Purpose: Effective styles of principal leadership can help address multiple issues in struggling schools, such as low student achievement and high rates of teacher attrition. Although the literature has nominated certain “idealized” leadership styles as being more or less effective, such as transformational, instructional, and shared instructional leadership, we have little evidence about how principals may or may not choose to practice these styles across U.S. schools. Research Design: Latent class analysis was used to identify different types of principals across the United States. We analyzed the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey as it presents a unique opportunity to study the different types of U.S. principals since it contains leadership measures not found in other national surveys. A final sample of 7,650 public schools and principals was included in the analysis. Findings: Instead of idealized leadership styles signifying variations in practice, the differences between types of principals were defined by the degree of principal and teacher leadership. Further, the school and principal context, such as school size, urbanicity, accountability performance, and principal background, predicted the three significantly different principal types: controlling, frequent principal leadership; balkanizing, high degree of leadership shared with teachers; or integrating, frequent principal leadership as well as a high degree of leadership shared with teachers. Conclusions: These types suggest that principals simultaneously practice leadership behaviors associated with multiple leadership styles in accordance with their background and school context. These findings provide support for the use of more complex models to assess school leader effectiveness.

Purpose The actions of school leaders engender working conditions that can play a role in positively (or negatively) affecting teachers’ motivation, well-being or professional practice. The purpose of this paper is to explore how leader actions might bring about positive teacher outcomes through meeting teachers’ psychological needs at three distinct levels: the intrapersonal, interpersonal and organizational. Design/methodology/approach Using a sample of over 1,500 teachers from 73 schools in a large, high-poverty, urban Midwestern school district, the authors applied a multilevel path analysis to the study of the relationships between the intrapersonal, interpersonal and organizational dimensions of teacher psychological needs and the teacher affective states of burnout, organizational commitment and intent to leave the school and/or profession. Findings Whereas the intrapersonal dimension works primarily through burnout, the findings suggest that the interpersonal dimension (teacher–principal interactions) primarily functions to cultivate organizational commitment among teachers. At the organizational level, cultivating a trusting, enabling work environment where teachers can build on existing knowledge and skills had a demonstrated relationship to collective teacher burnout and organizational commitment, but only to the degree that these actions serve to build collective teacher efficacy. Practical implications In addressing existing deficits in support for teachers’ psychological needs within a school, school leaders have a significant mechanism through which to affect the attitudes and emotions of teachers which precede turnover behavior. However, addressing teacher psychological needs should be thought of as multidimensional – no single dimension (either the intrapersonal, interpersonal or organizational) alone will be sufficient. Principals should expect to work both one-on-one as well as collectively with teachers to address school working conditions which support their psychological needs as learners. Originality/value Prior studies examining the various working conditions of schools have included many common constructs, but the authors demonstrate how self-determination theory could be used to unify these seemingly unique characteristics of school working conditions with respect to how they support (or thwart) the psychological needs of teachers. The authors also empirically test the relationship of these dimensions to a wide-range of commonly-used teacher affective outcomes.

Purpose – Decades of research on different leadership styles shows that effective school leadership is the degree of influence or synergy between teachers and principals around the core business of schools, instruction. While various styles, such as transformational, instructional, shared instructional, point to the similar measures of high organizational quality, the inconsistency in how these styles are defined and relate make it unclear how principals systematically improve schools. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This study used the 1999-2000 schools and staffing survey, n=8,524 of US principals, since it includes a nationally representative sample of administrators who responded to a comprehensive set of leadership measures around a time of school restructuring reforms. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to identify different styles, and to measure the extent of their relationship. These factors were used to test a theory about why principals practice each of these styles to a different degree based on levels of shared instructional leadership. Findings – Based on the theoretical framework, principals should have a similar high influence over resources, safety and facilities regardless of degree of shared instructional leadership since these tasks address foundational school needs. However, principal and teacher influence over these resources differed across levels of shared instructional leadership more than principal-directed tasks of facilitating a mission, supervising instruction and building community. Originality/value – Differences in the practice of styles by shared instructional leadership did not fit changing, higher ordered needs as theorized instead seemed to vary by a hierarchy of control, the way in which principals shared influence with teachers.

Purpose – While school leadership literature has searched for practices with the largest effect on outcomes, we know little about how these behaviors vary by context. Further, recent shifts to include teachers in leadership have prompted a need for purposeful distinction between teacher and principal perceptions and roles. Person-centered statistics offer a means to study differences in how teachers and principals perceive leadership by context, how these perceptions interact, and the extent to which this interaction influences teacher decisions, such as whether or not to remain at their current school. The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach – This study applies a two-level latent class analysis (LCA) with a cross-level interaction to the 1999-2000 Schools and Staffing Survey (SASS), n=35,560 teachers across n=7,310 US public schools. SASS includes a comprehensive set of leadership measures, not found in other surveys, collected when US schools restructured to include teachers in leadership. Multilevel LCA helps to identify different types of teachers and principals in leadership, the distribution of teacher types across principal types and to test the extent that these types predict teacher retention decisions. Findings – Teacher and principal types were best defined by the survey items that addressed their own role not the role of the other. The highest and lowest responding teacher types were evenly distributed across principal types. Teacher types who reported the lowest principal-directed leadership were more likely to leave their school regardless of principal type. Originality/value – This study provides evidence for how leadership differs across perceptions and context and, in turn, influences teacher retention.

Teacher satisfaction is a key affective reaction to working conditions and an important predictor of teacher attrition. Teacher evaluation as a tool for measuring teacher quality has been one source of teacher stress in recent years in the United States. There is a growing body of evidence on how to evaluate teachers in ways which support their growth and development as practitioners. For this study, we inquired: What is the relationship between supportive teacher evaluation experiences and U.S. teachers’ overall job satisfaction? To answer this question, we employed a multilevel regression analysis to multiply-imputed data on U.S. lower-secondary teachers’ experiences from the 2013 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). We found a small, positive relationship between the perceptions of supportive teacher evaluation experiences and U.S. secondary teachers’ satisfaction after controlling for other important teacher and school characteristics and working conditions. Further, teachers who felt their evaluation led to positive changes in their practice had higher satisfaction. Teachers whose primary evaluator was a fellow teacher as opposed to the principal also had higher satisfaction on average. We discuss the implications of these findings for school leaders as well as future teacher evaluation policy.