| Literature DB >> 35967509 |
Roy Rave1, Guy Itzchakov1, Netta Weinstein2, Harry T Reis3.
Abstract
When principals listen to their teachers, they may foster an open and receptive work environment that helps teachers adapt during stressful times. Two studies examined the role of perceived principals' listening to teachers on workplace outcomes. Study 1 (N = 218) was conducted during the first nationwide lockdown in Israel. Study 2 (N = 247) was conducted during a later lockdown and controlled for social support to test the independent effects of the two distinct interpersonal experiences. Findings supported our hypothesis that principals' listening would relate to lower teacher turnover intention. In addition, in line with our hypothesis, teachers high on perceived stress generally reported higher turnover intentions. However, the detrimental effect of perceived stress was not observed when teachers evaluated their principals as good listeners. Finally, we anticipated and found that principal listening is associated with organizational citizenship behavior. Specifically, teachers were more likely to help one another when feeling listened to by their principals.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Listening; OCB; Principals; Stress; Teachers; Turnover Intentions
Year: 2022 PMID: 35967509 PMCID: PMC9362686 DOI: 10.1007/s12144-022-03529-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Psychol ISSN: 1046-1310
Fig. 1Model for the effect of principals’ listening behavior on teachers’ organizational citizenship behavior and turnover intentions and the moderating role of stress
Study 1: Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Principals’ listening quality | 6.56 | 2.27 | (.97) | |||
| 2. Organizational citizenship behavior | 5.80 | 2.17 | .49** | (.94) | ||
| 3. Turnover intentions | 2.88 | 2.22 | -.27** | -.19** | (.90) | |
| 4. Work stress | 4.97 | 2.59 | -.03 | .32** | (.88) | |
| 5. Job security | N/A | N/A | -.03 | .06 | .00 | .05 |
** p < .01, * p < .05 values in italics p < .10; Job security was coded as 0- no tenure 1- tenure; Reliabilities in parentheses
Study 1: Multiple regression: predictors of Organizational Citizenship Behavior
| Variable | 95% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principals’ listening quality | .49 | 8.29 | < .001 | [0.36, 0.58] |
| Job security | -.03 | -0.08 | = .93 | [-0.21, 0.93] |
CI confidence intervals
Study 1: Multiple regression analysis with turnover intentions as a dependent variable
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| Variable | β | β | ||||
| Constant | NA | 4.88 | < .001 | NA | 4.09 | < .001 |
| Principals' listening quality | –.23** | –3.66 | < .001 | –.18** | –2.78 | = .006 |
| Work stress | .29** | 4.58 | < .001 | .30** | 4.78 | < .001 |
| Listening × Work stress | NA | NA | NA | –.20** | –3.07 | = .002 |
| Job security | –.02 | –0.29 | = .77 | –.005 | –.08 | = .93 |
| Model summary | ||||||
| Δ | ||||||
| Model 1 | 12.73 | .15 | .15 | < .001 | ||
| Model 2 | 9.09 | .18 | .03 | = .003 | ||
Continuous variables that define the product are mean-centered. **p < .01. Model 1: df1 = 3, df2 = 217, Model 2: df1 = 1, df2 = 216
Fig. 2Study 1: Interaction of teachers’ turnover intentions by principals’ listening quality and teachers’ work-stress controlling for job security. Simple slopes represent ± 1 SD from the mean
Study 1: Multiple regression analysis with turnover intentions as a dependent variable with GOCB as an additional covariate
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| Variable | β | β | ||||
| Constant | NA | 7.51 | < .001 | NA | 4.35 | < .001 |
| Principals' listening quality | –.23** | –2.98 | .003 | –.12 | –1.59 | .11 |
| Work stress | NA | NA | NA | .30** | 4.85 | < .001 |
| GOCB | –.08 | –1.10 | .27 | –.12 | –1.65 | .10 |
| Listening × Work stress | NA | NA | NA | –.21 | –3.24 | .001 |
| Job security | –.002 | –0.03 | .98 | –.005 | –.08 | .93 |
| Model summary | ||||||
| Δ | ||||||
| Model 1 | 5.85 | .001 | .08 | .08 | ||
| Model 2 | 16.43 | < .001 | .20 | .12 | ||
Continuous variables that define the product are mean-centered. **p < .01. Model 1: df1 = 3, df2 = 214, Model 2: df1 = 2, df2 = 212
Study 2: Descriptive statistics and correlations among the variables
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Principals’ listening quality | 6.40 | 2.23 | (.97) | ||||
| 2. Organizational citizenship behavior | 5.72 | 2.05 | .51** | (.95) | |||
| 3. Turnover intentions | 2.41 | 2.00 | –.19** | .27** | (.90) | ||
| 4. Work stress | 3.93 | 1.85 | – | – | .43** | (.88) | |
| 5. Job security | N/A | N/A | .04 | –.04 | .00 | .05 | (NA) |
| 6. Social Support | 6.65 | 2.13 | .54** | .69** | –.26** | –.03 | –0.2 |
** p < .01, * p < .05 values in italics p < .10; Job security was coded as 0- no tenure 1- tenure; Reliabilities in parentheses
Study 2: Multiple regression: predictors of Group Organizational Citizenship Behavior
| Variable | 95% | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Principals’ listening quality | .19 | 3.58 | < .001 | [0.08, 0.27] |
| Social support | .59 | 10.99 | < .001 | [0.46, 0.67] |
| Job security | –.03 | –0.69 | = .49 | [–0.75, 0.36] |
Study 2: Interaction of Principals' listening and Stress on Turnover intentions controlling for Job security and Social Support
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| Variable | β | β | ||||
| Constant | NA | 6.72 | < .001 | NA | 5.09 | < .001 |
| Principals’ listening quality | –.19 | –2.98 | .003 | .002 | 0.03 | .97 |
| Social support | NA | NA | NA | –.27** | –3.88 | < .001 |
| Work stress | NA | NA | NA | .42** | 7.50 | < .001 |
| Listening × Work stress | NA | NA | NA | –.13* | –2.23 | .027 |
| Job security | –.04 | –0.70 | .49 | –.05 | –0.84 | .40 |
| Model summary | ||||||
| Δ | ||||||
| Model 1 | 4.82 | .009 | .04 | .04 | ||
| Model 2 | 23.85 | < .001 | .26 | .22 | ||
Continuous variables that define the product are mean-centered. *p < .05, **p < .01. Model 1: df1 = 2, df2 = 243, Model 2: df1 = 3, df2 = 240
Fig. 3Study 2: Interaction of teachers’ turnover intentions by principals' listening quality and teachers’ work-stress controlling for job security and social support; Simple slopes represent ± 1 SD from the mean
Study 2: Interaction of Principals' listening and Stress on Turnover intentions controlling for Job security, Social Support and GOCB
| Model 1 | Model 2 | |||||
| Variable | β | β | ||||
| Constant | NA | 7.74 | < .001 | NA | 5.33 | < .001 |
| Principals’ listening quality | –.04 | –0.47 | .64 | .03 | 0.46 | .65 |
| Social support | –.13 | –1.43 | .15 | –.19* | –2.34 | .02 |
| GOCB | –.17! | –1.94 | .05 | –.14! | –1.72 | .09 |
| Work stress | NA | NA | NA | .41** | 7.31 | < .001 |
| Listening × Work stress | NA | NA | NA | –.15* | –2.48 | .01 |
| Job security | –.06 | –0.95 | .34 | –.05 | –0.89 | .37 |
| Δ | ||||||
| Model 1 | 5.87 | < .001 | .09 | .09 | ||
| Model 2 | 29.29 | < .001 | .27 | .18 | ||
Continuous variables that define the product are mean-centered. !p < .10, *p < .05. a Model 1: df1 = 4, df2 = 241, Model 2: df1 = 2, df2 = 239
Fig. 4Study 2: Structural model of social support and group organizational citizenship behavior (GOCB)
Demographic information for Study 1 and Study 2
| Study 1 | Study 2 | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Gender | 78.5% female | 82.1% female |
| 2. Age | 43.41 (10.87) | 41.71 (10.34) |
| 3. Seniority | 13.28 (10.40) | 16.02 (10.53) |
| 4. Tenure | 72.6% | 88.3% |
| 5. School level elementary | 35.2% | 52% |
| 6. School level middle school | 14.2% | 24.6% |
| 7. School level high school | 50.7% | 14.7% |
| 8. Homeroom teacher | N/A | 59.5% |
Standard deviations are in parentheses