SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1

The Relationship Between the Inclusive Leadership of School Principals and the Occupational Commitment of Teachers: The Mediating Role of Organizational Trust

Okul Yöneticilerinin Kapsayıcı Liderliği ile Öğretmenlerin Mesleki Bağlılıkları Arasındaki İlişki: Örgütsel Güvenin Aracı Rolü

Fatih Baydar(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, EĞİTİM YÖNETİMİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0001-5090-4874
Hasan Tabak(AKSARAY ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ, EĞİTİM BİLİMLERİ BÖLÜMÜ, EĞİTİM YÖNETİMİ ANABİLİM DALI)0000-0003-3923-5133
Pages
134–158
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The results of the study indicate that school administrators' adoption of an inclusive leadership approach plays a critical role in increasing teachers' organizational trust and professional commitment.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study aims to examine the effects of inclusive leadership (IL) behaviors on teachers' professional commitment (PC) and the mediating role of organizational trust (OT) in this relationship.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The research was conducted with 425 teachers working in the Pendik, Sultanbeyli, and Kartal districts of Istanbul in the 2024–2025 academic year, and data were collected using the simple random sampling method.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The results of the study indicate that school administrators' adoption of an inclusive leadership approach plays a critical role in increasing teachers' organizational trust and professional commitment.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2024–2025 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kapsayıcı liderlik · Örgütsel güven · Mesleki bağlılık

Abstract

This study aims to examine the effects of inclusive leadership (IL) behaviors on teachers' professional commitment (PC) and the mediating role of organizational trust (OT) in this relationship. The research was conducted with 425 teachers working in the Pendik, Sultanbeyli, and Kartal districts of Istanbul in the 2024–2025 academic year, and data were collected using the simple random sampling method. The Inclusive Leadership Scale, Professional Commitment Scale, and Organizational Trust Scale were used to collect data. Correlation analyses and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used for data analysis. Model fit indices show that the proposed structure has a high level of fit with the data (χ²/df = 2.49; GFI = 0.970; AGFI = 0.944; NFI = 0.973; TLI = 0.975; CFI = 0.984; RMSEA = 0.059). According to the analysis results, the effect of inclusive leadership on organizational trust is strong and significant (β = 0.879). The effect of OC on professional commitment was also significant (β = 0.456). While the direct effect of IL on OT was not significant (β = -0.096), the indirect effect (β = 0.401) through OC demonstrated full mediation. These findings suggest that the effect of inclusive leadership on professional commitment is largely mediated through organizational trust. The results of the study indicate that school administrators' adoption of an inclusive leadership approach plays a critical role in increasing teachers' organizational trust and professional commitment.

Özet

Bu çalışma, kapsayıcı liderlik (KL) davranışlarının öğretmenlerin mesleki bağlılığı (MB) üzerindeki etkisini ve bu ilişkide örgütsel güvenin (ÖG) aracılık rolünü incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, 2024–2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında İstanbul’un Pendik, Sultanbeyli ve Kartal ilçelerinde görev yapan 425 öğretmen üzerinde yürütülmüş olup, veriler basit seçkisiz örneklem yöntemiyle toplanmıştır. Veri toplamak amacıyla Kapsayıcı Liderlik Ölçeği, Mesleki Bağlılık Ölçeği ve Örgütsel Güven ölçeği kullanılmıştır. Veri analizi için korelasyon analizleri ve Yapısal Eşitlik Modeli (YEM) kullanılmıştır. Model uyum indeksleri, önerilen yapının veri ile yüksek düzeyde uyum sağladığını göstermektedir (χ²/df = 2,49; GFI = 0,970; AGFI = 0,944; NFI = 0,973; TLI = 0,975; CFI = 0,984; RMSEA = 0,059). Analiz sonuçlarına göre, kapsayıcı liderliğin örgütsel güven üzerindeki etkisi güçlü ve anlamlıdır (β = 0,879), ÖG’nin mesleki bağlılık üzerindeki etkisi de anlamlı bulunmuştur (β = 0,456). KL’nin MB üzerindeki doğrudan etkisi anlamlı olmamakla birlikte (β = -0,096), ÖG aracılığıyla ortaya çıkan dolaylı etkisi (β = 0,401) tam aracılığı göstermektedir. Bu bulgular, kapsayıcı liderliğin mesleki bağlılık üzerindeki etkisinin büyük ölçüde örgütsel güven aracılığıyla gerçekleştiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Çalışmanın sonuçları, okul yöneticilerinin kapsayıcı liderlik yaklaşımını benimsemelerinin öğretmenlerin örgütsel güvenini ve mesleki bağlılığını artırmada kritik bir rol oynadığını göstermektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Baydar, F., Tabak, H. (2026). The Relationship Between the Inclusive Leadership of School Principals and the Occupational Commitment of Teachers: The Mediating Role of Organizational Trust. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 1, 134–158. https://doi.org/10.17984/adyuebd.1798251

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (53)

  1. Aliazas, J. V., Del Rosario, A. L., & Andrade, R. (2023). Teaching efficacy structures and influencing factors in promoting success and retention among pre-service teachers. International Journal of Educational Management and Development Studies, 4(3), 90–109. https://doi.org/10.53378/353011
  2. Bachmann, R., Gillespie, N., & Priem, R. (2015). Repairing trust in organizations and institutions: Toward a conceptual framework. Organization studies, 36(9), 1123–1142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840615599334
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  4. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238
  5. Bogler, R., & Somech, A. (2004). Influence of teacher empowerment on teachers’ organizational commitment, professional commitment and organizational citizenship behavior in schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(3), 277–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.02.003
  6. Bourke, J., & Espedido, A. (2020). The key to inclusive leadership. Harvard Business Review, 6(3), 1–5.
  7. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
  8. Canrinus, E. T., Helms-Lorenz, M., Beijaard, D., Buitink, J., & Hofman, A. (2012). Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, motivation and commitment: Exploring the relationships between indicators of teachers’ professional identity. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 27(1), 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-011-0069-2
  9. Carmeli, A., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Ziv, E. (2010). Inclusive leadership and employee involvement in creative tasks in the workplace: The mediating role of psychological safety. Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.504654
  10. Çolak, İ. (2025). The relationship between organizational trust and teacher autonomy: The mediating role of self‐efficacy beliefs. Psychology in the Schools, 62(5), 1539–1549. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.23414
  11. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
  12. DeMatthews, D. (2015). Making sense of social justice leadership: A case study of a principal’s experiences to create a more inclusive school. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(2), 139–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2014.997939
  13. Demircan, N., & Ceylan, A. (2003). Örgütsel güven kavramı: Nedenleri ve sonuçları. Yönetim ve Ekonomi, 10(2), 139–150.
  14. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(4), 362–378.
  15. Evans, A. M., & Krueger, J. I. (2009). The psychology (and economics) of trust. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3(6), 1003–1017. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00232.x
  16. Fagan, H. A. S., Wells, B., Guenther, S., & Matkin, G. S. (2022). The path to inclusion: A literature review of attributes and impacts of inclusive leaders. Journal of Leadership Education, 21(1), 88–113. https://doi.org/10.12806/V21/I1/R7
  17. Gibbons, L. K., & Nieman, H. J. (2024). Examining the facilitation of generative teacher workgroup conversations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 142, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104524
  18. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson.
  19. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
  20. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
  21. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi: Kavramlar, ilkeler, teknikler (30. baskı). Nobel Akademik.
  22. Ke, J., Zhang, J., & Zheng, L. (2022). Inclusive leadership, workplace spirituality, and job performance in the public sector: A multi-level double-moderated mediation model of leader-member exchange and perceived dissimilarity. Public Performance & Management Review, 45(3), 672–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2022.2069138
  23. Khalifa, M. A., Gooden, M. A., & Davis, J. E. (2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316630383
  24. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
  25. Kugelmass, J.W. (2003). Inclusive Leadership; Leadership for Inclusion. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership (NCSL).
  26. Lansing, A. E., Romero, N. J., Siantz, E., Silva, V., Center, K., Casteel, D., & Gilmer, T. (2023). Building trust: Leadership reflections on community empowerment and engagement in a large urban initiative. BMC Public Health, 23(1), 1252. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15860-z
  27. Lee, J. C. K., Zhang, Z., & Yin, H. (2011). A multilevel analysis of the impact of a professional learning community, faculty trust in colleagues and collective efficacy on teacher commitment to students. Teaching and teacher education, 27(5), 820–830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2011.01.006
  28. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  29. Leithwood, K. (2021). A review of evidence about equitable school leadership. Education Sciences, 11(8), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11080377
  30. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
  31. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2003). The dual commitments of contingent workers: An examination of contingents’ commitment to the agency and the organization. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 24, 609–625.
  32. Lumineau, F. (2017). How contracts influence trust and distrust. Journal of Management, 43(5), 1553–1577. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206314556656
  33. Makura, A. H. (2012). Leadership styles of female educational leaders: In search of a gender inclusive leadership theory. Journal of Social Sciences, 31(3), 279–287. doi:10.1080/09718923.2012.11893037
  34. Marique, G., Stinglhamber, F., Desmette, D., Caesens, G., & De Zanet, F. (2012). The relationship between perceived organizational support and affective commitment: A social identity perspective. Group and Organization Management, 38, 68–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601112457200
  35. Mbua, E. M. (2023). Inclusive education. Principal Leadership, 7(1), 1–25.
  36. Meyer, J. P., Stanley, D. J., Herscovitch, L., & Topolnytsky, L. (2002). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization: A meta-analysis of antecedents, correlates, and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 61(1), 20–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.2001.1842
  37. Nguyen, T. V. T., Nguyen, H. T., Nong, T. X., & Nguyen, T. T. T. (2022). Inclusive leadership and creative teaching: The mediating role of knowledge sharing and innovative climate. Creativity Research Journal, 36(2), 324–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2022.2134543
  38. Nir, A. E. (2002). School-based management and its effect on teacher commitment. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(4), 323–341. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120210134616
  39. Özdamar, K. (2017). İstatistiksel veri analizi teknikleri (9 baskı). Nisan Yayınları.
  40. Özgenel, M., Canpolat, Ö., & Yağan, E. (2020). School culture as a tool for the development of occupational commitment. İnsan ve Toplum, 10(3), 28–56. https://doi.org/ 10.12658/M0438
  41. Özgenel, M., & Koç, M. H. (2020). An investigation on the relationship between teachers' occupational commitment and school effectiveness. International Journal of Eurasian Education and Culture, 5(8), 494–530.
  42. Park, I. (2005). Teacher commitment and its effects on student achievement in American high schools. Educational Research and Evaluation, 11(5), 461–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610500146269
  43. Polat, M., & Turhaner, K. (2024). The relationship between inclusive leadership and teachers' perceptions of organizational trust: A cross-sectional survey in Türkiye. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 8(1), 356–370. https://doi.org/10.33902/JPR.202424702
  44. Ryan, J. (2006). Inclusive leadership and social justice for schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 5(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500483995
  45. Saunders, M. N., Dietz, G., & Thornhill, A. (2014). Trust and distrust: Polar opposites, or independent but co-existing?. Human Relations, 67(6), 639–665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726713500831
  46. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23–74.
  47. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.
  48. Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017
  49. Sürücü, L., & Maslakçı, A. (2021). Kapsayıcı liderlik ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi, 22(2), 201–215.
  50. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson.
  51. Utkan, Ç., & Kırdök, O. (2018). Dört boyutlu mesleki bağlılık ölçeği uyarlama çalışması. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education Research, 4(2), 230–244.
  52. van Rossenberg, Y. G. T., Klein, H. J., Asplund, K., Bentein, K., Breitsohl, H., Cohen, A., … Yalabik, Z. Y. (2018). The future of workplace commitment: Key questions and directions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 27(2), 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2018.1443914
  53. Ware, H., & Kitsantas, A. (2007). Teacher and collective efficacy beliefs as predictors of professional commitment. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(5), 303–310. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.100.5.303-310