The mediating role of meaning at work in promoting teacher commitment and reducing burnout

Abstract

The influence of teachers’ commitment and burnout on student learning outcomes and their performance requires astute research to identify the antecedent factors of these two variables. Commitment and burnout are peremptorily related to the positive and negative aspects of performance, respectively. Most of the previous research showed inconsistency; therefore, a new assay is needed to produce more convincing findings. This study aims to identify the antecedent variables of teachers’ commitment and job burnout by using meaning at work as a mediating variable. Based on the convenience sampling technique, 304 respondents were selected among the teachers in private primary and secondary education levels in the East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. A structural equation model (SEM) was used in the data analysis. The results showed that school support, self-actualization, and meaning at work were antecedent variables for teachers’ commitment and burnout. The meaning at work also mediates the relationship between school support and self-actualization. Meanwhile, the remaining four mediating roles were not proven in this research. These findings offer a framework for principals to increase commitment and reduce teachers’ burnout by increasing school support and self-actualization through meaning at work.

Introduction

The empirical evidence of teacher’s role in student learning outcome (Aliakbari and Amoli, 2016) requires an astute research on the collection of factors associated with a successful educational system (Faskhodi and Siyyari, 2018). A productive teacher has certain characteristics; however, previous research has succeeded in indicating various related variables, such as commitment (Tran et al., 2020) and burnout (Hakanen and Schaufeli, 2012), which greatly influence the performance of student learning outcomes (Lee et al., 2011). The personal intervention related to the two variables has a positive effect on their performance and on student learning achievement (Van Wingerden et al., 2017). Commitment and burnout are in correlation with the positive and negative aspects of teachers’ performance (Madigan and Kim, 2021).

Commitment is important in maintaining professional motivation and promoting teachers to be responsive to changes in learning practices (Han et al., 2016) and is further classified into two, namely organizational and professional aspects (Lee and Nie, 2014; Ni, 2017). Organizational commitment is the relative strength of teacher’s involvement and the willingness to make sacrificial efforts on behalf of the school (Han et al., 2016). Professional commitment describes the teacher’s involvement level and the importance of work rendered in general. This research (McInerney et al., 2015) also explained that commitment, both affective and normative, predicts wellbeing, growth opportunities, recognition, and job satisfaction. Contrary to commitment which is a positive aspect of teaching, tutors’ burnout is a variable that reduces negative elements related to other performance. Research (Iancu et al., 2018) stated that burnout manifests in all types of work, but it is mainly experienced by teachers because their daily job demands and pressures (McCarthy et al., 2016).

Teachers’ burnout is associated with multiple experiences and negative outcomes. The teaching profession is reported as a job with a high risk of burnout (Madigan and Curran, 2021). In the work environment, they often face challenges, such as getting cynicism from co-workers or unpleasant treatment. Emotional exhaustion and mood swings eventually lead to burnout (Hakanen et al., 2006; Capone et al., 2019). This provides a lower impetus in responding to student learning achievements (Madigan and Kim, 2021). Teachers also tend to have a negative relationship with students, for example, getting angry when pupils do not follow instructions and have contradicting views (Pietsch et al., 2019). The burnout that occurs also affects the probability of staying in the job (Ibrahim et al., 2017). This is because it leads to increased absenteeism, lower work commitment, and enhanced desire (Brouwers and Tomic, 2000). Teachers’ fatigue also has an impact on students through a contagion effect, where burnout passes from tutors to their pupils (Bakker and Schaufeli, 2000), because learners have a tendency to pick up and imitate emotional cues (Chung, 2019). This implies that students also face direct consequences of burnout, such as decreased achievement (Madigan and Curran, 2021), increased forms of controlled motivation (Zhang and Bartol, 2010), and depression (IsHak et al., 2013). Due to the significance of teachers’ commitment and burnout on their performance and pupils’ achievement, the antecedents of these two variables are required to be determined.

This research outlined three independent variables, namely transformational leadership, school support, and self-actualization, which are predicted to affect teachers’ commitment and job burnout. The empirical relationship between these variables was investigated, but there are still inconsistencies in the results of these studies. In research that expressed transformational leadership as an independent variable, the majority of the results showed a positive effect on teacher commitment. In line with these findings, Pietsch et al. (2019) stated that “teachers who feel that their principals have better understanding of their intrinsic needs, recognize their abilities, develop, and empower them individually are more strongly committed to their schools than their peers.” Research with similar results stated that transformational leadership predicts commitment to both organizational and professional commitment (Jeong et al., 2016; Ibrahim et al., 2017; Chung, 2019; Khumalo, 2019; Hosseingholizadeh et al., 2020; Qadach et al., 2020; To et al., 2021). The principal’s role as a transformational leader is key in ensuring teacher commitment (Berkovich and Eyal, 2017). Other results (Jeong et al., 2016; Cansoy, 2018; Ninkoviæ and Floriæ, 2018; Zacharo et al., 2018) also showed that when principals act as transformational leaders, teachers feel a higher commitment to the school. Head teacher who applies leadership that builds positive relationships affects commitment (Almandeel and Dawood, 2019) and negatively impacts burnout (Eslamieh and Mohammad Davoudi, 2016). Principal and teacher relationships increase work commitment (Bogler and Nir, 2012). Although many results showed that there is a significant effect of transformational leadership on teachers’ commitment and burnout, Freeman and Fields (2020) explored the relationship between teachers’ perceptions of principals’ leadership and commitment. The results showed that transformational leadership was uniquely associated with organizational trust and efficacy, but not with teachers’ commitment. In addition, similar research was also conducted by Cahyono et al. (2020); although the context is slightly different, it showed that, among the four transformational leadership sub-variables, only one affects teachers’ commitment (namely intellectual stimulation), while the other three sub-variables (ideal effect, inspirational motivation, and individual considerations) do not affect organizational commitment in higher education. This trend is also supported by Ling et al. (2013), although it has a correlation between transformational leadership and teachers’ commitment, but it has a weak effect.

The influence of the second independent variable (school support) on teachers’ commitment and burnout also contains inconsistencies. Most research showed that employee perceived support is positively related to adaptability and negatively related to burnout and disengagement (Collie et al., 2018). Organizational support has an impact on several indicators of employee performance, such as decreased absenteeism and increased commitment and job satisfaction (Johlke et al., 2002). Support and quality of leader relationships affect teachers’ commitment and burnout (Ford et al., 2019). Perceived organizational support (POS) serves to meet socio-emotional needs (e.g., rewards, affiliation, and emotional support) and leads to affective commitment (Allen and Meyer, 1990). POS, which involves employees’ perception that the organization values their contributions and cares about their wellbeing, is the most strongly associated work experience with the emotional attachment to the establishment (Kim et al., 2016). However, little is known about the effect of POS on education (Bogler and Nir, 2012), which is similar to the self-actualization variable. Several studies have stated that self-actualization affects organizational commitment (Gopinath and Litt, 2020; Gopinath, 2021b), but there is no very convincing empirical evidence about this relationship. Based on the inconsistency of independent influence on the dependent variable, this research used meaning at work as a mediating factor. This is predicted to mediate between the three independent variables on the two dependents.

Based on the above background, this research aims to (1) investigate the effect of transformational leadership, school support, and self-actualization on meaning at work, (2) examine the impact of transformational leadership, school support, self-actualization, and the meaning at work on teachers’ commitment and burnout, and (3) determine whether the meaning at work mediates this relationship. These results contribute (1) to filling the gap in the literature on the relationship between teachers’ commitment, burnout, and the meaning at work, because there is few empirical research that examines the antecedents and consequences of meaning at work. (2) Based on the education management perspective, teachers’ commitment and burnout are important outcomes of school support, transformational leadership, and self-actualization. Given the importance of commitment and the low level of burnout in education, school management should maintain the commitment by minimizing teachers’ burnout. Furthermore, (3) this research used the meaning at work as a mediator; in respect to this model, schools have more opportunities to recruit productive teachers with the assurance of school support and recognizing the teaching profession as meaningful work. The research model scheme is represented in Figure 1.

FIGURE 1

Based on the research model scheme described in Figure 1, the research hypothesis is formulated as follows:

H1: School transformational leadership increases the teacher’s meaning at work.

H2: School support increases the teacher’s meaning at work.

H3: Self-actualization increases the teacher’s meaning at work.

H4: Meaning at work increases teachers’ commitment.

H5: The meaning reduces their burnout.

H6a: Meaning at work mediates the positive influence of school transformational leadership on teaching commitment.

H6b: Meaning at work mediates the positive effect of school support on teaching commitment.

H6c: Meaning at work mediates the positive effect of self-actualization on teaching commitment.

H6d: Meaning at work mediates the negative effect of self-actualization on the burnout.

H6e: Meaning at work mediates the negative effect of school support on the burnout.

H6f: Meaning at work mediates the negative effect of transformational leadership on the burnout.

Materials and methods

Research population and sample

Population is the unit of analysis of which the characteristics are predicted while having more or less similar features. This was the private elementary school (SD)/madrasah ibtidaiyah (islamic elementary school (MI) teachers [SD/MI, junior high school (SMP)/madrasah tsanawiyah (islamic junior high school (MTs), and senior high school (SMA)/madrasah aliyah (islamic senior high school (MA)] in East Kalimantan Province, Indonesia. The sample was also determined through a convenience sampling technique (Farrokhi and Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, 2012; Etikan, 2016), where 304 teachers were selected for participation with the demographics described in Table 1.

Research instrument

The data collection instrument was carried out using six types of questionnaires representing each research variable, namely (a) the principal transformational leadership adopted from Bass and Riggio (2010), (b) the school support obtained from Lam et al. (2010), (c) student self-actualization adopted from Robbins and Judge (2009), (d) meaning at work obtained from Steger and Duffy (Steger et al., 2012), (e) teachers’ commitment adopted from Allen and Meyer (1990), and (f) teachers’ burnout level obtained from Dorman (2003). Each variable was developed into several indicators as described in Table 2. The questionnaire was made using a Likert scale from a score of 1–5, with the information collected in the form of interval data. The score of 1 is for “strongly disagree,” 2 for “disagree,” 3 for “undecided,” 4 for “agree,” and 5 for “strongly agree.” These are different for negative statements, that is, a score of 5 for “strongly disagree,” 4 for “disagree,” 3 for “undecided,” 2 for “agree,” and 1 for “strongly agree.” Google forms were also used to facilitate the distribution and filling of questionnaires to the participants.

Data collection procedure

Coordinations were conducted with the heads of the city and district education offices in East Kalimantan to obtain experimental permits before data collection. This was accompanied by the issuance of a notification letter to the principal, permitting the working team to obtain the required data. The study expert was then assisted by the field technical team in distributing the questionnaires created as a Google form. Through the principal, these instruments were subsequently distributed to teachers for filling. In this questionnaire, an ethical agreement was explained, stating that the experiment was voluntary without any element of coercion.

Data analysis

The data analysis used a structural equation modeling (SEM) with the AMOS application (Collier, 2020). The SEM analysis was used to determine the relationship between the principal transformational leadership, school support, and student self-actualization as exogenous variables with meaning at work as mediating variables and teaching commitment and burnout levels as the endogenous. The considerations for using AMOS as SEM analysis software are (1) the availability of various SEM imaging tools, and (2) accuracy, speed, and ease of AMOS in SEM path analysis (Byrne, 2001). SEM analysis is divided into two, namely the measurement model for explaining the relationship between variables with their indicators, while structural design is used for expressing the relationship between variables (Gerbing and Anderson, 1988). In the AMOS SEM, regression weight output is obtained to determine the acceptable level of the proposed hypothesis.

Findings

Based on data analysis, these findings are divided into three, namely the measurement, structural, and hypothesis model.

Measurement model

The measurement model provides the relationship of values between the observed indicator and the constructs that are designed to be measured (unobserved latent variables). It was analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to produce the validity of the indicator variables (Collier, 2020). The variable indicators described in Table 2 have passed the validity test with CFA analysis on AMOS. The validity of the indicators was determined from the results of the CFA test with the provisions of the CR (critical ratio) >1.96 and probability or p < 0.05. In this research, the validity of each indicator is shown in Table 3.

Critical ratio value >1.96 and probability <0.05 from Table 3 show that each variable indicator has met the validity requirements and reflected the variables. The validity test was also carried out by using the standardized loading estimate or factor >0.5 as shown in Table 4. It shows when the indicator for each variable has exceeded the required loading factor.

Structural model

The structural model describes the relationship between latent variables (Civelek, 2018; Mueller and Hancock, 2018), such as exogenous, mediating, and endogenous. The validity of the structural model is measured by the goodness-of-fit (GOF) value or the feasibility test by using the achievement of the index suitability criteria and the cutoff point (Schumacker, 2017). These indices are GFI, AGFI, CMIN/DF, TLI, CFI, and RMSEA. The GFI and AGFI are references to describe the level of model suitability with a size range of 0 (poor fit) to 1.0 (perfect fit). The GFI and AGFI values are close to 1.0, indicating that the tested model has a good fit (Arbuckle, 2014). The results obtained for the value of GFI 0.915 and AGFI 0.883 proved that the model is a good fit. The CMIN/DF and TLI become indicators to measure the fitness level of the model with the criteria of CMIN/DF 2.0 and TLI 0.95 (Byrne et al., 1989). The analysis indicated the value of CMIN/DF at 1.966 and TLI at 0.935, stating that the criteria for the model acceptance were met. The next two criteria that determine the model acceptance level include (a) the CFI with a value criterion of 0–1, where the closer to 1, the higher the level of acceptance (Arbuckle, 2014), and (b) the RMSEA with criteria of 0.08 (Cudeck and Browne, 1983). The CFI was 0.947 and the RMSEA was 0.058, indicating a high model acceptance level, as described in Table 5.

Based on the analysis as described in Table 5, the resulting research model scheme is represented in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Hypothesis testing

The hypothesis test in the SEM AMOS was carried out using the CR and p-value in the output regression weights table, with the condition that the hypothesis is accepted when the CR value is >1.96 and p < 0.05. The influence between variables is determined by the existing estimate value. The results of the hypothesis testing are shown in Tables 6, 7.

Based on the hypothesis testing shown in Tables 6, 7, the following proofs were obtained:

• 1.

  H1.1: There is an effect of the principal’s transformational leadership on the teacher’s meaning at work. The hypothesis of the effect of TL on meaning at work has a CR value of 0.435 and p 0.663. Therefore, this hypothesis is rejected, because it does not meet the criteria for CR values >1.96 and p < 0.05.

• 2.

  H1.2: There is an effect of school support (SS) on the teacher’s meaning at work. The hypothesis of the effect of SS on meaning at work has a CR value of 2.708 and p 0.007. Therefore, this hypothesis is declared accepted, because it has met the criteria for CR values >1.96 and p < 0.05.

• 3.

  H1.3: There is an effect of self-actualization (SA) on the teacher’s meaning at work (MOW). The hypothesis of the effect of SA on meaning at work has a CR value of 2.188 and p 0.029. Therefore, this hypothesis is accepted, because it has met the criteria for CR > 1.96 and p < 0.05.

• 4.

  H1.4: There is an effect of the teacher’s meaning at work on teaching commitment (TC). The hypothesis of the effect of meaning at work on TC has a CR value of 7.086 and p 0.000. Therefore, this hypothesis is declared accepted, because it meets the criteria for CR value >1.96 and p < 0.05.

• 5.

  H1.5: There is an effect of teacher’s meaning at work on the level of teacher’s burnout (TB). The hypothesis of the effect of meaning at work on TB has a CR value of 6.267 and p 0.000. Therefore, this hypothesis is declared accepted, because it has met the criteria for CR > 1.96 and p < 0.05.

• 6.

  H1.6a: There is an indirect effect of transformational leadership (TL) on the level of teacher’s fatigue (TB) mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is rejected, because the indirect effect of TL on TB mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of −0.045 < 0.000.

• 7.

  H1.6b: There is an indirect effect of transformational leadership on teacher’s commitment (TC) mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is rejected because the indirect effect of TL on TB mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of –0.062 < 0.000.

• 8.

  H1.6c: There is an indirect effect of school support on the level of teacher’s fatigue mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is accepted, because the indirect effect of SS on TB mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of 0.385 > 0.000.

• 9.

  H1.6d: There is an indirect effect of school support (SS) on teaching commitment (TC) mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is rejected, because the indirect effect of SS on TC mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of 0.522 > 0.000.

• 10.

  H1.6c: There is an indirect effect of self-actualization (SA) on the level of teacher’s fatigue (TB) mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is accepted because the indirect effect of SS on TB mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of 0.196 > 0.000.

• 11.

  H1.6d: There is an indirect effect of self-actualization (SA) on teaching commitment (TC) mediated by meaning at work. Based on Table 7, this hypothesis is rejected, because the indirect effect of SS on TC mediated by meaning at work has an estimated value (β) of 0.266 > 0.000.

Discussion

This study aims to identify the antecedent factors of teachers’ commitment and work burnout by using a meaning at work as a mediating variable. The results are divided into two, namely six accepted and five rejected hypotheses. Hypothesis 2 which showed that school support has an effect on teacher’s meaning at work is accepted. Hypothesis 3 which indicated that self-actualization affects the teacher’s meaning at work is accepted. Hypothesis 4 which expressed the effect of teacher’s meaning of work on teaching commitment is accepted. Hypothesis 5 which explained the effect of teacher’s meaning of work on tutor’s burnout is accepted. Meanwhile, six hypothesis which showed the meaning of work mediates the relationship between the antecedent and the consequence variables is partly supported and rejected.

The results indicated that the teacher’s meaning of work has two antecedent factors, namely school support and self-actualization. School support received by teachers is their general perception about how important it is for institutions to contribute to their interests and wellbeing. Teachers who feel they received more support from the organization recognize the efforts. According to the theory of POS, members who received valuable resources from the organization, for example, in the form of salary increment, opportunities to attend training, and various self-development activities, have a higher sense of responsibility in helping to achieve organizational goals, as a form of reciprocation to the organization according to the norm of reciprocity (Neves and Eisenberger, 2014; Kurtessis et al., 2017). Organizational support has an impact on several indicators of employee performance, such as decreased absenteeism, increased commitment, and job satisfaction (Johlke et al., 2002). POS is an indicator of organizational concern (Perrot et al., 2014). It makes members feel that the organization is willing to provide the resources they needed, to support the growth and development in their capacities (Armeli et al., 1998). Based on the conceptual framework of the POS theory, the support felt by teachers from schools is seen as their perception of how the institution values their efforts, cares about their welfare, and appreciates all their performance. Based on the theory (Lee, 2015), this conceptual framework enables teachers to feel positive in carrying out their duties. Feeling positive at work is one of the four critical attributes of meaning at work. Meaning at work is obtained when someone feels that their job is important and has a valuable purpose (Steger et al., 2012). This framework is also related to one of the three aspects of the conceptualization belonging to Hicks and King (2009), which stated that the support they receive from the organization enables an individual to gain sense of meaning at work. Teachers’ involvement in school-wide policy-making is positively related to individual professional commitment (Park et al., 2020).

The meaning at work is also influenced by the self-actualization variable, enabling individuals to use their full potential (Özaslan, 2018). According to Maslow, self-actualization is the highest human need (Maslow, 1971). The fulfillment of this need lead an individual to achieve mental health and desired personal goals. For teachers, self-actualization is important after carrying out various activities that boost their potential and competence to become professional educators (Hendriani, 2017). Forms of self-actualization are carried out by building awareness of the main role of a teacher and developing strategic steps to continue to improve their competencies. The research conducted by Nasseri and Sarkhosh (2019) showed that self-actualization improved teachers’ performance. A self-actualizing individual is able to think about the complexities of life, balance, and integrate emotions into real-life realities. Teachers make choices that support their growth even in difficult conditions. They also overcome various dilemmas they face, such as anxiety, disappointment, and doubt (Compton, 2018). People who have achieved self-actualization become servants of life. These findings are in line with several previous research which explained that self-actualization is a major source of sense of meaning at work (Kenrick, 2017; Suyatno et al., 2020). Research (Delle Fave et al., 2016) explains that self-actualization is a source of meaning at work, which accounts for 8.5% of an individual lifestyle.

The meaning at work also fully supports the consequence variables, namely teacher’s commitment and fatigue. This implies that the high meaning of work increases their commitment and reduces work fatigue. In the first case, this finding supports previous research that meaning at work affects one’s work commitment (Heintzelman et al., 2013; Trevisan et al., 2017; Sørensen et al., 2019; Suyatno et al., 2021). It succeeded in confirming a positive relationship with organizational commitment (Maharaj and Schlechter, 2007). According to Morrison et al. (2007) and Leape et al. (2009), the concept of meaning of work has been suggested as an approach to increase one’s job commitment. Some literature showed that a person’s commitment grows when the values and goals of the organization are identified. The identification enhances a person’s willingness to work on behalf of and remain in the organization (Jo, 2014). Awards and support, achievements achieved, and organizational involvement affect a teacher’s commitment (Rani, 2019). The meaning of work helps create a school environment that encourages teacher’s commitment, prevents dropouts from their profession, and improves the quality of education (Saloviita and Pakarinen, 2021).

Besides fully supporting the commitment of teachers, meaning at work also has a negative effect on burnout level. Those with high meaning at work reduce burnout levels, and vice versa. The burnout level is a description of the gradual process of fatigue and the loss of commitment at work (Madigan and Kim, 2021). The reduced burnout is directly proportional to work involvement, which is a positive factor in performance (González-Romá et al., 2006). It has a lot of negative impacts on teachers, for example, they become more critical and respond slower to student success (Madigan and Kim, 2021), teacher’s intention to quit (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2012), lower pupils’ motivation and academic achievement (Shen et al., 2015; Sutcher et al., 2019), lower job satisfaction (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009), and even detrimental to health (Kovess-Masféty et al., 2007). Furthermore, 19–30% of teachers stop working because of burnout (Pressley, 2021). High burnout is influenced by anxiety, stress, lack of administrative support (Pressley, 2021), and low quality of social interaction in schools (Fernet et al., 2012; Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2014). This research supports several previous findings that low meaning at work is a predictor of teacher’s burnout. The fulfillment of existential needs prevents burnout (Loonstra et al., 2009). An individual who is oriented toward achievement and meaningful goals is able to reduce burnout (Devos et al., 2012; Pietarinen et al., 2013). The findings indicated that meaning at work is an important variable in reducing burnout. Meaning at work is influenced by the existence of a calling orientation, where someone works because they perceive the calling (Fouché et al., 2017). Increased meaning at work intensified awareness in daily work (Lavy and Bocker, 2018). Therefore, the results help in establishing schools that promote job satisfaction and the delivery of high-quality education (Saloviita and Pakarinen, 2021).

In contrast to the findings of this research, the hypothesis that considers the effect of transformational leadership on teachers’ sense of meaning at work is not significantly supported by the data. This finding is in contradiction with most of the previous research, which showed that transformational leadership is an important predictor of meaning at work (Bernarto et al., 2020). This makes teachers feel respected and trusted (Yang, 2014). Transformational leaders maintain good relationship with employees and cause perceptions of the organization’s reputation to be better (Men, 2012). The four hypotheses linking the mediating role of meaning at work are also not significantly supported by the empirical data. This is because it did not mediate the effect of transformational leadership on burnout and commitment, school support on commitment, and self-actualization on commitment. The reason behind these findings is related to the population. The main objective of this research is to identify the antecedent factors of teachers’ commitment and burnout. Considering this objective, this research focuses on teachers in private schools, from primary and secondary education levels. The results of Sun et al. (2017) explained the context of this research, in which the principal’s transformational leadership is associated with three sets of antecedents, namely leader qualities (including self-efficacy, values, traits, and emotional intelligence), organizational features, and the leader’s colleagues’ characteristics (e.g., follower’s initial developmental level). In the context of schools in Indonesia, these three sets of leadership qualities are lacking in private institutions compared to the government-owned.

This research has both theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, it indicated that teachers’ commitment increases when they recognize their meaning at work. This indicates that when teachers complete the important and valuable tasks, they conduct this with all their mind, knowledge, skills, and dedication to the school organization. The meaning at work also reduces teachers’ burnout levels. The feeling that their work is meaningful amplifies positive emotions and creates meaningful goals and job satisfaction (Lee, 2015). Therefore, making the level of burnout at work to decrease, which in turn have an impact on their intention to stop teaching (Liu and Onwuegbuzie, 2012), increases job satisfaction (Skaalvik and Skaalvik, 2009), improves mental health quality (Kovess-Masféty et al., 2007), decreases anxiety in teaching (Pressley, 2021), and enhances the care for student learning achievement (Shen et al., 2015; Sutcher et al., 2019; Madigan and Kim, 2021). For sense of meaning at work to increase, there is need for support from school organizations and teacher self-actualization. In this research, these two variables simultaneously increase the sense of meaning at work. Furthermore, the mediating effect is partly supported by this research, which increases the understanding of how school support and self-actualization increase commitment and reduce burnout. The mediating role of meaning at work shows that the teachers’ perception of their work is an important factor in determining commitment. The findings supported the argument that meaning at work plays a mediating role in the relationship between school support and self-actualization with teachers’ commitment and burnout. Finally, this research offers a more comprehensive concept of sense of meaning at work and provides empirical evidence that school support and self-actualization lead to higher levels of teachers’ commitment and reduce burnout in their profession.

Practically, the findings offer a framework for principals to increase commitment and reduce teachers’ burnout by increasing school support and self-actualization through meaning at work. It is observed that school support and self-actualization increase meaning at work; therefore, principals should emphasize that school organizations provide full support and the widest opportunity for teachers to achieve self-actualization. To increase school support, principals are required to create a fair institution climate (Cheng et al., 2013; Jacobs et al., 2014), provide opportunities for growth (Mendelson et al., 2011), and support superiors (Simosi, 2012) and colleagues (Zagenczyk et al., 2010; Ahmed and Nawaz, 2015). Meanwhile, to increase self-actualization, principals should increase teachers’ involvement and job satisfaction (Gopinath, 2020, 2021a) and provide freedom of choice (Arslan, 2017), growth opportunities, psychological comfort, and security (Alaghmand et al., 2018). The principal’s ability to establish good interactions also predicts the perception of school support toward teachers’ wellbeing (Bogler and Nir, 2015).

In this study, the main objective was to identify the antecedent variables affecting teachers’ commitment and burnout. A comprehensive understanding of the relationships between these variables and their consequences also helped school administrators and leaders to identify, develop, and implement the strategies to increase commitment and reduce teachers’ burnout. However, this experiment had the following limitations: (1) the sample was only the private primary and secondary school teachers, where most of the qualities and characteristics of leadership were not similar with government-owned institutions (Sun et al., 2017), and (2) the sampling process was carried out using a convenience technique, as part of non-probability method having generalized limitations (Farrokhi and Mahmoudi-Hamidabad, 2012). Future studies are expected to fill this gap by using probability sampling techniques with a wider and heterogeneous sample coverage, involving both public and private schools.

Conclusion

Commitment and burnout are two positive and negative aspects contributing to the performance of teachers. In this study, the variables were influenced by school support, self-actualization, and the teacher meaning at work. Furthermore, burnout was influenced by the mediating role of teacher meaning at work. These results provided a framework for principals to increase commitment and reduce burnout, by increasing school support and self-actualization through meaning at work. The generalization on the antecedent variables of teachers’ commitment and burnout was also partially supported. However, some results did not support the total generalizations about the role of principals’ transformational leadership on these variables. This was due to the experimental sample, where private primary and secondary school teachers were highly emphasized. Principal transformational leadership was also related to three sets of antecedents, namely leader qualities, organizational features, and the colleagues’ characteristics. This proved that private schools did not have sufficient quality than the government-owned institutions in Indonesia.

References

• 1

  AhmedI.NawazM. M. (2015). Antecedents and outcomes of perceived organizational support: A literature survey approach.J. Manag. Dev.34867–880. 10.1108/JMD-09-2013-0115

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AlaghmandS.MozaffarF.HosseiniS. B.SedghpourB. S. (2018). Investigating factors affecting students’ self-actualization at university spaces.Rom. J. Multidimensional Educ.101–7. 10.18662/rrem/32

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AliakbariM.AmoliF. A. (2016). The effects of teacher empowerment on teacher commitment and student achievement.Mediterr. J. Soc. Sci.7649–657. 10.5901/mjss.2016.v7n4p649

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AllenN. J.MeyerJ. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance and normative commitment to the organization.J. Occup. Psychol.631–18. 10.1111/j.2044-8325.1990.tb00506.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AlmandeelM. S.DawoodM. (2019). The relationship between ethical leadership and teachers continuance organizational commitment.J. Res. Bus. Econ. Manag.12:1.

  • Google Scholar

• 6

  ArbuckleB. S. (2014). Pace and process in the emergence of animal husbandry in Neolithic Southwest Asia.Bioarchaeol. Near East853–81.

  • Google Scholar

• 7

  ArmeliS.EisenbergerR.FasoloP.LynchP. (1998). Perceived organizational support and police performance: The moderating influence of socioemotional needs.J. Appl. Psychol.83:288. 10.1037/0021-9010.83.2.288

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ArslanA. (2017). Basic needs as a predictors of prospective teachers’ self-actualization.Univers. J. Educ. Res.51045–1050. 10.13189/ujer.2017.050618

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  BakkerA. B.SchaufeliW. B. (2000). Burnout contagion processes among teachers 1.J. Appl. Soc. Psychol.302289–2308. 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02437.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  BassB. M.RiggioR. E. (2010). The transformational model of leadership.Lead. Organ. Perspect. New Era276–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 11

  BerkovichI.EyalO. (2017). The mediating role of principals’ transformational leadership behaviors in promoting teachers’ emotional wellness at work: A study in Israeli primary schools.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.45316–335. 10.1177/1741143215617947

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  BernartoI.BachtiarD.SudibjoN.SuryawanI. N.PurwantoA.AsbariM. (2020). Effect of transformational leadership, perceived organizational support, job satisfaction toward life satisfaction: Evidences from indonesian teachers.Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol.295495–5503.

  • Google Scholar

• 13

  BoglerR.NirA. E. (2012). The importance of teachers’ perceived organizational support to job satisfaction: What’s empowerment got to do with it?J. Educ. Adm.50287–306. 10.1108/09578231211223310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  BoglerR.NirA. E. (2015). The contribution of perceived fit between job demands and abilities to teachers’ commitment and job satisfaction.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.43541–560. 10.1177/1741143214535736

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  BrouwersA.TomicW. (2000). A longitudinal study of teacher burnout and perceived self-efficacy in classroom management.Teach. Teach. Educ.16239–253. 10.1016/S0742-051X(99)00057-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  ByrneB. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: Comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument.Int. J. Test.155–86.

  • Google Scholar

• 17

  ByrneB. M.ShavelsonR. J.MuthénB. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance.Psychol. Bull.105:456.

  • Google Scholar

• 18

  CahyonoY.NovitasariD.SihotangM.AmanM.FahleviM.NadeakM.et al (2020). The effect of transformational leadership dimensions on job satisfaction and organizational commitment: Case studies in private university lecturers.Solid State Technol.63158–184.

  • Google Scholar

• 19

  CansoyR. (2018). The relationship between school principals’ leadership behaviours and teachers’ job satisfaction: A systematic review.Int. Educ. Stud.12:37. 10.5539/ies.v12n1p37

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  CaponeV.JoshanlooM.ParkM. S.-A. (2019). Burnout, depression, efficacy beliefs, and work-related variables among school teachers.Int. J. Educ. Res.9597–108. 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.02.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  ChengP.-Y.YangJ.-T.WanC.-S.ChuM.-C. (2013). Ethical contexts and employee job responses in the hotel industry: The roles of work values and perceived organizational support.Int. J. Hosp. Manag.34108–115. 10.1016/j.ijhm.2013.03.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  ChungM.-S. (2019). Teacher efficacy, collective self-esteem, and organizational commitment of childcare teachers: A moderated mediation model of social support.Front. Psychol.10:955. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00955

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  CivelekM. E. (2018). Essentials Of Structural Equation Modeling.Lincoln: Zea Books. 10.13014/K2SJ1HR5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  CollieR. J.GranzieraH.MartinA. J. (2018). Teachers’ perceived autonomy support and adaptability: An investigation employing the job demands-resources model as relevant to workplace exhaustion, disengagement, and commitment.Teach. Teach. Educ.74125–136. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.04.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  CollierJ. E. (2020). Applied Structural Equation Modeling using AMOS, Basic to Advanced Techniques.Milton Park: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003018414

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  ComptonW. C. (2018). Self-actualization myths: What did maslow really say?J. Human. Psychol.58, 1–58. 10.1177/0022167818761929

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  CudeckR.BrowneM. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures.Multivariate Behav. Res.18147–167.

  • Google Scholar

• 28

  Delle FaveA.BrdarI.WissingM. P.Vella-BrodrickD. A. (2016). “Sources and motives for personal meaning in adulthood,” in Positive psychology in search for meaning, ed.LeontievD. A. (Milton Park: Routledge), 69–81.

  • Google Scholar

• 29

  DevosC.DupriezV.PaquayL. (2012). Does the social working environment predict beginning teachers’ self-efficacy and feelings of depression?Teach. Teach. Educ.28206–217. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.09.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  DormanJ. (2003). Testing a model for teacher burnout.Aust. J. Educ. Dev. Psychol.335–47.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  EslamiehF.Mohammad DavoudiA. H. (2016). An analysis of the relationship between managers’ ethical leadership style with teachers’ organizational commitment and job burnout.Int. J. Organ. Leadersh.5380–392. 10.33844/ijol.2016.60398

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  EtikanI. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling.Am. J. Theor. Appl. Stat.5:1. 10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  FarrokhiF.Mahmoudi-HamidabadA. (2012). Rethinking convenience sampling: Defining quality criteria.Theory Pract. Lang. Stud.2:4. 10.4304/tpls.2.4.784-792

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  FaskhodiA. A.SiyyariM. (2018). Dimensions of work engagement and teacher burnout: A study of relations among Iranian EFL Teachers.Aust. J. Teach. Educ.4378–93. 10.14221/ajte.2018v43n1.5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  FernetC.GuayF.SenécalC.AustinS. (2012). Predicting intraindividual changes in teacher burnout: The role of perceived school environment and motivational factors.Teach. Teach. Educ.28514–525. 10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  FordT. G.OlsenJ.KhojastehJ.WareJ.UrickA. (2019). The effects of leader support for teacher psychological needs on teacher burnout, commitment, and intent to leave.J. Educ. Adm.57615–634. 10.1108/JEA-09-2018-0185

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  FouchéE.RothmannS.Van Der VyverC. (2017). Antecedents and outcomes of meaningful work among school teachers.SA J. Ind. Psychol.431–10. 10.4102/sajip.v43i0.1398

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  FreemanG. T.FieldsD. (2020). School leadership in an urban context: Complicating notions of effective principal leadership, organizational setting, and teacher commitment to students.Int. J. Leadersh. Educ.23, 1–21. 10.1080/13603124.2020.1818133

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  GerbingD. W.AndersonJ. C. (1988). An updated paradigm for scale development incorporating unidimensionality and its assessment.J. Mark. Res.25186–192.

  • Google Scholar

• 40

  González-RomáV.SchaufeliW. B.BakkerA. B.LloretS. (2006). Burnout and work engagement: Independent factors or opposite poles?J. Vocat. Behav.68165–174. 10.1016/j.jvb.2005.01.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  GopinathR. (2020). Confirmator factor analysis in self actualization.Gedrag Organ. Rev.11748–757. 10.37896/GOR33.03/464

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  GopinathR. (2021a). Job involvement’s mediation effect on self-actualization with job satisfaction.Eur. J. Mol. Clin. Med.7:2020.

  • Google Scholar

• 43

  GopinathR. (2021b). Self-actualization’s influence on job satisfaction among academic leaders in tamil nadu universities- a review.J. Contemp. Issues Bus. Govt.273267–3280.

  • Google Scholar

• 44

  GopinathR.LittD. (2020). Impact of self-actualization on organizational commitment, job involvement and job satisfaction among academic leaders using structural equation modeling.Palarch’s J. Arch. Egypt Egyptol.1713999–14011.

  • Google Scholar

• 45

  HakanenJ. J.BakkerA. B.SchaufeliW. B. (2006). Burnout and work engagement among teachers.J. Sch. Psychol.43495–513. 10.1016/j.jsp.2005.11.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  HakanenJ. J.SchaufeliW. B. (2012). Do burnout and work engagement predict depressive symptoms and life satisfaction? A three-wave seven-year prospective study.J. Affect. Disord.141415–424. 10.1016/j.jad.2012.02.043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  HanJ.YinH.WangW. (2016). The effect of tertiary teachers’ goal orientations for teaching on their commitment: The mediating role of teacher engagement.Educ. Psychol.36526–547. 10.1080/01443410.2015.1044943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  HeintzelmanS. J.TrentJ.KingL. A. (2013). Encounters with objective coherence and the experience of meaning in life.Psychol. Sci.24991–998. 10.1177/0956797612465878

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  HendrianiA. (2017). “Analysis of Self-Actualization Theory of Abraham Maslow and the Implication for Enhancement of Teachers Competency,” in Proceedings of the 3rd NFE Conference on Lifelong Learning (NFE 2016). (Dordrecht: Atlantis Press), 17–20. 10.2991/nfe-16.2017.5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  HicksJ. A.KingL. A. (2009). Meaning in life as a subjective judgment and a lived experience.Soc. Pers. Psychol. Compass3638–653. 10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00193.x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  HosseingholizadehR.AmrahiA.El-FarrH. (2020). Instructional leadership, and teacher’s collective efficacy, commitment, and professional learning in primary schools: A mediation model.Prof. Dev. Educ.46, 1–18. 10.1080/19415257.2020.1850510

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  IancuA. E.RusuA.MãroiuC.PãcurarR.MaricuoiuL. P. (2018). The effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing teacher burnout: A meta-analysis.Educ. Psychol. Rev.30373–396. 10.1007/s10648-017-9420-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  IbrahimA.MokhtarW. K. A. W.AliS.SiminM. H. A. (2017). Effect of transformational principal leadership style on teachers commitments and school achievement.Int. J. Acad. Res. Bus. Soc. Sci.72222–6990. 10.6007/IJARBSS/v7-i5/2988

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  IsHakW.NikraveshR.LedererS.PerryR.OgunyemiD.BernsteinC. (2013). Burnout in medical students: A systematic review.Clin. Teach.10242–245. 10.1111/tct.12014

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  JacobsG.BelschakF. D.Den HartogD. N. (2014). (UN)ethical behavior and performance appraisal: The role of affect, support, and organizational justice.J. Bus. Ethics12163–76. 10.1007/s10551-013-1687-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  JeongS.HsiaoY.SongJ. H.KimJ.BaeS. H. (2016). The moderating role of transformational leadership on work engagement: The influences of professionalism and openness to change.Hum. Resour. Dev. Q.27489–516. 10.1002/hrdq.21265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  JoS. H. (2014). Teacher commitment: Exploring associations with relationships and emotions.Teach. Teach. Educ.43120–130. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  JohlkeM. C.StamperC. L.ShoemakerM. E. (2002). Antecedents to boundary-spanner perceived organizational support.J. Manag. Psychol.17116–128. 10.1108/02683940210417049

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  KenrickD. T. (2017). Self-actualization, human nature, and global social problems: I. Foundations.Society54520–523. 10.1007/s12115-017-0181-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  KhumaloS. S. (2019). The role of transformational school leadership in promoting teacher commitment: An antecedent for sustainable development in South Africa.Discour. Commun. Sustain. Educ.1022–32. 10.2478/dcse-2019-0015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  KimK. Y.EisenbergerR.BaikK. (2016). Perceived organizational support and affective organizational commitment: Moderating influence of perceived organizational competence.J. Organ. Behav.37558–583. 10.1002/job.2081

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  Kovess-MasfétyV.Rios-SeidelC.Sevilla-DedieuC. (2007). Teachers’ mental health and teaching levels.Teach. Teach. Educ.231177–1192. 10.1016/j.tate.2006.07.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  KurtessisJ. N.EisenbergerR.FordM. T.BuffardiL. C.StewartK. A.AdisC. S. (2017). Perceived organizational support: A meta-analytic evaluation of organizational support theory.J. Manag.431854–1884. 10.1177/0149206315575554

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  LamS.-F.ChengR. W. -yChoyH. C. (2010). School support and teacher motivation to implement project-based learning.Learn. Instr.20487–497. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.07.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  LavyS.BockerS. (2018). A path to teacher happiness? A sense of meaning affects teacher–student relationships, which affect job satisfaction.J. Happiness Stud.191485–1503. 10.1007/s10902-017-9883-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  LeapeL. L.BerwickD.ClancyC.ConwayJ.GluckP.GuestJ.et al (2009). Transforming healthcare: A safety imperative.Qual. Saf. Health Care18424–428. 10.1136/qshc.2009.036954

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  LeeA. N.NieY. (2014). Understanding teacher empowerment: Teachers’ perceptions of principal’s and immediate supervisor’s empowering behaviours, psychological empowerment and work-related outcomes.Teach. Teach. Educ.4167–79. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  LeeJ. C. K.YinH. B.ZhangZ. H.JinY.Le. (2011). Teacher empowerment and receptivity in curriculum reform in China.Chin. Educ. Soc.4464–81. 10.2753/CED1061-1932440404

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  LeeS. (2015). A concept analysis of “Meaning in work” and its implications for nursing.J. Adv. Nurs.712258–2267. 10.1111/jan.12695

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  LingS.LingM.SaniM.IbrahimB. (2013). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment in secondary schools of sarawak.Int. J. Indep. Res. Stud.251–65.

  • Google Scholar

• 71

  LiuS.OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2012). Chinese teachers’ work stress and their turnover intention.Int. J. Educ. Res.53160–170. 10.1016/j.ijer.2012.03.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  LoonstraB.BrouwersA.TomicW. (2009). Feelings of existential fulfilment and burnout among secondary school teachers.Teach. Teach. Educ.25752–757. 10.1016/j.tate.2009.01.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  MadiganD. J.CurranT. (2021). Does burnout affect academic achievement? A meta-analysis of over 100,000 students.Educ. Psychol. Rev.33387–405. 10.1007/s10648-020-09533-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  MadiganD. J.KimL. E. (2021). Does teacher burnout affect students? A systematic review of its association with academic achievement and student-reported outcomes.Int. J. Educ. Res.105:101714. 10.1016/j.ijer.2020.101714

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  MaharajI.SchlechterA. F. (2007). Meaning in life and meaning of work: Relationships with organisational citizenship behaviour, commitment and job satisfaction.Manag. Dyn.1624–41.

  • Google Scholar

• 76

  MaslowA. H. (1971). Self-actualization.Tiburon, CA: Big Sur Recordings.

  • Google Scholar

• 77

  McCarthyC. J.LambertR. G.LinebackS.FitchettP.BaddouhP. G. (2016). Assessing teacher appraisals and stress in the classroom: Review of the classroom appraisal of resources and demands.Educ. Psychol. Rev.28577–603. 10.1007/s10648-015-9322-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  McInerneyD. M.GanoticeF. A.KingR. B.MarshH. W.MorinA. J. S. (2015). Exploring commitment and turnover intentions among teachers: What we can learn from Hong Kong teachers.Teach. Teach. Educ.5211–23. 10.1016/j.tate.2015.08.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  MenL. R. (2012). CEO credibility, perceived organizational reputation, and employee engagement.Public Relat. Rev.38171–173. 10.1016/j.pubrev.2011.12.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  MendelsonM. B.TurnerN.BarlingJ. (2011). Perceptions of the presence and effectiveness of high involvement work systems and their relationship to employee attitudes: A test of competing models.Pers. Rev.4045–69. 10.1108/00483481111095519

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  MorrisonE. E.BurkeI.GreeneL. (2007). Meaning in motivation: Does your organization need an inner life?J. Health Hum. Serv. Adm.3098–115.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  MuellerR. O.HancockG. R. (2018). Structural Equation Modeling.Milton Park: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315755649-33

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  NasseriD.SarkhoshM. (2019). The relationship between EFL teachers ‘critical thinking, self-actualization level and quality of job performance. Available Online at: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mehdi-Sarkhosh/publication/333718745_The_Relationship_between_EFL_Teachers’_Critical_Thinking_Self-Actualization_Level_and_Quality_of_Job_Performance_Davood_Nasseri/links/5d00a20fa6fdccd13094188c/The-Relationship-betwe(accessed June 2021).

  • Google Scholar

• 84

  NevesP.EisenbergerR. (2014). Perceived organizational support and risk taking.J. Manag. Psychol.29187–205. 10.1108/JMP-07-2011-0021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  NiY. (2017). Teacher working conditions, teacher commitment, and charter schools.Teach. Coll. Rec.6:119. 10.1177/016146811711900606

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  NinkoviæS. R.FloriæO. È (2018). Transformational school leadership and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of perceived collective teacher efficacy.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.4649–64. 10.1177/1741143216665842

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  ÖzaslanG. (2018). The essential meaning of self-actualization via principalship: A phenomenological study.J. Qual. Res. Educ.61–16. 10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.6c2s1m

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  ParkJ.-H.CoocN.LeeK.-H. (2020). Relationships between teacher influence in managerial and instruction-related decision-making, job satisfaction, and professional commitment: A multivariate multilevel model.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.12:1741143220971287. 10.1177/1741143220971287

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  PerrotS.BauerT. N.AbonneauD.CampoyE.ErdoganB.LidenR. C. (2014). Organizational socialization tactics and newcomer adjustment: The moderating role of perceived organizational support.Group Organ. Manag.39247–273. 10.1177/1059601114535469

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  PietarinenJ.PyhältöK.SoiniT.Salmela-AroK. (2013). Reducing teacher burnout: A socio-contextual approach.Teach. Teach. Educ.3562–72. 10.1016/j.tate.2013.05.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  PietschM.TulowitzkiP.KochT. (2019). On the differential and shared effects of leadership for learning on teachers’ organizational commitment and job satisfaction: A multilevel perspective.Educ. Adm. Q.55705–741. 10.1177/0013161X18806346

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  PressleyT. (2021). Factors contributing to teacher burnout during COVID-19.Educ. Res.50325–327. 10.3102/0013189X211004138

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  QadachM.SchechterC.Da’asR. (2020). Instructional leadership and teachers’ intent to leave: The mediating role of collective teacher efficacy and shared vision.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.48617–634. 10.1177/1741143219836683

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  RaniS. (2019). Determinants of professional commitment: A Study.Int. J. Eng. Res. Gen. Sci.723–27.

  • Google Scholar

• 95

  RobbinsS. P.JudgeT. (2009). Organizational Behavior.Cape Town, NA: Pearson South Africa.

  • Google Scholar

• 96

  SaloviitaT.PakarinenE. (2021). Teacher burnout explained: Teacher-, student-, and organisation-level variables.Teach. Teach. Educ.97:103221. 10.1016/j.tate.2020.103221

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  SchumackerR. E. (2017). Interaction And Nonlinear Effects In Structural Equation Modeling.Milton Park: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315092614

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  ShenB.McCaughtryN.MartinJ.GarnA.KulikN.FahlmanM. (2015). The relationship between teacher burnout and student motivation.Br. J. Educ. Psychol.85519–532. 10.1111/bjep.12089

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  SimosiM. (2012). Disentangling organizational support construct: The role of different sources of support to newcomers’ training transfer and organizational commitment.Pers. Rev.41301–320. 10.1108/00483481211212959

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  SkaalvikE. M.SkaalvikS. (2009). Does school context matter? Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction.Teach. Teach. Educ.25518–524. 10.1016/j.tate.2008.12.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  SørensenT.la CourP.DanboltL. J.Stifoss-HanssenH.LienL.DeMarinisV.et al (2019). The sources of meaning and meaning in life questionnaire in the norwegian context: Relations to mental health, quality of life, and self-efficacy.Int. J. Psychol. Relig.2932–45. 10.1080/10508619.2018.1547614

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  StegerM. F.DikB. J.DuffyR. D. (2012). Measuring meaningful work: The Work and Meaning Inventory (WAMI).J. Career Assess.20, 1–16. 10.1177/1069072711436160

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  SunJ.ChenX.ZhangS. (2017). A review of research evidence on the antecedents of transformational leadership.Educ. Sci.7:15. 10.3390/educsci7010015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  SutcherL.Darling-HammondL.Carver-ThomasD. (2019). Understanding teacher shortages: An analysis of teacher supply and demand in the united states.Educ. Policy Anal. Arch.27:n35. 10.14507/epaa.27.3696

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  SuyatnoS.HasanahE.WantiniW.PambudiD. I.SupardiS. (2021). Meaning in work of indonesian teachers: A phenomenological research.Qual. Rep.263189–3213. 10.46743/2160-3715/2021.4970

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SuyatnoS.PambudiD. I.AmurdawatiG.WantiniW.NingrumM. V. R. (2020). Factors affecting the meaning in life of teachers.Pedagogika13952–72. 10.15823/p.2020.139.3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  ToK. H.YinH.TamW. W. Y.KeungC. P. C. (2021). Principal leadership practices, professional learning communities, and teacher commitment in Hong Kong kindergartens: A multilevel SEM analysis.Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh.2021:174114322110152. 10.1177/17411432211015227

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  TranK. T.NguyenP. V.NguyenT. D.HoangU. N. (2020). The impact of organisational commitment on the relationship between motivation and turnover intention in the public sector.Int. J. Innov. Creat. Change111–25.

  • Google Scholar

• 109

  TrevisanD. A.BassE.PowellK.EckerdL. M. (2017). Meaning in life in college students: Implications for college counselors.J. Coll. Couns.2037–51. 10.1002/jocc.12057

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  Van DroogenbroeckF.SpruytB.VanroelenC. (2014). Burnout among senior teachers: Investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work.Teach. Teach. Educ.4399–109. 10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  Van WingerdenJ.DerksD.BakkerA. B. (2017). The impact of personal resources and job crafting interventions on work engagement and performance.Hum. Resour. Manag.5651–67. 10.1002/hrm.21758

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  YangY. (2014). Principals’ transformational leadership in school improvement.Int. J. Educ. Manag.3:28. 10.1108/IJEM-04-2013-0063

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  ZacharoK.MariosK.DimitraP. (2018). Connection of teachers’ organizational commitment and transformational leadership. A case study from Greece.Int. J. Learn. Teach. Educ. Res.1789–106. 10.26803/ijlter.17.8.6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  ZagenczykT. J.ScottK. D.GibneyR.MurrellA. J.ThatcherJ. B. (2010). Social influence and perceived organizational support: A social networks analysis.Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process.111127–138. 10.1016/j.obhdp.2009.11.004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  ZhangX.BartolK. M. (2010). Linking empowering leadership and employee creativity: The influence of psychological empowerment, intrinsic motivation, and creative process engagement.Acad. Manag. J.53107–128. 10.5465/amj.2010.48037118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar