or challenge teachers feel for a target, they feel proud to work with it (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004). As such, commitments are intended to be long-term bonds that drive teachers to perform in favourable actions regarding the target (Meyer et al., 2004). Commitment can be differentiated from other workplace bonds (i.e., acquiescence and instrumental bonds) through the presence of volition (Klein et al., 2012). This study follows approach Zhu's (2004) to volition, meaning that it bridges between teachers’ intentions, desires, beliefs or reasons and the enactment of the commitment. In this vein, not only the presence of positive attitudes, but also internalised intentions, desires, beliefs or reasons indicate some degree of volition in the bond with a target.

For this study, 15 Dutch teachers were conveniently sampled. Within this sample, primary, secondary, and vocational education were equally represented, and six teachers were in service of less than five years and nine longer than five years. Additionally, a diverse array of work contexts are represented in the sample. The interviews constructed in a semi-structured fashion and consisted of two parts. During the first part, teachers’ work arrangements and their motivation to work in education and at their current school were explored. During the second part, their work-place commitments were explored. This was aided by a operational definition of commitment (“a bond for a part of your work that is based on responsibility, enthusiasm or energy”) and non-exhaustive list of potential commitment targets to create common ground. The order of this list was randomised between participants to counter social desirability. The teachers were asked to choose which commitment targets were applicable to them, how they expressed each commitment, and for what reason they held each commitment. At the end, they were asked for what they had absolutely no commitment. Prior to the formal interviews, nine pilot interviews were conducted to validate the interview protocol, test the line of inquiry, and to help the first author getting more proficient at interviewing. During these pilot became apparent that teachers expressed more rich answers when their behaviour was addressed before their intentions, that they thought the definition by Klein et al. (2012) was too vague and abstract, and they tended to start with their commitment to students as it was on top of the potential list of targets. The interviews were transcribed with aTrain (see Haberl et al., 2024) and analysed in Atlas.ti. Each interview was first divided into fragments in which teachers expressed their commitment to a target. If multiple targets were addressed, multiple codes were applied to one fragment. This happened when the expressed commitment regards two over-arching targets (e.g., co-workers and students). To answer the research questions, a content analysis approach was employed. Expressions of volition, responsibility, and dedication trying to capture the voice of the teachers as much as possible. The centrality of a target was addressed by expressions that implied its relative importance over other targets and how that commitment was expressed in other targets. All codes were categorised in groups for analysis.

Findings show that teachers’ commitment has a strong focus on students, but also emphasise the importance of other commitments in teachers work. The main conclusion is that teachers’ commitment to their students has a central role in their commitment system. They realise their responsibility for their students’ learning and well-being and enjoy working with their students. Moreover, their commitment to their co-workers and schools is also partly based on their commitment to their students. Some teachers postulated spending their own time to prepare lessons and discuss students’ progress and well-being. They acknowledged that some of these behaviours were not healthy, hinting at overcommitment. Overcommitment is “a set of attitudes, behaviours, and emotions that reflect a person's excessive striving for approval and appreciation” (p. 118), which is linked to various psychological and physiological problems (Preckel et al., 2005). Commitment to students is not the only central commitment teachers have to their work. These commitments reflect on characteristics of teachers identity. For instance, one teacher migrated to the Netherlands and their school board, for which they have been working for 25 years, paid for their teacher training and offered them job. This teacher expressed that their commitment to the school board’s educational vision has a strong influence on their teaching. Another teacher proclaimed that personal development was the reason why they participated in innovation projects, apart from providing quality education for their students. These findings can serve as a starting point for the conversation between teachers and administrators about individualised work arrangements. For both parties, this understanding provides awareness about what drives teachers in their work and how important aspects of their work can be influential for one’s bond with their work in general.

Amitai & Van Houtte (2022). Being pushed out of the career: Former teachers’ reasons for leaving the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103540 Atteberry et al. (2017). Teacher Churning: Reassignment Rates and Implications for Student Achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716659929 Fransson & Frelin (2016). Highly committed teachers: What makes them tick? A study of sustained commitment. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(8), 896–912. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1201469 Haberl et al. (2024). Take the aTrain. Introducing an interface for the Accessible Transcription of Interviews. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 41, 100891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2024.100891 Klein et al. (2014). The assessment of commitment: Advantages of a unidimensional, target-free approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 99(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034751 Klein et al. (2012). Reconceptualizing workplace commitment to redress a stretched construct: Revisiting assumptions and removing confounds. Academy of Management Review, 37(1), 130–151. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0018 Klein et al. (2022). Commitment system theory: The evolving structure of commitments to multiple targets. Academy of Management Review, 47(1), 116–138. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2018.0031 Lambersky (2016). Understanding the Human Side of School Leadership: Principals’ Impact on Teachers’ Morale, Self-Efficacy, Stress, and Commitment. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(4), 379–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1181188 Li et al. (2022). School Leadership Enhances Secondary Students’ Achievement in Rural China Through Teacher Commitment and Collaborative Culture. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894688 Martin (2007). Responsibility: A Philosophical Perspective. In Responsibility and Dependable Systems. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84628-626-1_2 McInerney et al. (2015). Teachers’ Commitment and psychological well-being: Implications of self-beliefs for teaching in Hong Kong. Educational Psychology, 35(8), 926–945. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895801 Meyer et al. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991 Moodie (2025). Occupational commitment and turnover intentions among expatriate English teachers in Asia: A close replication and extension of McInerney et al. (2015). Language Teaching, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444825100992 Preckel et al. (2005). Overcommitment to work is associated with vital exhaustion. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health, 78(2), 117–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00420-004-0572-8 Pressley et al. 2026). Why teachers leave: Insights from teachers leaving or preparing to leave the profession. Teaching and Teacher Education, 169, 105285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2025.105285 Reichers (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. The Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465–476. https://doi.org/10.2307/258128 Schaufeli & Bakker (2004). Utrecht work engagement scale: Preliminary manual. UNESCO. (2024). Global report on teachers. International Task Force on Teachers for Education 2030. Zhu (2004). Understanding volition. Philosophical Psychology, 17(2), 247–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951508042000239066