Investigating the Impact of Transformational School Leadership: Teacher Perceptions and the Role of Leadership Training Programs

Abstract

This study was driven by two primary objectives. The first objective focused on exploring the relationship between transformational and transactional leadership practices and teachers’ perceptions of their principals’ effectiveness. The second aimed to evaluate the adequacy of leadership training programs in Cyprus, with particular emphasis on how well these programs foster transformational leadership skills. To effectively address these goals, the research employed an explanatory sequential mixed methods design. For the quantitative phase, the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire was administered to 630 teachers from 28 schools across all districts. Confirmatory Factor Analyses indicated that the Transformational and Transactional leadership dimensions could be represented by a higher-order factor. Subsequently, Structural Equation Modeling revealed a positive association between Transformational/Transactional leadership and principal effectiveness, whereas Passive-avoidant leadership showed a small negative association. For the qualitative phase, semi-structured interviews were conducted with five principals exhibiting different levels of adoption of transformational practices. Thematic analysis revealed shortcomings in current training programs, including a lack of substantive focus on preparing principals to become transformational school leaders. Overall, the study highlights the importance of transformational school leadership practices in shaping teachers’ perceptions of their principal effectiveness and emphasizes the need to revise principal training programs by incorporating transformational content.

1. Introduction

School leadership is widely recognized as a decisive factor in shaping educational effectiveness (Harris & Jones, 2023; Leithwood et al., 2008). Schools are increasingly expected to demonstrate accountability not only for student achievement but also for teachers’ well-being, making the role of principals central to the success of educational organizations (Gumus et al., 2018). Within this context, transformational leadership has emerged as one of the most influential leadership models, emphasizing vision, inspiration and innovation.

Existing studies highlight that transformational leadership contributes positively to higher job satisfaction and motivation, greater effort and increased organizational commitment (Barnett et al., 2001; Bogler, 2001; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006; Lord & Maher, 1993; Menon, 2014; Moolenaar et al., 2010). In addition, transformational leadership is associated with indirect effects on student learning outcomes (Koh et al., 1995; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood & Sun, 2012). Despite the accumulated evidence supporting the benefits of transformational leadership, questions remain regarding its applicability and impact in different educational systems and cultural settings, as the majority of empirical research has been conducted in larger or less centralized systems, leaving limited evidence from small and highly centralized contexts like Cyprus.

Moreover, although transformational leadership is widely acknowledged as a critical skill for school leaders, training programs for principals place little emphasis on the systematic development of transformational practices (Eliophotou-Menon & Ioannou, 2016; Menon, 2021). International evidence shows that principal preparation programs should cultivate leadership skills directly linked to transformational practices, such as the ability to inspire others, challenge established norms and manage change (Quin et al., 2015). Also, recent studies point out that the experiential dimension of leadership preparation is crucial, placing particular emphasis on elements such as internships, mentoring, role-playing activities and professional learning networks (Darling-Hammond et al., 2022). These aspects, however, are not systematically embedded in the Cypriot principal preparation programs.

Building on this gap, the present research draws upon the Full Range Leadership Model (FRLM) to investigate the extent to which transformational and transactional leadership practices are considered to be effective by teachers. Moreover, evidence from semi-structured interviews with principals is used to examine whether current training programs equip leaders with the competences needed to develop transformational practices. The integration of quantitative and qualitative research forms the foundation for investigating the significance of transformational and transactional school leadership practices in the context of Cyprus. If transformational and transactional leadership are found to be important predictors of effectiveness—based on teachers’ perceptions—training programs will be considered successful if they equip school leaders with the necessary knowledge and practices.

Consequently, this study addresses two key research questions:

• Do secondary school teachers perceive transformational/transactional school principals as effective?
• Do principal training programs foster transformational leadership skills and practices?

This study is situated within ongoing theoretical debates that emphasize the value of integrated leadership models, which combine transformational, instructional, and distributed leadership approaches to contemporary education. Scholars argue that effective school leadership cannot rely on a single paradigm but must draw from multiple frameworks to foster both organizational improvement and student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2008). Recent research suggests that transformational, instructional and distributed leadership approaches, when integrated, offer a more holistic and context-responsive model of leadership (Donley et al., 2020). By examining the perceived effectiveness of transformational and transactional leadership and their inclusion in principal training programs, this study contributes to the evolving discourse on how a specific leadership model can be operationalized and used to improve educational practice, while acknowledging the importance of integrating multiple leadership frameworks and their associated practices.

The present study attempts to make a significant contribution to the literature both on a theoretical and a policy level. On a theoretical level, it provides evidence on the link between transformational/transactional leadership and perceived principal effectiveness based on the framework of the FLRM. Despite the recognized importance of teacher perceptions as indicators of school leader effectiveness (Karatas et al., 2024), empirical evidence on this link remains limited. On a policy level, it attempts to identify weaknesses in teacher training, especially in relation to the acquisition of transformational leadership knowledge and competencies. By situating the analysis in Cyprus, a small and highly centralized education system, the study provides insights that are still scarce in the international literature. Ultimately, it sheds light on whether school leaders in Cyprus are adequately prepared for their roles.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Theoretical Framework: The Full-Range Leadership Model (FRLM)

Transformational leadership has emerged in recent years as one of the central theoretical and research domains across various disciplines, including psychology, management, sociology, and political science (Yammarino et al., 1993). The concept was first introduced by Downton (1973) and gained wide recognition through the work of Burns (1978), who examined leadership within political contexts. Burns (1978) conceptualized transactional and transformational leadership as opposing poles: transactional was associated with exchange relationships, where leaders set expectations and provide rewards or avoid punishments in return for goal attainment, while transformational was linked to the promotion of moral values and the activation of followers’ consciousness. Building on Burns’ work, Bass (1985) further developed the concept, arguing that the most effective leaders combine transformational and transactional elements. Bass (1985) demonstrated that transformational leaders cultivate trust, respect, and psychological safety, inspire followers to exceed their initial expectations, encourage innovation and risk-taking, recognize individual uniqueness, and challenge established practices. In the field of education, transformational leadership began to be studied systematically from the 1990s onwards (Hallinger, 2003).

Following this line of research, Bass and Avolio (1994) developed the FRLM, which represents a more holistic approach to leadership theory. It integrates Transformational, Transactional, and Passive-avoidant leadership within a single framework. The model consists of nine factors, with the transformational dimension reflected in the following five factors. Attributed idealized influence refers to the way leaders are perceived as charismatic and trustworthy, whereas idealized influence as behavior emphasizes integrity, consistency, and the willingness to take risks. Leaders inspire optimism and a sense of collective purpose through inspirational motivation, encouraging followers to pursue goals that may initially seem out of reach. Intellectual stimulation refers to the active promotion of questioning and creativity, fostering innovation within the school. Finally, individualized consideration is demonstrated in the leader’s attention to the unique needs and strengths of each follower, offering tailored support and opportunities for growth.

Transactional leadership is primarily expressed through contingent reward, in which agreed incentives are tied directly to the achievement of objectives. It also includes management-by-exception, which may take an active form when leaders closely monitor performance and intervene immediately to correct errors, or a passive form, when intervention occurs only after problems have become evident. At the opposite end of the spectrum lies laissez-faire leadership, characterized by the avoidance of decision-making and responsibility, leaving staff without clear guidance or support.

Introduced by Bass and Avolio (1994), the FRLM was operationalized through the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ), an instrument designed to assess transformational and transactional leadership behaviors. The MLQ has since become the standard tool for examining the model’s factors, and the updated manual (Avolio & Bass, 2004) provides a structured basis for linking leadership styles to outcomes such as job satisfaction and perceived effectiveness.

Although transformational leadership is frequently considered more conceptually and methodologically sound than many other leadership models, scholars have also raised important critiques. One concern is the tendency, noted by Stewart (2006), to place too much emphasis on the principal as the single source of leadership within the school. Another concern is that an excessive reliance on vision and inspiration, although central to the model, may overshadow the emphasis on concrete educational outcomes. Barnett et al. (2001) found that the transformational leadership dimension of vision and inspiration was negatively associated with student learning culture.

Beyond education, organizational studies also highlight similar risks. For instance, Chen et al. (2018) demonstrated an inverted U-shaped relationship between transformational leadership and employee task performance, suggesting that excessive emphasis may diminish outcomes. The FRLM also presents theoretical ambiguities in that contingent reward in some studies has appeared more closely aligned with transformational rather than transactional leadership (Tejeda et al., 2001). Moreover, passive management-by-exception is often grouped under passive-avoidant leadership and not transactional leadership (Antonakis, 2012).

2.2. Leadership and School Outcomes

Empirical findings in education largely indicate positive direct and/or indirect effects of transformational leadership at the levels of schools, teachers, and students. For example, early studies highlighted that transformational practices facilitate organizational change and goal setting (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Leithwood et al., 1991; Silins, 1994). Also, research has indicated that principal leadership has modest but significant effects on processes such as planning and school culture (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999), while other studies identified links of transformational leadership with positive teacher outcomes, such as extra effort and satisfaction (Barnett et al., 2001). Evidence from Singapore and Tanzania demonstrated positive effects on organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Koh et al., 1995; Nguni et al., 2006). In the United States, transformational leadership was indirectly associated with reduced staff turnover and improved performance through job satisfaction (Griffith, 2004), while meta-analyses revealed strong indirect effects on student achievement and engagement (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2005; Leithwood & Sun, 2012).

In Cyprus, Menon (2014) examined the relationship between transformational leadership, perceived leader effectiveness, and teacher job satisfaction. The findings revealed significant interactions among these variables, but the direction of causality differed from the typical assumption in the literature. Specifically, it was found that perceived principal effectiveness and teacher job satisfaction influenced whether the principal was considered a transformational or transactional leader. At the school level, transformational leadership has been associated with a supportive and committed climate as well as innovation (McCarley et al., 2016; Moolenaar et al., 2010). In Israel, Berkovich (2016) showed that principals’ transformational behaviors can shape teachers’ emotional states, and that principals’ ability to recognize the emotions of others is positively related to the exercise of transformational leadership.

Additional studies indicate that transformational leadership exerts its positive influence on teachers’ commitment and satisfaction largely indirectly, through factors such as collaboration, trust, and enhanced motivation (Finnigan, 2010; Leithwood et al., 2008). In Belgium, Thomas et al. (2020) investigated the relationship between transformational leadership and teachers’ professional attitudes during their first year in the profession. The results indicated a direct positive effect on attitudes such as motivation for teaching, emotional organizational commitment, and job satisfaction. An indirect effect was also identified, as transformational practices enhanced collegial support and teacher self-efficacy, which in turn reinforced these professional attitudes. Finally, Lefteri and Menon (2025) demonstrated that transformational and transactional dimensions constitute a higher-order second factor that strongly predicts teacher self-efficacy.

Despite the findings highlighting the positive impact of transformational leadership, its relationship with educational outcomes requires further investigation, with greater focus on its role in different educational contexts.

2.3. Training and Preparation of School Principals

Findings from the literature agree on the view that school leadership plays an important role in improving school organizations and student outcomes. Thus, the quality of principals’ education and training is essential for achieving effective educational outcomes (Bush, 2013; Crow, 2006; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). Moreover, the increasing complexity of school contexts, arising from globalization, technological and demographic changes, further highlights the importance of leadership preparation (Bush, 2013).

Effective programs are characterized by a clear purpose and structure, an emphasis on professional standards of practice, and a strong focus on organizational development and change (Peterson, 2002; Darling-Hammond et al., 2007). The prevailing trend is a shift away from standardized, time-limited courses toward ongoing learning pathways that extend across the professional life cycle: pre-service, induction, continuous development, and reflection (Bolam, 2003). Programs must also recognize differentiated needs: novice principals typically require support on developmental and operational issues, while experienced leaders seek greater emphasis on strategic direction and school improvement practices (Michaelidou & Pashiardis, 2009; Stroud, 2006).

The international literature demonstrates that leadership preparation programs cover a wide range of knowledge and skills, from strategic planning to crisis and conflict management (Huber, 2008). At the same time, they stress the importance of clear structures, cultivating a supportive culture, and strengthening principals’ self-efficacy, given its positive link with student outcomes (Peterson, 2002; Versland, 2013). In recent years, however, the focus has increasingly shifted toward developing leadership practices that go beyond management, bringing transformational leadership to the forefront as a key element of professional growth.

Quin et al. (2015) showed that principals of high-performing schools systematically employed transformational practices, contributing to restructuring, staff empowerment, and curriculum enhancement. The authors argue that embedding transformational leadership within training programs is essential, as it equips new principals to act as instructional leaders, encourage innovation, and effectively transform their organizations. Similarly, Stroud (2006) stresses that transformational leadership is a prerequisite for processes of change, while Hussin and Al Abri (2015) highlight that in contexts of intense reform, systematic training in transformational leadership is necessary for the sustainable development of schools.

Recent literature reinforces this need. In her meta-analysis, Menon (2024) points out that the transformational leadership dimensions developed by Bass and Avolio (1994) provide a solid foundation for cultivating the skills and capacities of both aspiring and practicing principals. Likewise, Lefteri and Menon (2025) emphasize that while transactional practices are more easily adopted in practice, significant gaps remain in principals’ transformational competencies. As such, training programs should place stronger emphasis on transformational leadership theory and practice to leverage the augmentation effect, whereby transformational leadership builds on transactional practices to amplify overall effectiveness. Furthermore, Metz et al. (2019) demonstrate that teachers view principals who display transformational qualities positively, underscoring the desirability of cultivating this leadership style among both novice and experienced leaders.

The literature also identifies critical shortcomings in leadership preparation. Traditional programs appear to do little to adequately prepare future principals, particularly in relation to the modern challenges facing schools. Versland (2013) notes that sporadic courses and poor instructional quality often hold back meaningful learning and fail to nurture capable leaders. Although the international literature underscores the importance of systematic leadership preparation, evidence from Cyprus remains limited. Existing studies indicate that training is delivered in a fragmented and centrally organized manner, often only after appointment to the leadership position, with no comprehensive framework for continuous professional development (Athanasoula-Reppa & Lazaridou, 2008; Michaelidou & Pashiardis, 2009; Thody et al., 2007). Overall, the findings highlight the need for further research as principal preparation in Cyprus continues to lack a coherent strategy, while references to transformational leadership remain limited.

Overall, relevant findings agree on the view that transformational leadership is not just a theoretical construct but a vital tool for the professional growth and effectiveness of school leaders. Consequently, its integration into leadership preparation programs stands out as a strategic priority with significant implications for both educational policy and practice.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Participants

As previously mentioned, this study adopted a mixed methods design to address the two main research questions. Regarding the quantitative phase, the sample consisted of 630 teachers employed in 28 lower and upper secondary schools in Cyprus. The stage sampling procedure was used to ensure representation of schools across the five districts of Cyprus, as well as urban, suburban, and rural areas. This approach also contributed to having diversity in the school sample in terms of student residence and socioeconomic background. Each school was represented by at least 44% of the teachers. The final teacher sample (n = 630; 27.5% male) consisted of experienced professionals, with an average of 12.7 years of teaching experience, with the vast majority (92.5%) having been employed at their current school for more than one year.

For the qualitative part of the study, five secondary school principals in Cyprus participated (four female and one male). The selection was carried out through purposive sampling, based on two main criteria. First, the extent to which principals adopted transformational leadership practices was considered, as identified through teachers’ responses to the MLQ. This ensured the inclusion of principals with varying levels of transformational leadership in order to examine how they perceived and utilized the content of their training. Specifically, the sample included two principals with high levels of transformational skills and three with moderate levels. The selection of principals for the qualitative phase was based on a ranking derived from teachers’ evaluations of their principals’ transformational leadership behaviors. From this ranking, two principals who scored among the highest and three who fell within the mid-range were selected for interviews. Principals who scored among the lowest on the transformational leadership dimension were intentionally excluded, as the aim of the qualitative research was partly to investigate whether principals had acquired transformational leadership skills and knowledge through their training.

Second, consideration was given to the specific year in which participants had completed the leadership training program. The participating principals had between 2 and 11 years of experience in their role. Regarding educational qualifications, four held a master’s degree and one held a bachelor’s degree. Among the master’s degree holders, two had specialized in educational administration, while the other two had completed postgraduate studies in their respective subject fields. Information on principal characteristics is provided in

Table 1. Principals’ information.

Principal Code	Years of Service as Principal	Level of Education	Gender
P1	3	Master’s (subject-specific)	Female
P2	2	Master’s (educational administration)	Female
P3	5	Master’s (educational administration)	Female
P4	2	Bachelor’s (subject-specific)	Male
P5	11	Master’s (subject-specific)	Female

.

3.2. Data Collection and Variables of the Study

The collection of the data was conducted during November 2024–March 2025. The relevant authorization and permissions from the national authority were obtained prior to the study. In each school, all teachers were invited to participate through the distribution of an anonymous questionnaire by the school principal, together with the relevant information and instructions.

The quantitative data were collected through two main instruments. School leadership was measured using the MLQ, administered to the teachers in the participating schools. In this study, 36 items from the MLQ Rater Form (5X-Short) were employed, which include statements concerning the leadership behavior of school principals across three dimensions: Transformational (20 items), Transactional (8 items), and Passive-avoidant (8 items). Teachers responded on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Frequently, if not always).

In addition to these items, six further items were included in the questionnaire to assess the effectiveness of the principal, as perceived by teachers. Specifically, teachers were asked to evaluate the extent to which their principals were considered effective at three levels in relation to their impact on: students (2 items), teachers (2 items), and the school as an organization (2 items). The selection of these items was informed by a review of the literature examining the links between leadership models and educational outcomes (Menon, 2014; Menon, 2024). Student outcomes referred to student knowledge acquisition and behavior, teacher outcomes were related to teaching and professional satisfaction, while organizational outcomes were defined in terms of goal attainment and quality assurance within the school. Participants responded on a 5-point Likert scale (0 = Almost not at all, 4 = To a very great extent).

For the qualitative part of this study, a semi-structured interview guide was developed to frame discussions with school principals. The aim of this guide was to investigate the extent to which the principals’ training programs incorporated elements of transformational leadership. Consequently, the guide included questions related to each of the five transformational leadership factors as described in the Full Range Leadership Model by Bass and Avolio (1994). With this structure, the study was able not only to show how transformational leadership was embedded in principals’ training but also to capture principals’ wider experiences and the ways in which they transferred their new knowledge into their daily practice.

3.3. Data Analysis

Before addressing the main research questions, several steps were undertaken to establish the validity of the instruments and the reliability of the data. In the quantitative phase, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was the main analytic technique used to establish the structural validity of the two central measures: the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ) and the scale of principal perceived effectiveness. For the MLQ, the analysis followed the three correlated factor model widely reported in the literature and formally tested its fit to the data (Avolio & Bass, 2004). A separate CFA was then conducted to examine the construct validity of the shorter questionnaire on perceived effectiveness. Once the measurement model had been confirmed, the relationship between leadership and effectiveness was analyzed through Structural Equation Modeling (SEM).

The quantitative analyses were conducted in Mplus v.7.2 (Muthén & Muthén, 2017) using the WLSMV estimator, given the ordinal nature of the data (Svetina et al., 2019). Model fit was evaluated using multiple criteria: the χ² statistic, the Comparative Fit Index (CFI; values > 0.90 indicating acceptable fit and > 0.95 excellent fit), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA; < 0.08 indicating good fit), the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual (WRMR; ≤ 1 indicating good fit), and standardized factor loadings (with non-significant or < 0.40 loadings considered problematic) (see DiStefano et al., 2017; Hu & Bentler, 1999). Because of the sensitivity of the χ² statistic to large sample sizes, a statistically significant value was not automatically interpreted as evidence of poor fit (Kline, 2015). In cases of ill-fitting models, a model re-specification approach was followed to identify and address the sources of misfit.

The analysis of qualitative data was conducted using thematic analysis, following the six-phase model proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006, 2021) and further informed by the trustworthiness framework outlined by Nowell et al. (2017). The material collected through the semi-structured interviews was recorded, transcribed, and subjected to repeated readings in order to gain familiarity with the data and assign initial codes based on the meaning of participants’ responses. The process of theme development followed the six stages of thematic analysis: (a) familiarization with the data, (b) generation of initial codes, (c) searching for themes, (d) reviewing themes, (e) defining and naming themes, and (f) producing the final report. To strengthen the rigor of the analysis, the criteria of credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability, as outlined by Lincoln and Guba (1985), were applied throughout the analytic process.

4. Results

4.1. The Link Between Transformational/Transactional Leadership and Principal Effectiveness

The first step of our analysis was to examine the construct validity of the instruments used to address the first research question. For the MLQ, a three-correlated-factor model was specified, as proposed in the literature, with factors representing Transformational, Transactional, and Passive-avoidant leadership. The initial CFA indicated poor model fit and revealed specific sources of misfit (e.g., items 4, 6, 27, and 29 had low loadings < 0.30). After removing these items and introducing theoretically justified error correlations suggested by modification indices, the model achieved substantially improved fit (see Model 1 in

Table 2. Fit parameters for the models testing the factorial structure of the MLQ.

Model	χ2	df	p	CFI	RMSEA	RMSEA 90CI	WRMR
Model 1	1823.78	453	0.001	0.944	0.069	0.066–0.073	1.513
Model 2	1824.48	455	0.001	0.944	0.069	0.066–0.072	1.516
Model 3	1735.47	450	0.001	0.947	0.067	0.064–0.071	1.468

Note. Model 1: The three-correlated factor model, with Transformational, Transactional, and Passive-avoidant factors representing three distinct yet correlated constructs. Model 2: The model in which the items of the Transformational and Transactional factors form a single factor, which is correlated with the Passive-avoidant factor. Model 3: The model in which the Transformational and Transactional factors load on a higher-order factor, which is correlated with the Passive-avoidant factor.

). All global fit indices exceeded acceptable thresholds, and all factor loadings were above 0.40. Factor correlations ranged from 0.59 to 0.97. Moreover, the notably high correlation between the Transformational and Transactional factors (0.97) prompted us to test two additional alternative models: (a) a model combining the items of the Transformational and Transactional factors into a single, unified factor to address issues of discriminant validity, and (b) a model in which these two dimensions load on a general, higher-order factor. The strong association between these two dimensions has also been reported in previous studies (e.g., Eden, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1990), which examined the complementarity of principals’ behaviors in relation to these leadership styles and, in this respect, tested these alternative models.

The analysis of the first alternative model, in which the items of the Transformational and Transactional factors were combined into a single factor, showed an acceptable fit (see Model 2 in Table 2) but there was no improvement in relation to the original three-factor model (Δχ²(2) = 6.619, p = 0.037). Therefore, this model was rejected. Next, the second alternative model was tested, in which the Transformational and Transactional factors loaded onto a general higher-order factor. The fit indices indicated a slight improvement over the three-correlated-factor model (see Model 3 in Table 2), and the chi-square difference test confirmed that this improvement was statistically significant (Δχ²(3) = 129.705, p < 0.001). Accordingly, based on these findings and the principle of parsimony, this higher-order model was selected for use in subsequent analyses (see Figure 1). In this model, the standardized item loadings ranged from 0.57 to 0.84 for the Transformational factor, from 0.53 to 0.81 for the Transactional factor, and from 0.40 to 0.86 for the Passive-avoidant factor. The loadings of the second-order factor were 0.98 on the Transformational factor and 0.99 on the Transactional factor, while the relationship between the higher-order factor and the Passive-avoidant factor was estimated at −0.60.

The second main variable used in the quantitative analysis in this study consisted of Principal Effectiveness as perceived by the teachers. Using CFA, the six items concerning different aspects of effectiveness were modeled to form a single factor. The analysis of this model indicated excellent fit to the data (χ²(6) = 27.566, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.997, RMSEA = 0.077, WRMR = 0.471). Factor loadings ranged from 0.66 to 0.88, confirming that all items are strong and reliable indicators of the Perceived Effectiveness factor.

The final step in the quantitative phase involved examining the association between school leadership and principal perceived effectiveness. Using SEM, the second-order factor representing Transformational and Transactional leadership, as well as the Passive-avoidant factor, were regressed on the latent factor of perceived effectiveness (see Figure 2).

The model showed good fit to the data (χ²(647) = 1941.81, p < 0.001; CFI = 0.953, RMSEA = 0.056, WRMR = 1.387). Regarding the focal associations, the findings revealed a statistically significant effect of the higher-order factor on perceived effectiveness (β = 0.46), indicating a moderate and meaningful relationship between Transformational/Transactional leadership and teachers’ perceptions of principal effectiveness. In contrast, Passive-avoidant leadership had a statistically significant negative but small effect on perceived effectiveness (β = −0.12), suggesting that greater adoption of these behaviors is associated with lower perceived effectiveness.

Finally, the relationship between the higher-order factor of Transformational/Transactional leadership and Passive-avoidant leadership remained statistically significant and relatively strong (β = −0.61), indicating that, to some extent, the presence of one leadership style tends to preclude the other, consistent with theoretical expectations. The standardized coefficients and standard errors of this model are presented in Figure 2.

4.2. The Impact of Training Programs on Transformational Leadership Practices

The qualitative findings of the study are organized into main themes based on the components of the transformational leadership dimension of the FRLM (Avolio & Bass, 2004).

To explore the first two dimensions of transformational leadership, attributed idealized influence and idealized influence as behavior, principals were asked to reflect on whether their training contributed to fostering trust, respect, and shared values within their schools. Most participants judged these dimensions to have been addressed only superficially and in a fragmented manner. It appears that their expectations were not met, in that they desired a program that had a true impact on them and enabled them to experience fundamental change. One principal said:

“I cannot say that there was anything in my training that truly surprised me. I would have wanted it to be stronger, more personalized, and more transformational.”

(P1)

Similarly, another principal (P2) noted the limited references to vision and goals, without substantial depth:

“Some things about common purposes, goals and vision were discussed to some extent. But to say that we benefited from this, I would not say so.”

(P2)

Overall, the findings point to a lack of clear emphasis on building a shared sense of purpose and values, leading principals to perceive training as limited in this area. The references made by the training instructors to the first two dimensions of transformational leadership were perceived as inadequate, low-impact attempts to cover dimensions of leadership. Participants felt that their program did not provide them with an opportunity to discuss specific values and their importance in the school context.

Regarding the third dimension, inspirational motivation, participants were asked to comment on the degree to which their training supported them in inspiring teachers by providing meaning, optimism, and enthusiasm for the future. The responses suggested that this element of transformational leadership was only marginally developed. Most participants stressed that the program made little or only superficial contributions in strengthening inspirational motivation and lacked explicit focus on practices of encouragement and optimism. This is an important shortcoming of the program in that the ability of the instructor to motivate and inspire enthusiasm is of critical importance in a (transformational) leadership training program. Without this ability, training instructors cannot serve as role models for future principals. As principal P1 explained:

“No, I cannot say that it was something addressed by the program. I cannot say that it had anything inspirational.”

(P1)

Principal P2 acknowledged occasional reminders related to encouragement, but did not attribute them directly to the training:

“Perhaps I was somewhat influenced, but these were things I already knew and simply recalled.”

(P2)

With respect to the fourth dimension, intellectual stimulation, participants were asked to reflect on whether the program supported them in cultivating positive attitudes toward change, encouraging alternative approaches to problem solving, and promoting innovation and creativity. Principals generally agreed that the program offered very limited opportunities for substantial growth in this area. Principal P1 associated any such influence more with personal experiences than with the program itself:

“On an unconscious and involuntary level, I feel I have been helped. But I think it happened through my own experiences.”

(P1)

Principal P3 attributed her changes in thinking to a combination of experiences, studies, and personality rather than solely to the program, implying that the program was weak in this domain:

“I do not know if it was my postgraduate studies, my experience, my personality, or the program that made me change the way I think.”

(P3)

Principal P5 was more positive, recalling lectures on change and group dynamics:

“I remember being told that people always react to change, but that does not mean it should not happen.”

(P5)

It appears that in relation to this dimension, participants were unable to report significant gains from their training. There were references to other factors as more important than the training and to doubts regarding whether the contents of the training provided an intellectual stimulus. Based on the comments of the participants, the training program did not address this dimension of transformational leadership to a satisfactory extent. This points to a significant weakness given the close link between intellectual stimulation and meaningful personal change in the FRLM.

The fifth dimension, individualized consideration, asked participants to reflect on whether the training prepared them to provide personalized attention to teachers, dedicate time to individual mentoring, and support their pursuit of personal goals. Most principals emphasized that this dimension was not meaningfully highlighted in the training. References were largely to isolated incidents rather than to systematic approaches. Principal P4 recalled only one relevant course on teacher evaluation:

“I think only one lesson addressed individualization. It helped me to learn how to listen to each person.”

(P4)

Principal P5 noted that the training mainly provided general guidelines at a rather superficial level. She added that she later pursued further exploration of this area independently, prompted by stimuli she had received. In general, this dimension was addressed only in fragments, leaving principals to develop their own methods of implementation. It is also important to mention that participants did not make any references to the instructors tailoring the program to their individual needs and goals. This can also be considered a significant weakness in that individualization in their training program would have provided principals with an example they could later replicate.

Overall, the analysis of the qualitative data indicates that across all dimensions of transformational leadership, the training program was primarily fragmented with insufficient emphasis on vision, values, inspiration, and individualized support. Furthermore, principals identified key shortcomings such as weak connections between theory and practice, insufficient time, a largely formal character, and a lack of practical support. Positive elements were limited to isolated moments or stimuli that served as triggers for personal exploration.

5. Discussion

The present study set out to examine the extent to which transformational/transactional leadership practices in Cyprus are related to principal effectiveness as perceived by teachers. Moreover, the adequacy of training programs available for principals in developing transformational leadership skills was explored. The adoption of a mixed methods design provided a broader picture of the phenomenon under study.

The quantitative analysis of the MLQ data suggested that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors function synergistically as components of a higher-order factor. This factor showed a positive correlation with principals’ effectiveness as perceived by teachers. This finding aligns with other studies, which showed that transformational and transactional leadership are not contradictory but rather complementary (Barnett et al., 2001; Bass, 1985; Eden, 1998; Podsakoff et al., 1990). The findings suggest that vision, inspiration, and innovative qualities associated with transformational leadership play an important role when they are reinforced by structure, monitoring, and accountability, which are characteristics of transactional leadership. Building on this, results show the significance of considering more holistic leadership approaches rather than relying exclusively on one. Many researchers agree that combining transformational, transactional, and instructional leadership can lead to more effective leadership (Bellibaş et al., 2021; Day et al., 2016; Leithwood & Sun, 2012).

Passive-avoidant leadership showed a modest but negative effect on principals’ effectiveness. This finding also agrees with previous research. Laissez-faire and passive management-by-exception show lower trust between employees, reduced morale and organizational performance (Barnett et al., 2001; Bass, 1985; Menon, 2014). In the Cypriot educational context, where schools operate under strict centralized regulations and principals have limited power, the adverse impacts of passive leadership may become even more pronounced. Teachers appear particularly sensitive to signs of inaction or avoidance, perhaps because the organizational culture already provides limited room for initiative.

The confirmatory factor analyses also pointed to the recurring challenge of classifying the dimension of passive management-by-exception. While Bass and Avolio (1994) positioned it under the transactional dimension, empirical findings in previous as well as in this study suggest that it can be included in the passive-avoidant dimension (Avolio et al., 1999; Den Hartog et al., 1997). Thus, these findings lend some support to this reclassification, as teachers seemed to associate such behaviors more closely with passivity rather than with active managerial oversight. This observation not only reflects theoretical debates in the literature but also underlines the methodological complexity of measuring leadership styles across contexts.

The qualitative phase complemented the above results by exposing a persistent gap between the theory of transformational leadership and the actual content of principals’ training programs in Cyprus. Principals consistently described their preparation as fragmented, overly theoretical, and poorly aligned with school realities. Core dimensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration) were either absent or addressed only superficially. For example, discussions of vision and values were rare, inspiration and encouragement were underdeveloped, and opportunities for fostering innovation and creativity were limited. Personalized support for teachers’ growth, another important factor of transformational leadership, was mentioned only sporadically and without structured guidance.

Testimonies from principals about the need for inclusion of transformational content and practices into their training programs converge with prior research (Hussin & Al Abri, 2015; Lefteri & Menon, 2025; Menon, 2024; Metz et al., 2019; Quin et al., 2015; Stroud, 2006). Principals also echo international critiques of leadership preparation as overly generic and detached from school realities.

From a practical standpoint, the results highlight the urgency of redesigning principal preparation and professional development to embed both transformational content and practices. Principals in this study called for training that is more experiential, personalized, and directly linked to their everyday challenges. Integrating such practices more systematically into training programs could help close the persistent gap between theory and practice, while also equipping school leaders to apply transformational leadership in real and complex settings.

The mixed methods design adopted in the present study enabled an investigation of transformational school leadership through two distinct lenses: teachers’ perceptions of principal effectiveness and principals’ perceptions of the adequacy of their training programs. The coherence of the mixed methods design is reinforced by the convergence between the quantitative and qualitative findings. Quantitative data from the MLQ revealed that transformational and transactional leadership behaviors jointly contribute to perceived principal effectiveness, suggesting a synergistic model of leadership. This relationship provided the framework for the qualitative phase, where principals pointed to the inability of their training to provide them with structured support for the adoption of transformational practices. While the quantitative results highlighted the importance of combining visionary and managerial (transactional) elements, the qualitative insights exposed the gaps in leadership preparation that hinder the practical application of such integrated models. Together, these findings provide a more nuanced understanding of how leadership is both conceptualized and enacted, validating the use of a mixed methods approach to capture the complexity of educational leadership in Cyprus and other countries.

The findings hold clear implications for educational policy. In highly centralized educational systems, principals operate with limited formal authority, which can create the impression that leadership style has only a marginal role. However, the evidence from this study suggests that even in a centralized system, teachers will perceive their principals as effective if the latter adopt transformational leadership practices. For this reason, leadership development should be treated as a strategic priority, with training programs designed to cultivate transformational competencies that can support principals in exercising influence even within constrained structures.

These findings must be interpreted within the structural and cultural realities of the Cypriot educational system. The limited scope of authority of school leaders can restrict the implementation of transformational leadership practices, even when principals are adequately trained, motivated and conceptually prepared to adopt them. The qualitative data revealed that principals feel under-equipped to navigate these constraints, citing a lack of practical, context-sensitive training. Moreover, the emphasis on compliance and uniformity within the system may discourage innovation and personalized leadership approaches. Therefore, any effort to enhance principal effectiveness must go beyond individual training and address systemic barriers, promoting a more flexible and supportive policy environment that enables transformational leadership to flourish.

It is also important to note that the transformational leadership perspective can be combined with other leadership approaches in training programs. As noted by Bush (2018), debates about which leadership model should dominate training programs should not revolve around the superiority of one model over another. Instead, training should incorporate elements from multiple frameworks, including transformational leadership, to respond to the complex needs of schools.

6. Limitations and Directions for Future Research

This study is not without limitations. First, the quantitative analysis relied on teachers’ perceptions, which, while valuable, do not capture the full complexity of leadership practices or their effects on student outcomes obtained from more objective measures. Second, the cross-sectional design prevents firm conclusions about causality. Two-wave and/or longitudinal studies would be necessary to track how leadership behaviors influence outcomes across and over time points.

These limitations point to several avenues for future research. Comparative studies across countries with varying levels of centralization would help assess the adaptability of the FRLM across administrative contexts. Longitudinal and multi-level designs that include students and parents alongside teachers and principals would offer a richer picture of how leadership impacts the behavior of school stakeholders in ways that make the functioning of the school more effective. Evaluations of training programs that embed transformational content and practices, while also integrating experiential learning, mentoring, and professional learning communities, would provide crucial evidence of their effectiveness. Lastly, connecting leadership practices to outcomes such as student achievement, organizational culture, and teacher retention would deepen our understanding of the mechanisms linking leadership to school success.

7. Conclusions

Taken together, the findings affirm that transformational and transactional leadership practices, when enacted together, may form a significant association with principal perceived effectiveness, while passive-avoidant behaviors undermine this association. Yet, in Cyprus, the very programs designed to prepare principals appear insufficient in cultivating the transformational dimensions most valued in contemporary educational leadership. By integrating quantitative and qualitative evidence, this study underscores the need to consolidate theoretical insights with practical development, pointing to a clearer pathway for strengthening principal preparation and, ultimately, enhancing school effectiveness.