The Mediation Effect of Psychological Safety on the Relation between Distributed Leadership and Psychological Safety

YENER,Serdar (2015). The Mediation Effect of Psychological Safety on the Relation between Distributed Leadership and Psychological Safety. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Halic University,Istanbul,2015.

ABSTRACT

The main purpose of this study is to analyze and explain the mediation effect of psychological safety on the relation between distributed leadership and turnover intention on the basis of the theories A review of the related literature was used to collect from primary and secondary sources information on distributed leadership, psychological safety and turnover intention. In order to be able to do that, with the help of the key words consisted of distributed leadership, psychological safety and turnover intention. These phenomenons havent been studied together before and it is the first study in this area. The research was applied to 326 participants, who have different positions ase principals, vice principals and teachers within 7 private secondary schools in the city of Konya, Turkey. Non-parametric analysing methods such as Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests and PLS regression tests were also conducted to prop up the results of the questionnaires. The results suggest that distributed leadership and psychological safety have significant effects on turnover intention. And Psycholgical Safety is a meadiator variant on the relation between Distributed Leadership and Turnover Intention.

1. INTRODUCTION

In the midst of changing and flexible education environment, parties of education have

been struggling to achieve their peak conditions. Parents, principals and a variety of

educational professionals merge their experience and often use comprehensive methods to

increase the positive output of education process (Bennett, et al.,2003, Collinson, 2007).

Education combines parties whom need to coordinate their efforts. Therefore,

governments interests are rising in this area concerning the future human capital of nations.

Bureaucrats have to consider the outcomes of the contemporary researches on education in

order to scheme relevant policies accordingly. Principals and teachers have to feedback with

outcomes of these policies after practicing them in school. At this stage, bureaucrats have to

take precautions while these policies are processing to achieve better educational standards

(Collinson, 2007).

Schools exist in a rapidly changing economic, social, and political environment.

Schools need to reflect on this changing environment and its implications for teaching

practice, curriculum design, and behavior management. Leadership teams in schools have to

provide an opportunity for building strong leadership for learning that can respond to the

rapid pace of change, and address the many very real challenges that present themselves. Also

governments have to provides a wide variety of ideas and activities designed to aid leaders

building leadership teams that can effectively focus on what should be the core activity of

schools: advancing equity and excellence in student learning

A central assumption is that leadership for learning is advanced by clearly defining

leader roles and responsibilities, providing mentorship, training and support to carry out these

roles, and providing opportunities for participation in collaborative teams that provide a

supportive context for building leadership and problem-solving capacities. The activities and

suggestions provided can be used selectively or customized to reflect each schools specific

context and needs (Ever, 2010). But Unfortunately, many schools still need an internal

capacity for learning the capacity to engage in and sustain all members of the school

community with the shared purpose of improving student learning (Higgins et al. 2012) . In

order to realize significant improvements in student learning, leaders need to consider

schools as learning organizations as organizations capable of supporting the learning of all

members and of continually improving practice. In order to understand organizational

learning, leaders need to consider several building blocks, supportive learning environment,

concrete learning processes and practices and leadership that reinforces learning (Garwin et

al., 2008).

1.1. Distributed Leadership

Distributed Perspective of Leadership in schools has been foreground for 15 years as a

policy in some of the western countries (Evers, 2010). Distributed Leadership is offering

learners an analytical perspective to school administration. Principals have to share their

power and responsibilities with sub-ordinates equivalent to their abilities in different areas of

education and administration. Followed by other staffs in school, they have to be supported

and obeyed as they are in charge, for the sake of education process (Gronn, 2008; Harris,

2008; Spillane, 2006)

Leadership activity is distributed in the interaction of leaders, followers, and their

situation; and is related predominantly to the distribution of practice. Situation is a significant

factor underpinning and resultant of leadership activity. Aspects of the situation facilitate or

limit leadership activity. Leaders work is impacted on by a range of artifacts. These artifacts

range from tools, such as memos, meeting agendas, computer & policies to more abstract

things such as workday schedules. A distributed perspective on leadership seeks to identify

the artifacts that are relevant to leadership practice and differentiate the way that these

characterize and are characterized by leadership activity (Spillane, 2004, 2005; Spillane et al.

2009, 2010)

Figure 1. Spillanes Distributed Leadership Model

James SpillanesDistributed Leadership Model

LEADERSHP PRACTICE

LEADER

SITUATIONFOLLOWER

Another view about distributed leadership was theoritized by Gronn in 2002

(Fitzsimons, 2011). Gronn (2002) offered two models of distributed leadership. First model

is a numeric or additive view in which distributed leadership is the sum of its parts - the

aggregate of attributed influence in a group of individuals in which any member can exercise

leadership this corresponds to what Spillane calls shared leadership. Second Model

describes distributed leadership as concertive action. Distributed leadership construed as

concertive action suggests a more holistic view in which leadership is demonstrated through

synergies achieved through joint action. Gronn describes three spontaneously emerging types

of concertive distributed leadership - all of which are characterized by what he calls conjoint

agency. These are spontaneous collaboration, intuitive working relations and institutionalized

practice. Together they represent an increasing degree of institutionalization ranging from

unplanned emerging collaborations which may be short term to formalized organizational

structures such as the senior executive team which functions as a leadership team for the

whole organization (Gronn 2002). These distinctions are similar to Spillanes description of

collaborated, collective and co-ordinated distribution. Spillane prefers the term co-

performance to Gronns conjoint agency arguing that joint agency suggests the mutual

agreement of goals between individuals whereas co-performance in Spillanes terms allows

for the possibility that those performing a practice might intentionally or unintentionally

pursue different or contrary goals ( Fitzsimmons, 2011).

1.2. Psychological Safety

Psychological Safety is a new phenomenon in organisations. Submitting the

perception of interpersonal psychological mood of a member of an organisation, when sharing

his/her ideas, expressing him/her, offering innovations for the sake of organization.

When a team is psychologically safe, team members expect that their teammates will

treat them with respect and acceptance; they will not be embarrassed or punished by their

peers if they express their views or display weaknesses. Psychological safety has two

beneficial effects (Schulte et al., 2010). First, it allows self-expression and personal

engagement . Individuals who feel psychologically safe are more likely to bring their personal

voice, creativity, feelings, and self-concepts into their work roles (Kahn 1990). Second,

psychological safety promotes learning, which enhances team effectiveness in long period

(Edmondson 1999, 2006 ).

Psychological safety refers to shared beliefs among work unit members that it is safe

for them to engage in interpersonal risk taking (Edmondson, 1999). According to

Edmondson, psychological safety goes beyond perceiving and experiencing high levels of

interpersonal trust; it also describes a work climate characterized by mutual respect, one in

which people are comfortable expressing their differences. Leaders are pivotal for removing

the constraints that often discourage followers from expressing their concerns and other ideas.

Mental Health Commission of Canada (MHCC) suggess that the the principles which

are shown below to enhance the level of psychological safety level in organizations. These 13

factors aim to help organizations think about the current state of their own workplace:

Organizational culture is a mix of norms, values, beliefs, meanings and expectations

that group members hold in common and that they use as behavioural and problem-

solving cues.

Psychological and social support refers to the degree of social and emotional

integration and trust, as well as the level of help and assistance provided by co-

workers and supervisors. Equally important are workers perception and awareness of

support.

Clear leadership and expectations are present when leadership is effective and

provides support that helps workers know what they need to do, explains how their

work contributes to the organization, and discusses the nature and expected outcomes

of impending changes.

Civility and respect are based on showing esteem, care and consideration for others.

Psychological demands of any given job are documented and assessed to determine

whether any given activity might be a hazard to the workers health and well-being

and then risks are minimized through work redesign, analysis of work systems, risk

assessment, etc.

Growth and development is present in a work environment when a range of internal

and external opportunities for workers to build their repertoire of competencies,

through encouragement, support and job skills development, is provided.

Recognition and reward is present in a work environment where there is appropriate

acknowledgement and appreciation of workers efforts in a fair and timely manner.

Improvement and influence is present in a work environment where workers are

included in discussions about how their work is done and how important decisions are

made.

Workload management is present in a work environment where tasks and

responsibilities can be accomplished successfully within the time available.

*Canadians describe this as being the biggest workplace stressor.

Engagement is present when policies, practices, and procedures are in place to ensure

workers enjoy and feel connected to their work and where they feel motivated to do

their job well. Engagement can be measured on a physical, emotional, and/or

cognitive level (or all 3).

Balance is present in a work environment where there is acceptance of the need for

harmony between the demands of personal life, family and work.

Psychological protection is present when workers feel able to put themselves on the

line, ask questions, seek feedback, report mistakes and problems, or propose a new

idea without fearing negative consequences to themselves, their job or their career.

Protection of physical safety is present when a workers psychological, as well as

physical safety, is protected from hazards and risks related to the physical

environment.

1.3. Turnover Intention

Turnover is the process through which staff leave a business or organization and that

business or organization replaces them. Turnover intention is a measurement of whether a

business' or organization's employees plan to leave their positions or whether that

organization plans to remove employees from positions. Turnover intention, like turnover

itself, can be either voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary turnover occurs when the employee

makes the decision to leave on his own. Usually, voluntary turnover intention occurs when

the employee perceives another opportunity as better than his current position. This includes

more pay, more recognition or a more convenient location. It can also occur when the

employee has to leave for health or family reasons. If an employee plans to voluntarily retire

from a position, that's voluntary turnover intention, too (Allen et al., 2005)

High turnover intention is the last phase of the job quitting process. High employee

turnover rates are often a major problem in private schools. turnover costs including

recruiting, selecting, and training costs, lost productivity, loss of high performers and high

potential talent can be very costly for organizations, a critical source of competitive

advantage, organizations long-term competitive concern, better retention management based

on improved prediction of turnover considerable benefits for organizations

The Phenomenon of stress among educational institutes in the Western countries has

been supported by many studies. In these researches the factors below cause turnover

intention (Jain, 2013) .

Insufficient funding and resources,

Work overload,

Poor management practice,

Job insecurity,

Insufficient recognition and reward.

The role erosion,

Role overload,

Resource inadequacy, and

Role ambiguity

Private schools are organisations where high commercial concerns are expected while

conducting educational duties. Principals and owners of private schools have to follow

business principles. Consequently, private school owners and principals have to balance both

their business and teaching responsibilities. In this research, the effect of distributed

leadership to the turnover intention and mediation effect of psychological safety in private

area were examined. These phenomenons havent been studied together before and it is the

first study in this area.

2. Research Focus and Hypotheses

As noted, this research is grounded in three phenomenons identified in the literature.

Distributed Leadership, Psychological Safety and Turnover Intention.

The results of turnover intention studies show that reasons that beyond cause stress

and stress cause turnover intention. Theories of distributed leadership and psychological

safety offer a organization in where members dont experience organization related stress.

Educational Institutes must continue to provide services which are based on strategies created

by employees. These employees are extremely crucial to the organisation since their value to

the Institute is essentially important and can not be replaced (Jain, 2003).

Research problem is The Mediation effect of Psychological Safety on the Relation

between Distributed Leadership and Psychological Safety.

The first hypothesis (H1) proposes that Distributed Leadership behaviours in a school

will be negatively related to turnover intention. Based upon researches, we suggest that the

distributed leadership offers a school environment that reduce work related stress that reduce

turnover intention.

Second hypothesis (H2) proposes that positive Psychological Safety perception in

school will result in low levels of turnover intention.

Third hypothesis (H3) proposes that positive distributed leadershep wil be positively

related to positive psychological safety

3. Methods

3.1. Participants and Procedures

The research was applied to 326 participants, who have different positions which are

principals, vice principals and teachers within 7 private secondary schools in the city of

Konya, Turkey. The population of this research is 577 persons up to statistics of Ministry of

Education in 2014. 350 questionnaires were send but 336 of them were feed backed. 10 were

rejected because of filling errors. 326 questionnaires were used to analyze to get the outcomes

of this research. Therefore, the sample is 210 respondents. Data for the present study came

from 312 employees and their 14 principals and vice principals. located in the cith of Konya /

Turkey. we considered employees to be members of a schools group when they had the

same supervisor. The supervisors 3 of 14 were women, The supervisors were, 7.1 % were 26-

33 age group, 35,7 % were 34-41 age group 57,1 were 42-49 age group. The employees

were, % 17,2 were in 18-25 age group, 30,4 % were 26-33 age group, 32.2 % were 34-41

age group, 18,1 % were 42-49 age group and 1.5 % were over 50 age group. All participants

had at least a high school education and had been employed by the schools for at least 1 year.

3.2. Measurements

Non-parametric analysing methods such as Mann-Whitney tests, Kruskal-Wallis tests

and PLS regression tests were also conducted to prop up the results of the questionnaires.

Distributed Leadership Scale done by Beyciolu was used as research scale in validity and

reliability analyses. It is a 10 item Likert scale with a 0.89 Cronbach Alpha. The concept of

Distributed Leadership was first used and researched by Prof. Dr. James Spillane from North-

western University. He was contacted to find out about his opinions about the relationship

among turnover intention and psychological safety.

Psychological safety scale validity and reliability analyses were done by Prof. Amy C.

Edmondson from Harvard University and translated into Turkish. She was the first person to

use this concept in literature. She has been contacted for permission to use her scale about the

research. She confirmed and supported the research. It was a 7 item scale with a 0.75

Cronbach Alpha.

Turnover Intention Scale is a 3 item scale and formed by Belks enyz with a 0. 95

Cronbach Alpha. Requesting respondents to indicate their degrees of agreement with these

statements, we tried to ascertain the respondents perceptions of distributed leadership.

Identifying the highlighted key issues as fundamentals of this practice, distributed

leadership and its relation to turnover intention and mediation effect of psychological safety

in this relation were analysed from a normative perspective, based on the literature findings in

Chapter 1.

4. Findings and Results

In order to find to use parametric or non parametric tests Normality test is conducted.

As shown in table 1 the results confirmed that the datas have normality.

One-Sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test

PsiGuvOrt PayLidOrt stenayrort

N 326 326 326

Mean 2,7187 2,4294 3,3896 Normal Parametersa

Std. Deviation ,65555 ,86873 1,55775

Absolute ,062 ,064 ,228

Positive ,048 ,064 ,169

Most Extreme Differences

Negative -,062 -,050 -,228

Kolmogorov-Smirnov Z 1,116 1,150 4,111

Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) ,166 ,142 ,000

a. Test distribution is Normal.

Then Homogenity (ANOVA) test conducted and test results are below.

Table 2. Homogenity Test

ANOVA

Turnover Intention

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 571,809 35 16,337 21,851 ,000

Within Groups 216,826 290 ,748

Total 788,636 325

The results show that the distribution doesnt have homogenity. So we couldnt use

parametric analysing methods.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive Statistics

Mean Std. Deviation N

PsSafeMean 2.7187 .65555 326

DisLeadMean 2.4294 .86873 326

TurnoverIntMean 3.3896 1.55775 326

As seen in table 3, Psychological Safety Perception gets 2,7187 mean score and it means

that , participants responded as Undecided to Psychological Safety Perception Scale.

Distributed leadership gets a mean score of 2,4294 it shows that , participants responded as

Agree to Distributed Leadership Scale Questions so it means that participants think that

principals and vice principals bleadership as Distributed Leadership view. Turnover Intention

gets 3.3896 mean score shows that participants dont have turnover intention.

These results suggest that participating teachers felt leadership in their schools was

distributed. These results showed that participants trust in their colleagues and principals. Table 4. Correlations

Correlations

PsychologicalSafety Distributed Leader TurnoverIntention

Corre.Coeff. 1.000 .519** -.389**

Sig. (2-tailed) . .000 .000 Psychological

Safety

N 326 326 326

Corre. Coeff. .519** 1.000 -.799**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 . .000 Distributed

Leadership N 326 326 326

Corre. Coeff. -.389** -.799** 1.000

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .

Spea

rman

's r

ho

Turnover

Intention N 326 326 326

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Correlation analyses of the data showed that distributed leadership behavior was

positively related to psychological safety preception (r=.519) and negatively correlated to

turnover intention (r=-.799). Psyhological safety perception was negatively related to

turonver intention (r=-.389).

According to PLS (Partial Least Squares) Analyses findings supported our hyptheses.

There has to 3 requirements to support moderation effect in research Baron and Kenny

(1986). A Mediator is a variable that affects or modifies the relationship between predictor

(Independent variable) and dependent variable.. In a conceptual sense, if psychological safety

is a Mediator, it interacts with the predictor (Distributd leadership) to alter, decrease or

vanish the effect of the latter variable on the response Turnover Intention .

Independent variable has to predict dependent variable significantly.

Independent variable has to predict Mediator variable.

Mediator variable has to predict dependent variable.

Finally, the effect of independent variable on dependent variable has to decrease

(preferably to non-significant, but not usually that far) when Mediator is added.

Figure 2. The Effect of Distributed Leadership on Turnover Intention

T

The results of first regression test shows that Distributed Leadership Behaviours

(Independent Variable) affect Turnover Intention (Dependent Variable) perceptions positive

and significantly (= -0,84, p

In third phase Psychological Safety (Mediator) affect Turnover Intention (Dependent

Variable) negatively and significantly (= -.13; p

should ensure that each member has a clear, shared sense direction and purpose. When

principals promote participation in project activities and identify the organizational contexts,

distributed leadership and knowledge sharing are most likely to positively influence effective

learning .

References

Allen, David G., Weeks, Kelly P. and Moffitt, Karen R. (2005) Turnover intentions and voluntary turnover : the moderating roles of self-monitoring, locus of control, proactive personality, and risk aversion. Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 90 (Number 5)

Baron,R.M. ve Kenny,D.A.(1986).The Mediator_Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual,Strategic and Statistical Considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.1986,51,6.1173-1182

Bennett,N. Wise, C. Woods, P.A and Harvey, J.A (2003). Distributed Leadership Review, National College for School Leadership. Eriim Tarihi 20 Ocak 2014. The Open Universtiy,UK. Collinson,D. (2007).Distributed and Shared Leadership,Lancaster,UK. CEA veri taban. Edmondson,A.C.(1999). Psychological Safety and Learning Behavior in Work Teams, Administrative Science Quarterly,Jun 1999,44,2. 350-384. Edmondson,A.C.(2002) Managing the Risk of Learning Psychological in Work Teams, Eriim Tarihi 20 ubat 2014, Sciencedirect veritaban. Edmonson,A.C.(2003),Psychological Safety,Trust and Learning in Organizations, A-Group Level Lens, Eriim Tarihi 20 ubat 2014, Sciencedirect Veritaban

Eggers,J.T.(2010) Psychological Safety Influences Relationship Behaviour.Eriim Tarihi 20 ubat 2014, Sciencedirect veritaban.

Fitzsimons, D. (2011) Alternative Approaches for Studying Shared and Distributed Leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13,3 ,313-328.

Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard Business Review, 86(3), 109-116.

Grant, C.P.(2011). The Relationship between Distributed Leadership and Principal's Leadership Effectiveness in North Carolina. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. The Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina.

Gronn,P. (2002) Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 13,2002,423-451.

Harris,A. (2012). Distributed Leadership; Implications for the Role of the Principal. Journal of Management Development 31,2012, 7-17.

Harris,A. Spillane, J. (2008).Distributed Leadership through the Looking Glass. Management in Education 22 22-31.

Higgins,M.,Ishimaru,A.,Holcombe,R. and Fowler,A. (2014). Examining Organizational Learning in Schools The Role of Psychological Safety, Experimentation and Leadership that reinforces Learning,

Jain,S. (2013). The Cause of Turnover Intention in the Employees of Educational Institutes. Tactful Management Research Journal 1,7,2013.

Johnston,N. and Spinks W. (2013) Organisational Climate and Employee Turnover Intention within a Franchise System, Journal of New Business Ideas&Trends (2013) 11,1,20-41.

Kahn W.A. (1990) .Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal; Dec 1990;33,4, 692-725,

Liu, S., Hu,J., Li,Y. Wang.Z.,Lin,X. (2014) Examining th Cross-Level Relationship Between Shared Leadership and Learning in Teams Evidence from China. The Leadership Quarterly 25,2014,282-295.

Medina,E.(2012). Job Satisfaction and Employee Turnover Intention What Does Organizational Culture Have to do with it,Columbia University,.

Schepers,J.,Jong,a.,Wetzels,M. ve Ruyter,K. (2007) Psychological Safety and Social Support in Gropuware Adoption. A Multi-level Assessment in education. Computers and Education 51(2008).757-775.

Spillane,J. , Diamond,J. Jita,L. (2001) Leading Instruction The Distribution of Leadership for Instruction Northwestern University.Journal of Curriculum Studies. 2001. http://www.letus.org/dls/index.htm

Spillane,P.J. Halverson,R.,Diamond, John (2004). Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice; A Distributed Perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies. 1, 3-34.

Spillane, J.P. and Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using logs to study the practice of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly: 375-423.

Spillane,J.P. and Healey,K. (2010) Conceptualizing School Leadership and Management from a Distributed Perspective. The Elementary School Journal 111,2012, 253-281

Spillane, J.P., Pareja, A., Dorner, L., Barnes, C., May, H., Huff, J. and Camburn, E. (2010). Mixing methods in randomized controlled trials (RCTs): Validation, Contextualization, Triangulation, and Control. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability.

Spillane, J.P., Parise, L.M. and Sherer, J.Z. (2011). Organizational Routines as Coupling Mechanisms: Policy, School Administration, and the Technical Core. American Educational Research Journal: 48,3, 586-620.

Schulte,M., Cohen,N.A. and Klein,K.J.(2010). The Coevolution of Network Ties and Perceptions of Team Psychological Safety.Organization Science.2010.1-18

Stoll, L. (1999). Realising our potential: Understanding and developing capacity for lasting improvement. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10(4), 503-532.

enyz, P. B. (2003): rgtsel Balla Etki Eden Faktrler ve rgtsel Ballk le ten Ayrlma Eilimi likisi zerine Bir Aratrma, Gebze: Gebze Yksek Teknoloji Enst. Sosyal Bilimler Enst. letme Anabilim Dal Doktora Tezi.

Kahn W.A. (1990) .Psychological Conditions of Personal Engagement and Disengagement at Work. Academy of Management Journal; Dec 1990;33,4, 692-725,

AGE * EDUCATION Crosstabulation

Education Degree

High

School

Bachelor Master Degree PhD

Total

Count 0 51 5 0 56 18-25

% of Total 0,0% 15,6% 1,5% 0,0% 17,2%

Count 2 84 13 0 99 26-33

% of Total 0,6% 25,8% 4,0% 0,0% 30,4%

Count 3 92 11 1 107 34-41

% of Total 0,9% 28,2% 3,4% 0,3% 32,8%

Count 0 48 11 0 59 42-49

% of Total 0,0% 14,7% 3,4% 0,0% 18,1%

Count 0 5 0 0 5

Age

50 and Over % of Total 0,0% 1,5% 0,0% 0,0% 1,5%

Count 5 280 40 1 326 Total

% of Total 1,5% 85,9% 12,3% 0,3% 100,0%

Gender * Position Crosstabulation

Position

Principal- Vice

Principal

Teacher

Total

Count 3 167 170 Female

% of Total 0,9% 51,2% 52,1%

Count 11 145 156 Gender

Male % of Total 3,4% 44,5% 47,9%

Count 14 312 326 Total

% of Total 4,3% 95,7% 100,0%

Gender * Education Degree Crosstabulation

Education Degree

High

School

Bachelor Master Degree PhD

Total

Count 3 141 26 0 170 Female

% of Total 0,9% 43,3% 8,0% 0,0% 52,1%

Count 2 139 14 1 156 Gender

Male % of Total 0,6% 42,6% 4,3% 0,3% 47,9%

Count 5 280 40 1 326 Total

% of Total 1,5% 85,9% 12,3% 0,3% 100,0%

Hypotheses Results

H1 Positive Distributed Leadership behaviours in a school will be negatively related to turnover intention.

CONFIRMED

H2 Positive Psychological Safety perception in school

will result in low levels of turnover intention.

CONFIRMED

H3 Positive distributed leadershep wil be positively related

to positive psychological safety

CONFIRMED