A Conceptual Paper on the Relationship between Instructional Leadership and Teacher Organisational Commitment

A Conceptual Paper on the Relationship between Instructional Leadership and Teacher Organisational Commitment

Jolin Taimin^*, Ngui Geok Kim

Teacher Education Institute, Gaya Campus, Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

*Corresponding Author

  DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90700014

Received: 20 June 2025; Accepted: 24 June 2025; Published: 26 July 2025

ABSTRACT

This concept paper discusses the practice of instructional leadership among school leaders and its relationship with teachers’ organisational commitment. A total of 13 articles that focused exclusively on instructional leadership and teachers’ organisational commitment were reviewed and critically analysed in this study. Findings indicated the relevance of investigating both constructs, but the inconsistent outcomes that show the level and strength of relationship between them, highlight significant gaps that requires further inquiry. Notably, while instructional leadership was rated highly, organisational commitment demonstrates variation, suggesting the influence of contextual, generational and definitional differences. The reviewed studies also imply the need to investigate relevant constructs in a more complex model, which can be analysed using more advanced tools such as structural equation modelling. These findings carry theoretical and practical implications for leadership development, teacher retention and school effectiveness. Future research is encouraged to adopt a more integrated, context-specific approaches to deepen understanding of how instructional leadership can sustainably foster teacher commitment in diverse educational settings.

Keywords: instructional leadership, school leadership, educational management, organisational commitment, teacher commitment

INTRODUCTION

Instructional leadership is a critical aspect in enhancing the quality of teaching and learning in schools. Globally, instructional leadership is often associated with improved student achievement through the cultivation of quality focused teaching practices and continuous professional development for teachers. The Malaysian Education Blueprint (MEB) 2013 – 2025 emphasizes instructional leadership as a key strategy to strengthen school effectiveness and increase teacher commitment (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013). Effective instructional leaders influence not only curriculum implementation but teacher motivation, innovation and pedagogical growth as well.

Organisational commitment is defined as the teacher’s emotional attachment to the teaching profession and the responsibilities they uphold, as stated by Werang et al. (2022). Highly committed teachers are capable of transforming educational experiences and enhancing students’ learning outcomes (Yoon & Kim, 2022). According to Ahmad (2021), teachers are more likely to be committed to schools that support their professional goals and recognize their roles as effective educators. Sustained teacher’s organisational commitment is also linked to lower attrition rates, greater engagement in school initiatives and improved morale in the teaching profession (Beltman & Poulton, 2025; Qi et al., 2025).

One of the initiatives by the Ministry of Education Malaysia (MOE) to enhance student outcomes and improve school quality is the implementation of the School Transformation Programme 2025 (TS25). Schools involved in TS25 adopt best practices in school management, leadership and pedagogy aligned with the objectives of the MEB 2013 – 2025. In line with these objectives, instructional leadership is seen as highly relevant due to its focus on teaching quality, student learning and the creation of a conducive school environment (Kong & Nor Shaid, 2024; Subasiny & Yusoff, 2022; Sulaiman & Ismail, 2020).

However, there remains a research gap in understanding how environmental factors such as school culture and teachers’ collective efficacy influence the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher commitment particularly within the context of Malaysian schools. Research has highlighted inconsistent practices among school leaders, limited professional development opportunities for school leaders, and reliance on traditional management strategies that overlook the instructional core (Fred & Bishen Singh, 2021; Tan & Alias, 2024; Yong et al., 2025). These inconsistencies raise concerns about whether instructional leadership is being understood and practiced effectively to impact teacher behaviour and school outcomes. Furthermore, many schools still struggle with high teacher attrition, job dissatisfaction, and decline in professional commitment (Salisu et al., 2025), which are incidentally linked to leadership culture and school climate. This misalignment indicates a critical gap in the understanding and operationalisation of the relationship between instructional leadership and organisational commitment. Although these constructs are broadly investigated in the Malaysian educational context, the dynamic changes in school environment, greater demands for digital education and intense globalisation present a pressing need to develop a robust conceptual framework that clarifies how specific dimensions of instructional leadership can enhance various aspects of organisational commitment.

Therefore, this study aims to review and synthesize existing literature to better conceptualise the relationship between instructional leadership and organisational commitment. By analysing this relationship based on findings of past studies, this paper seeks to offer a theoretical foundation that can guide future empirical investigations and inform leadership development policies. By gaining a deeper understanding of these elements, it can be harnessed in strengthening instructional leadership practices and fostering a committed, motivated and resilient teaching workforce capable of driving education transformation.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Instructional leadership and organisational commitment are two foundational constructs that influence school effectiveness, student achievement and educational sustainability. Instructional leadership is a leadership paradigm focused on teaching and learning, that influences how school leaders define vision, manage teaching program and shape the school climate. On the other hand, organisational commitment reflects the emotional, cognitive and behavioural investment teachers make in their profession, school and students. To establish a robust conceptual relationship between these constructs, it is necessary to ground the discussion in appropriate theoretical frameworks and explores empirical evidences from past studies. Table 1 highlights some off the theories that explain the constructs, indicating a variety of models to expand the knowledge of these constructs.

Table 1. Related Theories on Instructional Leadership and Organisational Commitment

Instructional Leadership

Instructional leadership in a school context, targets the principal or headmaster who leads the school in planning, distributing, monitoring and evaluating teachers’ duties and responsibilities, while indirectly, is also involved in improving students’ performance and school excellence (Yaacob & Ishak, 2023). From a theoretical viewpoint, instructional leadership is a multidimensional construct which has evolved over the years beginning with Hallinger and Murphy’s model in 1985, improvised by Murphy in 1990, added on by Krug in 1992, progressing to McEwan (2003), and the latest one, being Hallinger’s (2011) model. The initial model by Hallinger and Murphy (1990) comprises of three dimensions, which were maintained by Hallinger (2011). In between, the other scholars modelled instructional leadership as four dimensions (Murphy, 1990), five dimensions (Krug, 1992) and seven dimensions (McEwan, 2003). Despite these transitions, the three dominant domains of instructional leadership, are maintained in all these models. These include: (i) defining the school mission; (ii) managing instructional program; and (iii) promoting school climate.

Hallinger’s (2011) instructional leadership framework categorizes leadership roles into these three core dimensions. Each dimension comprises specific functions that reflect effective leadership practices. Defining the school mission focuses on establishing clear goals and communicating a shared vision among school stakeholders while managing instructional program involves supervising instruction, monitoring the curriculum and assessing student progress. Additionally, creating a school learning climate includes efforts to establish a conducive learning environment, support teachers’ professional development and foster a culture of excellence. An illustration of Hallinger’s (2011) instructional leadership framework is presented in Figure 1. This model posits that effective instructional leadership depends on the integration of a shared mission, sound instructional management and a positive school climate. It serves as a foundational framework for evaluating and strengthening school leadership across diverse educational contexts.

Figure 1: Instructional Leadership Model by Hallinger (2011)

Organisational Commitment

Organisational commitment represents an individual’s psychological attachment to an organisation, reflected as three distinct components comprising affective commitment, continuance commitment and normative commitment (Allen & Meyer, 1997). Arguably, the three-component model is the most widely used and accepted model but prior model by Eagly and Chaiken (1993) posited organisational commitment as a Composite Attitude-Behaviour model. The inclusion of attitude is also reflected by Solinger et al. (2008), showing more similarities to the Theory of Reasoned Action (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen, 1991). Further along, Gansser and Godbersen (2017) proposed a four-component model, which grounded organisational commitment with four components, namely, affective, cognitive, normative and contractual. In general, these models define organisational commitment as the behaviour of employees who are committed and exhibit a positive attitude towards their organization tend to engage in consistent behaviours that enhance their self-perception and strive to avoid errors (Godbersen et al., 2024).

Following the thoughts of Meyer and Allen (1997), organisational commitment is a multidimensional construct comprising of affective, continuance and normative components. Affective commitment reflects the emotional bond that drives the desire of teachers to be part of the school while continuance commitment is the teacher’s belief that teaching in the school is beneficial for them, and normative commitment is about the sense of obligation or responsibility to serve in the school where the teacher is teaching (Sukarmin & Sin, 2022). In the school context, commitment is closely linked to the dedication of teachers in fulfilling the responsibilities assigned by school administrators. Hence, teachers are more inclined to perform their tasks effectively and adopt positive workplace practices for the benefit of the organization. A culture of collaboration and responsible behaviour is practiced to develop the organization and achieve high job performance. As noted by Ho and Mohd Nor (2024), a teacher’s work commitment plays a vital role in ensuring performance quality and academic success within the school environment.

Yue et al. (2025) explained the critical importance of organisational commitment in sustainable development, particularly in alignment with the Fourth Goal of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (SDG4), which advocates inclusive, equitable quality education and lifelong learning opportunities for all, and emphasizing the pivotal role of teachers in realizing this goal. The focal interest on teachers’ organisational commitment is justified since high level of organisational commitment has been linked to increased job satisfaction, lower turnover and greater resilience among teachers (Bogler & Berkovich, 2022; Wang et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2020). Due to its importance, antecedents to organisational commitment such as instructional leadership must be explored in depth, providing knowledge and understanding that can be used to ensure teachers maintain their organisational commitment at all time (Othman & Busari, 2025).

Integrated Conceptual Framework

This conceptual framework presented in Figure 2 is developed by integrating the Instructional Leadership Model proposed by Hallinger (2011) and the Organisational Commitment Theory by Allen and Meyer (1997), adapted to the educational context in Malaysia. The model delineates both direct and indirect relationships between instructional leadership practices implemented by school leaders and the level of teacher commitment, while simultaneously considering the role of environmental factors as contextual elements that may moderate this relationship.

Specifically, instructional leadership encompasses three core dimensions, namely the articulation of the school vision, the management of teaching programmes, and the creation of a conducive learning environment. Effective instructional leadership practices are posited to enhance teachers’ collective efficacy, defined as the shared belief among educators in their collective capacity to achieve educational objectives. Teachers’ collective efficacy functions as a mediating variable that strengthens the influence of instructional leadership on teacher commitment.

Concurrently, the framework also incorporates moderating variables such as school culture, the extent of teachers’ professional learning engagement, and school typology (including national schools, vernacular schools, or schools distinguished by geographical location). These factors are anticipated to influence both the strength and direction of the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher commitment, in alignment with previous empirical findings that underscore the significance of contextual elements within educational leadership research.

Through this framework, it is anticipated that future research will provide a more comprehensive explanation of the mechanisms through which instructional leadership affects teacher commitment, while accounting for both internal and external organisational factors. The practical implication of this model is to inform more targeted and context-sensitive leadership strategies, thereby contributing to the enhancement of teacher capacity and the holistic improvement of overall school performance.

Figure 2: Integrated Conceptual Framework

METHODOLOGY

This conceptual paper adopts an extended narrative literature review approach to explore and synthesise existing research examining the relationship between instructional leadership and organisational commitment. The review aims to identify key theoretical underpinnings, patterns of association and conceptual linkages between these two constructs, with the goal of offering a refined perspective grounded in current literature. To ensure a comprehensive yet focused review, a purposive search was conducted using academic databases such as Scopus, Science Direct, Springer and Google Scholar. The inclusion criteria were: (i) articles were published between 2020 and 2025; (ii) must be related to the field of instructional leadership; (iii) articles specifically address the implementation of instructional leadership in schools; (iv) available in full-text format; and (v) articles contain empirical data. Articles excluded include studies that are unrelated to instructional leadership in educational settings, conference proceedings, and literature review without relevance to the constructs.

Keywords used in the search include combinations of” instructional leadership”,” school leadership”,” educational leadership”,” organisational commitment”, and” teacher commitment”. The selected articles were reviewed for their theoretical frameworks, methodologies, variables, and main findings. A thematic synthesis approach was used to identify commonalities, conceptual gaps, and emerging patterns across studies. The review serves not only as a map to sate of the art, but also to inform a conceptual model that integrates key dimensions of instructional leadership and their influence on organisational commitment among teachers.

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The review of literature shows that instructional leadership and organisational commitment are popular constructs but instructional leadership is often associated with other constructs such as job satisfaction (Guo et al., 2025; Jalidar & Alias, 2024), teacher self-efficacy (Tan & Alias, 2024), professional learning community practices (Za’aba & Alias, 2024), teaching effectiveness (Ahmad & Abdul Wahab, 2025). Meanwhile, teacher organisational commitment is often associated with turnover (Zou et al., 2024), perceived organisational support (Shao et al., 2025), job satisfaction (Muñoz-Fernández et al., 2025; Rahman et al., 2025) and self-efficacy (Ignacio & Malonzo, 2025). Focusing on instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment, this study has found 13 empirical articles, as described in Table 1.

These studies show the relevance of investigating the relationship of instructional leadership and organisational commitment in Malaysia, as well as in other countries such as Turkey (Cansoy et al., 2022), Iran (Hosseingholizadeh et al., 2020), and Indonesia (Sukarmin & Sin, 2022; Syahminan et al., 2024). These studies are mainly quantitative in nature, most often employing the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS) for measuring instructional leadership and the Organisational Commitment Scale (OCS). This suggests that these measurement scales are reliable instruments for gathering information across diverse research settings. Nevertheless, PIMRS which may have originated from Hallinger and Murphy (1987), have been revised in other studies, and used as the source for adapting the measurement scales in the reviewed studies. For instance, in Awangku and Mohd Hamzah (2021), instructional leadership was divided into two dimensions, direct and indirect instructional leadership, but still retaining the measurement scale presented in PIMRS. Similarly, OCS was originally from Allen and Meyer (1990, 1997) and adapted in these studies. However, teacher commitment is not always measured as organisational commitment, as it can be operationally defined with other dimensions such as acceptance of organisational goal and values, readiness to achieve goal, desire to stay with the organisation, and commitment and dedication to achieve organisational goals (Awangku & Mohd Hamzah, 2021). These constructs however, are quite similar to the dimensions in Allen and Meyer’s (1997) OCS. These adaptations reflect the flexibility of PIMRS and OCS to be used in different contexts.

Additionally, these studies also show the growing acceptance of more rigorous and advanced methods in data analysis. Although most of the studies show a preference towards correlational analysis with Pearson and regression analysis using SPSS, few studies have explored second-generation multivariate data analysis approach such as Awang et al. (2022), Hosseingholizadeh et al. (2020), and Sukarmin and Sin (2022) who used Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) with either AMOS or SmartPLS software. This advanced software is able to provide more robust and insightful findings for more complex models (Hair et al., 2024; Othman et al., 2024), and therefore, opening more cues and opportunities to explore other variables beside instructional leadership and organisational commitment.

The key findings from the studies shown varied outcomes but overall, indicating a significant and positive relationship between instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment. The strength of the relationship however differs among these studies with a few indicating strong correlation (Awangku & Mohd Hamzah, 2021; Hew et al.  2023; Ho & Mohd Nor, 2024), moderate (Sukarmin & Sin, 2022) and weak (Hung & Mohd Nordin, 2023; Othman & Busari, 2023; Selvadurai & Mansor, 2021; Unyit & Hamzah, 2023; Wan et al., 2023). Nevertheless, most studies indicate a weak relationship between instructional leadership and organisational commitment, which imply that the influence of the school leaders on instructional practice is inadequate to ensure teachers are committed to the school. These findings suggest that instructional leadership does play an important role indeed but it alone may not be sufficient to sustain high levels of teacher organisational commitment. Instead, a multifaceted approach that encompasses broader dimensions such as teacher empowerment, school culture, professional development and socio-economic support, is essential to holistically nurture and retain committed teachers in schools.

Furthermore, the findings from these studies also showed that while instructional leadership is consistently rated highly, organisational commitment, on the other hand, shows considerable variation. This inconsistency further clinches the need to explore other underlying factors such as contextual differences between school environments, varying definitions and measurement tools used across studies, differences in school leadership styles beyond instructional leadership, and the interplay of external influences such as policy pressures, teacher workload, and socio-cultural expectations. Furthermore, the inconsistent findings may also reflect evolving teacher values and generational work orientations, which influence how commitment is expressed and sustained over time (Datta & Narayanamma, 2025; Venida, 2022).

Table 1 Summary of Article Synthesis

Implications and Future Directions

Based on the conceptual review of the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment, there are several theoretical and practical implications which can be used to guide future directions.

From a theoretical perspective, the reviewed studies reinforce instructional leadership and organisational commitment as multidimensional constructs. Instructional leadership that was initially theorised by Hallinger and Murphy (1985, 1987) is a relevant and adaptable model. Its core dimensions of defining the school mission, managing the instructional program and promoting a positive school learning climate, continue to be applicable across different education settings. However, findings also show that there are modifications, which further implies the adaptive nature of Hallinger’s (2011) instructional leadership model in providing contextual relevance.

Additionally, the reviewed studies also confirm the sustained relevance of Allen and Meyer’s (1990, 1997) three-component model of organisational commitment, comprising affective, continuance and normative domains. At the same time, operational adaptations in recent studies suggest that commitment may be more meaningfully understood when expanded to include context-specific interpretations such as professional identity, loyalty to teaching values, and commitment to different aspects of the school like the curriculum, students, or even commitment to change.

The significant relationship of instructional leadership and organisational commitment also provide empirical support on the conceptual interdependence of leadership actions and commitment outcomes within school systems, which might be further enriched with consideration of other theories such as the Social Exchange Theory. This could reflect the significant contribution of excellent principal instructional leadership in exchange with teacher commitment to their work. The consideration for other theories may also helps in justifying the varying strengths of relationship across studies, implying the need for a contextualised theory, grounded with school-level variables like autonomy, culture, stakeholders’ expectations and more.

The reliance on PIMRS and OCS as measurement tools albeit adaptation to the research setting of every study also implies the necessity of periodic theoretical validation since these tools are used across diverse teacher populations and national contexts. In hindsight, measurement tools must evolve with changes in teacher perceptions, generational expectations and leadership demands.

Meanwhile, from a practical viewpoint, the reviewed articles led to some interesting insights that should be considered. Firstly, the varied strength in relationship between instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment prompt the need to strategize instructional leadership training that should not only focused on direct instructional practices. In addition, training should also nurture relational and emotional aspects such as recognition, mentoring and trust-building, as these can affect teacher commitment too. Secondly, noting the variation in the findings of the reviewed studies, practitioners should tailor leadership strategies that are grounded on generational values, workload realities and policy expectations affecting teacher morale.

Thirdly, this study highlights a significant gap, implying the inadequacy of instructional leadership in keeping teacher committed to the organisation, especially in current and future working landscape. It brings into realisation that school improvement programs must be holistic, with the incorporation of elements like ongoing professional learning communities, teacher autonomy and empowerment, supportive school climate and culture, and access to mental health and socio-emotional supports.

Delving into future direction, the inclusion of other variables in the capacity as independent variables, moderators or mediators, is transparently necessary. With the availability of more advanced statistical tools to facilitate quantitative studies, future research should consider more complex models that include relevant variables such as self-efficacy and job satisfaction as mediators, and school culture, leader-teacher trust, teacher generation cohort as moderators. Besides that, extending the quantitative study as mixed-methods research with the inclusion of a qualitative approach that explores teachers lived experiences, as this could deepen the understanding and nuances of teacher organisational commitment. Moreover, consideration for longitudinal studies also pave ways to understand how instructional leadership and organisational commitment evolve over time.

CONCLUSION

In summary, this conceptual review affirms the relationship of instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment, especially within the evolving landscape of education. While instructional leadership remains a cornerstone of effective school management, its influence on teacher commitment seems to be shaped by contextual, generational and organisational factors. This paper hopes to inspire more empirical exploration using nuanced frameworks and methodologies that capture the complex realities of schools at present time. It is aspired that future studies will not only deepen the theoretical understanding on instructional leadership and teacher organisational commitment, but offer insights as well that can empower school leaders in fostering and anchoring more committed teachers to remain loyal to their teaching profession in schools.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

None

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, M. (2021). Relationship between empowerment and motivation with teacher commitment. Academica Journal Technology Pendidikan, 10(02), 335-348. https://doi.org/10.34005/akademika.v10i02.1587
2. Ahmad, Z. & Abdul Wahab, J. L. (2025). The relationship between principal instructional leadership and the teaching effectiveness of secondary school teachers. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 15(1), 1192-1203. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v15-i1/24605
3. Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behaviour. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
4. Allen, N. J. & Meyer, J. P. (1997). Commitment in the work place-theory, research and application. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks.
5. Allen, N.J. & Meyer, J.P. (1990) The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x
6. Awang, H., Yusof, M. R., Mohd Yaakob, M. F. & Jafar, M. F. (2022). The influence of virtual instructional leadership on teachers’ commitment: A Malaysian e-leadership case study. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 11(2), 673-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v11i2.22669
7. Awangku Amin, D. R. & Mohd Hamzah, M. I. (2021). Tahap amalan kepimpinan instructional guru besar dan hubungannya dengan tahap komitmen guru. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 6(2), 135-151. http://dx.doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v6i2.648
8. Beltman, S. & Poulton, E. (2025). Strategies teachers use to maintain motivation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 155, 104882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104882
9. Bogler, R., & Berkovich, I. (2022). A systematic review of empirical evidence on teachers’ organizational commitment 1994– 2018. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 21(3), 440-457. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1774783
10. Cansoy, R., Parlar, H., & Polatcan, M. (2022). Collective teacher efficacy as a mediator in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher commitment. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(6), 900-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1708470
11. Colarelli, S. M., & Bishop, R. C. (1990). Career Commitment: Functions, correlates, and management. Group & Organization Studies, 15(2), 158-176. https://doi.org/10.1177/105960119001500203
12. Datta, A. & Narayanamma, P. L. (2025). Decoding Gen Y and Z: The impact of commitment and job satisfaction on employee attributes. Journal of Information Systems Engineering and Management, 10(17S), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.52783/jisem.v10i17s.2701
13. Eagly, A. H. & Chaiken, S. (1993). The Psychology of Attitudes. Boston, MA: Harcourt
14. Ellis, D., & Haugan, M. (1997). Modelling the information seeking patterns of engineers and research scientists in an industrial environment. Journal of documentation, 53(4), 384-403. https://doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000007204
15. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behaviour. An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
16. Fred, A. & Bishen Singh, G. S. (2021). Instructional leadership practices in under-enrolled rural schools in Miri, Sarawak. Asian Journal of University Education, 17(1), 165-176. https://doi.org/10.24191/ajue.v17i1.12694
17. Gansert, O. & Godbersen, H. (2017). Mitarbeiterbindung durch betriebliches gesundheit management in theorie und praxis. Zeitschrift Führung + Organisation, 86(2),108-116.
18. Godbersen, H., Dudek, B. & Ruiz Fernandez, S. (2024). The relationship between organizational commitment, commitment to supervisor and servant leadership. Frontiers in Organizational Psychology, 2,1353959. doi: 10.3389/forgp.2024.1353959
19. Guo, H., Alias, B. S. & Mamud, M. I. (2025). Interplay of principal instructional leadership, school organisational climate and teacher job satisfaction: Evidence from secondary schools in Northwest China. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 24(4), 178-198.https://doi.org/10.26803/ijlter.24.4.9
20. Hair, J.F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C.M., Gudergan, S.P. (2024). Advanced Issues in Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM), 2^nd Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
21. Hallinger, P. & Wang, W.C. (2015). Assessing instructional leadership with the principal instructional management rating scale. Dordrecht Netherlands: Springer
22. Hallinger, P. (2011). A review of three decades of doctoral studies using the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale: A lens on methodological progress in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(2), 271-306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X10383412
23. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1987). Instructional leadership in the school context. In W. Greenfield (Ed.), Instructional Leadership: Concepts, Issues and Controversies. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, Inc.
24. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. F. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of Principals. The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461445
25. Hew, L. P., Alias, B. S. & Othman, N. (2023). Amalan kepimpinan multidimensi guru besar dan hubungannya dengan komitmen guru di sekolah rendah. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(1), e002065. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v8i1.2065
26. Ho, Z. H. V. & Mohd Nor, M. Y. (2024). Hubungan amalan kepimpinan instructional guru besar dengan komitmen guru di daerah Keramat. International Journal of Advanced Research in Education and Society, 6(1), 98-110. https://doi.org/10.55057/ijares.2024.6.1.9
27. Hosseingholizadeh, R., Amrahi, A. & El-Farr, H. (2020). Instructional leadership and teachers’ collective efficacy, commitment and professional learning in primary schools: a mediation model. Professional Development in Education, 49(4), 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1850510
28. Hung, T. P., & Nordin, N. M. (2023). Amalan kepimpinan instructional Guru Besar dan hubungannya dengan tahap komitmen guru di Daerah Barat Daya. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 8(4), e002237. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v8i4.2237
29. Ignacio, A. B. & Malonzo, E. M. (2025). Professional identity and organizational commitment as predictors of teacher self-efficacy in public schools. European Journal of Education Studies, 12(5), 83-99. http://dx.doi.org/10.46827/ejes.v12i5.5917
30. Jalidar, H. I. & Alias, B. S. (2024). The impact of instructional leadership practices on teachers’ job satisfaction and work quality. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 13(4), 3586-36-1. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/24344
31. Kong, S. H. V. & Nor Shaid, N. A. (2024). Implementation of the 2025 School Transformation Program (T25) among teachers in primary schools in Sarikei District. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 14(8), http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i8/22671
32. Krug, S. E. (1992). Instructional leadership: A constructivist perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28, 430-443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013161X92028003012
33. McEwan, E. K. (2003). 7 Steps to Effective Instructional Leadership (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: A Sage Publications. http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483328775
34. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: Theory, research and applications. London: Sage
35. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (2004). TCM Employee Commitment Survey. Academic Users’ Guide 2004. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario
36. Ministry of Education. (2013). Malaysia Education Development Plan 2013-2025. Putrajaya: Ministry of Education.
37. Mohd Yaacob, N. & Ishak, R. (2023). A comparison of instructional leadership: An analysis of the model. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 12(3), 857-870. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v12-i3/18932
38. Muñoz-Fernández, G. A., Toala-Mendoza, R. D., González-Mohíno, M. & Félix-López, M. E. (2025). Unveiling the nexus of teacher commitment and job satisfaction: Insights from Ecuador’s educational landscape. BMC Psychology, 13, 134. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-02471-z
39. Murphy, J. (1990). Principal instructional leadership. in L.S. Lotto and P.W. Thurston (Eds.), Advances in Educational Administration: Changing Perspectives on the School, vol.1. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
40. Othman, C. & Busari, A. H. (2025). Instructional leadership as a catalyst for organisational commitment: insights from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(1), 198-206. DOI: 10.11591/ijere.v14i1.30474
41. Othman, Y., Sheh Yusuff, M. S. & Md Hussain, M. N. (2024). Data analysis using partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) in conducting quantitative research. International Journal of Academic Research in Business & Social Sciences, 14(10), 2380-2388. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARBSS/v14-i10/23364
42. Qi, W., Zhang, Y. & Arshad, M. Z. (2025). Sustainable education in action: Principal leadership, teacher wellbeing, and altruism in the sports context. Acta Psychological, 254, 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.104846
43. Rahman, M. H., Bolotio, R. & Napitupulu, D. (2025). The role of organizational commitment in improving teachers’ job satisfaction in public high schools in Indonesia. International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences, 12(2), 62-71. https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2025.02.007
44. Salisu, M., Che Rus, R., Yusuf, M., Bamiro, N. & Idris, M. (2025). Systematic review of teacher attrition rates and their far-reaching implications on STEM education in the context of Society 5.0. STEM Education, 5(3), 473-497. https://dx.doi.org/10.3934/steme.2025023
45. Selvadurai, A., & Mansor, A. N. (2021). Kermas kajian: Kepimpinan instructional Guru Besar dan komitmen guru di Zon Mantin, Negeri Sembilan. 5th International Conference on Business and Education (pp. 30-37).
46. Shao, Y., Sharif, S. & Ompok, C. S. C. C. (2025). The moderating role of gender between perceived organizational support and teacher commitment. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 14(2), 882-892. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v14-i2/25297
47. Solinger, O. N., van Olffen, W. & Roe, R. A. (2008). Beyond the three-component model of organizational commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 70-83. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.70
48. Subasiny, N., & Yusoff, S. (2022). Amalan kepimpinan transformational Guru Besar SJKT dan hubungannya terhadap kualiti guru berdasarkan Standard 4 SKPMg2 di Daerah Segamat. International Conference on Global Education, 304-322.
49. Sukarmin, & Sin, I. (2021). School health as the mediator variable: Determinants of the principal instructional leadership behaviour. European Journal of Educational Research, 10(3), 1275–1286. https://doi.org/10.12973/EU-JER.10.3.1275
50. Sukarmin, S. & Sin, I.  (2022).  The influence of principal instructional leadership behaviour on the organisational commitment of junior high school teachers in Surakarta. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 19(2), 69-95. https://doi.org/10.32890/mjli2022.19.2.3
51. Sulaiman, J., & Ismail, S. N. (2020). Teacher competence and 21st Century skills in Transformation Schools 2025 (TS25). Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(8), 3536–3544. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080829
52. Syahminan, A., Aslamiah, A., & Suriansyah, A. (2024). Pengaruh budaya sekolah, kepemimpinan instructional kepala sekolah, dan komitmen kerja terhadap kinerja guru SDN se-kecamatan candi laras Utara Kabupaten Tapin. EDUKASIA: Journal Pendidikan dan Pembelajaran, 5(1), 1249-1254. https://doi.org/10.62775/edukasia.v5i1.1013
53. Tan, M. E. P. & Alias, B. S. (2024). The practice of headmaster instructional leadership and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 13(4), 3643-3652. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/24370
54. Tan, M. E. P. & Alias, B. S. (2024). The practice of headmaster instructional leadership and its relationship with teacher self-efficacy. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 13(4), 3643-3652. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i4/24370
55. Unyit, A. A., & Hamzah, M. I. M. (2023). Amalan kepimpinan instructional guru besar dengan komitmen guru sekolah rendah di daerah Kapit. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 8(4), e002161. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v8i4.2161
56. Venida, A. C. (2022). Exploring generation Z teachers’ work values: Implications to educational leadership and management. International Journal of Education, 15(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.17509/ije.v15i1.46153
57. Wan, L. H., Wahab, J. L. A., & Othman, N. (2023). Kepimpinan Instructional Guru Besar SJKC dan Komitmen Guru. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities (MJSSH), 8(1), e002072-e002072.
58. Wang, P., Chu, P., Wang, J., Pan, R., Sun, Y., Yan, M., Jiao, L., Zhan, X., & Zhang, D. (2020). Association between job stress and organizational commitment in three types of Chinese university teachers: Mediating effects of job burnout and job satisfaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 576768, Article 576768. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.576768
59. Werang, B. R., Fajrianti, W., Suarjana, I. M., & Asaloei, S. I. (2022). Teacher commitment to teaching and its impact on student academic performance in Indonesian language subject. Journal Pendidikan Progressives, 12(2), 832-839. http://dx.doi.org/10.23960/jpp.v12.i2.202234
60. Yong, F. L., Chuah, F., Ling, L. U. L., Al-Azad, N. & Ching, L. P. (2025). Instructional leadership among principals in Sabah, Malaysia: A quantitative study on teachers’ perceptions. Malaysian Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 10(5), e003388. https://doi.org/10.47405/mjssh.v10i5.3388
61. Yoon, I., & Kim, M. (2022). Dynamic patterns of teachers’ professional development participation and their relations with socio-demographic characteristics, teacher self-efficacy, and job satisfaction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 109(1), 1-13 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103565
62. Yue, L., Alias, B. S. & Hamid, A. H. A. (2025). Exploring teacher organisational commitment for promoting sustainable development in higher education: A systematic literature review and analysis of theories and methodologies in Chinese studies. Journal of Ecohumanism, 4(1), 544-599. https://doi.org/10.62754/joe.v4i1.5836
63. Za’aba, Z. & Alias, B. S. (2024). The influence of instructional leadership on professional learning community practices. Journal Pendidikan, 49(1), 1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JPEN-2024-49.01-01
64. Zhou, S., Li, X., & Gao, B. (2020). Family/friends support, work-family conflict, organizational commitment, and turnover intention in young preschool teachers in China: A serial mediation model. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 104997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104997
65. Zou, Q., Hanid, A. H. A. & Mohd Nor, M. Y. (2024). Exploring the teachers’ organisational commitment and turnover in high school. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education & Development, 13(3), 1534-1545. http://dx.doi.org/10.6007/IJARPED/v13-i3/21871