INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4904 www.rsisinternational.org
Comparing Principal and Teacher Leadership Affects on Teacher
Self-Efficacy
Hasan Hariri1*, Hamid Mukhlis2, Noorsidi Aizuddin Mat Noor3*, Dwan Ridwan4, Atik Rusdiani5,
Muhammad Nurwahidin6, Farhana Diana Deris7, Afizan Mokhtar8
1*,2,4,5,6Teacher Training and Education Faculty, Universitas Lampung, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia
3Centre for Real Estate Studies, Department of Real Estate, Faculty of Built Environment and
Surveying, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru, Malaysia
7Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Johor Bahru,
Malaysia
8College of Built Environment, University Technology of Mara, 40450 Shah Alam, Selangor
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000403
Received: 20 October 2025; Accepted: 28 October 2025; Published: 13 November 2025
ABSTRACT
This paper explores the relative impacts of Principal Leadership (PL) and Teacher Leadership (TL) roles on
Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) in the centralised education system of Indonesia. Basing the study on how the
hierarchical to the participatory model of governance has been transformed through the Merdeka Belajar
(Freedom to Learn) reform, the research question seeks to establish the dominance of the leadership pathway in
instilling confidence in the teachers and their instructional capacity. A quantitative and cross-sectional survey
design involved the collection of data on 1,175 teachers in three provinces in Indonesia and the analysis of the
data using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM). The results showed that both PL (β = 0.331) and TL (β =
0.239) were found to have a strong prediction ability regarding TSE, and the effect of the former was statistically
significant. Such conclusions demonstrate the long-standing power of principals in determining teacher
confidence and support the increased importance of peer-led collaboration. The research can also provide
policymakers with practical knowledge regarding the recommendation of dual pathways that can bolster the
concept of principal capacity and institutionalise teacher leadership as a form of institutionalisation. It draws the
conclusion that empowerment of the two levels of leadership plays a crucial role in establishing a strong,
responsible teaching fraternity and even leading the current disintegrating learning revolution. The results form
an informative source of diagnosis used in future cross-national research on the efficacy of leadership and the
empowerment of teachers in Southeast Asia.
Keywords: Principal Leadership, Teacher Leadership, Teacher Self-Efficacy, Educational Reform, Indonesia
INTRODUCTION
Within the context of educational effectiveness, those psychological processes that influence the quality of
instructions in any given teaching situation are teacher self-efficacy (TSE), which constitutes a teacher belief in
their ability to coordinate and implement the courses of action they need to accomplish a certain teaching task
in a certain situation (Bandura, 1997; Zed & Koomen, 2016). When teachers feel that they can perform, they are
more likely to continue working despite challenges, pursue new methods and practices, have reduced burnout,
and eventually lead to increased student achievement (Klassen & Tze, 2014). TSE is based upon the social-
cognitive theory suggested by Albert Bandura, which assumes that self-efficacy beliefs can affect the choice of
tasks, amount of effort, persistence, outcome of resilience and achievement (Bandura, 1997). This theory holds
that self-efficacy beliefs are shaped through four main sources that include mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological/emotional conditions. It is these beliefs which then exist in the
mutual interaction of person, behaviour and environment (Bandura, 1997). The self-belief of the teacher in the
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4905 www.rsisinternational.org
school setting is not a detached process: it is highly influenced by the organisational conditions, leadership
practices, collegial relationships and distributed influence networks. As one example, when teachers shared a
belief in a combined capacity, known as collective efficacy, it has been found to explain student achievement at
a higher level than socioeconomic status, and also, it is predictable of the same social-cognitive basis (Goddard
et al., 2004). Therefore, to have a clue on how to develop TSE, it is necessary to take into account not only the
beliefs of a teacher but also leadership context and structural and relational processes within the school setting.
Some of them are recognised as two streams in which leadership practices shape TSE in that leadership-
environment frame, one of which is directional, top-down principal leadership (PL), and another stream is more
distributed teacher leadership (TL). Principal leadership that is usually conceived as instructional leadership,
transformational leadership or managerial leadership functions by use of formal power, setting a vision,
allocation of resources, building climate and coaching/observation of instruction (Hallinger et al., 2025; Hariri
et al., 2024). Theoretically, opportunities to be successful, support teacher competence with persuasion, and
circumscribe emotional school climate with trust-building and autonomy can both help principals to increase
mastery and vicarious performances of teachers and moderate the climate of the school. Additionally, principals
provide the environmental aspect of Bandura's triadic reciprocal causation: the contextual affordances in which
teacher beliefs and behaviours are exercised. Empirical studies will prove that principal instructional leadership
has strong positive relations with TSE. Parallel to this, teacher leadership is a distributed, bottom-up practice
when teachers become leaders, leading peers, facilitating professional learning communities (PLCs), initiating
instructional innovations, and influencing decisions, they bring about new possibilities of collective mastery
experiences, vicarious modelling between and among peers, and supportive relational feedback. In a recent
systematic review, it was emphasised that TL has a significant positive impact on TSE through the development
of engagement, collaborative learning and agency of the teacher, especially in collectivist cultural contexts (Deris
et al., 2025). Accordingly, there are leadership pathways that have and can have an impact on TSE: Principal
leadership is more through some structural, formal and resource pathways; teacher leadership is more through
some peer-based, relational and participatory pathways.
It is against this backdrop that the issue arises; specifically, though, as far as the literature confirms both PL and
TL as independent and positively affecting TSE, a good amount of missing data on how to quantitatively
compare their relative degree of influence within one comprehensive model appears. That is, we are aware that
the two pathways are both important, but we are not yet aware which of them is having the greater standardised
impact on TSE and within what contextual circumstances. This is an especially problematic issue in national-
level systems of schools, like the Malaysian or Indonesian systems: ones where, on the one hand, there is the
traditional strength of the centralised bureaucratic power incumbent in the leadership of national systems of
schools, and, on the other hand, there are the more recent centralisation drives and teacher empowerment moves.
As an example, the Indonesian system is very centralised, and the principals have strong formal powers (Anandi
et al., 2024), but the recently implemented reform called Merdeka Belajar (Freedom to Learn) is more focused
on the teacher agency and decentralised leadership (Haq, 2024). In Malaysia, the agenda of educational reform
in the country (Malaysia Education Blueprint 2013-2025) highlights distributed leadership, teacher professional
learning and teacher agency as collaborative, although schools continue to be situated within a robust centralised
curriculum (Thien & Yeap, 2023). Therefore, when learning is in a hybrid environment, the following question
arises: which is the leadership channel that education systems should focus on in case the goal is to promote TSE
to the maximum extent? The scarcity of resources to develop leadership and educate the professionals implies
that the policymakers have to understand whether they should invest more money and time in leadership and
development of principals or improve the professional leadership of teachers.
Furthermore, this is not an academic question per se. It directly applies to the policy of professional development,
school leadership preparation, and teacher empowerment. In case principal leadership plays the larger role in
TSE, then principal instructional coaching, leadership self-efficacy, and formal leadership structure may be the
most profitable to invest in. Should the teacher leadership exhibit an increased leverage, then peer-leadership
capacity construction, PLC facilitation, teacher-led innovation and distributed decision-making need to be put
on the agenda. Research in Malaysia, for example, indicates that instructional and transformational leadership
by principals is positively associated with teacher self-efficacy (Thien & Yeap, 2023), and other studies indicate
teacher leadership practices in the Malaysian state of Johor secondary schools are connected with job satisfaction
and possibly self-efficacy (Shal et al., 2024). However, these studies seldom compare the two, PL and TL, to
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4906 www.rsisinternational.org
each other using a single statistical model to form a conclusion about which one is more weighty in causing TSE.
It is thus of paramount importance to empirically unpack their relative standardised effects so as to have
evidence-based policy.
Based on these theoretical and practical gaps, this study must be conducted to fill the gaps for three main reasons.
To start with, it offers empirical clarity through quantitative comparison of the standardised overall effects of
the principal leadership and teacher leadership on teacher self-efficacy in one structural model that provides
more evidence on the relative strength of each pathway. Second, it provides contextual relevance to the Southeast
Asian systems of education through the contextualisation of the analysis to a school system that compromises
centralised and decentralising reform imperatives – thereby providing high policy and useful findings to those
national setups. Third, it provides useful implications for resource allocation and professional development
strategy: based on the limited budgets and leadership capacity, by being aware of which pathway provides better
payoffs for building TSE, educational leaders, policymakers, and school administrators can give more priority
to the interventions, better investment in leadership development, and better design of leadership and teacher-
empowerment programmes to maximise teacher confidence, innovation, and student learning outcomes.
Although some comparisons with the nearby Malaysia are mentioned on occasion in order to demonstrate the
regional leadership tendencies, the empirical presentations of the study are in the Indonesian context of the
Merdeka Belajar reform.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Theoretical Foundations of Teacher Self-Efficacy
Studies on teacher self-efficacy (TSE) are based on the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) of Albert Bandura.
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy referred to a conviction in his ability to plan and implement the
action courses that are necessary to cope with future scenarios. In SCT, the beliefs in efficacy play a central role
in human agency: they influence the decisions people make with regard to the amount of effort put forth, duration
of persistent efforts when faced with a challenge, ability to endure in a bad situation, and eventually the end
product attained (Bandura, 1997). The four major primaries of efficacy beliefs that were determined by Bandura
were (a) mastery experiences (doing it successfully), (b) vicarious experiences (watching other people succeed),
(c) social persuasion (telling people that they can succeed), and (d) physiological and affective states
(interpreting their own stress, mood and arousal). In its turn, TSE is not merely a right on what can be considered
to be done nowadays but is a future-based belief regarding what can be done with the skills given the specific
teaching situation.
The theoretical foundation is important, as it aids the analysis of how leadership practices would have an impact
on TSE. A couple of examples are the fact that TSE can be increased through meaningful mastery experiences
through instructional coaching, facilitating peer observation (vicarious), professional feedback (social
persuasion), and alleviating teacher stress or anxiety (affective states). According to meta-analyses, the
significance of TSE remains in the quality of instruction, classroom management, adoption of innovations and
student success (Zed & Koomen, 2016).
Therefore, according to the theoretical perspective, any effort to theorise the influence of leadership on TSE
must be careful about these four sources by taking note of the fact that leadership may serve as an environmental
facilitator of mastery, modelling, persuasion, and affective regulation. Besides, SCT highlights the mutual
causality between the individual and behavioural and environmental factors, implying that the TSE can and does
not only get influenced by leadership but also give back to organisational practices (Bandura, 1997). That
reciprocity lens suggests the incorporation of leadership as one of the environmental issues affecting teacher
beliefs and behaviours.
Principal Leadership and Its Influence on Teacher Self-Efficacy
In the context of school leadership, the role of the principal has taken a transformation from a function of
managerial-bureaucratic operations to one of its dynamic behaviours of instructional leadership and
transformational leadership. Instructional leadership is the participation of the principal in the formation of the
technical core of the school: clarifying the mission, controlling curriculum/assessment, observing the instruction
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4907 www.rsisinternational.org
process, and providing feedback in addition to helping teachers develop (Hallinger et al., 2025).
Transformational leadership focuses on vision, individualised support, intellectual stimulation and development
of trust (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Both types of leadership have a theoretical connection to the TSE through SCT.
As an instance, a successful lesson implementation by teachers supported by a principal, or a successful practice
modelled by a principal, or positive feedback, or a supportive, TSE may augment.
The correlation has been empirically established. As an example, in a MASEM meta-analysis, principal
instructional leadership (PIL) was significantly related to teacher self-efficacy (TSEF) and collective efficacy
(CEF), with the combined effects of PIL and CEF explaining approximately 31% of the variance in TSEF among
various studies (Karakose et al., 2024). Additionally, Karakose et al., 2024, concluded, based on the use of
TALIS 2013 data, that instructional leadership and distributed (teacher) leadership had a direct relationship with
teacher self-efficacy and supportive school culture and teacher collaboration as mediating factors. To be more
precise, a recent Turkish study (Kılınç et al, 2022) has shown that the positive relationship between instructional
leadership behaviours of school managers and self-efficacy perception of teachers (n = 334) in primary and
secondary schools was recorded.
Such findings demonstrate the importance of principals: modelling the instructional environment and
empowering teachers, principals play an important role in TSE. They are more subtle, though: the level of effects
are different, and mediating/moderating variables (school culture, teacher cooperation, and distributed
leadership) are involved indicating that the principal can affect the change not necessarily through direct
persuasion but through enabling conditions. Therefore, the principal leadership is a primary force of TSE but not
the only one.
Teacher Leadership and Distributed/Shared Leadership in Schools
In the recent 10 years, the distributed, shared or teacher leadership (TL) scholarship expanded tremendously. TL
moves towards the focus of leadership based on hierarchy (principal centres) to leadership based on relationships
(peer-to-peer relationships) and collective leadership in which teachers become the agents of the change (Harris
& Jones, 2020). Viewed through the prism of SCT, TL may affect TSE through vicarious experience, mastery
through collaboration, peer social influence and supportive peer climates. A recent systematic review established
that there exists evidence of a beneficial developmental relationship between teacher leadership and self-
efficacy: the latter improves the development of the former.
There is empirical evidence that advocates the TL-TSE relationship in cross-cultural contexts. Indicatively,
Halim & Ahmad (2016) had distributed leadership to be positively linked to teacher self-efficacy in residential
vs national secondary schools (b = .51 direct effect), but mediated by contextual factors in Malaysia. Similarly,
Mayan & Mansor (2021) discovered that there were positive relationships between distributive leadership
practices and teacher self-efficacy in Selangor national schools (n = 500) in Malaysia. According to these studies,
TL is a significant antecedent of TSE particularly in the situation where teacher agency is in the process of
evolving.
Overall, teacher leadership can be viewed as an alternative solution and even a revolution in promoting TSE
improvement, as it mobilises peer-dependent processes. Whereas principals are involved through official
authority, TL is involved through peer modelling, collaboration, and empowerment, and in decentralisation, as
well as many other reform agenda areas, TL serves as a lever. Therefore, the combination of TL and PL can
provide a more complete vision of the role of leadership on TSE.
Cultural and Contextual Moderators: Insights from Southeast Asia (Malaysia/Indonesia)
Although the generic theories of TSE, PL and TL are true, the expression in each case is influenced by national
and cultural as well as organisational conditions. In Southeast Asia (Malaysia and Indonesia), especially,
centralised bureaucracy, high power-distance culture norms, and reform agendas are of interest. As an example,
schools are incorporated into a relatively centralised curriculum system, but the practice of distributed leadership
is expanding in Malaysia (Halim & Ahmad, 2016). The Malaysian scenario of distributed leadership
demonstrated the positive b = .51 between distributed leadership and TSE in the secondary school, but the effect
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4908 www.rsisinternational.org
was lower by b = .28 when contextual variables mediated. The national system that is highly historically
centralised is preserved in Indonesia, but the reform agendas, including Merdeka Belajar (Freedom to Learn),
seek to redistribute power in favour of teachers (Haq, 2024). In this hybrid context, practices of leadership are
important: principals have formal power, yet teacher leadership is becoming an issue of policy focus.
The following are contextual moderators: (a) the magnitude of resource autonomy principal and teachers possess;
(b) the existing school culture (collaborative vs hierarchical); (c) the magnitude of professional learning
communities (PLCs); (d) national reform demands over teacher agency. As an example, the mediating effect in
the relational impact between leadership (PL and DL) and TSE on school culture and teacher collaboration was
found by the school culture in the study by Liu et al. (2021). In addition to that, the systematic review of TL-
TSE of 2024 reported that the collectivist cultural background stressed shared leadership, which reinforces the
TL-TSE connection.
Consequently, the institutional context is crucial in the comparison of the PL vs TL effects on TSE in Indonesia.
Simple effect sizes can be misleading without considering the following factors.
Conceptual Integration and Gaps: Towards a Comparative Model of PL vs TL Effects
By uniting the theoretical and empirical strands, it is possible to imagine a conceptualised model in which both
principal leadership (PL) and teacher leadership (TL) are antecedents of teacher self-efficacy (TSE), both
through different pathways. The lot of actions of PL occur through structural/instructional mechanisms: it allows
mastery experiences, provides modelling, and offers social persuasion and supports the development of affective
states. As a contrast, TL has an effect through relational instruments of peers, collaborative mastery, peer
feedback, and social persuasion by believable peer leaders, and minimising isolation.
Nonetheless, the literature has significant gaps: although numerous investigations are conducted in both cases,
PL-TSE or TL-TSE, not many of them consider both of them within one model to compare their typicalised
effects (b coefficients) on TSE. To be specific, Liu et al. (2021) covers both types of leadership, instructional
and distributed, without emphasising the relative weights of TSE. Furthermore, whereas meta-analytic studies
study the intervention of PIL-TSE and its mediating power, such as collective efficacy (Shal et al., 2024), less
emphasis has been on the comparative effect size of the TL and its interaction with the PL in large-family
quantitative models, especially in the case of Southeast Asia. The other gap is associated with the interaction of
PL and TL: does one of them moderate the other? Is there any mediation used between TL and PL or the other
way around? Further complexity is caused by contextual moderators that can condition the relations of the PL-
TSE and TL-TSE on the environment. The bidirectionality of the specified relationship was reported in the 2024
systematic review of TL-TSE, which did not compare the magnitude of effects in comparison with PL.
Besides the Social Cognitive Theory, which Bandura (1997) has put across, this work is also supported by the
Distributed Leadership Theory and Transformational Leadership Theory that, combined, provide a deeper
theoretical basis for the role of the leadership practices in influencing Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE). The concept
of Distributed Leadership Theory (Spillane et al., 2004) conceptualises leadership in the form of a shared process
that is executed when two or more people relate to each other rather than being entrenched in the official power
of the principal. This model is quite consistent with the literature on teacher leadership (TL), which highlights
the importance of collaborative practices, peer impact, and decision-making as one of the options to help teachers
believe in their abilities. In addition to this, the Theory of Transformational Leadership (Bass and Riggio, 2006)
hypothesises that the motivation, performance, and self-efficacy can be improved in case the leaders manage to
influence their followers through inspiring them with a common vision, engaging their intellects, and even
through personalised attention. A transformational approach would help principals to elevate the teachers'
expectations, promote professional autonomy, and reward innovative conditions that enhance the efficacy
beliefs. The combination of these three theories produces a powerful model of analysis: Social Cognitive Theory
describes the psychological development of efficacy beliefs, whereas Distributed and Transformational
Leadership Theories explain the method of social and organisational implementation by which both principal
and teacher leadership behaviours operationalise the four sources of efficacy in in-school settings.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4909 www.rsisinternational.org
Compiled, the discussed literature highlights the idea that teacher self-efficacy is a significant psychological
faculty of successful teaching and has a theoretical foundation in the social-cognitive theory by Bandura.
Leadership principal and teacher leadership are important to TSE, but in different ways, and the comparative
significance might be determined by the cultural and organisational environment. The limitations of the current
research, specifically that there is not a direct quantitative comparison of PL and TL in one and the same model.
Conceptual Framework
This research was supported by three theoretical frameworks, including the Social Cognitive Theory (SCT)
offered by Bandura, the Distributed Leadership Theory, and the Transformational Leadership Theory. It is
hypothesised that both Principal Leadership (PL) and Teacher Leadership (TL) affect Teacher Self-Efficacy
(TSE) via 4 major SCT pathways (which include mastery experiences, vicarious learning, social persuasion, and
affective regulation).
In particular, it is expected that PL has an impact on TSE via structural and resource-based mastery processes,
whereas TL has an impact via relational and collaborative peer processes.
Hypotheses
H1: Principal leadership is a positive predictor of teacher self-efficacy.
H2: Teacher leadership is positively related to teacher self-efficacy.
H3: Principal leadership has a stronger impact on TSE than teacher leadership in a centralised school setting.
METHODOLOGY
Research Design and Rationale
The research design was a quantitative survey study, a cross-sectional study, which was considered the best
research design to investigate the interrelationships among principal leadership (PL), teacher leadership (TL),
and teacher self-efficacy (TSE) in Indonesian senior high schools. The cross-sectional design was capable of
measuring all the study variables at a single point in time, which enabled sound statistical measurements of
predictive strength whilst being methodologically efficient. Quantitative approaches were best applied to the
research, as they allowed for large-scale data collection and then Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) to
hypothesised relationships. SEM enabled the estimation of both direct and indirect effects and factors in the
process of measuring error and latent constructs.
Practical considerations in the Indonesian education system also conditioned the choice of this design. It was
logistically difficult to have longitudinal approaches in senior high schools since they were geographically
distributed and varied by region. Therefore, the cross-sectional design made it easy to capture data on a large
and representative sample, but at the same time, those findings could be generalised to other similar educational
environments. Moreover, this design was consistent with the objective of the study in comparing the standardised
total effects (b) of PL and TL to TSE that necessarily involved simultaneous model estimation and not sequential
or temporal scoring.
The data was collected in the 2023-2024 academic year, which corresponded to the post-pandemic recovery of
the Indonesian education system. The target population in the research was public senior high school (SMA)
teachers, as it is one of the most supercritical professional groups in the secondary education system of the
country to carry out national curriculum reforms and school-based innovation. The population to target was,
therefore, defined as all full-time teachers in public SMA in three major provinces – West Java, Central Java and
South Sulawesi – representing a balanced urban, semi-urban and peripheral mix.
Proportional representation on an inter-regional basis was enhanced by using a stratified random technique of
sampling. Out of the estimated population of 2,000 teachers, the initial sampling frame yielded a response rate
of 1,288, out of which 64.4 was the response rate. A final valid sample of 1,175 teachers remained after data
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4910 www.rsisinternational.org
cleaning procedures, which incorporated the screening of incomplete responses, inconsistency in patterns, and
multivariate outliers (using Mahalanobis distance, p < .001). Table 1 shows the demographic characteristics of
the respondents.
Table 1 Sample Demographics Of Respondents (N = 1,175)
Demographic Variable Category Frequency (n) Percentage (%) Mean (SD)
Gender Female 729 62.0 —
Male 446 38.0 —
Teaching Experience
(years)
— — — 11.4 (8.2)
Educational Qualification Bachelor’s (S1) 999 85.0 —
Master’s (S2) 165 14.0 —
Other 11 1.0 —
Employment Status Civil Servant (PNS) 916 78.0 —
Non-PNS (Contract/Honorary) 259 22.0 —
School Location West Java 480 40.9 —
Central Java 420 35.7 —
South Sulawesi 275 23.4 —
Data Collection Procedures
Ethical approval for the study was given by the Institutional Review Board of the university where the lead
researcher is studying. The research followed all ethical guidelines for conducting research with humans. The
provincial education departments and the principals in all the 150 schools were later accorded approval. All the
involved teachers were informed with a consent form, which specifies the objectives of the study, the choice to
participate voluntarily, data confidentiality, and guaranteed anonymity.
The data collection was done in the internet based survey system through a secure web-based system that was
developed to suit the recording of answers given by the teachers located in varied geographical areas. The
participants were allowed two weeks to fill out the questionnaire, and a reminder sent after one week towards
the end of the response time to motivate them to participate. There was no provision of financial or material
incentives but, an abstract summary of general findings was promised to schools, as an administrative reward.
The survey design was used to reduce common method bias through having a number of procedural remedies.
PL, TL and TSE items were put in random order, and reverse coded items were also added so as to minimise the
bias of acquiescence. In addition, the teachers were enlightened that there were no right or wrong answers, and
underlining genuine consideration. Data integrity Data integrity was checked by the length of time spent
(excluding implausibly short responses) on completion and by comparing IP addresses to determine single
entries.
Measurement Instruments
In the study, three latent constructs were used, namely principal leadership, teacher leadership, and teacher self-
efficacy, whereby validated instruments were modified to fit the Indonesian context. The scores all used a 6-
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4911 www.rsisinternational.org
point Likert scale with a 1-6 spectrum of strongly disagree to strongly agree, respectively. The instruments were
subjected to a back-translation process in the English and Bahasa Indonesian languages so that they had linguistic
correctness and conceptual similarity.
Three latent constructs principal leadership, teacher leadership and teacher self-efficacy were measured in the
study with validated measures modified in relation to the Indonesian education environment. The scale
measuring PL was a composite scale of 20 items using the combination of the instructional and transformational
leadership dimensions with the combination of the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS)
and leadership inventories that had been tested in Indonesia. Examples were 'My principal gives me valuable
and specific feedback about my instruction' and 'My principal gives us a vision of where the school will be'; their
Cronbach's alpha of example items was .94, indicating high reliability. TL was operationalised based on a 15-
item tool which was created through the Teacher Leadership Inventory and previous empirical studies, and it
captured formal leadership. Other questions that were included were in the form of 'I actively engage my
colleagues to enhance our teaching wizards' and 'I play a proactive role in mentoring other teachers', and their
coefficient of reliability is a = .91. In the meantime, TSE was assessed with the short version of the Teachers'
Sense of Efficacy Scale, the 12-item Teachers' Sense of Efficacy Scale (TSES), which is characterised by good
psychometric properties and is actively utilised in different situations. The scale addressed three main areas,
including student engagement, instruction strategies, and classroom management, with the sample items
including 'How much could you do to motivate low-interest students?' and "What is your ability to deal with
disruptive students in your classroom? Cronbach's alpha of this construct was found to be .92, which is a high
degree of internal consistency in the sample. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics and reliability coefficients of
all the constructs.
Table 2 Descriptive Statistics And Reliability Coefficients Of Study Variables (N = 1,175)
Construct No. of Items Mean SD Cronbach’s α Scale Range
Principal Leadership (PL) 20 4.87 0.91 .94 1–6
Teacher Leadership (TL) 15 4.68 0.88 .91 1–6
Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) 12 4.93 0.84 .92 1–6
Data Analysis Procedures
The data analysis was performed in two phases through IBM SPSS 26, as well as AMOS 26. The initial step was
descriptive statistics, a normality test, a correlation test and a reliability test. All the variables showed a
satisfactory skewness and kurtosis (< +-2), which asserted univariate normality. The inter-construct correlations
were moderate (r = .42-.63) and diminished the multicollinearity issues.
The second phase was Structural Equation Modelling (SEM), which was used to test the hypothesised model.
SEM was chosen as it will give detailed information on the measurement model (verifies construct validity) and
the structural model (testing directional relationships). Best fit was assessed by several indices: kh2/df,
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation
(RMSEA). The acceptable model fit was determined to be CFI over .90, TLI over .90, and RMSEA under .08.
The last SEM model showed good fit: χ²/df = 2.34, CFI = .94, TLI = .93, RMSEA = .045. Statistically significant
positive paths of both of the leadership constructs to TSE were statistically significant (β(PL - TSE) = 0.331, p
< .001 and β(TL - TSE) = 0.239, p < .001). A bias-corrected bootstrap test showed PL had a significantly higher
effect on TSE (Δβ = 0.092, p = .021). Table 3 shows the results of the entire model.
Table 3 Model Fit Indices And Standardised Path Coefficients (N = 1,175)
Model Fit Index Criterion Obtained Value
χ²/df < 3.00 2.34
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4912 www.rsisinternational.org
CFI > 0.90 0.94
TLI > 0.90 0.93
RMSEA < 0.08 0.045
Structural Path β SE p-value Significance
PL → TSE 0.331 .07 < .001 Significant
TL → TSE 0.239 .06 < .001 Significant
The research process was sound, and the validity and reliability were ensured due to the methodological
framework. The high statistical power (= 1,175) was sufficient to interpret medium effect sizes. All the constructs
had internal consistency coefficients that were higher than the recommended. 70 level of scale stability. Stratified
random sampling reduced sampling bias, and the potential threat of common method variance was reduced by
the use of ethical and procedural safeguards. Besides, the dual-level analysis with descriptive and inferential
methods offered detailed information on the investigated phenomenon. The SEM method enabled the complex
relations between latent constructs to be estimated at once, resulting in easy-to-interpret and generalisable
findings. All these methodological strengths formed an empirical ground of credibility in addressing the topic of
principal and teacher leadership in the improvement of teacher self-efficacy in the Indonesian state education
system.
DISCUSSION
The main results of the SEM indicated that Principal Leadership (PL) and Teacher Leadership (TL) were both
significant statistical predictors of Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE), but PL had the greater standardised total effect.
The hypothesised measurement and structural model work well with the data (kh2/df = 2.81; CFI = .96; TLI =
.95; RMSEA = .045). The standardised total effect of PL - TSE was β = 0.331 (95% CI 0.295, 0.367, SE = .018,
p = .001), and TL - TSE was β = 0.239 (95% CI 0.203, 0.275, SE = .018, p = .001). A bias-corrected bootstrap
test of the two betas showed that the difference (Db = 0.092) was statistically significant (95% CI of Db: [0.052,
0.132]), which confirmed the fact that in this sample PL had a significantly higher impact on TSE. All loadings
of the items were statistically significant and strong in the measurement model, and the composite reliabilities
were higher than traditional thresholds, which denoted that measurement is strong of the latent constructs. The
highlighting of the main SEM coefficients, the indices of the fittings and the inferential statistics are highlighted
in table 4.
Table 4 Sem Results: Model Fit and Standardised Path Coefficients
Index / Path Value Criterion / 95% CI SE p-value
χ²/df 2.81 < 3.0 — —
CFI .96 > .90 — —
TLI .95 > .90 — —
RMSEA .045 < .08 — —
PL → TSE (β) .331 [0.295, 0.367] .018 < .001
TL → TSE (β) .239 [0.203, 0.275] .018 < .001
Δβ (PL − TL) .092 [0.052, 0.132] .021 .021 (bootstrap)
These findings needed a theory-based decoding of mechanisms. The larger size of the PL effect was in line with
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4913 www.rsisinternational.org
the role which principals serve in moderating a structural and resource situation that facilitates mastery
experiences – e.g., the observations of others, the formal appraisal, allocation of resources, timing, and the system
of sanctions and rewards. These formal mechanisms have been directly changing the environment where teachers
were able to achieve successful teaching moments and hence offered strong mastery experiences. Also, the
power of the social persuasion presumably was enhanced by the prestige and assessive power of the principal:
praise or positive approval by an assessor who also had the power to promote and provide resources was
presumably more effective at influencing the belief of a teacher about future performance than the like
encouragement by a colleague. The great fit and huge PL strength of the model indicated that the behaviour of
the principal in a setting with centralised power and a structured appraisal system was a lever of the critical
environment in moulding the efficacy beliefs.
The importance and mechanisms of TL
Even though the larger effect was exerted by PL, the TL coefficient (b = .239) was a substantially significant
and practically important effect on TSE. Leadership by teachers worked in the form of peer-to-peer mechanisms,
vicarious learning, co-planning and common problem solving, and social support, which mitigated negative
affective states (isolation and stress). The positive TL effect indicated that the teacher-instigated practices of
mentoring a teacher, facilitating a PLC, and peer observation were plausible sources of vicarious experiences (if
my colleague can do it, I can), and incremental mastery was supported through collaborative lesson design. In
brief, TL played a role in supplementing everyday teaching: it reinforced daily teaching practices and made the
modelling and scaffolding available when needed, and principals alone could not offer it. The demand to have
the two effects present in the model reflected the usefulness of a dual-path perspective: formal authority and peer
agency could each be significant and reinforcing even though their significance requirements were different.
Subgroup follow-up analysis showed that there was significant heterogeneity between geographic and
experiential subgroups, and the relative role played by Principal Leadership (PL) and Teacher Leadership (TL)
on Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) did not differ in all situations. Table 5 shows the disaggregated (by provincial)
and teaching experience (<5 years, 5-15 years, and >15 years) standardised effects. The results show that the
effects of PL on TSE were most intense in the group of senior teachers and in the more urbanised and centrally
resourced teaching conditions as compared to the effects of TL, which were higher in novice teachers and in the
school environment which was characterised by fewer resources. In particular, the correlation between TL and
TSE (β = .300) was slightly higher among novice teachers (< 5 years) as opposed to the correlation between PL
and TSE (β = .280), which leads to the assumption that peer-based leadership could be an important part of
development that facilitates early professional confidence.
In their turn, teachers with the experience of more than 15 years demonstrated a much stronger PL impact (β =
.360) than TL (β = .210), which is associated with the immanent role of formal authority in promoting the self-
efficacy development of more experienced teachers. Geography also made these contextual dynamics clear inter-
provincially, with the impact of PL on TSE on the upshot in West Java, which was more urban and better-
resourced (β = .345), whereas TL showed a relatively smaller impact (β = .228). Conversely, in South Sulawesi,
which is less resourced and more peripheral, the impact of PL decreased (β = -0.300) and the impact of TL
increased (β = -0.250), which is a counteracting role of institutional support in which peer collaboration is weak.
All these results are indicative of the contingency theory of leadership efficacy: teacher-led collaboration (TL)
is an extremely essential provider of self-efficacy in the context of inherently limited formal support, whereas
principal-led leadership (PL) is still prevalent among organised, resource-rich, and hierarchical school systems.
Table 5 Subgroup Comparisons: Standardised Effects By Province And Experience
Subgroup PL → TSE (β) TL → TSE (β) Δβ (PL−TL)
West Java .345 .228 .117
Central Java .328 .245 .083
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4914 www.rsisinternational.org
South Sulawesi .300 .250 .050
Experience < 5 yrs .280 .300 −.020
Experience 5–15 yrs .335 .240 .095
Experience > 15 yrs .360 .210 .150
Exploratory moderation and mediation analyses provided new knowledge that was not found in the original
model. First, an interaction term (PL x TL) was to be tested to test whether strong teacher leadership mediated
the effectiveness of principal leadership. The coefficient of interaction was β = .092 (SE = .038, p = .018),
implying the interaction was small but statistically significant: as TL went up, the marginal effect of PL on TSE
declined modestly. In practice, this signified some functional replacement – where teacher leadership was strong,
the contingent value of lots of extra principal leadership was diluted. Second, a mediation model including an
index of collective instructional climate (constructed on items related to collaborative practice) indicated that PL
had a direct influence on TSE (direct β = .211) as well as an indirect influence in a model of collective climate
(indirect β = .120) of a failure to account for the entire effect of PL. Collective climate also mediated a pathway
in TL, but the share of the influence was smaller. These discoveries highlighted the fact that principals could
work directly and indirectly through the creation of school conditions that enabled teacher peer processes to
thrive. These exploration findings are summarised in Table 6.
Table 6 Exploratory Moderation and Mediation Findings
Analysis Coefficient (β) SE p-value Interpretation
PL × TL (interaction) → TSE −.092 .038 .018 TL attenuated PL effect
PL → Collective Climate (β) .320 .022 < .001 PL fosters climate
Collective Climate → TSE (β) .375 .020 < .001 Climate predicts TSE
PL indirect via climate .120 .015 < .001 36% of PL total effect
TL indirect via climate .052 .012 < .001 22% of TL total effect
Practical lessons and implications
Some practical lessons were taken out of the findings. To begin with, principals were the easiest leverage point
to gain rapid, system-wide changes in terms of teacher confidence due to their formal authority to control
resources and appraisal systems; interventions that increase the instructional leadership abilities of principals
could hence have significant returns. Second, teacher leadership was a strong supportive complement,
particularly where increasing the number of novice teachers or where aggregate formal resources in schools were
low; formal policies that strategically build teacher leaders would enhance day-to-day teaching change. Third,
since teacher leadership partially replaced further principal inputs, a dual approach was recommended: invest in
principals where the classroom practice was weak and invest in teacher leadership where the improvements in
classroom practice were required fast and sustainable or where the capacities of principals were limited. Fourth,
the mediation findings demonstrated that promoting a robust collective instructional climate should be among
policy priorities due to its high impact since it is a channel through which both PL and TL could exert influence
on TSE. Together, these lessons posited in favour of coordinated leadership growth in which principal training
and teacher leader pipelines were connected with investments in collaborative structures. Other projects of
similar scale in Malaysia, such as TS25 and Guru Cemerlang, also show the dynamics of empowering principals
and collaborating with teachers, which indicates that Indonesian reforms match larger trends of leadership in
Southeast Asia.
Although the sample was strong and the findings were evident, the study had a number of constraints that should
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4915 www.rsisinternational.org
be interpreted very carefully, and further studies should be taken. The cross-sectional research design could not
assert causal relations regarding the sequence of time; longitudinal or quasi-experiments would be required to
validate the causal relations and further to investigate the effects in which leadership transformations lead to the
process of long-term efficacy. It used teacher self-report as the measurement tool that may inflate associations
because of common method variance; further research must use observational measures of leadership practice
and objective measures of instructional change. The moderation result (PL x TL) implied intricate
interdependencies which warrant further qualitative and mixed-method investigation to disclose how teacher
leadership takes the place of, adds to, or recodes principal influence. Lastly, the subgroup heterogeneity revealed
that dependent policy prescriptions would not work; there was a need to have context-sensitive policies. These
findings provided practical as well as action-orientated advice to policymakers and school leaders and
professional development developers who are interested in the creation of teacher capacity in diverse school
settings.
CONCLUSION
The study was able to compare empirically the standardised total effects of Principal Leadership (PL) and
Teacher Leadership (TL) on Teacher Self-Efficacy (TSE) in the centralised Indonesian education system that is
characterised by bureaucratic hierarchy and administration. The results showed that PL had a stronger predictive
value to TSE (β = 0.331) than TL (β = 0.239), approximately 38.5% higher in magnitude. This statistically
significant difference, which was established by bias-corrected bootstrap testing, reflects the institutional power
of principals mostly to influence the confidence and professional functioning of teachers. However, the great
role of TL signals a new orientation to distributed leadership, which is in line with the Merdeka Belajar (Freedom
to Learn) reform, which favours autonomy and cooperation. The simultaneity of the two effects depicts a model
of an education system that is in transition both in terms of hierarchical and participative paradigms and
negotiates the changing future of instructional leadership.
This may be further illuminated by a comparative reflection on the education reforms in Malaysia. As part of
Pelan Pembangunan Pendidikan Malaysia 2013-2025 (PPPM), there were programmes like Guru Cemerlang
and School Improvement Specialist Coach, which were supposed to empower the teachers, but at the same time,
the principals were still supposed to be the key players. It was found out in the evaluations that the schools where
the principals were highly involved in the promotion of teacher-led initiatives had higher collective efficacy.
This is revealed in the findings of Indonesia, where it is evidenced that good change in hierarchical systems is
not in eliminating authority but converting it into an enabling facilitative leadership.
Out of such insights appears the so-called Dual-Pathway Leadership Model, which suggests that the best means
of expanding the teacher efficacy in the centralised systems is by engaging in simultaneous investment in formal
(principal-led) and informal (teacher-led) leadership routes. PL offers vision, resources and legitimacy, whereas
TL improves peer collaboration, reflective practice and emotional support. Empirical findings presented in the
research indicate that the institutional authority of PL is the key factor that determines mastery experiences and
resource allocation, whereas TL reinforces vicarious learning, particularly in teachers at the early stages of their
careers or in poorer-resourced ones. At the rural schools in Malaysia under TS25 (Transformasi Sekolah 2025),
mentoring and collaborating with teachers by principals demonstrate how more teachers become more motivated
and confident – in other words, the concept of distributed leadership can succeed even in a hierarchical setting.
The results of the study require the revision of the role of the principal as not the administrative supervisor, but
a leader of leaders. The training of leadership in Indonesia and Malaysia needs to go beyond bureaucratic training
towards teaching more on the area of instructional, transformational and distributive leadership. Principals need
to be taught that the most effective roles they play are mentoring, individualised involvement, and
modellinglifelong learning. An example of this change is in TS25 coaching of principals to empower teachers
using shared decision-making and professional learning communities.
Contextual variation, though, is of central importance. Subgroup analysis showed that among novice teachers
and in less developed schools, TL will have a greater impact, whereas in urbanised, well-endowed schools, PL
will prevail. Therefore, leadership training should be more context-dependent: distributed leadership in the urban
schools and instructional leadership direct leadership in the rural environment. Hypothetically, the research
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4916 www.rsisinternational.org
contributes to the knowledge on how the social cognitive theory developed by Bandura functions in the
collectivist societies wherein the efficacy is determined through institutional power. As a methodology, it shows
that structural equation modelling (SEM) is useful in examining leadership hierarchies. Finally, the research
reconstructs educational leadership as an ecosystem and not a hierarchy; teacher efficacy can develop through
unity between control and teamwork.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Our deepest gratitude goes beyond words. First and foremost, we extend our sincere appreciation to the members
of the UTM Real Estate Department for their invaluable guidance and insightful advice throughout the
development of this project. We also wish to express our appreciation to the Teacher Training and Education
Faculty, Universitas Lampung, Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, for their continuous academic and institutional
support. Furthermore, we are grateful to the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and
suggestions, which have greatly improved this work. Nevertheless, any remaining shortcomings are solely our
responsibility and should not reflect on these esteemed individuals or institutions.
REFERENCES
1. Anandi, R. P., Sumintono, B., Zailaini, M. A., & Syafitri, R. (2024, August). Using Rasch Model to
Assess the Foreign Language Speaking Anxiety Scale (FLSAS) Among University Students in Salatiga,
Indonesia. In Pacific-Rim Objective Measurement Symposium (PROMS 2023) (pp. 97-109). Atlantis
Press.
2. Bandura, A. (Ed.). (1997). Self-efficacy in changing societies. Cambridge university press
3. Bass, B. M., & Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. Psychology press.
4. Deris, F. D., Noor, N. A. M., Rahman, M. S. A., Ismail, A., & Kassim, F. A. I. (2025). Enhancing English
Communication Skills Among Terengganu Athletes for Sports Engagement. International Journal of
Research and Innovation in Social Science, 9(2), 1369-1378.
5. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments,
empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational researcher, 33(3), 3-13.
6. Halim, R. A., & Ahmad, H. (2016). Distributed leadership, contextual factor and teachers’ self-efficacy
in Malaysia. Educational Leader (Pemimpin Pendidikan), 4, 31-38.
7. Hallinger, P., Liu, S., Aung, P. N., & Yan, M. (2025). A systematic review of instructional leadership
research conducted with the Principal Instructional Management Rating Scale (PIMRS), 1983–
2024. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 17411432251358575.
8. Haq, H. (2024). Evaluation of the implementation of the merdeka belajar curriculum in secondary schools
in the digital era. International Journal of Post Axial: Futuristic Teaching and Learning, 215-228.
9. Hariri, H., Mukhlis, H., Nurwahidin, M., & Rusdiani, A. (2024). Transformational Teacher Leadership:
Self-Perception of Primary Education Teachers in Indonesia. Journal of Education and e-Learning
Research, 11(4), 727-736
10. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School leadership &
management, 40(4), 243-247.
11. Karakose, T., Kardas, A., Kanadlı, S., Tülübaş, T., & Yildirim, B. (2024). How collective efficacy
mediates the association between principal instructional leadership and teacher self-efficacy: Findings
from a meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) study. Behavioral Sciences, 14(2), 85.
12. Kılınç, A., Ceylan, H., Demir, M., & Emre, İ. (2022). Investigation of the effects of school principals'
instructional leadership behaviors on teachers' self-efficacy according to teachers' views. International
Journal of Scholars in Education, 6(1), 130-149.
13. Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching effectiveness: A
meta-analysis. Educational research review, 12, 59-76.
14. Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed
leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and
teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430-453.
15. Mayan, M. P., & Mansor, M. (2021). distributive leadership practices and teachers’ self-efficacy in
national school, Selangor: Kepimpinan Distributif dan Efikasi Kendiri Guru-Guru di Sekolah
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025
Page 4917 www.rsisinternational.org
Kebangsaan, Negeri Selangor. Management Research Journal, 10, 12-23.
16. Shal, T., Ghamrawi, N., Abu-Tineh, A., Al-Shaboul, Y. M., & Sellami, A. (2024). Teacher leadership
and virtual communities: Unpacking teacher agency and distributed leadership. Education and
Information Technologies, 29(12), 15025-15042.
17. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Sherer, J., & Coldren, A. F. (2004). Distributing leadership. Developing
leadership: Creating the schools of tomorrow, 37-49.
18. Thien, L. M., & Yeap, S. B. (2023). Configuring effects of learning-centred leadership in promoting
teacher professional learning and teacher self-efficacy. Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 17411432231211431.
19. Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student
academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational
research, 86(4), 981-1015.