The Relationship between School Principals' Instructive Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization

The Relationship between School Principals' Instructive Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article The Relationship between School Principals' Instructive Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization Fatih BAYDAR, Mehmed Esad Demirci² This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted 16 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract This study aims to reveal the mediating role of learning organization (LO) in the effect of principals' instructional leadership (IL) competencies on teacher motivation (TM). The correlational survey design was used to determine the relationship between variables. The study group of the research consists of 403 teachers who are employed in the Pendik, Tuzla, Adalar, and Maltepe districts of Istanbul, Ministry of National Education. The Personal Information Form, Instructional Leadership Scale, Teacher Motivation Scale, and Learning Organization Scale were used to collect data. It was checked whether the data obtained during the data collection process showed normal distribution, and the results of the Pearson correlation analysis between the variables were evaluated. In order to test the theoretical model developed by the researchers, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted. Considering the purpose of the study and the analyses, it was observed that there was a significant positive relationship between principals' instructional leadership competencies and teacher motivation and learning organization, and a significant positive relationship between learning organization and teacher motivation. The SEM model developed based on the results that IL has an effect on LO and TM, and that LO has an effect on TM, was tested. As a result of this test, it was determined that LO had a full mediating role in the effect of IL on TM. In conclusion, the theoretical model developed by the researchers was tested and accepted based on the fit values. Instructional leadership learning organization teacher motivation Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 INTRODUCTION In educational institutions, one of the main ways to achieve sustainable success is to ensure that teachers are highly motivated and committed to their jobs and to create environments that can sustain this commitment in the long term. This is because teacher motivation is a fundamental element that directly affects not only the level of individual performance but also the achievement of students, the quality of the classroom environment, and the overall educational output of the school (Dinham & Scott, 1998 ; Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2017 ). Teachers with high motivation are more interested in their pupils, more dedicated to their profession, and more open to innovations, while low motivation can lead to problems such as burnout, professional dissatisfaction, and loss of efficiency (Day & Gu, 2007 ). In this context, sustainability of teacher motivation is one of the most essential goals of educational administration. However, maintaining teachers' job satisfaction and motivation levels is a complex issue in which many individual and environmental variables are effective. In this process, school administrators' leadership approach and the behaviors they exhibit are among the main factors that influence teachers' motivation. In particular, instructional leadership is very important in terms of the school administrator's guidance of teachers, active involvement in teaching processes, and support for teachers' professional development (Hallinger, 2005 ). Studies show that teachers are more motivated, feel more connected to their profession, and contribute more to the teaching process in schools where principals exhibit instructional leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006 ; Marks & Printy, 2003). Instructional leadership is an approach to leadership that involves not only managing instructional processes but also determining the vision of the school, encouraging collaboration among teachers, using resources effectively, and making strategic decisions to increase students' academic achievement (Blase & Blase, 1999 ; Southworth, 2002 ). This leadership approach can increase teachers' motivation by creating a school environment where teachers are not left alone, are supported, and their professional contributions are valued. As a matter of fact, when teachers feel supported by their principals, it increases their commitment to the school and positively affects their job satisfaction (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001 ). However, it is thought that this relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation does not always emerge through a direct interaction; in some cases, this effect may be shaped by different variables. At this point, the concept of a learning organization is an important structure that can provide a better understanding of the dynamics of this relationship. A learning organization is a structure in which employees contribute to organizational development by continuously producing and sharing knowledge and using this knowledge in business processes (Senge, 1990 ). In terms of educational institutions, schools with a learning organization structure are institutions in which teachers' professional development is supported, innovative ideas are encouraged, and collaboration is prioritized (Silins, Zarins & Mulford, 2002 ). The conception of a learning organization also develops the consciousness of acting in line with common goals among teachers. This contributes to teachers feeling valuable, taking more responsibility, and increasing their motivation (Watkins & Marsick, 1996 ). In their study, Tetik ( 2021 ) revealed that teachers' professional motivation is higher in schools with a learning organization structure. The learning organization fosters a healthy flow of information within the school, active participation of teachers in decision-making processes, and healthy relationships with administrators (Goh, 2003 ). Nevertheless, when the literature is examined, it is seen that there are few studies directly examining the mediating role of the learning organization in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Çelik & Atak, 2012 ). However, the learning organization can provide a structure that strengthens the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation and nurtures and supports this interaction. Therefore, it is reckoned that the analysis without taking this structure into consideration will be incomplete and the process will not be fully understood. In this direction, this study aims to examine in depth how the learning organization structure has an effect on the relationship between school administrators' instructional leadership skills and teacher motivation, and in this direction, it is aimed to present new implications for educational institutions. This study is expected to contribute to educational policies and practices by providing concrete suggestions for strengthening the instructional leadership approach in school administration and disseminating the learning organization culture in schools. In the meantime, it is thought that it will enable the development of new perspectives on the relationship between leadership and organizational structure to ensure the sustainability of teacher motivation. Instructional Leadership School administrators' leadership of the instructional process is not only an administrative task but also a process of transforming the learning culture of the school. In this context, instructional leadership is a type of leadership that includes multifaceted tasks such as taking an active role in planning, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum; supporting teachers' professional development; improving the quality of learning environments; and raising student achievement (Hallinger, 2011 ). Blase and Blase ( 1999 ) define instructional leadership as acting in collaboration with teachers, providing them with constructive and continuous feedback, and offering support to improve learning-teaching processes. In this respect, instructional leadership encourages teachers to become active not only in the classroom but also in the overall functioning of the school. Leithwood and Jantzi ( 2006 ) emphasize that instructional leadership is effective in determining the goals of the school, creating a vision, and mobilizing teachers in line with this vision. This leadership approach empowers teachers' motivation and professional commitment by creating a school culture where teachers are not left alone but rather guided, supported, and invested in their development. Furthermore, Southworth ( 2002 ) stated that instructional leadership both increases teachers' job satisfaction and contributes directly to student achievement by creating a structure that encourages learning and development in school culture. In recent years, studies have shown that instructional leadership practices have positive effects on teacher performance, increase teachers' commitment to their jobs, and stimulate their interest in professional development (Printy, Marks & Bowers, 2009 ). Instructional leadership is not merely a management practice but the key to creating a positive learning culture in the school setting. Learning Organization In terms of keeping up with the ever-changing information society, it has become a necessity for educational institutions to move away from classical management approaches and become learning-based structures. At this point, the concept of a learning organization emerges as a prominent structure model in the field of education. Senge ( 1990 ) defines learning organizations as innovative structures that are open to change, where individuals are in a continuous learning effort and contribute to the development of the organization through shared knowledge and experiences. Embracing the learning organization approach in educational institutions enables teachers to learn from each other, act with a common mind, and create learning communities (Watkins & Marsick, 1996 ). Doğan and Yiğit ( 2015 ) state that in schools with a learning organization structure, teachers are more open to innovations, give more attention to professional development, and have a stronger culture of working together. In a similar vein, Silins et al., ( 2002 ) stated that learning organization characteristics increase teachers' job satisfaction, positively affect their motivation, and improve school performance. Learning organization structures not only provides teachers with room for individual development but also strengthens the culture of mutual interaction and solidarity, making the overall atmosphere of the school more productive and motivational. Goh ( 2003 ) found that learning organizations improve teachers' problem-solving skills, adaptability to innovations, and job satisfaction because they are structures based on the understanding of continuous development and improvement. Therefore, schools with a learning organization culture provide environments that contribute to both the personal development and organizational commitment of teachers. In this respect, the learning organization can play a significant role as a mediating factor in strengthening the relationship between the school's leadership style and teachers' motivation. Teacher Motivation Teacher motivation is one of the main factors affecting success in education. Well-motivated teachers fulfill their jobs more enthusiastically, provide more support to students, and play an active role in achieving the school's goals (Dinham & Scott, 1998 ). Teacher motivation is not only an individual internal process; it is also influenced by external factors such as school management, work environment, and organizational structure. Deci and Ryan ( 2000 ) identify two dimensions of motivation: intrinsic motivation (personal interest, desire to achieve, job satisfaction) and extrinsic motivation (rewards, status, managerial support). This dual structure is the basic dynamic that shapes teachers' behavior and job performance. In particular, the support provided by school administrators to teachers, the communication they establish with them, and the creation of a healthy school climate are critical elements that increase teacher motivation. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy ( 2001 ) showed that the trust and autonomy provided by administrators to teachers increased their commitment to their jobs. Additionally, the positive effects of instructional leadership practices on teacher motivation have been revealed in many studies (Marks & Printy, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006 ). It is also stressed in the literature that learning organizational culture provides an environment that supports teacher motivation and that this structure makes the interaction between instructional leadership and motivation stronger (Silins et al., 2002 ). In this context, teacher motivation is a multidimensional process that is shaped not only by individual efforts but also by the school's leadership approach and organizational structure. Logical Basis and Purpose of the Research Education systems are considered to be dynamic structures that aim to enable individuals to develop and adapt to society by acquiring knowledge, skills, and values (Senge, 1990 ). Teachers have a key role in improving the quality of education, raising students' achievement, and increasing the efficiency of educational institutions. Teachers' professional performance and interaction with their students are directly related not only to their pedagogical competencies but also to their level of motivation and commitment to their jobs (Dinham & Scott, 1998 ). However, in addition to individual factors, teacher motivation is also influenced by environmental variables such as the leadership approach exhibited by administrators and the organizational structure of the school (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006 ). At this point, instructional leadership stands out as a management approach that supports teachers' professional development, directly contributes to teaching processes, and improves the educational environment (Hallinger, 2011 ). Administrators who exhibit instructional leadership can not only help teachers improve their pedagogical skills but also improve their commitment to their jobs by increasing their job satisfaction (Blase & Blase, 1999 ). Research shows that in schools where instructional leadership is exhibited, teachers show higher motivation, students' academic achievement increases, and the school climate in general becomes more positive (Printy et. al., 2009 ; Southworth, 2002 ). However, the influence of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is not always direct. In some cases, the organizational structure and culture of the school come into play as a determining factor in the direction and power of this relationship. The concept of the learning organization stands out as a critical variable that enables the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation to be addressed more comprehensively. Learning Organization and Its Significance in Educational Institutions Learning organizations are defined as dynamic structures in which individuals continuously produce knowledge, share this knowledge, and use it effectively in organizational processes (Senge, 1990 ). Especially in terms of educational institutions, the learning organization approach paves the way for the formation of a school culture that encourages teachers' professional development, strengthens collaboration, and supports innovative approaches (Watkins & Marsick, 1996 ). Schools with a learning organizational structure appear as institutions where teachers contribute more to their individual and professional development processes, share information with their colleagues, and are more willing to implement innovative educational models (Silins et al., 2002 ). The learning organization structure encourages teachers to take an active role in developing the educational process, not just implementing a specific curriculum (Goh, 2003 ). In these kinds of schools, teachers are involved in decision-making processes, have access to professional development opportunities, and are supported by administrators (Tetik, 2021 ). This situation strengthens teachers' commitment to the school and enhances their motivation. Moreover, the existence of learning organizations prevents teachers from feeling lonely and enables them to adopt innovative approaches by creating an environment of psychological safety at work (Doğan & Yiğit, 2015 ). In this way, teachers can handle the challenges they face in school more effectively, develop new pedagogical strategies, and generally increase their job satisfaction levels (Silins et al., 2002 ). Fundamental Problem and Objectives of the Research An examination of the existing literature reveals that there are many studies examining the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Hallinger, 2011 ; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2006 ). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that studies on how this relationship is shaped through the learning organization are limited (Çelik & Atak, 2012 ). How learning organization structures affect the dynamics between instructional leadership and teacher motivation is an important issue that needs to be investigated. Accordingly, the main purpose of this study is to examine the effect of principals' instructional leadership qualifications on teacher motivation and to determine whether the learning organization structure plays a mediating role in this process. This research addresses the following questions: What is the effect of principals' instructional leadership competencies on teacher motivation? How does the presence of a learning organization structure in schools affect teacher motivation? Does the learning organization play a mediating role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation? This study is expected to make significant contributions to the educational administration literature. The findings of the study will help us better understand the impact of the learning organization concept on teacher motivation while providing suggestions for school administrators to improve their instructional leadership skills. In terms of educational policies and practices, this study is expected to contribute to the development of concrete recommendations for enhancing and sustaining teacher motivation. This study aims to determine the mediating role of the learning organization (LO) in the effect of school principals' instructional leadership (IL) on teacher motivation (TM) and to test the following hypotheses. For this purpose, the proposed model of the study is shown in Fig. 1 : H 1 : There is a significant positive relationship between school principals' IL competencies and TM. H 2 : There is a significant positive relationship between school principals' IL competencies and LO. H 3 : There is a significant positive relationship between schools' LO characteristics and TM. H 4 : There is a mediating role of LO in the effect of IL on TM. METHOD Research Model A correlational survey design was used in this study to reveal the relationship pattern between principals' instructional leadership behaviors and teachers' motivation levels and learning organization structure. Correlational survey design is a quantitative research method that allows the relationships between variables to be described through the current situation and provides clues about cause-and-effect relationships (Karasar, 2020 ). In the model developed within the scope of the research, the mediating role of innovative school structure in the effect of agile leadership on entrepreneurial teacher behaviors was proposed, and these relationships were tested with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM is an advanced statistical technique used to analyze complex patterns of relationships between the observed and latent variables. This technique allows us to develop a meaningful model between theoretically constructed constructs and to test the extent to which this model statistically corresponds to the data (Kline, 2015 ; Schumacker & Lomax, 2016 ). Since SEM can function as both confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis at the same time, it makes it possible to test both direct and indirect effects. In this respect, it offers an analysis method suitable for the multivariate structure of the research and mediating relationships (Hair et al., 2019 ). In this context, the effects of instructional leadership on teacher motivation and learning organization and the structural relationships between these variables were thoroughly evaluated. Population and Sample The population of this study consists of teachers working in public schools in the Pendik, Tuzla, Adalar, and Maltepe districts of Istanbul province in the 2024–2025 academic year. Within the scope of the study, data were collected from 479 teachers who were selected from this population using the simple random sampling method. Simple random sampling is the most basic and widely used method among probability sampling methods and is based on a structure in which each individual has an equal probability of being selected (Creswell & Creswell, 2018 ). This method supports obtaining generalizable results by increasing the capacity of the sample to represent the population. Participants' participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants that the data would be used only for scientific purposes. Necessary explanations were provided for the participants to answer the questions sincerely and accurately. Sample size is a critical factor in analyses conducted with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and it is important to reach a sufficient number of participants depending on the complexity of the model. Kline ( 2015 ) states that the sample size is at least 100 participants in unidentified models and 200 participants or more in generally valid analyses. In this context, the sample size of 479 participants in this study is sufficient to test the reliability of the model (Hair et al., 2019 ). Analyzing the distribution of the demographic characteristics of the 403 participants whose data were analyzed within the scope of the research, it is seen that 209 (51.9%) of the participants were female and 194 (48.1%) were male according to the gender variable. According to the age variable, 45 (11.2%) of the teachers were under the age of 30, 96 (23.8%) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 133 (33.0%) were between the ages of 40 and 49, and 129 (32.0%) were 50 years and over. Regarding the participants' professional seniority, 44 teachers (10.9%) had less than 5 years of professional experience, 78 teachers (19.4%) had 5–12 years of professional experience, 121 teachers (30.0%) had 13–20 years of professional experience, and 160 teachers (39.7%) had more than 20 years of professional experience. With respect to the education level variable, the majority of the teachers were undergraduate graduates (n = 306, 75.9%), while the number of participants with postgraduate education was 97 (24.1%). These data indicate that the sample group has a balanced and diverse distribution in terms of gender, age, seniority, and educational level; thus, the findings of the study are of a quality that will allow comparative analyses between different demographic groups. Data Collection Tools In this study, the Personal Information Form, Instructional Leadership Scale, Motivation Scale, and Learning Organization Scale were used as data collection tools. The personal information form consists of questions about teachers' gender, age, seniority, and graduation status. The Instructional Leadership Scale was developed by J. M. Alig-Mielcarek ( 2003 ) to measure instructional leadership behaviors that affect school achievement. The scale was adapted into Turkish by Şahin ( 2011 ). The 5-point Likert-type scale consists of 23 items in total and has a three-dimensional structure (professional development, sharing goals, and feedback). A high score on the scale indicates a high level of instructional leadership behaviors. In the original study, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was not specified, but this value was reported as .94 in the Turkish adaptation study (Şahin, 2011 ). For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study. The Motivation Scale was developed by Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aubé, Morin, & Malorni ( 2010 ) to measure the motivation levels of employees in the workplace. The scale adapted into Turkish by Çevik and Köse ( 2017 ) is a 5-point Likert-type scale and consists of 12 items. The scale includes four dimensions: intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. A high score on the scale indicates that teachers' motivation levels are high. In the adaptation study of the scale, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were reported as .88 (Çevik & Köse, 2017 ). For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study. The Learning Organization Scale was developed by Çetin and Baydar ( 2021 ) to measure the learning organization level of organizations. The scale is a 5-point Likert type and consists of 16 items and includes dimensions reflecting the learning capacity of the organization (organizational learning, innovative learning, and visionary learning). A high score on the scale indicates that the learning organization characteristics of organizations are strong. In the development study, Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .95 (Çetin & Baydar, 2021 ). In this study, the Cronbach's Alpha value of the scale was found to be .96. For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study. Data Collection and Analysis Correlation analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used in this study to determine the mediating role of learning organization in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation. Before the SEM analysis, the fit of the data to the normal distribution was examined in terms of their suitability for parametric tests. In the literature, Leech et al. ( 2005 ) stated that if the kurtosis and skewness coefficients are between − 1 and + 1, the data can be considered suitable for normal distribution. Likewise, Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2007 ) extend this range a little more and state that values between − 1.5 and + 1.5 also meet the normal distribution conditions. The kurtosis and skewness values obtained in the study are presented in Table 1 , and it is concluded that the data are suitable for parametric analyses since they are within these ranges. These preliminary analyses supported the validity of the SEM analysis and ensured that the model was built on solid foundations (Kline, 2015 ). Table 1 Normality values for variables Statistic Std. Error Instructional Leadership Mean 3.837 .032 Std. Deviation .648 Skewness − .795 .122 Kurtosis − .919 .243 Teacher Motivation Mean 3.410 .122 Std. Deviation .671 Skewness − .245 ,122 Kurtosis .476 ,243 Learning Organization Mean 3.667 ,040 Std. Deviation .802 Skewness − .450 .122 Kurtosis − .207 .243 The normality values in Table 1 show that Instructional Leadership, Teacher Motivation and Learning Organization variables comply with the normal distribution. The skewness (between − 0.80 and − 0.25) and kurtosis (between − 0.92 and 0.48) values are within the range of -1.5 and + 1.5 as stated by Leech et al. ( 2005 ) and Tabachnick and Fidell ( 2007 ) and are suitable for parametric analysis. These results support that Structural Equation Modeling (Kline, 2015 ) analyses can be conducted on a solid foundation in terms of validity and reliability. Following the determination of the normality of the data and the reliability coefficients of the scales, correlation analysis between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables was implemented. In the subsequent stage, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses were applied to examine the structure of the relationships between the variables and the role of the mediating variable. SEM is a widely used method to test the direct and indirect effects of independent variables on the dependent variable, to establish a model, and to evaluate causal relationships (Kline, 2015 ; Özdamar, 2017 ). In mediation analysis, the method pioneered by Baron and Kenny ( 1986 ) was adopted; according to this method, three basic conditions should be met: first, the independent variable (e.g., agile leadership) should significantly affect both the dependent variable (e.g., entrepreneurial teacher behaviors) and the mediating variable (e.g., innovative school); second, the mediating variable should have a significant effect on the dependent variable; third, when the mediating variable is included in the model, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is expected to decrease or disappear significantly. The complete disappearance of the effect of the independent variable is defined as full mediation, while a partial decrease is defined as partial mediation, which allows the model to be validated (Hayes, 2017 ). Results In order to assess the validity of the theoretical model, correlation analyses were conducted to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables. The results of these analyses laid the groundwork for the Structural Equation Modeling analyses to be carried out in the next stages of the model by revealing the basic connections between the variables. Related correlation coefficients are presented in Table 2 . Table 2 Correlation coefficients calculated for variables Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 1- Instructional Leadership 3.837 .648 - 2- Teacher Motivation 3.410 .671 .339 ** - 3- Learning Organization 3.667 .802 .709 ** .425 ** **p < .01; N = 403 The correlation coefficients in Table 2 show that there are positive and significant relationships between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables. Instructional leadership has a very high correlation with learning organization ( r = .709, p < .01), indicating that the increase in instructional leadership level is associated with the strengthening of the concept of learning organization. In addition, a moderately significant relationship was found between instructional leadership and teacher motivation ( r = .339, p < .01). The relationship between learning organization and teacher motivation is medium-high and significant ( r = .425, p < .01). The fact that the p-values of all correlations are below .01 indicates that these relationships are statistically strong and reliable. These results support the presence of interactions between variables predicted in the theoretical model. The measured regression analysis of the variables in Fig. 2 shows that instructional leadership has a significant positive effect on teacher motivation (β = .339; p < .01). Moreover, the effect of instructional leadership on learning organization is quite strong (β = .709; p < .01), which shows the importance of effective leadership in creating a learning school culture. Learning organization, on the other hand, significantly affects teacher motivation (β = .425; p < .01). These results imply that the learning organization may play a mediating role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron & Kenny, 1986 ; Hayes, 2017 ). As seen in Fig. 3, in line with the findings obtained with the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is .339. The effect of instructional leadership on learning organization was calculated as .742 and the direct effect of learning organization on teacher motivation was calculated as .450. When the learning organization variable was included as a mediating variable in the model, the standardized indirect effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation was .334 and the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation decreased to .00. This result indicates that the learning organization plays a full mediation role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron & Kenny, 1986 ). Hence, the effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is fully mediated through the learning organization. Table 3 Coefficients of total, direct, and indirect effects of variables Standardized Total Effects Standardized Direct Effects Standardized Indirect Effects 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1-Instructional Leadership .000 .000 .000 2-Learning Organization .742 .000 .742 .000 .000 .000 3-Teacher Motivation .339 .450 .000 .005 .450 .000 .334 .000 .000 According to Table 3 , the findings of the Structural Equation Modeling analysis show that the direct effect of instructional leadership on learning organization is .742. Similarly, the direct effect of learning organization on teacher motivation was calculated as .450. While the total effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is .339, only .005 of this effect is direct, and .334 of this effect is indirect, that is, through the learning organization. This shows that the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation has significantly decreased and almost completely disappeared. Accordingly, the learning organization variable plays a full mediation role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron & Kenny, 1986 ). This finding shows that the effect of instructional leadership practices in increasing teacher motivation is greatly enabled by the fact that the organization has a learning structure. Table 4 Fit and reference values for the proposed model χ² df p χ²/df RMR SRMR GFI AGFI NFI TLI CFI RMSEA Model 75.751 31 .000 2.866 .034 .049 .960 .929 .974 .975 .983 .068 Value Reached Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Perfect Acceptable χ²=Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; p < .01; RMR = Root mean square residuals; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; GFI = Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; TLI = Turker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation. According to Table 4 , the results of the model fit indicate that the Structural Equation Modeling fits the data strongly. Although the chi-square value was significant (χ² = 75.751, df = 31, p < .001), this test is known to be sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2016); therefore, the χ²/df ratio = 2.866 indicates a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., 2003 ). Among the fit indices, GFI (.960), AGFI (.929), NFI (.974), TLI (.975), and CFI (.983) values are well above .90, indicating a perfect fit (Bentler, 1990 ; Hu & Bentler, 1999 ). Furthermore, RMR (.034) and SRMR (.049) values are below .05, indicating a very good fit. RMSEA = .068 is at an acceptable level (Browne & Cudeck, 1993 ). All these indicators show that the model is statistically significant and provides a theoretically adequate fit. Discussion and Conclusions In this study, the theoretical model developed for the mediating role of learning organization structure in the effect of principals' instructional leadership on teacher motivation in accordance with teachers' perceptions was tested. The effects of the analyzed variables on each other were tried to be explained through regression analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The results of the study revealed that instructional leadership of school principals has a profound effect on the learning organization structure. This finding shows that the formation of a learning-based culture throughout the school is realized with the support of the school principal's instructional leadership. Instructional leadership practices seek to increase teachers' motivation, self-efficacy perception, and performance by developing a learning organizational culture throughout the school rather than classroom teaching practices, and thereby indirectly contributing to student achievement. Examining the literature, it is observed that there are similar results. Hallinger & Lee ( 2008 ), in their research, state that instructional leadership practices strengthen the learning organization structure. Bass ( 2000 ) states that the leadership of the school principal strongly affects school success and thus contributes positively to the formation of a learning organization culture. Chang & Lee ( 2007 ) state that the relationship between leadership and learning organization is direct and significant. The study reveals that the strengthening of the learning organization structure has a statistically significant and positive effect on teachers' motivation and job satisfaction. According to the findings of the study, the relationship between the learning organization and teacher motivation is medium-high and significant. This finding coincides with the findings in the literature. Jokić & Pantić ( 2023 ) stated in their study that all dimensions of the learning organization have a significant and positive relationship with teachers' job satisfaction. Hallinger & Lee ( 2008 ), in their research, stated that teachers' motivation and self-efficacy perceptions improved as a result of strengthening the learning organization structure. Pujilestari, Rubini & Sunaryo ( 2023 ), in their research examining the effects of learning organization, transformational leadership, and motivation on teacher performance, emphasize that strengthening the learning organization structure provides substantial improvements in teacher motivation and performance. The findings of the study revealed that the learning organization structure assumed a full mediating role in the effect of principals' instructional leadership on teacher motivation. This result is consistent with many studies in the literature (Blase & Blase, 1999 ; Naz & Rashid, 2021 ; Southworth, 2002 ). The results of this study are in line with the findings that instructional leadership roles of school principals increase teachers' motivation and job satisfaction (Printy el al., 2009; Hallinger, 2011 ). The unique feature of this study is that this relationship is completely indirect through the learning organization structure. This finding reveals that instructional leadership alone is not sufficient to increase teacher motivation. It is seen that the learning organization structure is an important element in enhancing teacher motivation. The results of the research correspond to the views of Goh ( 2003 ) and Senge ( 1990 ), theorists who studied the concept of learning organization. In his study, Demirdag ( 2021 ) states that school principals' support and encouragement of teachers' professional development is a motivational factor. Robinson et al. ( 2008 ) state that in order for instructional leadership to have positive effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction, a supportive environment should be provided, feedback should be given, and expectations regarding the educational processes should be clearly stated. Blase & Blase ( 2000 ) state that gradual increases in motivation can be attained by supporting individuals. An original model is proposed in this study in which the learning organization structure is seen as a mediating variable in the relationship between principals' instructional leadership and teacher motivation. This proposal reveals the indirect contribution of school leadership to teacher motivation from a different perspective. The findings of the study show that if school principals improve instructional processes by creating a learning culture, it will significantly contribute to the formation of a positive school culture and the development of teacher motivation. This research provides a strong argument that schools should be continuously developing and learning institutions by bringing together leadership and organizational development learning organization processes in the field of educational administration. The research is based on the perceptions of teachers working in Istanbul. Its generalizability may be limited in a different region or where there are different educational practices. It should be noted that since the responses obtained in the data collection tools are based on the personal perceptions of the participants, the findings reflect the subjective evaluations of the respondents. Recommendations Future studies can be conducted with teachers working at different levels of education in diverse cultural regions. In addition, contributions to the literature can be made by modeling different leadership styles such as transformational leadership, distributive leadership, and variables related to school culture. Based on the findings of this study, teacher motivation and productivity increase with the development of the organization. Therefore, school principals should be encouraged to do more for the development of the organization. Policymakers should include the learning organizational culture dimension in the professional development programs of school principals. Restructuring the professional development policies of educational leaders needs to be prioritized. Develop exemplary practices and methods to support organizational development by improving the professional development of school leaders. Declarations Ethics approval and consent to participate This study was conducted in accordance with the first version of the Declaration of Helsinki adopted in 1964 and its subsequent updated versions. Before the study started, the necessary ethical approval was obtained from Aksaray University Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee Approval Number: 2025 − 328/17.06.2025). The official document for Ethics Approval has been placed in the "Supplementary material" section under the name "Ethics Approval Official Document". Participants were informed about the purpose, process and voluntary participation principles of the research. Participant confidentiality and confidentiality of data were meticulously protected. Consent for publication Participants were informed that anonymized data may be used for publication purposes, and their consent was obtained accordingly. No identifying personal information is included in the manuscript. Competing interests The authors declare that they have no competing interests. Funding This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Author Contribution FB, MED: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, writing – original draft.FB: Data analysis, writing – review & editing.FB, MED: Supervision, validation, final approval of the manuscript. Acknowledgement The authors would like to thank the school principals and teachers who participated in this study. Availability of data and materials The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the present study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author Fatih BAYDAR. References Alig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). A model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student achievement (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 Bass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. Journal of Leadership Studies, 7 (3), 18–40. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107 (2), 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 Blase, J., & Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35 (3), 349–378. Blase, J., & Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers’ perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38 (2), 130–141. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage. Chang, S. C., & Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees' job satisfaction. The Learning Organization, 14 (2), 155–185. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE Publications. Çelik, M., & Atak, M. (2012). Öğrenen örgüt ve örgütsel bağlılık: Kamu çalışanları üzerine bir araştırma. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17 (1), 93–111. Çetin, M., & Baydar, F. (2021). Öğrenen örgüt ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması. Marmara Üniversitesi Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 54 , 75–96. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.813670 Çevik, A., & Köse, A. (2017). Öğretmenlerin okul kültürü algıları ile motivasyonları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6 (2), 996–1014. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers’ professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education, 33 (4), 423–443. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11 (4), 227–268. Demirdag, S. (2021). School principals' instructional leadership as a predictor of teacher motivation. ie: Inquiry in Education, 13 (2), Article 6. Dinham, S., & Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. Journal of Educational Administration, 36 (4), 362–378. Doğan, S., & Yiğit, Y. (2015). Öğreten okulların tamamlayıcısı: Öğrenen okullar. Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14 (53), 318–336. Gagné, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M. H., Aubé, C., Morin, E., & Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70 (4), 628–646. Goh, S. C. (2003). Improving organizational learning capability: Lessons from two case studies. The Learning Organization, 10 (4), 216–227. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2019). Multivariate data analysis (8th ed.). Pearson. Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away . Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4 (3), 221–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793 Hallinger, P., & Lee, M. (2008). A distributed perspective on instructional leadership in International Baccalaureate schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19 (1), 83–103. Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49 (2), 125–142. Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). Guilford Press. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118 Jokić, D., & Pantić, J. (2023). The relationship between the school as a learning organisation and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia. Education Sciences, 13 (12), Article 1171. Karasar, N. (2020). Bilimsel araştırma yöntemi (35. baskı). Nobel Yayıncılık. Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17 (2), 201–227. Naz, F., & Rashid, S. (2021). Effective instructional leadership can enhance teachers’ motivation and improve students’ learning outcomes. South Asian Journal of Educational Research, 4 (1), 477–485. Özdamar, K. (2017). İstatistiksel veri analizi teknikleri (9. baskı). Nisan Yayınları. Pujilestari, Y., Rubini, B., & Sunaryo, W. (2023). Improving teacher performance through strengthening learning organization, transformational leadership and achievement motivation. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 49 (1), 142–153. Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., & Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership, 19 (5), 504–532. Robinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (5), 635–674. Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8 (2), 23–74. Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2016). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization . Doubleday. Silins, H., Zarins, S., & Mulford, B. (2002). What characteristics and processes define a school as a learning organisation? International Education Journal, 3 (1), 24–32. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. Creative Education, 8 (10), 1785–1799. Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School Leadership & Management, 22 (1), 73–91. Şahin, S. (2011). Öğretimsel liderlik ve okul kültürü arasındaki ilişki (İzmir ili örneği). Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11 (4), 1909–1928. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson. Tetik, S. (2021). Öğretmenlerin öğrenen örgüt algısının bireysel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi üzerine bir araştırma: Salihli örneği. Adıyaman Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14 (38), 621–659. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 (7), 783–805. Watkins, K. E., & Marsick, V. J. (1996). Creating the learning organization: A guide to continuous improvement . Jossey-Bass. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 09 Feb, 2026 Read the published version in BMC Psychology → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 09 Dec, 2025 Reviews received at journal 27 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 22 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 15 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 14 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 13 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 11 Sep, 2025 Reviews received at journal 04 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Sep, 2025 Reviewers agreed at journal 04 Sep, 2025 Reviewers invited by journal 03 Sep, 2025 Editor invited by journal 11 Aug, 2025 Editor assigned by journal 06 Aug, 2025 Submission checks completed at journal 06 Aug, 2025 First submitted to journal 30 Jul, 2025 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7251727","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":511101849,"identity":"f3a3c435-bffa-4860-b3da-0c78c066ad23","order_by":0,"name":"Fatih BAYDAR","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Aksaray University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Fatih","middleName":"","lastName":"BAYDAR","suffix":""},{"id":511101850,"identity":"c73fb2b3-d41b-4d1d-aeaa-455bbc06055c","order_by":1,"name":"Mehmed Esad Demirci²","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Ministry of National Education","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Mehmed","middleName":"Esad","lastName":"Demirci²","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-07-30 10:23:33","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04090-8","type":"published","date":"2026-02-09T15:58:48+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":91122497,"identity":"de893cb2-35cb-4c10-94b3-3deb90c1e637","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-11 19:20:27","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":45067,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eThe theoretical model to be tested\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7251727/v1/4c7dcb9e2aa9c975b091466d.jpg"},{"id":91120646,"identity":"efe965b7-3c57-494c-8d2b-fb78959fe13e","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-11 19:04:27","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":74341,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRegression (direct effect) values of variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7251727/v1/d569097c7a23cab24160b8d0.jpg"},{"id":91120647,"identity":"5b0ad5e9-911e-4407-88ce-2c5a4883ffaa","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-09-11 19:04:27","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":63261,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eModel with learning organization as mediating variable\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7251727/v1/4ade40b3fe63f9255d8da67b.jpg"},{"id":102785588,"identity":"31335d84-0262-4353-a7be-c63887bc3614","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2026-02-16 16:08:31","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1025825,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7251727/v1/870e8681-a1ad-4561-b92c-278d0d82162d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eThe Relationship between School Principals' Instructive Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[{"header":"INTRODUCTION","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn educational institutions, one of the main ways to achieve sustainable success is to ensure that teachers are highly motivated and committed to their jobs and to create environments that can sustain this commitment in the long term. This is because teacher motivation is a fundamental element that directly affects not only the level of individual performance but also the achievement of students, the quality of the classroom environment, and the overall educational output of the school (Dinham \u0026amp; Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e; Skaalvik \u0026amp; Skaalvik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR40\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers with high motivation are more interested in their pupils, more dedicated to their profession, and more open to innovations, while low motivation can lead to problems such as burnout, professional dissatisfaction, and loss of efficiency (Day \u0026amp; Gu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, sustainability of teacher motivation is one of the most essential goals of educational administration. However, maintaining teachers' job satisfaction and motivation levels is a complex issue in which many individual and environmental variables are effective. In this process, school administrators' leadership approach and the behaviors they exhibit are among the main factors that influence teachers' motivation. In particular, instructional leadership is very important in terms of the school administrator's guidance of teachers, active involvement in teaching processes, and support for teachers' professional development (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Studies show that teachers are more motivated, feel more connected to their profession, and contribute more to the teaching process in schools where principals exhibit instructional leadership (Leithwood \u0026amp; Jantzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e; Marks \u0026amp; Printy, 2003).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional leadership is an approach to leadership that involves not only managing instructional processes but also determining the vision of the school, encouraging collaboration among teachers, using resources effectively, and making strategic decisions to increase students' academic achievement (Blase \u0026amp; Blase, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Southworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). This leadership approach can increase teachers' motivation by creating a school environment where teachers are not left alone, are supported, and their professional contributions are valued. As a matter of fact, when teachers feel supported by their principals, it increases their commitment to the school and positively affects their job satisfaction (Tschannen-Moran \u0026amp; Hoy, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e). However, it is thought that this relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation does not always emerge through a direct interaction; in some cases, this effect may be shaped by different variables. At this point, the concept of a learning organization is an important structure that can provide a better understanding of the dynamics of this relationship. A learning organization is a structure in which employees contribute to organizational development by continuously producing and sharing knowledge and using this knowledge in business processes (Senge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). In terms of educational institutions, schools with a learning organization structure are institutions in which teachers' professional development is supported, innovative ideas are encouraged, and collaboration is prioritized (Silins, Zarins \u0026amp; Mulford, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe conception of a learning organization also develops the consciousness of acting in line with common goals among teachers. This contributes to teachers feeling valuable, taking more responsibility, and increasing their motivation (Watkins \u0026amp; Marsick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). In their study, Tetik (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) revealed that teachers' professional motivation is higher in schools with a learning organization structure. The learning organization fosters a healthy flow of information within the school, active participation of teachers in decision-making processes, and healthy relationships with administrators (Goh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Nevertheless, when the literature is examined, it is seen that there are few studies directly examining the mediating role of the learning organization in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Çelik \u0026amp; Atak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). However, the learning organization can provide a structure that strengthens the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation and nurtures and supports this interaction. Therefore, it is reckoned that the analysis without taking this structure into consideration will be incomplete and the process will not be fully understood. In this direction, this study aims to examine in depth how the learning organization structure has an effect on the relationship between school administrators' instructional leadership skills and teacher motivation, and in this direction, it is aimed to present new implications for educational institutions. This study is expected to contribute to educational policies and practices by providing concrete suggestions for strengthening the instructional leadership approach in school administration and disseminating the learning organization culture in schools. In the meantime, it is thought that it will enable the development of new perspectives on the relationship between leadership and organizational structure to ensure the sustainability of teacher motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eInstructional Leadership\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSchool administrators' leadership of the instructional process is not only an administrative task but also a process of transforming the learning culture of the school. In this context, instructional leadership is a type of leadership that includes multifaceted tasks such as taking an active role in planning, implementing, and evaluating the curriculum; supporting teachers' professional development; improving the quality of learning environments; and raising student achievement (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Blase and Blase (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e) define instructional leadership as acting in collaboration with teachers, providing them with constructive and continuous feedback, and offering support to improve learning-teaching processes. In this respect, instructional leadership encourages teachers to become active not only in the classroom but also in the overall functioning of the school. Leithwood and Jantzi (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e) emphasize that instructional leadership is effective in determining the goals of the school, creating a vision, and mobilizing teachers in line with this vision. This leadership approach empowers teachers' motivation and professional commitment by creating a school culture where teachers are not left alone but rather guided, supported, and invested in their development. Furthermore, Southworth (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) stated that instructional leadership both increases teachers' job satisfaction and contributes directly to student achievement by creating a structure that encourages learning and development in school culture. In recent years, studies have shown that instructional leadership practices have positive effects on teacher performance, increase teachers' commitment to their jobs, and stimulate their interest in professional development (Printy, Marks \u0026amp; Bowers, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). Instructional leadership is not merely a management practice but the key to creating a positive learning culture in the school setting.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLearning Organization\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn terms of keeping up with the ever-changing information society, it has become a necessity for educational institutions to move away from classical management approaches and become learning-based structures. At this point, the concept of a learning organization emerges as a prominent structure model in the field of education. Senge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e) defines learning organizations as innovative structures that are open to change, where individuals are in a continuous learning effort and contribute to the development of the organization through shared knowledge and experiences. Embracing the learning organization approach in educational institutions enables teachers to learn from each other, act with a common mind, and create learning communities (Watkins \u0026amp; Marsick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Doğan and Yiğit (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) state that in schools with a learning organization structure, teachers are more open to innovations, give more attention to professional development, and have a stronger culture of working together. In a similar vein, Silins et al., (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e) stated that learning organization characteristics increase teachers' job satisfaction, positively affect their motivation, and improve school performance. Learning organization structures not only provides teachers with room for individual development but also strengthens the culture of mutual interaction and solidarity, making the overall atmosphere of the school more productive and motivational. Goh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) found that learning organizations improve teachers' problem-solving skills, adaptability to innovations, and job satisfaction because they are structures based on the understanding of continuous development and improvement. Therefore, schools with a learning organization culture provide environments that contribute to both the personal development and organizational commitment of teachers. In this respect, the learning organization can play a significant role as a mediating factor in strengthening the relationship between the school's leadership style and teachers' motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eTeacher Motivation\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTeacher motivation is one of the main factors affecting success in education. Well-motivated teachers fulfill their jobs more enthusiastically, provide more support to students, and play an active role in achieving the school's goals (Dinham \u0026amp; Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). Teacher motivation is not only an individual internal process; it is also influenced by external factors such as school management, work environment, and organizational structure. Deci and Ryan (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) identify two dimensions of motivation: intrinsic motivation (personal interest, desire to achieve, job satisfaction) and extrinsic motivation (rewards, status, managerial support). This dual structure is the basic dynamic that shapes teachers' behavior and job performance. In particular, the support provided by school administrators to teachers, the communication they establish with them, and the creation of a healthy school climate are critical elements that increase teacher motivation. Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e) showed that the trust and autonomy provided by administrators to teachers increased their commitment to their jobs. Additionally, the positive effects of instructional leadership practices on teacher motivation have been revealed in many studies (Marks \u0026amp; Printy, 2003; Leithwood \u0026amp; Jantzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). It is also stressed in the literature that learning organizational culture provides an environment that supports teacher motivation and that this structure makes the interaction between instructional leadership and motivation stronger (Silins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, teacher motivation is a multidimensional process that is shaped not only by individual efforts but also by the school's leadership approach and organizational structure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLogical Basis and Purpose of the Research\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEducation systems are considered to be dynamic structures that aim to enable individuals to develop and adapt to society by acquiring knowledge, skills, and values (Senge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Teachers have a key role in improving the quality of education, raising students' achievement, and increasing the efficiency of educational institutions. Teachers' professional performance and interaction with their students are directly related not only to their pedagogical competencies but also to their level of motivation and commitment to their jobs (Dinham \u0026amp; Scott, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1998\u003c/span\u003e). However, in addition to individual factors, teacher motivation is also influenced by environmental variables such as the leadership approach exhibited by administrators and the organizational structure of the school (Leithwood \u0026amp; Jantzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). At this point, instructional leadership stands out as a management approach that supports teachers' professional development, directly contributes to teaching processes, and improves the educational environment (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Administrators who exhibit instructional leadership can not only help teachers improve their pedagogical skills but also improve their commitment to their jobs by increasing their job satisfaction (Blase \u0026amp; Blase, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Research shows that in schools where instructional leadership is exhibited, teachers show higher motivation, students' academic achievement increases, and the school climate in general becomes more positive (Printy et. al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Southworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, the influence of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is not always direct. In some cases, the organizational structure and culture of the school come into play as a determining factor in the direction and power of this relationship. The concept of the learning organization stands out as a critical variable that enables the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation to be addressed more comprehensively.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLearning Organization and Its Significance in Educational Institutions\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLearning organizations are defined as dynamic structures in which individuals continuously produce knowledge, share this knowledge, and use it effectively in organizational processes (Senge, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e). Especially in terms of educational institutions, the learning organization approach paves the way for the formation of a school culture that encourages teachers' professional development, strengthens collaboration, and supports innovative approaches (Watkins \u0026amp; Marsick, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR46\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1996\u003c/span\u003e). Schools with a learning organizational structure appear as institutions where teachers contribute more to their individual and professional development processes, share information with their colleagues, and are more willing to implement innovative educational models (Silins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The learning organization structure encourages teachers to take an active role in developing the educational process, not just implementing a specific curriculum (Goh, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). In these kinds of schools, teachers are involved in decision-making processes, have access to professional development opportunities, and are supported by administrators (Tetik, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). This situation strengthens teachers' commitment to the school and enhances their motivation. Moreover, the existence of learning organizations prevents teachers from feeling lonely and enables them to adopt innovative approaches by creating an environment of psychological safety at work (Doğan \u0026amp; Yiğit, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e). In this way, teachers can handle the challenges they face in school more effectively, develop new pedagogical strategies, and generally increase their job satisfaction levels (Silins et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR39\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eFundamental Problem and Objectives of the Research\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn examination of the existing literature reveals that there are many studies examining the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Leithwood \u0026amp; Jantzi, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that studies on how this relationship is shaped through the learning organization are limited (Çelik \u0026amp; Atak, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). How learning organization structures affect the dynamics between instructional leadership and teacher motivation is an important issue that needs to be investigated. Accordingly, the main purpose of this study is to examine the effect of principals' instructional leadership qualifications on teacher motivation and to determine whether the learning organization structure plays a mediating role in this process.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research addresses the following questions:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003col\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eWhat is the effect of principals' instructional leadership competencies on teacher motivation?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eHow does the presence of a learning organization structure in schools affect teacher motivation?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cp\u003eDoes the learning organization play a mediating role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study is expected to make significant contributions to the educational administration literature. The findings of the study will help us better understand the impact of the learning organization concept on teacher motivation while providing suggestions for school administrators to improve their instructional leadership skills. In terms of educational policies and practices, this study is expected to contribute to the development of concrete recommendations for enhancing and sustaining teacher motivation.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to determine the mediating role of the learning organization (LO) in the effect of school principals' instructional leadership (IL) on teacher motivation (TM) and to test the following hypotheses. For this purpose, the proposed model of the study is shown in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e:\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"BlockQuote\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e1\u003c/sub\u003e: There is a significant positive relationship between school principals' IL competencies and TM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e: There is a significant positive relationship between school principals' IL competencies and LO.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e: There is a significant positive relationship between schools' LO characteristics and TM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eH\u003csub\u003e4\u003c/sub\u003e: There is a mediating role of LO in the effect of IL on TM.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"METHOD","content":"\u003ch2\u003eResearch Model\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eA correlational survey design was used in this study to reveal the relationship pattern between principals' instructional leadership behaviors and teachers' motivation levels and learning organization structure. Correlational survey design is a quantitative research method that allows the relationships between variables to be described through the current situation and provides clues about cause-and-effect relationships (Karasar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR27\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). In the model developed within the scope of the research, the mediating role of innovative school structure in the effect of agile leadership on entrepreneurial teacher behaviors was proposed, and these relationships were tested with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). SEM is an advanced statistical technique used to analyze complex patterns of relationships between the observed and latent variables. This technique allows us to develop a meaningful model between theoretically constructed constructs and to test the extent to which this model statistically corresponds to the data (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Schumacker \u0026amp; Lomax, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e). Since SEM can function as both confirmatory factor analysis and regression analysis at the same time, it makes it possible to test both direct and indirect effects. In this respect, it offers an analysis method suitable for the multivariate structure of the research and mediating relationships (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). In this context, the effects of instructional leadership on teacher motivation and learning organization and the structural relationships between these variables were thoroughly evaluated.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch3\u003ePopulation and Sample\u003c/h3\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe population of this study consists of teachers working in public schools in the Pendik, Tuzla, Adalar, and Maltepe districts of Istanbul province in the 2024–2025 academic year. Within the scope of the study, data were collected from 479 teachers who were selected from this population using the simple random sampling method. Simple random sampling is the most basic and widely used method among probability sampling methods and is based on a structure in which each individual has an equal probability of being selected (Creswell \u0026amp; Creswell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). This method supports obtaining generalizable results by increasing the capacity of the sample to represent the population. Participants' participation in the study was voluntary, and informed consent was obtained from all participants that the data would be used only for scientific purposes. Necessary explanations were provided for the participants to answer the questions sincerely and accurately. Sample size is a critical factor in analyses conducted with Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), and it is important to reach a sufficient number of participants depending on the complexity of the model. Kline (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) states that the sample size is at least 100 participants in unidentified models and 200 participants or more in generally valid analyses. In this context, the sample size of 479 participants in this study is sufficient to test the reliability of the model (Hair et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnalyzing the distribution of the demographic characteristics of the 403 participants whose data were analyzed within the scope of the research, it is seen that 209 (51.9%) of the participants were female and 194 (48.1%) were male according to the gender variable. According to the age variable, 45 (11.2%) of the teachers were under the age of 30, 96 (23.8%) were between the ages of 30 and 39, 133 (33.0%) were between the ages of 40 and 49, and 129 (32.0%) were 50 years and over. Regarding the participants' professional seniority, 44 teachers (10.9%) had less than 5 years of professional experience, 78 teachers (19.4%) had 5–12 years of professional experience, 121 teachers (30.0%) had 13–20 years of professional experience, and 160 teachers (39.7%) had more than 20 years of professional experience. With respect to the education level variable, the majority of the teachers were undergraduate graduates (n = 306, 75.9%), while the number of participants with postgraduate education was 97 (24.1%). These data indicate that the sample group has a balanced and diverse distribution in terms of gender, age, seniority, and educational level; thus, the findings of the study are of a quality that will allow comparative analyses between different demographic groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Collection Tools\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the Personal Information Form, Instructional Leadership Scale, Motivation Scale, and Learning Organization Scale were used as data collection tools. The personal information form consists of questions about teachers' gender, age, seniority, and graduation status.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Instructional Leadership Scale\u003c/b\u003e was developed by J. M. Alig-Mielcarek (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) to measure instructional leadership behaviors that affect school achievement. The scale was adapted into Turkish by Şahin (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The 5-point Likert-type scale consists of 23 items in total and has a three-dimensional structure (professional development, sharing goals, and feedback). A high score on the scale indicates a high level of instructional leadership behaviors. In the original study, Cronbach's Alpha coefficient was not specified, but this value was reported as .94 in the Turkish adaptation study (Şahin, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Motivation Scale\u003c/b\u003e was developed by Gagné, Forest, Gilbert, Aubé, Morin, \u0026amp; Malorni (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) to measure the motivation levels of employees in the workplace. The scale adapted into Turkish by Çevik and Köse (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e) is a 5-point Likert-type scale and consists of 12 items. The scale includes four dimensions: intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation. A high score on the scale indicates that teachers' motivation levels are high. In the adaptation study of the scale, Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were reported as .88 (Çevik \u0026amp; Köse, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e). For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eThe Learning Organization Scale\u003c/b\u003e was developed by Çetin and Baydar (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) to measure the learning organization level of organizations. The scale is a 5-point Likert type and consists of 16 items and includes dimensions reflecting the learning capacity of the organization (organizational learning, innovative learning, and visionary learning). A high score on the scale indicates that the learning organization characteristics of organizations are strong. In the development study, Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated as .95 (Çetin \u0026amp; Baydar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). In this study, the Cronbach's Alpha value of the scale was found to be .96. For this reason, it was found appropriate to use the scale in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Collection and Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eCorrelation analysis and Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) were used in this study to determine the mediating role of learning organization in the effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation. Before the SEM analysis, the fit of the data to the normal distribution was examined in terms of their suitability for parametric tests. In the literature, Leech et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) stated that if the kurtosis and skewness coefficients are between − 1 and + 1, the data can be considered suitable for normal distribution. Likewise, Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) extend this range a little more and state that values between − 1.5 and + 1.5 also meet the normal distribution conditions. The kurtosis and skewness values obtained in the study are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e, and it is concluded that the data are suitable for parametric analyses since they are within these ranges. These preliminary analyses supported the validity of the SEM analysis and ensured that the model was built on solid foundations (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNormality values for variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c2\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStatistic\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Error\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eInstructional Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.837\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.032\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.648\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .795\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.122\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .919\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.243\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTeacher Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.410\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.122\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.671\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .245\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e,122\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.476\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e,243\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"3\" rowspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eLearning Organization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.667\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e,040\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStd. Deviation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.802\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSkewness\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .450\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.122\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eKurtosis\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e− .207\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.243\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe normality values in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e show that Instructional Leadership, Teacher Motivation and Learning Organization variables comply with the normal distribution. The skewness (between − 0.80 and − 0.25) and kurtosis (between − 0.92 and 0.48) values are within the range of -1.5 and + 1.5 as stated by Leech et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e) and Tabachnick and Fidell (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) and are suitable for parametric analysis. These results support that Structural Equation Modeling (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) analyses can be conducted on a solid foundation in terms of validity and reliability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFollowing the determination of the normality of the data and the reliability coefficients of the scales, correlation analysis between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables was implemented. In the subsequent stage, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses were applied to examine the structure of the relationships between the variables and the role of the mediating variable. SEM is a widely used method to test the direct and indirect effects of independent variables on the dependent variable, to establish a model, and to evaluate causal relationships (Kline, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Özdamar, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn mediation analysis, the method pioneered by Baron and Kenny (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e) was adopted; according to this method, three basic conditions should be met: first, the independent variable (e.g., agile leadership) should significantly affect both the dependent variable (e.g., entrepreneurial teacher behaviors) and the mediating variable (e.g., innovative school); second, the mediating variable should have a significant effect on the dependent variable; third, when the mediating variable is included in the model, the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable is expected to decrease or disappear significantly. The complete disappearance of the effect of the independent variable is defined as full mediation, while a partial decrease is defined as partial mediation, which allows the model to be validated (Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn order to assess the validity of the theoretical model, correlation analyses were conducted to determine the strength and direction of the relationship between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables. The results of these analyses laid the groundwork for the Structural Equation Modeling analyses to be carried out in the next stages of the model by revealing the basic connections between the variables. Related correlation coefficients are presented in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"char\" char=\".\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorrelation coefficients calculated for variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eMean\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSD\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1- Instructional Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.837\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.648\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2- Teacher Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.410\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.671\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.339\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e-\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3- Learning Organization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"char\" char=\".\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3.667\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.802\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.709\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.425\u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e**p \u0026lt; .01; N = 403\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe correlation coefficients in Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e show that there are positive and significant relationships between instructional leadership, teacher motivation, and learning organization variables. Instructional leadership has a very high correlation with learning organization (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .709, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01), indicating that the increase in instructional leadership level is associated with the strengthening of the concept of learning organization. In addition, a moderately significant relationship was found between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .339, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). The relationship between learning organization and teacher motivation is medium-high and significant (\u003cem\u003er\u003c/em\u003e = .425, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01). The fact that the p-values of all correlations are below .01 indicates that these relationships are statistically strong and reliable. These results support the presence of interactions between variables predicted in the theoretical model.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe measured regression analysis of the variables in Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows that instructional leadership has a significant positive effect on teacher motivation (β = .339; p \u0026lt; .01). Moreover, the effect of instructional leadership on learning organization is quite strong (β = .709; p \u0026lt; .01), which shows the importance of effective leadership in creating a learning school culture. Learning organization, on the other hand, significantly affects teacher motivation (β = .425; p \u0026lt; .01). These results imply that the learning organization may play a mediating role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron \u0026amp; Kenny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e; Hayes, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2017\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAs seen in Fig.\u0026nbsp;3, in line with the findings obtained with the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is .339. The effect of instructional leadership on learning organization was calculated as .742 and the direct effect of learning organization on teacher motivation was calculated as .450. When the learning organization variable was included as a mediating variable in the model, the standardized indirect effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation was .334 and the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation decreased to .00. This result indicates that the learning organization plays a full mediation role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron \u0026amp; Kenny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). Hence, the effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is fully mediated through the learning organization.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoefficients of total, direct, and indirect effects of variables\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\" morerows=\"1\" rowspan=\"2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized Total Effects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eDirect Effects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c13\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eStandardized Indirect Effects\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c14\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c10\" namest=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c14\" namest=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e1-Instructional Leadership\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2-Learning Organization\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.742\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.742\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c3\" namest=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e3-Teacher Motivation\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.339\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.450\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.005\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.450\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c11\" namest=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003e.334\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e, the findings of the Structural Equation Modeling analysis show that the direct effect of instructional leadership on learning organization is .742. Similarly, the direct effect of learning organization on teacher motivation was calculated as .450. While the total effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation is .339, only .005 of this effect is direct, and .334 of this effect is indirect, that is, through the learning organization. This shows that the direct effect of instructional leadership on teacher motivation has significantly decreased and almost completely disappeared. Accordingly, the learning organization variable plays a full mediation role in the relationship between instructional leadership and teacher motivation (Baron \u0026amp; Kenny, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR2\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1986\u003c/span\u003e). This finding shows that the effect of instructional leadership practices in increasing teacher motivation is greatly enabled by the fact that the organization has a learning structure.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c9\" colnum=\"9\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c10\" colnum=\"10\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c11\" colnum=\"11\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c12\" colnum=\"12\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c13\" colnum=\"13\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c14\" colnum=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab4\" border=\"1\"\u003e\u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 4\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFit and reference values for the proposed model\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/caption\u003e\u003ccolgroup cols=\"14\"\u003e\u003c/colgroup\u003e\u003cthead\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eχ²\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003edf\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eχ²/df\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eSRMR\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAGFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eNFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eTLI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eCFI\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eRMSEA\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/th\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/thead\u003e\u003ctbody\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eModel\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e75.751\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e31\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.000\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e2.866\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.034\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.049\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c9\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.960\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.929\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.974\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.975\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.983\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e.068\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cb\u003eValue Reached\u003c/b\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c9\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c10\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c11\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c12\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c13\"\u003e\u003cp\u003ePerfect\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c14\"\u003e\u003cp\u003eAcceptable\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e\u003c/tbody\u003e\u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eχ²=Chi-square; df = degree of freedom; p \u0026lt; .01; RMR = Root mean square residuals; SRMR = Standardized root mean square residual; GFI = Goodness-of-fit index; AGFI = Adjusted goodness-of-fit index; NFI = Normed Fit Index; TLI = Turker-Lewis Index; CFI = Comparative Fit Index; RMSEA = Root mean square error of approximation.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab4\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e, the results of the model fit indicate that the Structural Equation Modeling fits the data strongly. Although the chi-square value was significant (χ² = 75.751, df = 31, p \u0026lt; .001), this test is known to be sensitive to sample size (Kline, 2016); therefore, the χ²/df ratio = 2.866 indicates a good fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR36\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e). Among the fit indices, GFI (.960), AGFI (.929), NFI (.974), TLI (.975), and CFI (.983) values are well above .90, indicating a perfect fit (Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e; Hu \u0026amp; Bentler, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e). Furthermore, RMR (.034) and SRMR (.049) values are below .05, indicating a very good fit. RMSEA = .068 is at an acceptable level (Browne \u0026amp; Cudeck, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1993\u003c/span\u003e). All these indicators show that the model is statistically significant and provides a theoretically adequate fit.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion and Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eIn this study, the theoretical model developed for the mediating role of learning organization structure in the effect of principals' instructional leadership on teacher motivation in accordance with teachers' perceptions was tested. The effects of the analyzed variables on each other were tried to be explained through regression analysis and Structural Equation Modeling.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe results of the study revealed that instructional leadership of school principals has a profound effect on the learning organization structure. This finding shows that the formation of a learning-based culture throughout the school is realized with the support of the school principal's instructional leadership. Instructional leadership practices seek to increase teachers' motivation, self-efficacy perception, and performance by developing a learning organizational culture throughout the school rather than classroom teaching practices, and thereby indirectly contributing to student achievement. Examining the literature, it is observed that there are similar results. Hallinger \u0026amp; Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), in their research, state that instructional leadership practices strengthen the learning organization structure. Bass (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) states that the leadership of the school principal strongly affects school success and thus contributes positively to the formation of a learning organization culture. Chang \u0026amp; Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2007\u003c/span\u003e) state that the relationship between leadership and learning organization is direct and significant. The study reveals that the strengthening of the learning organization structure has a statistically significant and positive effect on teachers' motivation and job satisfaction.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAccording to the findings of the study, the relationship between the learning organization and teacher motivation is medium-high and significant. This finding coincides with the findings in the literature. Jokić \u0026amp; Pantić (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) stated in their study that all dimensions of the learning organization have a significant and positive relationship with teachers' job satisfaction. Hallinger \u0026amp; Lee (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e), in their research, stated that teachers' motivation and self-efficacy perceptions improved as a result of strengthening the learning organization structure. Pujilestari, Rubini \u0026amp; Sunaryo (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR33\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e), in their research examining the effects of learning organization, transformational leadership, and motivation on teacher performance, emphasize that strengthening the learning organization structure provides substantial improvements in teacher motivation and performance.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe findings of the study revealed that the learning organization structure assumed a full mediating role in the effect of principals' instructional leadership on teacher motivation. This result is consistent with many studies in the literature (Blase \u0026amp; Blase, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1999\u003c/span\u003e; Naz \u0026amp; Rashid, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Southworth, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). The results of this study are in line with the findings that instructional leadership roles of school principals increase teachers' motivation and job satisfaction (Printy el al., 2009; Hallinger, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The unique feature of this study is that this relationship is completely indirect through the learning organization structure. This finding reveals that instructional leadership alone is not sufficient to increase teacher motivation. It is seen that the learning organization structure is an important element in enhancing teacher motivation. The results of the research correspond to the views of Goh (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2003\u003c/span\u003e) and Senge (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR38\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1990\u003c/span\u003e), theorists who studied the concept of learning organization. In his study, Demirdag (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) states that school principals' support and encouragement of teachers' professional development is a motivational factor. Robinson et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2008\u003c/span\u003e) state that in order for instructional leadership to have positive effects on teacher motivation and job satisfaction, a supportive environment should be provided, feedback should be given, and expectations regarding the educational processes should be clearly stated. Blase \u0026amp; Blase (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2000\u003c/span\u003e) state that gradual increases in motivation can be attained by supporting individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAn original model is proposed in this study in which the learning organization structure is seen as a mediating variable in the relationship between principals' instructional leadership and teacher motivation. This proposal reveals the indirect contribution of school leadership to teacher motivation from a different perspective. The findings of the study show that if school principals improve instructional processes by creating a learning culture, it will significantly contribute to the formation of a positive school culture and the development of teacher motivation. This research provides a strong argument that schools should be continuously developing and learning institutions by bringing together leadership and organizational development learning organization processes in the field of educational administration.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe research is based on the perceptions of teachers working in Istanbul. Its generalizability may be limited in a different region or where there are different educational practices. It should be noted that since the responses obtained in the data collection tools are based on the personal perceptions of the participants, the findings reflect the subjective evaluations of the respondents.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eRecommendations\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFuture studies can be conducted with teachers working at different levels of education in diverse cultural regions. In addition, contributions to the literature can be made by modeling different leadership styles such as transformational leadership, distributive leadership, and variables related to school culture. Based on the findings of this study, teacher motivation and productivity increase with the development of the organization. Therefore, school principals should be encouraged to do more for the development of the organization. Policymakers should include the learning organizational culture dimension in the professional development programs of school principals. Restructuring the professional development policies of educational leaders needs to be prioritized. Develop exemplary practices and methods to support organizational development by improving the professional development of school leaders.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEthics approval and consent to participate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003e This study was conducted in accordance with the first version of the Declaration of Helsinki adopted in 1964 and its subsequent updated versions. Before the study started, the necessary ethical approval was obtained from Aksaray University Ethics Committee (Ethics Committee Approval Number: 2025\u0026thinsp;\u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;328/17.06.2025). The official document for Ethics Approval has been placed in the \"Supplementary material\" section under the name \"Ethics Approval Official Document\". Participants were informed about the purpose, process and voluntary participation principles of the research. Participant confidentiality and confidentiality of data were meticulously protected.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParticipants were informed that anonymized data may be used for publication purposes, and their consent was obtained accordingly. No identifying personal information is included in the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eFunding\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFB, MED: Conceptualization, methodology, data collection, writing \u0026ndash; original draft.FB: Data analysis, writing \u0026ndash; review \u0026amp; editing.FB, MED: Supervision, validation, final approval of the manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAcknowledgement\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe authors would like to thank the school principals and teachers who participated in this study.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eAvailability of data and materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe datasets generated and/or analyzed during the present study are available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author Fatih BAYDAR.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlig-Mielcarek, J. M. (2003). \u003cem\u003eA model of school success: Instructional leadership, academic press, and student achievement\u003c/em\u003e (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBaron, R. M., \u0026amp; Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator\u0026ndash;mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51\u003c/em\u003e(6), 1173\u0026ndash;1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBass, B. M. (2000). The future of leadership in learning organizations. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Leadership Studies, 7\u003c/em\u003e(3), 18\u0026ndash;40.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Bulletin, 107\u003c/em\u003e(2), 238\u0026ndash;246. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlase, J., \u0026amp; Blase, J. (1999). Principals\u0026rsquo; instructional leadership and teacher development: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives. \u003cem\u003eEducational Administration Quarterly, 35\u003c/em\u003e(3), 349\u0026ndash;378.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlase, J., \u0026amp; Blase, J. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers\u0026rsquo; perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Administration, 38\u003c/em\u003e(2), 130\u0026ndash;141.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBrowne, M. W., \u0026amp; Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen \u0026amp; J. S. Long (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eTesting structural equation models\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 136\u0026ndash;162). Sage.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChang, S. C., \u0026amp; Lee, M. S. (2007). A study on relationship among leadership, organizational culture, the operation of learning organization and employees\u0026apos; job satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eThe Learning Organization, 14\u003c/em\u003e(2), 155\u0026ndash;185.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCreswell, J. W., \u0026amp; Creswell, J. D. (2018). \u003cem\u003eResearch design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;elik, M., \u0026amp; Atak, M. (2012). \u0026Ouml;ğrenen \u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;t ve \u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;tsel bağlılık: Kamu \u0026ccedil;alışanları \u0026uuml;zerine bir araştırma. \u003cem\u003eS\u0026uuml;leyman Demirel \u0026Uuml;niversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Dergisi, 17\u003c/em\u003e(1), 93\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;etin, M., \u0026amp; Baydar, F. (2021). \u0026Ouml;ğrenen \u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;t \u0026ouml;l\u0026ccedil;eği: Ge\u0026ccedil;erlik ve g\u0026uuml;venirlik \u0026ccedil;alışması. \u003cem\u003eMarmara \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Atat\u0026uuml;rk Eğitim Fak\u0026uuml;ltesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 54\u003c/em\u003e, 75\u0026ndash;96. https://doi.org/10.15285/maruaebd.813670\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ccedil;evik, A., \u0026amp; K\u0026ouml;se, A. (2017). \u0026Ouml;ğretmenlerin okul k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml; algıları ile motivasyonları arasındaki ilişkinin incelenmesi. \u003cem\u003eİnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6\u003c/em\u003e(2), 996\u0026ndash;1014.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDay, C., \u0026amp; Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers\u0026rsquo; professional learning and development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. \u003cem\u003eOxford Review of Education, 33\u003c/em\u003e(4), 423\u0026ndash;443.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeci, E. L., \u0026amp; Ryan, R. M. (2000). The \u0026quot;what\u0026quot; and \u0026quot;why\u0026quot; of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. \u003cem\u003ePsychological Inquiry, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 227\u0026ndash;268.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDemirdag, S. (2021). School principals\u0026apos; instructional leadership as a predictor of teacher motivation. \u003cem\u003eie: Inquiry in Education, 13\u003c/em\u003e(2), Article 6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDinham, S., \u0026amp; Scott, C. (1998). A three domain model of teacher and school executive career satisfaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Administration, 36\u003c/em\u003e(4), 362\u0026ndash;378.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoğan, S., \u0026amp; Yiğit, Y. (2015). \u0026Ouml;ğreten okulların tamamlayıcısı: \u0026Ouml;ğrenen okullar. \u003cem\u003eSosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14\u003c/em\u003e(53), 318\u0026ndash;336.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGagn\u0026eacute;, M., Forest, J., Gilbert, M. H., Aub\u0026eacute;, C., Morin, E., \u0026amp; Malorni, A. (2010). The motivation at work scale: Validation evidence in two languages. \u003cem\u003eEducational and Psychological Measurement, 70\u003c/em\u003e(4), 628\u0026ndash;646.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGoh, S. C. (2003). Improving organizational learning capability: Lessons from two case studies. \u003cem\u003eThe Learning Organization, 10\u003c/em\u003e(4), 216\u0026ndash;227.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., \u0026amp; Anderson, R. E. (2019). \u003cem\u003eMultivariate data analysis\u003c/em\u003e (8th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away\u003cem\u003e. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4\u003c/em\u003e(3), 221\u0026ndash;239. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244793 \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallinger, P., \u0026amp; Lee, M. (2008). A distributed perspective on instructional leadership in International Baccalaureate schools. \u003cem\u003eSchool Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19\u003c/em\u003e(1), 83\u0026ndash;103.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Educational Administration, 49\u003c/em\u003e(2), 125\u0026ndash;142.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHayes, A. F. (2017). \u003cem\u003eIntroduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHu, L. T., \u0026amp; Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. \u003cem\u003eStructural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6\u003c/em\u003e(1), 1\u0026ndash;55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJokić, D., \u0026amp; Pantić, J. (2023). The relationship between the school as a learning organisation and teacher job satisfaction in general education in Latvia. \u003cem\u003eEducation Sciences, 13\u003c/em\u003e(12), Article 1171.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKarasar, N. (2020). \u003cem\u003eBilimsel araştırma y\u0026ouml;ntemi\u003c/em\u003e (35. baskı). Nobel Yayıncılık.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKline, R. B. (2015). \u003cem\u003ePrinciples and practice of structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Guilford Press.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., \u0026amp; Morgan, G. A. (2005). \u003cem\u003eSPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation\u003c/em\u003e (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLeithwood, K., \u0026amp; Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. \u003cem\u003eSchool Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17\u003c/em\u003e(2), 201\u0026ndash;227.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaz, F., \u0026amp; Rashid, S. (2021). Effective instructional leadership can enhance teachers\u0026rsquo; motivation and improve students\u0026rsquo; learning outcomes. \u003cem\u003eSouth Asian Journal of Educational Research, 4\u003c/em\u003e(1), 477\u0026ndash;485.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026Ouml;zdamar, K. (2017). \u003cem\u003eİstatistiksel veri analizi teknikleri\u003c/em\u003e (9. baskı). Nisan Yayınları.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePujilestari, Y., Rubini, B., \u0026amp; Sunaryo, W. (2023). Improving teacher performance through strengthening learning organization, transformational leadership and achievement motivation. \u003cem\u003eAsian Journal of Education and Social Studies, 49\u003c/em\u003e(1), 142\u0026ndash;153.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ePrinty, S. M., Marks, H. M., \u0026amp; Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share transformational and instructional influence. \u003cem\u003eJournal of School Leadership, 19\u003c/em\u003e(5), 504\u0026ndash;532.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRobinson, V. M., Lloyd, C. A., \u0026amp; Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. \u003cem\u003eEducational Administration Quarterly, 44\u003c/em\u003e(5), 635\u0026ndash;674.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., \u0026amp; M\u0026uuml;ller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. \u003cem\u003eMethods of Psychological Research Online, 8\u003c/em\u003e(2), 23\u0026ndash;74.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSchumacker, R. E., \u0026amp; Lomax, R. G. (2016). \u003cem\u003eA beginner\u0026rsquo;s guide to structural equation modeling\u003c/em\u003e (4th ed.). Routledge.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSenge, P. M. (1990). \u003cem\u003eThe fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization\u003c/em\u003e. Doubleday.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSilins, H., Zarins, S., \u0026amp; Mulford, B. (2002). What characteristics and processes define a school as a learning organisation? \u003cem\u003eInternational Education Journal, 3\u003c/em\u003e(1), 24\u0026ndash;32.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkaalvik, E. M., \u0026amp; Skaalvik, S. (2017). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching profession. \u003cem\u003eCreative Education, 8\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1785\u0026ndash;1799.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSouthworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. \u003cem\u003eSchool Leadership \u0026amp; Management, 22\u003c/em\u003e(1), 73\u0026ndash;91.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eŞahin, S. (2011). \u0026Ouml;ğretimsel liderlik ve okul k\u0026uuml;lt\u0026uuml;r\u0026uuml; arasındaki ilişki (İzmir ili \u0026ouml;rneği). \u003cem\u003eKuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, 11\u003c/em\u003e(4), 1909\u0026ndash;1928.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTabachnick, B. G., \u0026amp; Fidell, L. S. (2007). \u003cem\u003eUsing multivariate statistics\u003c/em\u003e (5th ed.). Pearson.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTetik, S. (2021). \u0026Ouml;ğretmenlerin \u0026ouml;ğrenen \u0026ouml;rg\u0026uuml;t algısının bireysel yaratıcılıklarına etkisi \u0026uuml;zerine bir araştırma: Salihli \u0026ouml;rneği. \u003cem\u003eAdıyaman \u0026Uuml;niversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstit\u0026uuml;s\u0026uuml; Dergisi, 14\u003c/em\u003e(38), 621\u0026ndash;659.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTschannen-Moran, M., \u0026amp; Hoy, W. K. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. \u003cem\u003eTeaching and Teacher Education, 17\u003c/em\u003e(7), 783\u0026ndash;805.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWatkins, K. E., \u0026amp; Marsick, V. J. (1996). \u003cem\u003eCreating the learning organization: A guide to continuous improvement\u003c/em\u003e. Jossey-Bass.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Instructional leadership, learning organization, teacher motivation","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThis study aims to reveal the mediating role of learning organization (LO) in the effect of principals' instructional leadership (IL) competencies on teacher motivation (TM). The correlational survey design was used to determine the relationship between variables. The study group of the research consists of 403 teachers who are employed in the Pendik, Tuzla, Adalar, and Maltepe districts of Istanbul, Ministry of National Education. The Personal Information Form, Instructional Leadership Scale, Teacher Motivation Scale, and Learning Organization Scale were used to collect data. It was checked whether the data obtained during the data collection process showed normal distribution, and the results of the Pearson correlation analysis between the variables were evaluated. In order to test the theoretical model developed by the researchers, Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) analyses were conducted. Considering the purpose of the study and the analyses, it was observed that there was a significant positive relationship between principals' instructional leadership competencies and teacher motivation and learning organization, and a significant positive relationship between learning organization and teacher motivation. The SEM model developed based on the results that IL has an effect on LO and TM, and that LO has an effect on TM, was tested. As a result of this test, it was determined that LO had a full mediating role in the effect of IL on TM. In conclusion, the theoretical model developed by the researchers was tested and accepted based on the fit values.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"The Relationship between School Principals' Instructive Leadership and Teacher Motivation: The Mediating Role of the Learning Organization","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-09-11 19:04:22","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7251727/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2025-12-09T07:33:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-27T18:32:56+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-22T13:26:04+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-16T03:43:41+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"271434549814095485540604145299979595267","date":"2025-09-14T07:19:42+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-13T15:19:05+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"335129850532521835243893491727255944993","date":"2025-09-11T15:23:23+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2025-09-04T19:42:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"139921652785858687730261741555798073348","date":"2025-09-04T12:31:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"188642403128469647311802301607162624185","date":"2025-09-04T11:08:57+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"153795556003630958176864804030694023903","date":"2025-09-04T09:01:31+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2025-09-03T15:36:19+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvited","content":"","date":"2025-08-11T15:07:26+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2025-08-06T23:18:12+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2025-08-06T23:17:32+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"BMC Psychology","date":"2025-07-30T10:12:47+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"bmc-psychology","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"psyo","sideBox":"Learn more about [BMC Psychology](http://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"","title":"BMC Psychology","twitterHandle":"BMC_series","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"stoa","reportingPortfolio":"BMC Series","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"ce5182c9-9e3f-4d8a-bd4e-74c1be578075","owner":[],"postedDate":"September 11th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2026-02-16T16:06:23+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-7251727","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04090-8","journal":{"identity":"bmc-psychology","isVorOnly":false,"title":"BMC Psychology"},"publishedOn":"2026-02-09 15:58:48","publishedOnDateReadable":"February 9th, 2026"},"versionCreatedAt":"2025-09-11 19:04:22","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s40359-026-04090-8","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-04090-8","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7251727","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7251727","identity":"rs-7251727","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}