The Mediating Role of Trust in the Relationship between Principal Leadership and Teachers’ Job and Teaching Satisfaction: Evidence from Hong Kong’s 2022 PISA Data

Main Article Content

Thanyachanok Thongnoppakaow
Suphachit Phadungphon
Thiranan Sriwithas
Thomrat Siriparp

Abstract

This study employed a survey research design utilizing data from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The purposes of this study were: 1) to validate the proposed structural equation model of teachers’ job and teaching satisfaction 2) to analyze the direct and indirect effects of principal leadership on teachers’ job and teaching satisfaction, and 3) to investigate the mediating role of teachers’ trust in the relationship between principal leadership and teacher satisfaction. The sample consisted of 2,335 teachers from 155 schools, derived from the two-stage sampling design employed in the PISA framework. The instrument used was a 19-item Likert-scale questionnaire, with an overall reliability coefficient of 0.885. Data were analyzed using structural equation modeling (SEM) and bootstrapping techniques to test the significance of mediation effects. The results revealed that the proposed model demonstrated a good fit with the empirical data. Principal leadership had a significant direct effect on teachers’ trust (equation = 0.50). Teachers’ trust exerted significant positive effects on job satisfaction (equation = 0.76) and teaching satisfaction (equation = 0.43). However, principal leadership had no significant direct effects on either dimension of satisfaction. Instead, it exerted indirect effects through trust on job satisfaction (equation = 0.38) and teaching satisfaction (equation = 0.21), both of which were statistically significant at the 0.05 level.


In conclusion, teachers’ trust served as a full mediator in the relationship between principal leadership and teachers’ satisfaction. The findings highlight the pivotal role of trust in educational organizations, particularly in Hong Kong’s highly competitive and hierarchically structured school system.

Article Details

Section
Research Article

References

Balan, A., & Jamaluddin, R. (2024). Leadership practices and teacher satisfaction: The critical role of trust and professional development in mid-career stages. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 14(9), 488–503. https://doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i9/22635

Balyer, A. (2017). Trust in school principals: Teachers’ opinions. Journal of Education and Learning, 6(2), 317–325. https://doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n2p317

Baptiste, M. (2019). No teacher left behind: The impact of principal leadership styles on teacher job satisfaction and student success. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 9(1). 1-11.

Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology Press.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. Russell Sage Foundation.

Committee on Teachers’ Work. (2007). The Committee on Teachers’ Work final report. Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr06-07/english/panels/ed/papers/ed0212cb2-1041-6-e.pdf

Education Commission. (2019). Review report of the Task Force on School-based Management Policy. https://www.e-c.edu.hk/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Report_SBM_2019.pdf

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Pearson.

Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2017). Leading learning in Asia—Emerging empirical insights from five societies. Journal of Educational Administration, 55(2), 130–146. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2017-0015

Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin Press.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750903310360

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39(1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.

OECD. (2023a). PISA 2022 results (Volume I): The state of learning and equity in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

OECD. (2023b). PISA 2022 results (Volume II): Learning during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a77a4129-en

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.

Tobias, L. J. (2017). A study of teacher job satisfaction, teacher preferred leadership behaviors, and the impact of the leadership behaviors on teacher job satisfaction [Doctoral dissertation]. Gardner-Webb University. https://digitalcommons.gardner-webb.edu/education_etd/263/

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2014). Trust matters: Leadership for successful schools (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass.

Wong, T. Y., & Liu, P. (2018). Hong Kong principal professional development: Context, challenges, and opportunities. Chinese Education & Society, 51(5), 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1080/10611932.2018.1510689

Xu, F., & Shen, J. (2007). Research on job satisfaction of elementary and high school teachers and strategies to increase job satisfaction. Chinese Education and Society, 40(5), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.2753/CED1061-1932400509