Profiling teacher leaders through entrepreneurial behaviours: a cluster analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Literature on teacher leadership highlights a significant gap in understanding the role of teacher leaders (TLs) as entrepreneurs. This research aims to bridge this gap by examining the multifaceted entrepreneurial dimension of teacher leadership. It specifically focuses on providing a comprehensive profile of these leaders and assessing their perceived influence on teachers’ outcome, which are important for improving school performance.

Design/methodology/approach

A two-step clustering procedure was utilized to discern profiles of teacher leaders’ entrepreneurial behaviours, sampling 586 participants in a teacher leader training program. To assess mean differences in relation to perceived influence on teacher outcomes (i.e. job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching practices) among these clusters, two-way contingency table analysis and MANOVA were conducted.

Findings

We identified three teacher-leader profiles: congenial facilitators, champion-leaders and executors. Our findings reveal the unique strengths and weaknesses of each profile and their contributions to job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching practices.

Originality/value

This study is innovative in its detailed examination of teacher leadership through the lens of Teacher Entrepreneurial Behaviour (TEB), providing new perspectives on the intricate relationships between teacher leaders' TEB and their perceived influences. This deeper insight emphasizes the important role of entrepreneurial behaviours within teacher leadership, suggesting new directions for further research and development in educational leadership practices.

Citation

Ho, C.S.M., Eyal, O. and Man, T.W.Y. (2024), "Profiling teacher leaders through entrepreneurial behaviours: a cluster analysis", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. ahead-of-print No. ahead-of-print. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2024-0079

Introduction

In an era of rapid change in education, research on distributed leadership has underscored the need to delegate authority and responsibility to teacher leaders, as principals increasingly face overwhelming responsibilities in school administration, curriculum development and pedagogical reform (Spillane, 2012). Beyond easing principal burdens, teacher leaders (TLs) provide unique leadership perspective crucial for influencing school-wide decisions differently from principals (Lin et al., 2018). They assume leadership roles beyond their regular classroom responsibilities, impacting their schools or educational communities (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Teacher leadership, defined as the practice of teachers taking on roles that extend beyond their classrooms to influence school-wide decisions and practices, is important in managing and adapting to these ongoing changes (Schott et al., 2020). However, the concept of teacher leadership is relatively new and constantly evolving (Pan et al., 2023). Originally focused on classroom responsibilities, teacher leadership has expanded to encompass a broader range of influential roles and activities, including enhancing pedagogical practices, fostering professional development, shaping policy and driving comprehensive school improvement (Schott et al., 2020; Margolis, 2012; Wenner and Campbell, 2017).

Recent shifts in the educational landscape, especially during crises like the pandemic, underscore the necessity to broaden the scope of teacher leadership to encompass TEB (Ghamrawi et al., 2023). Teacher entrepreneurial behaviour (TEB) is characterized by a distinct set of competencies and attributes that empower TLs to identify and leverage opportunities for innovation within schools (Ho et al., 2021, 2022; Van Dam et al., 2010). These behaviours, which include innovating, taking initiatives and managing risks, are important for implementing meaningful and lasting improvements in schools (Eyal and Yosef-Hassidim, 2012; Martin et al., 2018). Recent studies show that TLs exhibit diverse TEB patterns and approaches to initiating change (Neto et al., 2019; Wepner and Gomez, 2020). This diversity in TEB patterns underscores their potential to catalyse systemic changes and highlights their growing importance as an integral component of effective teacher leadership (George et al., 2019). However, research into the full spectrum and impact of these behaviours remain scant. The limited research underscores the need for further study to deepen our understanding of TEB's role in revealing new dimensions of teacher leadership.

Indeed, exploring TEB offers a new perspective on examining teacher leader profiles. However, given the lack of a consolidated theoretical framework in teacher leadership, Wenner and Campbell (2017) have emphasized the importance of revisiting and expanding existing theories. To appropriately integrate TEB within the framework of teacher leadership, we employ Adizes’ organizational lifecycles model, a well-established framework. Adizes (2022) underscores leaders' essential roles in management, specifically identifying four key roles—producer, administrator, entrepreneur and integrator. Notably, the “Entrepreneur” role aligns closely with entrepreneurial activities. Recognizing that leaders often blend these roles to effectively fulfil their responsibilities (Lin et al., 2018), we posit that TLs can display varied and effective TEB patterns, thus influencing their impact on schools. This study aims to examine the multifaceted entrepreneurial dimension of teacher leadership and provide insights into the diverse profiles of entrepreneurial TLs and their perceived influence on teachers’ outcome. The following research questions guide this study:

RQ1.

What are the distinct profiles of TLs based on their TEB?

As the study examines the different of various types of teacher leaders' TEB, the second research question imposes a condition based on RQ1:

RQ2.

What differences in perceived influence on teacher outcomes (job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching practices) exist among the identified profiles of teacher leaders' TEB?

Literature review

Teacher leadership

Teacher leadership is a multifaceted concept within the educational arena, extending well beyond conventional classroom responsibilities (Margolis, 2012). This form of leadership encompasses a suite of roles and activities, with teachers assuming additional responsibilities to enhance pedagogical practices, promote peer professional development, influence policy formulation and catalyse comprehensive improvement across the school environment (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). TLs play an important role in driving school advancement by leveraging teacher creativity and redistributing duties traditionally held by principals across a broader base of educators (Angelle and Teague, 2014; Ghamrawi et al., 2023; Xie et al., 2021).

In practice, teacher leadership often involves leading professional development efforts, such as heading professional learning communities and conducting formal training sessions. These TLs also extend their influence by supporting fellow teachers directly in their classrooms (Ghamrawi et al., 2023; Muijs and Harris, 2006). Additionally, they play a significant role in policy and decision-making at various levels, influencing the strategic direction of their schools (Xie et al., 2021). Their active participation in governance and policy-making highlights the crucial role of teacher leadership in promoting educational innovation and ongoing school improvement (Muijs and Harris, 2006; Wenner and Campbell, 2017).

The importance of teacher leadership in improving educational outcomes is well-supported by qualitative research (Angelle and Teague, 2014), demonstrating its role in enhancing collaboration, spreading best practices and supporting differentiated teaching (Schott et al., 2020; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). To further quantify its impact, researchers have developed tools like the Teacher Leadership Inventory, which identifies six dimensions of teacher leadership, including Promoting Professional Learning, Focusing on the Learning Process, Encouraging Collegial Collaboration, Engaging in Decision-Making, Liaising with External Affiliations and Policy Leadership (Chen, 2022; Xie et al., 2021). These dimensions highlight the extensive influence of TLs beyond the classroom. Quantitative studies confirm that teacher leadership positively impacts professional development, curriculum improvement and student outcomes by enhancing community engagement (Printy and Liu, 2021; Schott et al., 2020). Furthermore, research by Lin et al. (2018) identifies four distinct teacher leadership types, emphasizing these roles' variability and contextual influence (Nguyen et al., 2020; Schott et al., 2020). This broadens our understanding of the diverse and impactful roles TLs play in education.

As the importance of teacher leadership continues to grow, it has now embraced TEB practices to reframe roles in a manner that accounts for rapid change. TLs are increasingly involved in restructuring schools, including being invited onto school leadership teams and sharing in the responsibility for developing school capacity and leading school-wide change efforts (Chen, 2022). This involvement in leadership provides TLs with opportunities to create new roles and schemes that exemplify their influence both in class and out of class. Meanwhile, crises, notably the pandemic and rapid changes in society and student diversity, have made the necessity for performing TEB more apparent. These conditions have catalysed rapid problem-solving and innovation, fostering unprecedented levels of cooperation and enabling TLs equipped with the right skill sets to take the lead (Ho et al., 2021; Van Dam et al., 2010). During the pandemic, TLs have acted as in-house entrepreneurs, playing a pivotal role in championing innovation and driving change within schools through a bottom-up approach to meet individual student learning needs (Zhu et al., 2013). By embracing entrepreneurial behavior such as innovating, taking initiative and managing risks, TLs drive systemic endeavours that not only respond to immediate educational demands but also set standards for future success (Ghamrawi et al., 2023; Wepner and Gomez, 2020).

The imperative to explore and integrate TEB within the framework of teacher leadership stems from these significant shifts in education. TEB is vital for navigating complex challenges and cultivating a dynamic leadership environment amidst continuous change. By embedding entrepreneurial behaviours such as innovating, taking initiative and managing risks into the core of teacher leadership, TEB enriches the teacher leadership landscape and opens new avenues for research. These studies aim to further develop and harness these behaviours for systemic school improvements.

TEB

TEB encapsulates a set of competencies and attributes that enables teachers to identify opportunities to innovate and expand innovative practices within schools, resonating with the role of TLs (Ho et al., 2021, 2022; Van Dam et al., 2010). It encompasses both competencies—including advocating innovation and seeking resources, which are explicit abilities to implement innovative ideas—and attributes like humility and mitigating risk, which are implicit qualities enabling TLs to perform tasks and work with colleagues (Ho et al., 2021, 2022). Meanwhile, the term “entrepreneurial teacher” encompasses TLs across various roles who exhibit these behaviours, often rising to leadership through their innovative actions and capacity to foster change (Martin et al., 2018). Such TLs are not always in formal leadership positions but become leaders due to their proactive and resourceful nature (Neto et al., 2019). Accordingly, TEB extends the meaning of teacher leadership. Entrepreneurial TLs embody the entrepreneurial spirit essential for fostering a culture of growth and excellence. Hence, TEB is a foundational component for teacher leaders, equipping them to drive significant educational advancements.

Empirical studies have conceptualised TEB into four major qualities: (1) Advocating innovation: stimulating and capitalizing on colleagues’ creative potential by introducing innovative ideas (Martin et al., 2018); (2) Seeking resources: gathering and utilizing internal and external resources to develop innovative ideas (George et al., 2019); (3) Cultivating cohesiveness through humility: creating buy-in and gaining support from peers in a humble and caring manner and (4) Mitigating risk: taking the initiative to adapt new ideas by scanning the school environment to estimate the potential threat in order to minimize risk.

Studies have shown that entrepreneurial TLs display varied patterns in their approaches to initiating change (Eyal and Yosef-Hassidim, 2012; Neto et al., 2019). For example, some experienced leaders might promote innovation more actively due to their deep understanding of school administration (Ho et al., 2022). Others prioritize acquiring resources or providing technical support to facilitate change and maintain operations, or they might seek external expertise to bolster innovation projects (Neto et al., 2019). Additionally, certain leaders foster team cohesiveness through humility, encouraging a proactive attitude toward change among colleagues (Leffler, 2019). TLs with high self-efficacy often weigh potential risks carefully yet remain open to implementing new ideas in teaching and learning (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010; Neto et al., 2019).

These entrepreneurial TLs demonstrate exceptional resourcefulness, which enables them to effectively identify resources and opportunities that contribute to the successful implementation of novel processes and enhancements (Ho et al., 2021, 2022; Borasi and Finnigan, 2010). In their leadership capacity, they also excel in assessing and mitigating risks associated with new endeavours, showcasing a quality for making well-informed, consensus-driven decisions that benefit their schools and students (Chand and Amin-Choudhury, 2006; Ho et al., 2021). Their remarkable attributes of humility help them navigate challenges in implementing innovative curricula by balancing multiple responsibilities and fostering collaboration among colleagues from diverse disciplines (Borasi and Finnigan, 2010).

Theoretical lens – Adizes' organization lifecycles

To examine teacher leaders’ entrepreneurial behaviours, this study requires a theoretical model. However, research in teacher leadership has been “largely atheoretical” (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). In many cases, theoretical frameworks are not substantially employed; they are often briefly mentioned or merely used as contextual backdrops in the literature review, with distributed leadership being a commonly referenced theory (Schott et al., 2020). Recognizing this gap, Wenner and Campbell (2017) have underscored the necessity for future research to revisit, critically engage with and expand upon existing theoretical frameworks. In response to this call, this study proposes using Adizes' organizational lifecycles as a well-established theoretical model to explore the varied patterns of TEB among teacher leaders. Adizes' (2022) study on organization lifecycles positing that leaders are naturally inclined toward one or more roles when leading their teams. Utilizing Adizes' model equips us to understand the multifaceted nature of teacher leadership, revealing how TLs can navigate and embody different roles to adapt to meet the challenges within schools effectively.

Adizes identified four key leading roles: producer, administrator, entrepreneur and integrator. The producer primarily provides the necessary resources to ensure efficient task completion. The administrator captures knowledge about best practices and establishes processes and procedures to guarantee smooth operations. The entrepreneur inspires others by identifying new opportunities to foster innovation. The integrator fosters cohesiveness by building mutual trust and respect, resulting in lasting cultures of collaboration. Rather than being constrained to a single skill, these leading roles encompass a broader spectrum of skills and approaches adaptable to varied activities (Adizes, 2022).

Adizes' view on the role of leaders shares similarities with TEB studies, where entrepreneurial TLs may play different roles in promoting innovative practices and are not necessarily exclusive to one quality of TEB but rather provide a set of competencies and attributes (Ho et al., 2021; Van Dam et al., 2010). For instance, although the quality of advocating for innovation is commonly associated with the entrepreneur role due to its focus on change and innovation, it can also be partially reflected in the Producer and Integrator role. The Producer is concerned with delivering tangible results, including successfully implementing innovative outcomes (Adizes, 2022). Additionally, the Integrator's emphasis on harmony is crucial in creating a supportive environment that fosters the acceptance and implementation of innovative ideas (Ho and Lu, 2024). This collaborative atmosphere is essential for innovation to take root and flourish. Therefore, while every role inherently has the potential to display TEB, the extent and mix of these behaviours may differ based on the context and specific demands of the situation (see, Adizes, 2022).

Drawing on Adizes' work and TEB literature, the role of TLs emerges as complex, characterized by diverse entrepreneurial behaviours that respond to different professional phases and challenges within schools. However, research has yet to define distinct types of entrepreneurial TLs or explore how their varied behaviours influence teachers’ outcome.

Perceived influence of TEB

Recognizing the challenges of directly linking teacher leadership activities to quantifiable educational outcomes, such as classroom practices and student achievements (Schott et al., 2020), this study focuses on how entrepreneurial TLs perceive their impact at work. This approach is informed by existing literature that highlights the indirect pathways through which teacher leadership and entrepreneurial TLs can enhance teaching quality, school innovation and organizational change by promoting innovative instructional methods, work engagement and a collaborative culture (Joensuu-Salo et al., 2021; Schott et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Accordingly, we focus on teacher leaders’ perception of their influence on teachers’ innovative teaching, job satisfaction and intrateam trust.

Furthermore, this study selects these focal points as evidence suggests that teacher leadership not only enhances positive work attitudes and strengthens colleague relationships, but also drives innovation (Angelle and Teague, 2014; Neto et al., 2019; Van Dam et al., 2010; Zhu et al., 2013). Job satisfaction reflects positive work engagement (Deci and Ryan, 2008), while intrateam trust enhances the quality of colleague relationships (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). This echoes the impact of teacher leadership (Schott et al., 2020; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Innovative teaching, a hallmark of entrepreneurial teacher leaders, involves novel methods that can significantly affect classroom dynamics and student learning (Neto et al., 2019). By examining these aspects, our study aims to provide empirical evidence on how entrepreneurial TLs perceive their impact on teachers’ outcome, highlighting the significance of teacher leadership from the TEB perspective.

Innovative teaching refers to a teacher’s ability to create and implement novel teaching methods and to assess students’ learning using fresh approaches (Zhu et al., 2013). Entrepreneurial behaviour is closely linked with innovative teaching, as entrepreneurial TLs naturally pursue new ideas, experiment and take risks—key elements for innovation (Ho et al., 2021). They actively engage in creatively disseminating knowledge and skills, enhancing innovative teaching (Zhu et al., 2013). They are often at the forefront of creating and implementing new educational concepts, significantly enriching the educational experience (Neto et al., 2019; Joensuu-Salo et al., 2021).

Job satisfaction involves an individual's emotional and attitudinal responses to their occupation, encompassing subjective evaluations of the overall experience and specific attributes (De Jong et al., 2016). This complex process is influenced by intrinsic motivation, which is essential for pursuing innovations (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Entrepreneurial TLs who actively engage in innovative projects often experience higher job satisfaction, suggesting that involvement in the entrepreneurial process enhances their contentment in their roles (Martin et al., 2018). This sense of fulfilment from creating and implementing new initiatives further boosts their job satisfaction (Ho et al., 2022).

Intrateam trust, characterized by mutual confidence and commitment to collective success, develops from shared experiences that reinforce positive member interactions (De Jong et al., 2016). Intrateam trust is bolstered by positive expectations and a willingness to be vulnerable, traits nurtured by entrepreneurial TLs that encourage cooperation and risk-sharing (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012). Entrepreneurial actions, such as demonstrating care and involving team members in innovation, effectively build this trust within teams (Van Dam et al., 2010).

Noteworthy, distinct types of entrepreneurial TLs may have various impacts (Ho and Lu, 2024). The Adizes model can offer us a comprehensive framework for analysing how different teacher leadership styles uniquely influence their leading focus and its relation to their perceived outcomes. In this model, entrepreneurs act as catalysts for innovation, producers ensure results and efficiency, administrators establish necessary structures and integrators harmonize these functions to build a cohesive culture (Adizes, 2022). This study employs the Adizes model to explore how different profiles of teacher leaders, as identified through their TEB, perceive their varied impacts within schools.

Methodology

We used cluster analysis to place TLs into profiles based on their similarities. The main purpose of cluster analysis is to group observations by taking distance and similarities into consideration, thus, bringing the differences between clusters and the similarities within clusters to the uppermost level.

Research context

The Hong Kong Education Bureau (EDB) requires all TLs who have reached the ranks of Principal or Senior teachers to undertake an additional 40 h of leadership training. According to an EDB recommendation, training must reference the standard set forth in the leadership training guide (Committee on Professional Development of Teachers and Principals, 2015). This training guide emphasizes the role of “visionary edupreneurs” (teacher entrepreneurialism) regarding educational transformation and continuous school improvement. Principals and TLs are required to foster an entrepreneurial environment in their schools, collaborating closely with teachers and parents to navigate complexities and transform challenges into opportunities that support sustainable school development.

With the demand for a professional training programme focused on teacher entrepreneurialism, a programme was developed informed by teacher entrepreneurialism studies (Ho et al., 2020, 2021; Van Dam et al., 2010). In the past three years, over 2,000 TLs from 85 schools were trained.

Sampling and data collection

The participants in the current study were selected from a pool of TLs who had taken part in one of the teacher entrepreneurialism training programs. They are designated TLs who oversee a subject-specific or student affairs committee. A prerequisite for participation was the successful completion and presentation of a novel project at their respective schools, which they showcased in front of their principals and peers. Only those TLs who had implemented a new project within their institution were invited to form the study's targeted sample. Furthermore, three school-oriented criteria were used to select participants: (1) at least two schools from each Hong Kong district had to be represented; (2) at least one primary and one secondary school had to be included from each district and (3) schools had to adhere to the standard of 24 classes and have approximately 600 students. These characteristics are common in Hong Kong schools and provide a representative sample of the TLs serving in them. A total of 586 TLs from 31 schools were included in the study. They were asked to complete an online questionnaire before the programme. The TLs were formal leaders in various capacities, including subject heads, chairs of administrative committees or heads of pastoral care sections. Table 1 shows their demographic information (gender, age, education qualifications and years of experience. Notably, most of them (58.7%) had 12 or more years of formal leadership experience.

Instruments

The questionnaire consisted of four Likert-style 6-point scale items. The TEB Scale is a validated instrument developed specifically to assess TEB (Ho and Lu, 2024). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to assess the construct using good fit thresholds: (CFI and TLI >0.95; RMSEA <0.08; SRMR <0.08). The questionnaire consisted of four subscales: advocating innovation (4 items; α = 0.88); seeking resources (4 items; α = 0.91); contriving reverence (3 items; α = 0.90) and mitigating risk (4 items; α = 0.89); with 15 items. The results of CFA of the TEB showed four factors best fit the data (RMSEA = 0.068; normed fit index = 0.950; CFI = 0.961; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.956; chi-square (χ²) [80] = 354.103, p < 0.001).

Finally, for the teacher leaders’ perception on their influence on teachers’ outcome, three instruments were applied from the existing literature: the job satisfaction scale (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2010) was used to reflect teachers’ contentment with various aspects of their professional roles in schools (4 items; α = 0.85) (RMSEA = 0.072; normed fit index = 0.987; CFI = 0.988; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.986; chi-square (χ²) [2] = 4.851, p < 0.001). This scale measures how satisfied an individual is with the opportunities they feel respected, valued and included within their work group, positive associations with their workspace, and the chance to gain new skills. The Intrateam trust scale (De Jong and Elfring, 2010) was used to collect responses on teacher leaders’ positive expectations about team members (4 items; α = 0.93) (RMSEA = 0.054; normed fit index = 0.989; CFI = 0.995; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.996; chi-square (χ²) [3] = 7.866, p < 0.001). These items include emotional closeness, mutual understanding, shared experiences, consideration of interests and effective communication. This instrument is an excellent representation of the non-contingently valued trust of relatedness. The teacher innovation scale (Jansen et al., 2006) was used to collect responses related to innovative teaching (6 items; α = 0.91) (RMSEA = 0.058; normed fit index = 0.995; CFI = 0.997; goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.992; chi-square (χ²) [5] = 17.237, p < 0.001). This instrument primarily evaluates teacher leaders' perceptions of their teachers commitment to continually renewing their educational practices, including developing, experimenting with or integrating new techniques into their teaching, proving highly effective for measuring aspects of innovative teaching.

Data analysis

After collecting data, four statistical procedures were performed. First, cluster analysis was used to identify TEB sub-groups with the help of a two-step clustering procedure. The two-step clustering offers a more flexible approach to determining cluster membership, which can result in more naturally grouped clusters (Everitt et al., 2011). This is particularly important in our study to uncover distinct behavioural profiles within the data. As the number of groups was uncertain, 586 variables were used in hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward’s minimum variance method forming the initial clustering of the data (Murtagh and Legendre, 2014). By reviewing the dendrogram and applying the Duda–Hart index, we identified the three-cluster solution that was most acceptable. The Duda-Hart index compares the within-cluster dispersion with the between-cluster dispersion, helping to ensure that the chosen cluster solution is neither too fine-grained nor too coarse. It is particularly suitable for our data, which requires a delicate balance between identifying distinct groups and maintaining meaningful separation. We then performed a k-means clustering analysis of the TEB based on this three-cluster solution. This helped us classify and reassign data points to the nearest centroids (Everitt et al., 2011). The results of the k-mean improved the replicability of the cluster assignments and yielded a high degree of maintenance of the original cluster membership (Murtagh and Legendre, 2014). To conclude, the two-step clustering procedure enabled us to group all the TLs into three clusters so that TLs within a cluster were more similar than those from other clusters.

Second, descriptive statistics, such as means and standard deviations, were calculated for the three clusters. Wilks’ Lambda test with Canonical Discriminant Functions was used to test whether there were differences between the mean scores of the identified groups on a combination of TEBs. The discriminatory characteristics of the clusters were also defined by the group means of the predictor variables using the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient values. Calculating the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient values produced group means – centroids (the mean discriminant scores for each group). Centroids are obtained from the cutting points, which is the halfway mark between the values of the functions at group centroids. This step also guided us to understand the principle of grouping TLs into each cluster.

Third, we used two-way contingency table analysis with Chi-square tests to assess relationships between categorical variables within clusters, focusing on associations with job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching. This method verified the significance of these relationships, providing a solid foundation for further analysis of mean differences based on categorical differentiation. Following this, we utilized Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) to evaluate mean differences among the identified clusters with respect to the teacher leaders’ perception on their influence on teachers’ outcome. MANOVA was particularly suited for our analysis as it allowed for a comprehensive examination of the clusters' influence across multiple dependent variables simultaneously. This approach was instrumental in discerning whether the clusters differed significantly not just on individual outcomes, but as a combined profile of job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching. This comprehensive view is central to our study's objectives, helping to establish a nuanced understanding of how different profiles of teacher leaders, identified through their TEB, perceive their varied impacts on multiple aspects within schools.

Findings

Descriptive statistics for clusters

As a result of the two-step cluster analysis, three clusters of TLs were identified based on the four types of entrepreneurial behaviour (Wilks’ Lamba = 0.93, F[3,8] = 43.39, p < 0.001). Cluster 1’s centroids was −0.32. As seeking resources (Discriminant Function Coefficients = −0.47) was the lowest, TLs who had the lowest rate in seeking resources were assigned into cluster 1. Conversely, cluster 2’s centroids was 0.41. As the Discriminant Function Coefficients of mitigating risk was highest at 0.82, TLs with a higher rate of mitigating risk were grouped into cluster 2. Cluster 3’s centroids was 0.103. As the second lowest Discriminant Function Coefficients was advocating innovation (−0.03), TLs with a lower score on advocating innovation were assigned to cluster 3. As a result, TLs were distributed among the clusters as follows: 110 were classified as cluster 1 (18.8% of the 586 TLs), 251 were grouped in cluster 2 (42.8%) and 225 TLs belonged to cluster 3 (38.4%). Table 2 shows the descriptive statistics of the three clusters with the means and standard deviations for TEB.

The cluster analysis of teacher leaders' TEB levels yielded three distinct profiles (Figure 1): Cluster 1, “Congenial Facilitators”; Cluster 2, “Champion-Leaders” and Cluster 3, “Executors.” Labels were assigned considering the absolute and relative values of the TEB variables.

Congenial-facilitators

Cluster 1, “Congenial Facilitators,” was the smallest group, characterized by high humility but low resource-seeking, with a score of −1.33. These TLs focus on team cohesion and relationship-building while being less proactive in resource acquisition for their peers' tasks.

Champion-leaders

Cluster 2, “Champion-Leaders,” was the largest and strongest across all TEB dimensions, excelling in fostering cohesiveness, advocating innovation and applying entrepreneurial leadership. They actively acquire resources and manage risks to support team initiatives.

Executors

Cluster 3, “Executors,” had lower scores in risk mitigation, team cohesion and innovation advocacy compared to other clusters but exceeded Cluster 1 in resource-seeking. These TLs prioritize resource acquisition over relationship-building and innovation to tackle immediate school issues.

Two-way contingency table analysis and MANOVA analysis

To examine the relationship between the clusters and the perceived influence on teachers’ outcome (i.e. job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching), a two-way contingency table analysis and chi-square for independence was conducted. There were statistically significant differences between the clusters regarding job satisfaction (Person’s χ² [d.f. = 30, n = 586] = 143.82, p < 0.001), intrateam Trust (Person’s χ² [d.f. = 34, n = 586] = 101.61, p < 0.001) and innovative teaching (Person’s χ² [d.f. = 46, n = 586] = 189.97, p < 0.001). The descriptive statistics of the three clusters with the means and standard deviations for job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching. The corresponding MANOVA also revealed significant cluster effects: job satisfaction (F[2,583] = 49.388; p < 0.001), intrateam trust (F[2,583] = 35.236; p < 0.001) and innovative teaching (F[2,583] = 82.361; p < 0.001).

The results that there were statistically significant differences between the three clusters regarding job satisfaction, intrateam trust and innovative teaching. For job satisfaction, the mean score (M = 5.26, SD = 0.59) of cluster 2, Champion-leaders, is significantly higher than the mean score (M = 4.85, SD = 0.66) of cluster 1 (p < 0.001), Congenial facilitators and the mean score (M = 4.73, SD = 0.57) of cluster 3 (p < 0.001), Executors. However, the p-values between cluster 1 and cluster 3 had only a weak significant difference (p < 0.05). For intrateam trust, the mean score (M = 5.07, SD = 0.69) of cluster 2, Champion-leaders, is significantly higher than the mean score (M = 4.54, SD = 0.69) of cluster 3 (p < 0.001), Executors and show a weak level of significant difference to the mean scores (M = 4.86, SD = 0.67) of cluster 1 (p < 0.001), Congenial facilitators. However, there is a significant difference in the p-value between cluster 1 and cluster 2 (p < 0.05). For Innovation, the mean score (M = 4.99, SD = 0.59) of cluster 2, Champion-leaders, is significantly higher than the mean scores (M = 4.34, SD = 0.54) of cluster 1 (p < 0.001), Congenial facilitators and the mean score (M = 4.45, SD = 0.64) of cluster 3 (p < 0.001), Executors. Further, the p-values between cluster 1 and cluster 3 show a weak significant difference (p < 0.05).

Discussion

Our findings reveal that teacher leadership is diverse, not monolithic, significantly bolstering innovative teaching. We identified three unique TEB profiles: champion-leaders, congenial facilitators and executors, each displaying distinct entrepreneurial behaviours. This classification offers a new perspective, highlighting teacher leadership's dynamic and multifaceted nature more comprehensively than previous research. By providing a detailed analysis of these TEB profiles, our study shows how each contributes uniquely to innovation and school improvement and broadens the traditional view of teacher leadership roles. This deeper understanding highlights the important role of TEB within teacher leadership and suggests new directions for future research in teacher leadership.

Champion-leaders

Champion-leaders excel across all four dimensions of TEB: resource seeking, cohesiveness cultivation, risk mitigation and innovation advocacy, making them exceptionally effective in their roles. They integrate various leadership styles from Adizes' model, effectively promoting positive outcomes like job satisfaction and team trust. Their innovative approach reflects the Adizes“ Entrepreneur role, as they actively explore and implement new teaching and learning methods (Martin et al., 2018). Like Adizes' Administrators, risk management adopts a structured approach to ensure the careful rollout of innovations (Joensuu-Salo et al., 2021). As Producers, they are proactive in securing resources necessary for the rapid adoption of innovative teaching practices (Ho et al., 2021). Although they show less emphasis on humility, a trait of the Adizes' Integrator, they still manage to foster team cohesion and bolster intra-team trust through this characteristic.

Champion-leaders leverage their diverse TEB competencies not just in pursuing innovation but also in nurturing collegial bonds. This dual focus ensures that educational organizations maintain both social and functional cohesion, steering clear of becoming rigid assemblages of functionally isolated individuals. The significant outcomes in teaching and high levels of job satisfaction evidence their commitment to innovation. Nevertheless, this focus aligns with the relatively lower intra-team trust, reflecting their tempered humility. These insights reveal the intricate nature of Champion-leaders' roles and the extensive influence they wield over innovation in teaching, job satisfaction and team dynamics.

Congenial-facilitators

Congenial-facilitator teacher leaders, resembling the Integrator role from Adizes' leadership styles, excel in building team cohesiveness and trust through humility. Their success in forming strong interpersonal relationships is supported by research (Fulmer and Gelfand, 2012), which highlights the importance of collaborative trust-building. Additionally, these leaders manage risks in a similar way to the administrator role, prioritizing stability and order to maintain team unity (Martin et al., 2018).

However, our findings regarding their perception of their TEB’s influence indicate that while social support from colleagues can enhance job satisfaction, the congenial-facilitators' limited propensity for seeking resources may adversely affect the influence of TEB on teachers’ outcome, reducing job satisfaction. These TLs often face challenges in decision-making, echoing issues seen in Adizes' Integrator role, particularly in making unpopular decisions (Adizes, 2022). Their preference for consensus and avoiding displeasure can hinder their ability to introduce necessary changes and innovate, especially under resource constraints (Camilleri and Camilleri, 2017). This reluctance to disturb the status quo could lead to early bureaucratic tendencies, where a focus on maintaining stability and avoiding conflict stifles change and innovation, according to Adizes“ lifecycle theory.

Executors

The executor profile, when considered in the context of Adizes' leadership styles, embodies a narrow interpretation of the Producer role. Executors show a capacity for seeking resources, a characteristic essential for the Producer role, focused on accomplishing tasks. Despite this task-oriented effort, they had little intention to initiate change, few plans to mitigate risk and are weak in getting colleagues together. Therefore, they have low job satisfaction; they are weak in developing intrateam trust and implementing few teaching innovations. In other words, executors may steer towards the attributes of a “death organization” as defined by Adizes (2022), which refers to the terminal phase in an organization’s lifecycle where it experiences a decline beyond recovery, leading to its eventual cessation of operations. Executors, with their focus on maintaining the status quo and reluctance to embrace change, embody these “death organization” traits, which could stifle creativity and impede growth.

Theoretical implications

Incorporating the Adizes organizational lifecycles model in this study aims to address the theoretical gaps noted in research on teacher leadership, which has historically been described as “largely atheoretical” (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). This approach aligns with the call by Wenner and Campbell (2017) for a more robust use of theoretical frameworks, helping us explore how it enhances teacher leadership understanding through TEB. This integration not only expands the scope of teacher leaders' roles and behaviours by applying entrepreneurial concepts to educational settings, where such applications have been notably scarce (Eyal and Yosef-Hassidim, 2012), but also deepens our examination of the roles that TLs can fulfil. It underscores how TLs can embrace dynamic and innovative behaviours essential for driving school improvement and facilitating change (Schott et al., 2020; Margolis, 2012). Introducing this approach adds a new dimension to the conceptualization of teacher leadership, thereby enriching our understanding of its multifaceted roles.

Furthermore, our results on three types of entrepreneurial teacher leaders, guided by the Adizes model, have been instrumental in identifying distinct profiles based on their TEB. This result confirmed diverse leadership profiles, each uniquely contributing to innovation and school improvement. Through this exploration, we have added depth to the existing literature by illustrating the multifaceted nature of teacher leadership and its potential to drive significant changes in educational settings (Neto et al., 2019; Wepner and Gomez, 2020).

Practical implication

From a policy perspective, our result emphasizes the necessity for professional development programmes that enhance TEB among TLs to boost teacher performance and foster innovative teaching practices. These programmes should develop leadership skills and adapt to diverse contexts (Ghamrawi et al., 2023). Practically, our findings highlight the importance of balancing TEB profiles among TLs to foster innovation effectively. We observed that imbalances in TEB competencies can hinder innovative efforts. For instance, congenial facilitators, skilled in integrative functions, may struggle without the entrepreneurial drive, while executives might not effectively foster job satisfaction or trust due to their limited engagement with broader organizational issues. To address these challenges, it is crucial for school leaders to recognize and leverage the diverse TEB profiles of their staff, assembling teams with complementary strengths and ensuring clear communication of strategic policies. This approach not only accommodates diverse viewpoints but also cultivates a culture conducive to innovation and dynamic school improvement (Spillane, 2012; Ho et al., 2021).

Limitation and future studies

This study examines a group of Hong Kong TLs involved in entrepreneurial training and project implementation, providing detailed insights into entrepreneurial practices among trained educators. However, the focus on this specific group limits the broader applicability of our findings. Furthermore, the survey measures only the teacher leaders’ perceptions of their TEB impact, which may not fully reflect the views of their colleagues. While primarily relevant to similar environments active in entrepreneurial initiatives, the insights could also benefit other contexts interested in teacher entrepreneurialism. Future research should broaden the scope to include various educational settings and cultural contexts, aiming to understand better and support the universal adoption of teacher entrepreneurialism and identify factors influencing its integration into diverse educational systems.

Figures

Figure 1

Profiles of the three clusters (Standardized means of TEB items)

Table 1

Sample characteristics

Characteristics	N = 586	Percentage
Gender
Male	215	36.7
Female	371	63.3
Age
25–34	187	31.9
35–44	199	34.0
45–54	141	24.1
55 or above	59	10.1
Qualification
Bachelor’s degree	306	52.2
Master’s degree	278	47.4
Doctoral’s degree	2	0.3
Years as a formal leader
1–3 years	75	12.8
4–7 years	88	15.0
8–11 years	79	13.5
12 years or more	344	58.7

Source(s): Authors own creation

Table 2

Means and standard deviations by cluster

	Function 1a (% of variance = 87.7)	Function 2a (% of variance = 12.3)	Cluster 1 Congenial facilitators (n = 110)		Cluster 2 Champion-leaders (n = 251)		Cluster 3 Executors (n = 225)		Total (n = 586)
			M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Teachers’ entrepreneurial behaviour
Advocating innovation	−0.03	0.38	4.34	0.49	5.17	0.43	4.36	0.42	4.70	0.60
Seeking resources	−0.47	0.78	3.46	0.40	5.04	0.50	4.23	0.33	4.43	0.73
Cultivating cohesiveness through humility	0.16	0.26	5.24	0.43	5.44	0.43	4.87	0.44	5.18	0.51
Mitigating risk	0.82	0.29	4.70	0.48	5.17	0.43	4.44	0.41	4.80	0.54

Note(s): ^a p < 0.001

Source(s): Authors own creation