校长真实型领导如何影响教师参与学校决策：一个有调节的链式中介模型

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.01.009

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

基于自我决定理论和生涯建构理论，系统考察了校长真实型领导对教师参与学校决策的影响及作用机制。研究结果表明，校长真实型领导对教师参与学校决策具有显著的正向预测作用；基本心理需求满足、工作重塑分别在校长真实型领导与教师参与学校决策之间发挥着部分中介作用，同时基本心理需求满足和工作重塑在校长真实型领导与教师参与学校决策之间发挥着链式中介作用；教师生涯适应力在校长真实型领导与教师参与学校决策之间具有正向调节作用，教师生涯适应力越高，校长真实型领导对教师参与学校决策的影响越大。为此，推动教师参与学校决策，提高学校治理效能，需要以教育家精神提升校长真实型领导水平，营造尊重和民主氛围；创新教师激励机制，激发教师参与内驱力；重视教师生涯适应力培养，提高教师参与能力。

关键词: 校长真实型领导, 教师参与学校决策, 基本心理需求满足, 工作重塑, 生涯适应力

Abstract:

Based on self-determination theory and career construction theory, this study systematically examines the impact of principals' authentic leadership on teachers' participation in school decision-making and its underlying mechanism. The results indicate that principals' authentic leadership significantly and positively predicts teachers' participation in school decision-making; basic psychological need satisfaction and job crafting each play a partial mediating role between principals' authentic leadership and teachers' participation in school decision-making, while the chain mediating effect of "basic psychological need satisfaction-job crafting" is also verified in this relationship. Additionally, teachers' career adaptability positively moderates the association between principals' authentic leadership and teachers' participation in school decision-making—specifically, the higher teachers' career adaptability, the stronger the positive impact of principals' authentic leadership on teachers' participation in school decision-making. Therefore, to promote teachers' participation in school decision-making and enhance school governance effectiveness, it is necessary to: improve principals' authentic leadership through the spirit of educators and foster a culture of respect and democracy; innovate teacher incentive mechanisms to stimulate their intrinsic motivation for participation; and emphasize the cultivation of teachers' career adaptability to enhance their capacity for effective participation.

Key words: principals’ authentic leadership, teachers’ participation in school decision-making, basic psychological needs satisfaction, job crafting, career adaptability

鲍传友, 王晓宇. 校长真实型领导如何影响教师参与学校决策：一个有调节的链式中介模型[J]. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 2026, 44(1): 105-117.

Chuanyou Bao, Xiaoyu Wang. How Principals’ Authentic Leadership Impacts Teachers’ Participation in School Decision Making: A Moderated Chain Mediation Model[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(1): 105-117.

图/表 7

图 1

表 1

表 2

图 2

表 3

表 4

图 3

参考文献 59

1	蔡茹, 张新平, 姚继军, 周世科. (2024). 校长积极领导力何以重要?——论其在学校背景与学生成绩之间的中介效应. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 42 (2), 92- 108.
2	蔡永红, 龚婧. (2019). 学校创新支持与教师教学创新的关系——基本心理需要满足的中介作用. 教育学报, 15 (2), 48- 57.
3	曹宗清, 李佳琦. (2022). 教师参与学校治理的深度怎么样?——基于对六省(市)72所中小学3409名教师的调研分析. 中小学管理, (12), 26- 30.
4	褚宏启. (2021). 绘制教育治理的全景图: 教育治理的概念拓展与体系完善. 教育研究, 42 (12), 105- 119.
5	耿庆岭, 韦雪艳. (2016). 教师工作重塑与组织公民行为关系: 工作投入的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24 (2), 356- 358+331.
6	韩翼, 杨百寅. (2011). 真实型领导、心理资本与员工创新行为: 领导成员交换的调节作用. 管理世界, (12), 78- 86+188.
7	何国华, 郑馨念, 王雁飞, 郭子生, 朱瑜. (2023). 基于工作重塑视角的变革型领导对员工变革支持行为的影响研究. 管理学报, 20 (3), 378- 388.
8	何文心, 刘新梅. (2021). 建设性争辩、真实型领导对工作重塑与创新的影响. 软科学, 35 (4), 99- 105.
9	胡巧婷, 王海江, 龙立荣. (2020). 新员工工作重塑会带来积极的结果吗?领导成员交换与个体传统性的作用. 心理学报, 52 (5), 659- 668.
10	李莉. (2024). 学校教育生态变革中的教师参与: 价值、问题与路径设计. 教师教育研究, 36 (2), 94- 100.
11	刘兴春. (2003). 普通中小学教师参与学校决策的调查研究. 大连: 辽宁师范大学硕士学位论文.
12	刘玉新, 等. (2019). 员工何以蓬勃旺盛?影响工作旺盛感的组织情境与理论模型. 心理科学进展, 27 (12), 2122- 2132.
13	刘云硕, 叶龙, 郭名, 胡丽丽. (2021). 包容型领导与员工工作重塑: 一个跨层次研究. 经济与管理研究, 42 (5), 133- 144.
14	毛亚庆, 张婉莹, 关迪. (2024). 真实型领导如何影响教师知识共享——基于自我决定理论的实证分析. 现代教育管理, (7), 1- 12.
15	倪旭东, 朱星魁, 潘成凯. (2022). 领导风格与工作重塑的关系: 来自元分析的证据. 中国人力资源开发, 39 (4), 45- 67.
16	祁翔, 何瑞珠. (2020). 学校自主决策、教师参与式治理与学生学业成就. 教育经济评论, 5 (1), 87- 109.
17	盛宇华, 邓勇锋. (2021). 生涯适应力对员工创新行为的影响研究: 基于生涯建构理论. 中国人力资源开发, 38 (9), 33- 44.
18	孙冉, 杜屏. (2023). 乡村教师工作重塑对职业承诺的影响及其机制. 教育研究与实验, (2), 92- 101.
19	孙雪连, 李刚. (2018). 参与民主: 学校管理方式的转变. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 36 (1), 29- 34+160.
20	汤丹丹, 温忠麟. (2020). 共同方法偏差检验: 问题与建议. 心理科学, 43 (1), 215- 223.
21	魏叶美, 范国睿. (2021). 教师参与学校治理意愿影响因素的实证研究. 华东师范大学学报(教育科学版), 39 (04), 73- 82.
22	解洪涛, 李洁, 陈利伟. (2015). 参与式治理、社会文化与学校的教育绩效——基于PISA数据的东亚国家学校治理差异研究. 清华大学教育研究, 36 (2), 64- 73+105.
23	杨振芳. (2023). 工作支持对乡村教师工作激情的影响: 基本心理需要满足的多重中介作用. 心理发展与教育, 39 (6), 850- 858.
24	周浩, 龙立荣. (2004). 共同方法偏差的统计检验与控制方法. 心理科学进展, (6), 942- 950.
25	Ahmed, E. I. (2024). A systematic review of authentic leadership literature in educational research from 1997 to 2021. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52 (6), 1276- 1314.
26	Alazmi, A. A., & Al-Mahdy, Y. F. H. (2022). Principal authentic leadership and teacher engagement in Kuwait’s educational reform context. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50 (3), 392- 412.
27	Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R. (2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. The Leadership Quarterly, 15 (6), 801- 823.
28	Bandura, A. (1978). The self-system in reciprocal determinism. American Psychologist, 33 (4), 344.
29	Berkovich, I., & Gueta, B. (2022). Teachers’ authentic leadership and psychological need satisfaction climate in second chance programs: The moderating role of teachers’ gender. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50 (6), 995- 1012.
30	Bindl, U. K., Unsworth, K. L., Gibson, C. B., & Stride, C. B. (2019). Job crafting revisited: Implications of an extended framework for active changes at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 104 (5), 605- 628.
31	Bouwmans, M., Runhaar, P., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2017). Fostering teachers' team learning: An interplay between transformational leadership and participative decision-making?. Teaching and Teacher Education, 65, 71- 80.
32	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.
33	Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4 (1), 19- 43.
34	Duignan, P. A. (2014). Authenticity in educational leadership: history, ideal, reality. Journal of Educational Administration, 52 (2), 152- 172.
35	Gardner, W. L., Avolio, B. J., Luthans, F., May, D. R., & Walumbwa, F. (2005). “Can you see the real me?” A self-based model of authentic leader and follower development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16 (3), 343- 372.
36	Gardner, W. L., Cogliser, C. C., Davis, K. M., & Dickens, M. P. (2011). Authentic leadership: A review of the literature and research agenda. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 (6), 1120- 1145.
37	Geldenhuys, M., Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2021). How task, relational and cognitive crafting relate to job performance: A weekly diary study on the role of meaningfulness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 30 (1), 83- 94.
38	Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161- 178.
39	Hargreaves, A. (1994). Restructuring restructuring: Postmodernity and the prospects for educational change. Journal of Education Policy, 9 (1), 47- 65.
40	Honingh, M., & Hooge, E. (2014). The effect of school-leader support and participation in decision making on teacher collaboration in Dutch primary and secondary schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42 (1), 75- 98.
41	Hou, Z. J., Leung, S. A., Li, X., Li, X., & Xu, H. (2012). Career adapt-abilities scale—China form: Construction and initial validation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (3), 686- 691.
42	Ilies, R., Morgeson, F. P., & Nahrgang, J. D. (2005). Authentic leadership and eudaemonic well-being: Understanding leader–follower outcomes. The leadership quarterly, 16 (3), 373- 394.
43	Kulophas, D., Hallinger, P., Ruengtrakul, A., & Wongwanich, S. (2018). Exploring the effects of authentic leadership on academic optimism and teacher engagement in Thailand. International Journal of Educational Management, 32 (1), 27- 45.
44	Leroy, H., Palanski, M. E., & Simons, T. (2012). Authentic leadership and behavioral integrity as drivers of follower commitment and performance. Journal of Business Ethics, 107, 255- 264.
45	Luthans, F. , & Avolio, B. J. (2003). Authentic leadership development. In: Cameron, U. K. S. , Dutton, J. E. , & Quinn, R. E. (eds) Positive Organizational Scholarship. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler, 241—258.
46	McLennan, B., McIlveen, P., & Perera, H. N. (2017). Pre-service teachers' self-efficacy mediates the relationship between career adaptability and career optimism. Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, 176- 185.
47	Montano, D., Reeske, A., Franke, F., & Hüffmeier, J. (2017). Leadership, followers' mental health and job performance in organizations: A comprehensive meta‐analysis from an occupational health perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38 (3), 327- 350.
48	Nair, B. P., Prasad, T., & Nair, S. K. (2021). Authentic Leadership and Team Members’ Outcomes: A Cross-level and Multi-level Analysis. Management and Labour Studies, 47, 165- 182.
49	Olafsen, A. H., Marescaux, B. P., & Kujanpää, M. (2025). Crafting for autonomy, competence, and relatedness: A self‐determination theory model of need crafting at work. Applied Psychology, 74 (1), e12570.
50	Or, M. H., & Berkovich, I. (2023). Participative decision making in schools in individualist and collectivist cultures: The micro-politics behind distributed leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51 (3), 533- 553.
51	Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management, 36 (4), 827- 856.
52	Savickas, M. L., & Porfeli, E. J. (2012). Career Adapt-Abilities Scale: Construction, reliability, and measurement equivalence across 13 countries. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80 (3), 661- 673.
53	Slemp, G. R., & Vella-Brodrick, D. A. (2013). The Job Crafting Questionnaire: A New Scale to Measure the Extent to Which Employees Engage in Job Crafting. International Journal of Wellbeing, 3, 126- 146.
54	Toyama, H., Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2022). Job crafting and well-being among school principals: The role of basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration. European Management Journal, 40 (5), 809- 818.
55	Usman, M. , Anwar ul Haq, M. , Ahmad, S. , Hussain, J. , Ali, Z. , & Hussain, A. (2022). Political skill and career success: Exploring the mediating role of mentoring and moderating role of career adaptability. Sage Open, 12(1), 21582440221082149.
56	Walumbwa, F. O., Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Wernsing, T. S., & Peterson, S. J. (2008). Authentic leadership: Development and validation of a theory-based measure. Journal of Management, 34 (1), 89- 126.
57	Wang, D., Kan, W., Qin, S., Zhao, C., Sun, Y., Mao, W., Bian, X., Ou, Y., Zhao, Z. & Hu, Y. (2021). How authentic leadership impacts on job insecurity: The multiple mediating role of psychological empowerment and psychological capital. Stress and Health, 37 (1), 60- 71.
58	Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). A self-determination theory approach to understanding stress incursion and responses. Stress and Health, 27 (1), 4- 17.
59	Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E. (2001). Crafting a Job: Revisioning Employees as Active Crafters of Their Work. The Academy of Management Review, 26 (2), 179- 201.

变量	1		2		3		4		5
变量	频率	比例	频率	比例	频率	比例	频率	比例	频率	比例
性别	154	20.34%	603	79.66%
班主任	393	51.92%	364	48.08%
行政职务	619	81.77%	138	18.23%
任教学段	485	64.07%	197	26.02%	75	9.91%
学校区域	597	78.86%	119	15.72%	41	5.42%
学历	43	5.68%	598	79.00%	116	15.32%
年龄	237	31.31%	263	34.74%	209	27.61%	48	6.34%
教龄	234	30.91%	128	16.91%	114	15.06%	281	37.12%
职称	102	13.48%	30	3.96%	240	31.70%	281	37.12%	104	13.74%

变量	平均值	标准差	1	2	3	4	5
1=真实型领导	4.088	0.847	1
2=教师参与学校决策	3.801	0.877	0.395***	1
3=基本心理需求满足	3.942	0.523	0.428***	0.403***	1
4=工作重塑	4.876	0.817	0.576***	0.550***	0.621***	1
5=生涯适应力	4.422	0.537	0.532***	0.481***	0.638***	0.718***	1

路径	效应值	标准误	95%置信区间		效应量
路径	效应值	标准误	下限	上限	效应量
总效应	0.418	0.036	0.347	0.488
直接效应	0.130	0.039	0.053	0.207	31.10%
总中介效应	0.288	0.033	0.227	0.354	68.90%
AL→BPN→TPD	0.038	0.017	0.004	0.069	9.09%
AL→JC→TPD	0.168	0.027	0.120	0.224	40.19%
AL→BPN→JC→TPD	0.082	0.014	0.056	0.112	19.62%

调节效应		效应值	Boot标准误	95%置信区间
调节效应		效应值	Boot标准误	下限	上限
生涯适应力	M-1SD	0.144	0.049	0.048	0.240
	M	0.218	0.039	0.141	0.294
	M+1SD	0.292	0.048	0.196	0.387