https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8099-6474
Figures
Abstract
This study presents a revolutionary understanding of how value-based leadership enhances the intrinsic work motivation of Chinese university faculty. A novel serial mediation model is introduced, highlighting the interplay between growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy in transmitting the impact of leadership to increased intrinsic motivation. Utilizing a comprehensive sample of 394 faculty members from across China, advanced SmartPLS 3.0 analytics were employed to validate the model. The results demonstrate a significant positive effect of value-based leadership on faculty intrinsic motivation, partially mediated by the sequential influence of nurturing a growth mindset and strong teaching self-efficacy. The findings provide fresh theoretical perspectives and practical strategies for researchers, university leaders, administrators, and policymakers seeking to elevate the intrinsic work motivation of China’s academic faculty to new levels.
Citation: Zhao X, Yang P, Zhang X, Li N (2025) Revolutionizing faculty’s intrinsic work motivation in China: A novel serial mediation model integrating value-based leadership, growth mindset, and teaching self-efficacy. PLoS ONE 20(1): e0313392. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313392
Editor: Kashif Ali, University of Central Punjab, PAKISTAN
Received: August 5, 2024; Accepted: October 24, 2024; Published: January 14, 2025
Copyright: © 2025 Zhao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Data Availability: Data cannot be shared publicly because of the need to protect the privacy of the survey participants. Data are available from the Ethics Committee in Hebei Finance University, School of Foreign Languages for International Business for researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Researchers interested in accessing the data should submit a formal request to the Committee via shangwaihfu@163.com, detailing the research aims and demonstrating how they will adhere to the ethical standards for data use and participant confidentiality. The Committee will review requests and grant access to the data only to researchers who can demonstrate a legitimate scientific interest and have the necessary qualifications and experience to handle sensitive data responsibly. Any data shared will be subject to strict conditions to ensure that the privacy and confidentiality of the participants are maintained.
Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Introduction
Work motivation has garnered increased scholarly attention within the educational context since the turn of the millennium, with a notable surge in research across diverse sociocultural backgrounds over the past decade [1–3]. China’s higher education system, instrumental in fostering skilled professionals and experts crucial to societal progress, contributes significantly to the nation’s economic growth, technological advancements, scientific achievements, and societal evolution [4, 5]. Despite these accomplishments, research has highlighted that faculty members (or “faculty” for short in some countries, sharing the same meaning with “faculty members” in this study) in China often lack sufficient work motivation and are not fully dedicated to their teaching responsibilities [6, 7]. Understanding and enhancing faculty work motivation is imperative for fostering teaching engagement, academic research, and sustainable university development [1, 8].
Work motivation can be broadly classified into extrinsic and intrinsic forms. While extrinsic motivation is tied to external rewards and punishments, intrinsic motivation stems from personal interest or enjoyment in the task itself [9]. A growing body of evidence suggests that intrinsic motivation plays a pivotal role in enhancing employee performance and well-being, particularly among faculty, whose profession thrives on intrinsic drives [9–11]. Intrinsically motivated faculty members tend to invest more time and effort into teaching, demonstrating innovative classroom activities, actively seeking feedback, and embracing cutting-edge educational techniques [12, 13]. However, the effectiveness of strategies to promote intrinsic motivation varies contextually and culturally [1, 14].
Given China’s unique sociocultural backdrop steeped in Confucianism, which emphasizes collectivism, interpersonal harmony, deference to authority, and virtue, it is imperative to explore factors that influence faculty’s intrinsic work motivation within this cultural context [15]. This research proposes value-based leadership as a key strategy to elevate faculty’s intrinsic motivation, grounded in the notion that values are fundamental drivers of motivation [16]. Values are deeply ingrained in the teaching profession, and in China, where Confucian educational philosophies persist [17], leaders’ values are perceived as paramount [18]. Thus, value-based leadership may effectively bolster faculty’s intrinsic work motivation in this cultural setting.
Moreover, this study delves into the sequential mediating effects of faculty’s growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy on the relationship between value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation. A growth mindset fosters adaptability, progress, and an open-minded approach to learning [19]. Teaching self-efficacy, on the other hand, represents faculty’s confidence in their teaching abilities [20, 21]. These two factors potentially serve as psychological bridges linking university organizational dynamics with faculty’s intrinsic work motivation [22]. However, limited research has examined how value-based leadership interacts with personal attributes like growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy to shape faculty’s intrinsic work motivation in Chinese universities [23]. Therefore, this study aims to bridge this gap by investigating the impact of value-based leadership on faculty’s intrinsic work motivation, with a focus on the serial mediation of growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy.
Guided by these considerations, the research questions formulated are:
- Q1: To what degree does value-based leadership influence faculty’s intrinsic work motivation in Chinese universities?
- Q2: Is the relationship of value-based leadership and faculty’s intrinsic work motivation sequentially mediated by their growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy?
Literature review
Intrinsic Work Motivation (IWM)
Faculty’s intrinsic motivation encompasses various factors that propel educators to embark on and persist in a teaching career, enabling them to thrive within it [1]. Drawing upon Self-determination Theory (SDT) [24], individuals inherently strive for psychological growth, integration, learning, mastery, and connection with others. Hence, three fundamental psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are recognized as key drivers of self-motivated behavior [24]. Autonomy refers to the desire to act as an independent agent in one’s life [25], nourished by experiences that evoke interest and value, and diminished by external control, irrespective of incentives or punishments [9]. Competence encompasses the capability to manage outcomes and attain mastery in an activity [25], with ideal environments fostering this need through appropriate challenges, positive feedback, and opportunities for growth [26]. Relatedness pertains to the longing for interaction, belonging, and connection, nurtured by expressions of respect and empathy [9].
Previous research has delved into the influence of various variables, including social context factors, on intrinsic work motivation. Core social context elements involve organizational support and hindrances that impact employees’ fundamental psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy, with these being significantly shaped by management styles [27]. Many studies centering on workplace factors that may influence motivational variables have zeroed in on managerial actions, particularly leadership [18, 27, 28]. Established theories such as SDT [26], Goal-setting Theory [29], Expectancy Theory [30], and the Job Characteristics Model (e.g. [31, 32]) offer explanations on how leadership affects work motivation [33].
Value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation
Over the past two decades, educational leadership has garnered increased attention [34, 35]. There is a substantial and growing body of empirical research on educational leadership and management, particularly well-represented in regions such as Latin America, Asia, and Africa [36]. Recently, it has been proposed that incorporating indigenous cultural perspectives into educational leadership studies could enhance their value, as the “hidden effects” of socio-cultural contexts significantly influence motivating outcomes [4, 28]. While there are numerous studies examining Chinese leadership through the lens of Confucian virtues in non-educational settings (e.g. [37, 38]), research exploring the connection between Chinese value-based leadership and Confucian culture within higher education institutions in China remains limited [28].
[39] describe value-based leadership (VBL) as an engagement that sets goals, solves problems, creates language, and develops values, and is grounded in the organization’s values and high ethical standards. There is general agreement that VBL emphasizes shared values and is based on ethical and moral principles [40–42]. Confucianism lays a foundation for collectivism in Chinese culture, encouraging individuals to prioritize group benefits when there is a conflict between group and individual benefits [43, 44]. Faculty are consequently expected to strive for the realization of university’s goals with individual benefits sometimes being sacrificed [45]. In addition, Chinese culture is on high power distance and hierarchy is respected in management [43], resulting in a top-down policy-making model, in which senior managers usually establish policies by themselves and faculty members play a minor role in the process of policy-making [45, 46]. University leaders may utilize VBL to drive visible outcomes via invisible values since values are the unseen force that affect how people act, make decisions, interact with others, and choose their behaviors [41, 47]. Therefore, VBL is potentially an appropriate leadership style in Chinese socio-cultural context that can align organizational values, leaders’ values and followers’ values, thus motivate faculty members to fulfill organizational mission in a harmonious working atmosphere.
Growth Mindset (GM)
An individual’s mindset encapsulates their overall approach to problem-solving and general attitude [48]. [19] distinguishes between two types of mindsets: growth mindset and fixed mindset. Growth mindset posits that all human attributes, including intelligence, can be nurtured and enhanced through dedication, hard work, and an effective strategy [19]. In contrast, individuals with a fixed mindset view intelligence as an inherent ability, fixed at birth. In contrast, those with a growth mindset are more hopeful about refining their skills or talents through greater effort, perceiving obstacles as inherent aspects of learning and striving for personal progress by persevering through challenging tasks [49, 50].
People endowed with a growth mindset are seldom satisfied with the status quo and constantly strive for improvement, driven not by external rewards but by an intrinsic motivation. This mindset fosters a desire to achieve one’s potential, encourages openness to learning, promotes staying abreast of emerging trends, and sustains a relentless quest for enhancement, fueling a continuous upward spiral of personal development [50, 51]. Value-based leadership is concerned with conveying the leader’s value system to the full group of employees with whom he works to consolidate the employees’ beliefs, assumptions, aspirations, and values, so establishing a supportive, respectful, and challenging environment that promotes the improvement of a growth mindset [52]. Leaders that practice value-based leadership are convinced that everyone can advance their knowledge and abilities while achieving greater success, and employees are thus urged to improve personally and professionally by going outside their comfort zones [53].
The environment of education which emphasizes continuous learning requires more awareness of the importance of growth mindset. Growth mindset was related to motivation in prior research, but mainly focusing on the relationship between growth mindset and students’ academic motivation, or how students’ mindset, enthusiasm for learning, and academic success are affected by teachers’ mindset [54–56]. There is little research on how faculty’s mindset impacts their intrinsic work motivation [57], also limited empirical research on the effect of value-based leadership on faculty’s growth mindset.
Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE)
Efficacy encompasses the capability and effectiveness in achieving desired outcomes, while self-efficacy pertains to an individual’s perception of their own abilities and effectiveness in a specific context [58]. Self-efficacy significantly influences how individuals confront challenges and the level of effort they exert [59]. Specifically, teaching self-efficacy among faculty members signifies their confidence in their proficiency to succeed in teaching-related endeavors [20, 21].
[60] highlights four key sources that shape an individual’s self-efficacy: vicarious experiences, mastery experiences, social persuasions, and personal physiological or emotional states. Vicarious experiences mean people make inferences about themselves through observing others’ actions, which are viewed as a model to predict their own success or failure in similar activities [60]. Others with similar capabilities succeeding in similar tasks will increase observers’ self-efficacy and convince them that they are also probably to be successful like others [60]. Leaders are usually successful persons in their domains, so they set up a role model for their subordinates, who will predict their own success in similar activities, thus their self-efficacy will be enhanced [61]. According to the Job Demands-Resources (JD-R) Theory [62], self-efficacy is one of the most important work resources. It can get individuals more motivated in their work, as individuals with better self-efficacy are more positive with less stress, anxiety and depression [60].
[53] justified the positive effect of teachers’ servant leadership on learners’ growth mindset, revealing the relations between leadership and growth mindset. [63] proved that both transformational leadership and growth mindset had positive impact on teacher self-efficacy by examining a sample of 1297 teachers in China. While previous research has offered valuable insights into the interplay of leadership styles, growth mindset, and self-efficacy, a deeper exploration is necessitated to understand how organizational factors, specifically value-based leadership, interact with personal factors such as growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy to shape faculty’s intrinsic work motivation. This exploration is particularly crucial within the distinct Chinese cultural context, which is heavily influenced by Confucian values.
Value-based leadership, when aligned with Confucian virtues, can cultivate an environment that nurtures faculty’s intrinsic motivation by instilling a sense of contributing to a larger, meaningful purpose. Furthermore, the Confucian emphasis on lifelong learning inherently fosters a growth mindset, motivating educators to persevere and learn from challenges. This mindset subsequently bolsters teaching self-efficacy, as faculty gain confidence in their capacity to positively influence student learning. As a result, their intrinsic motivation is further amplified by the fulfillment derived from witnessing their students’ progress.
This study seeks to delve into the intricate interplay between intrinsic work motivation, value-based leadership, growth mindset, and teaching self-efficacy, all within the framework of China’s Confucian culture. By doing so, it aims to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms that drive faculty’s intrinsic motivation in this unique cultural context.
Method
Participants
A survey was conducted in February 2021 targeting faculty members from various universities in China. The recruitment period began on February 11, 2021, and concluded on February 25, 2021. Employing a convenience sampling approach, the questionnaire was distributed through wjx.cn, a popular online survey platform in China. Participants were informed about the purpose of the study, the voluntary nature of their participation, and the confidentiality of their responses.
Written consent
Prior to completing the survey, participants were required to provide written consent. The consent process involved the following steps:
Firstly, participants were presented with an information sheet detailing the study’s objectives, procedures, potential risks and benefits, and the strict measures taken to ensure the confidentiality of their data. These measures included, but were not limited to, data encryption, secure storage, and restricted access to the collected information.
Secondly, written consent was obtained electronically through the survey platform, where participants had to actively check a box indicating their agreement to participate in the study, acknowledging that their data would be handled in accordance with the described confidentiality measures.
After rigorous data cleaning procedures, a total of 394 valid responses were included in the final analysis. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hebei Finance University, School of Foreign Languages for International Business, and all procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institution.
Instruments
To assess Intrinsic Work Motivation (IWM), we adapted a scale grounded in Self-determination Theory from the Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale (MWMS) [64]. Three relevant items were selected for this study. For Value-Based Leadership (VBL), an updated version of the scale by [65] was utilized. Faculty’s Growth Mindset (GM) was measured using a 3-item scale developed by [19]. Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE) was evaluated using a modified version of the scale by [66], based on Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory. All measures employed a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) (see S1 Questionnaire file for the complete questionnaire).
Analysis
Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) was adopted as the primary analytical approach to examine both the measurement models and structural models. The measurement model portrays the relationships between latent variables and their manifest indicators, while the structural model represents the associations among the various constructs. Utilizing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), a mediating analysis was conducted to explore the mediating role of faculty’s growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy. SmartPLS 3.0 software was used to conduct the analysis. To detect common method bias, Harman’s single factor test was implemented. By loading all items into a single common factor, the overall variance for this factor was found to be 39%, falling below the 50% threshold as suggested by [67]. This indicates that common method bias did not significantly impact the data or the study’s findings.
Results
Measurement model assessment
The reliability and validity of the constructs were rigorously evaluated to ensure the quality of the measurement model. The assessment encompassed several essential indicators, including internal consistency reliability, indicator reliability, convergent validity, and discriminant validity.
a. Internal consistency reliability.
Cronbach’s alpha and composite reliability were calculated to assess the internal stability of the measures. As indicated in Table 1, all Cronbach’s alpha values exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.8, and composite reliability was greater than 0.9, demonstrating excellent internal consistency [68, 69]. These findings signify the high degree of reliability in the measurement scales.
b. Indicator reliability.
The outer loadings of individual items onto their respective constructs were examined to evaluate indicator reliability. All items exhibited outer loadings greater than 0.7, and they were statistically significant at a 99% confidence level [69]. This confirms the reliability of the individual indicators in effectively capturing the latent constructs.
c. Convergent validity.
To assess the extent to which measures of the same construct converge, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) was computed for each construct. The AVE ranged from 0.627 to 0.873, exceeding the 0.5 threshold [69]. This indicates strong convergent validity, suggesting that the measures are capturing the intended constructs effectively.
d. Discriminant validity.
To establish the distinctiveness of the constructs, discriminant validity was examined using two methods: cross-loadings and the Fornell-Larcker criterion. The cross-loadings analysis (Table 2) revealed that each item loaded higher on its intended construct than on any other construct, thereby confirming discriminant validity. Furthermore, the Fornell-Larcker criterion was met (Table 3), as the square root of each construct’s AVE exceeded its highest correlation with any other construct [69]. This provides further evidence of discriminant validity among the constructs.
Overall, the results of the reliability and validity tests conducted on the measurement model are deemed satisfactory, indicating that the items employed to measure the constructs in this study are valid and appropriate for use in the structural model.
Structural model assessment
The structural model assessment serves as a critical step in validating the underlying theoretical framework by examining the empirical support for the proposed relationships among the constructs. The evaluation was conducted using key metrics such as path coefficients, coefficients of determination (R2), effect size (f2), and predictive relevance (Q2).
a. Path coefficients.
The path coefficients were estimated to scrutinize the hypothesized relationships among the variables in the structural model. As presented in Fig 1 and Table 4, all relationships were found to be statistically significant at the 0.01 level, indicating robust associations among the constructs. The standardized path coefficients ranged from 0.242 to 0.540, demonstrating the strength and direction of the relationships within the model.
Source: the data is compiled based on the results obtained from SmartPLS 3.0 software.
b. Coefficient of determination (R2).
The R2 values were computed to assess the predictive power of the exogenous variables on the endogenous variables. As shown in Table 5, the R2 values for Intrinsic Work Motivation (IWM), Teaching Self-efficacy (TSE), and Growth Mindset (GM) were 0.275, 0.291, and 0.178, respectively. These values signify moderate predictive power, with IWM and TSE being relatively better explained by the model compared to GM.
c. Effect size (f2).
The f2 effect sizes were calculated to quantify the substantiality of the impact of each exogenous variable on the endogenous variables. As reported in Table 6, all f2 values exceeded the low-effect threshold [71], with several exceeding the medium-effect threshold. These findings indicate that the exogenous variables in the model have substantial influence on the endogenous variables, supporting the validity of the structural model.
d. Predictive relevance (Q2).
The Q2 values were used to ascertain the predictive relevance of the model for each endogenous construct. As evident from Table 7, the Q2 values for IWM, TSE, and GM were 0.236, 0.178, and 0.135, respectively, all exceeding zero. This validates the predictive significance of the model for each of the endogenous constructs, further corroborating the reliability and validity of the structural model.
e. Goodness-of-fit (GoF).
The GoF of an arithmetical model determines whether it fits well a set of observations. Values of GoF normally demonstrate the discrepancy between observed values and the predicted values in a particular model. According to [72], GoF can be calculated by the equation GoF = , and the criteria of GoF is GoFsmall = 0.1, GoFmedium = 0.25, and GoFlarge = 0.36. In this study, based on the results of AVE (see Table 1) and R2 (see Table 5), GoF =
≈0.43, concluding that the model has a good performance in comparison to the baseline values specified above.
Mediation analysis
To comprehend the intricacies of the proposed model, a mediation analysis was undertaken following the framework proposed by [73]. This analysis aimed to examine the indirect effects of Value-Based Leadership (VBL) on Intrinsic Work Motivation (IWM) through the serial mediation of Growth Mindset (GM) and Teaching Self-Efficacy (TSE).
Initially, the direct effect of VBL on IWM was assessed without considering the potential mediating variables. As depicted in Table 8, this direct relationship was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01), suggesting the potential for mediation.
Subsequently, the mediating variables (GM and TSE) were incorporated into the model to test the indirect effects. The prerequisite condition for mediation was established by verifying the significance of the paths between VBL and GM, GM and TSE, and TSE and IWM. As shown in the results, all these paths were statistically significant (p < 0.01).
The magnitude of the indirect effect was calculated as the product of the path coefficients along the serial mediation path (VBL → GM → TSE → IWM), yielding a value of 0.083 (0.422*0.540*0.363). This indirect effect was also found to be statistically significant (p < 0.01), as confirmed by bootstrapping analysis.
Furthermore, the Variance Accounted For (VAF) metric was utilized to assess the strength of the mediation. The direct effect of VBL on IWM was 0.242, while the indirect effect mediated by GM and TSE was 0.083. The total effect was calculated as the sum of these two effects (0.325). The VAF was then determined as the proportion of the indirect effect to the total effect, yielding a value of 0.255 (0.083/0.325). This indicates partial mediation, where 25.5% of the influence of VBL on IWM is explained through the serial mediation of GM and TSE.
Collectively, these findings confirm that the effect of VBL on IWM is partially mediated by the sequential influence of GM and TSE, elucidating the intricate mechanisms linking leadership style to faculty motivation.
Discussion
The findings of this study offer a resounding response to the first research question, demonstrating a positive correlation between value-based leadership and faculty’s intrinsic work motivation. In simpler terms, superior value-based leadership anticipates heightened levels of faculty’s intrinsic work motivation. This discovery resonates with the findings of [52], who contend that values-based leadership fosters an atmosphere conducive to motivating group members, as employees perceive a sense of belonging and thrive in an encouraging work environment. Furthermore, [74] support this notion by elucidating the pivotal role of principals’ leadership in motivating teachers, suggesting that they can enhance teachers’ comprehension of their mission, function, and educational context by fostering an autonomous work environment.
This study also shows that value-based leadership fits well with the Chinese culture and society featured by high power-distance, relationship orientation, and collectivism. As noted by [18], high power-distance suggests that subordinates are more likely to be dependent heavily on their leaders and act in accordance with their leaders. Relationship-oriented society indicates a highlight on the interaction between leaders and subordinates. Collectivism prioritizes the common goal of group. Value-based leadership in Chinese cultural context is functional in facilitating faculty’s internalization of university goals into personal goals, feeling a solid ethical obligation to advance the performance of their organization by integrating the organizational values and goals into their educational activities [75].
The findings of this study answer the second research question by confirming that the effect of value-based leadership on faculty’s intrinsic work motivation is serially and partially mediated by faculty’s growth mindset and their teaching self-efficacy. Value-based leadership highlights building consensus with respect to the university’s vision, goals and priorities, allowing faculty a clear understanding of, and an agreement with, the university’s vision for the future [52], and thus they are more likely to have a growth mindset focusing on the process of pursuing goals, and develop their professional capabilities and skills, leading to an enhanced teaching self-efficacy.
The identification of growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy as serial mediators is able to explain how university leaders’ value-based leadership achieves its effect on faculty’s intrinsic work motivation, providing an idea about how universities can combine organizational factors such as leadership with individual factors such as growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy to enhance faculty’s intrinsic work motivation. It also allows a better comprehension of the correlations of value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation via growth mindset and self-efficacy considering the complexity of motivation mechanism.
Conclusion
Given the constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, this study resorted to convenience sampling for data collection. This method, while facilitating data gathering under challenging circumstances, introduced limitations regarding the generalizability of the findings [76]. Specifically, the use of convenience sampling may have restricted the representativeness of the results, impacting their external validity.
Additionally, the study’s exclusive focus on faculty’s intrinsic work motivation within the Chinese socio-cultural context, characterized by a bureaucratic managerial culture influenced by China’s governmental system [77], further limits the universal application of these results. The cultural specificities inherent in the observed leadership styles and motivational factors may not be directly transferable to other nations with divergent cultural landscapes.
To address these limitations, future research could take two primary directions. First, employing a more diverse or randomized sampling approach would strengthen the external validity of the findings, allowing for greater generalization across different populations. Second, investigating the cross-cultural applicability of the study’s results by exploring faculty motivation in other cultural contexts would provide valuable insights into the universality or cultural specificity of the observed phenomena. Despite the current constraints, the study’s insights still offer valuable theoretical and practical implications for researchers, university leaders, administrators, and policymakers, particularly within the Chinese socio-cultural context.
From a theoretical perspective, this research extends the existing literature on motivation by elucidating the substantial influence of value-based leadership on faculty’s intrinsic work motivation within the Chinese socio-cultural framework. It further enriches our understanding by proposing a sequential mediation model involving two mediators—growth mindset and teaching self-efficacy—that connects value-based leadership with faculty’s intrinsic motivation. Notably, few studies have delved into such an intricate model with dual serial mediators to uncover the underlying mechanisms linking value-based leadership and intrinsic work motivation.
Practically, this study contributes to a deeper comprehension of strategies to foster faculty’s intrinsic work motivation in higher education settings. The findings underscore the potential for university leaders to enhance faculty members’ intrinsic motivation by fostering value-based leadership. Specifically, leaders ought to cultivate supportive relationships among faculty members, fostering a collaborative environment characterized by unity, openness, and shared aspirations [53]. For instance, leaders could facilitate regular team-building activities such as workshops or retreats, encourage open communication channels through regular check-ins and feedback sessions, and establish shared goal-setting processes that involve faculty input and collaboration. By implementing these practices, faculty members are more likely to adopt a growth mindset and develop robust efficacy beliefs as they pursue common goals [63], ultimately propelling their intrinsic work motivation to new heights.
Supporting information
S1 Questionnaire. The questionnaire used to collect the data presented in this study.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313392.s001
(DOCX)
References
- 1. Bukhari SG, Jamali SG, Larik AR, Chang MS. Fostering intrinsic motivation among teachers: Importance of work environment and individual differences. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. 2023;11(1):1–9.
- 2. Han J, Yin H. Teacher motivation: Definition, research development and implications for teachers. Cogent education. 2016; 3(1):1217819.
- 3. Imran R, Allil K, Mahmoud AB. Teacher’s turnover intentions: Examining the impact of motivation and organizational commitment. International Journal of Educational Management. 2017; 31(6):828–42.
- 4. Liu X. The governance in the development of public universities in China. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2017; 39(3):266–81.
- 5. Dong X, Maassen P, Stensaker B, Xu X. Governance for excellence and diversity? The impact of central and regional affiliation for the strategic positioning of Chinese top universities. Higher Education. 2020; 80:823–37.
- 6. Ma WY, Xi L. A Case Study on Lecturers’ Motivation Under the Self-Determination Theory. US-China Education Review. 2015; 5(12):819–24.
- 7. Munyengabe S, He HY, Zhao YY, Shan JF. Factors and levels associated with lecturers’ motivation and job satisfaction in a Chinese university. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education. 2017; 13(10):6415–30.
- 8. Malinowska D, Tokarz A, Wardzichowska A. Job autonomy in relation to work engagement and workaholism: Mediation of autonomous and controlled work motivation. International journal of occupational medicine and environmental health. 2018; 31(4):445–58. pmid:29410554
- 9. Ryan RM, Deci EL. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary educational psychology. 2020; 61:101860.
- 10. Kuvaas B, Buch R, Weibel A, Dysvik A, Nerstad CG. Do intrinsic and extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes?. Journal of Economic Psychology. 2017; 61:244–58.
- 11. Tripathi A, Chaturvedi KR, Tripathi AP. Assessing the influence of intrinsic motivation on academic performance: a study of management teachers. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities. 2018; 26(3).
- 12. Gobena GA. Factors Affecting In-Service Teachers’ Motivation: Its Implication to Quality of Education. International Journal of Instruction. 2018; 11(3):163–78.
- 13. Blašková M, BLAŠKO R. Motivation of University Teachers and its Connections. Human Resources Management & Ergonomics. 2013; 7(2).
- 14. Osman DJ, Warner JR. Measuring teacher motivation: The missing link between professional development and practice. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2020; 92:103064.
- 15. Liem AD, Nie Y. Values, achievement goals, and individual‐oriented and social‐oriented achievement motivations among Chinese and Indonesian secondary school students. International Journal of Psychology. 2008; 43(5):898–903. pmid:22022795
- 16.
Hogan J, Hogan R. Motives, values, preferences inventory manual. Tulsa, OK: Hogan Assessment Systems; 1996.
- 17. Tjeldvoll A. Change leadership in universities: The Confucian dimension. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management. 2011; 33(3):219–30.
- 18. Xiao MZ, Wu XH. Chinese leadership: culture and confucianism. Public Integrity. 2014; 16(2):165–72.
- 19.
Dweck CS. Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology press; 2013.
- 20. Ashton P. Teacher efficacy: A motivational paradigm for effective teacher education. Journal of teacher education. 1984; 35(5):28–32.
- 21. Tschannen-Moran M, Hoy AW, Hoy WK. Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of educational research. 1998; 68(2):202–48.
- 22. Huang L, Zhang T, Huang Y. Effects of school organizational conditions on teacher professional learning in China: The mediating role of teacher self-efficacy. Studies in Educational Evaluation. 2020; 66:100893.
- 23. Liu S, Hallinger P. Principal instructional leadership, teacher self-efficacy, and teacher professional learning in China: Testing a mediated-effects model. Educational administration quarterly. 2018; 54(4):501–28.
- 24.
Deci EL, Ryan RM. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media; 2013.
- 25. Deci EL, Vansteenkiste M. Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche di psicologia; 2004.
- 26. Gagné M, Deci EL. Self‐determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational behavior. 2005; 26(4):331–62.
- 27. Deci EL, Olafsen AH, Ryan RM. Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior. 2017; 4(1):19–43.
- 28. Lim SC, Thien LM. Chinese academic leadership from the perspective of Confucian virtues and its effects on teacher commitment. International Online Journal of Educational Leadership. 2020; 4(1):37–51.
- 29. Locke EA, Shaw KN, Saari LM, Latham GP. Goal setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological bulletin. 1981; 90(1):125.
- 30.
Vroom V. H. Work and motivation. New York: Wiley; 1964.
- 31.
Hackman J. R. & Oldham G. R. Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1980.
- 32. Oldham GR, Hackman JR, Smith KG, Hitt MA. How job characteristics theory happened. Great minds in management: The process of theory development. 2005:151–70.
- 33. Roßnagel CS. Leadership and motivation. Leadership Today. 2017; 217–228.
- 34. Gumus S, Bellibas MS, Esen M, Gumus E. A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2018; 46(1):25–48.
- 35. Hallinger P, Kovačević J. Science mapping the knowledge base in educational leadership and management: A longitudinal bibliometric analysis, 1960 to 2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2021; 49(1):5–30.
- 36. Hallinger P. Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management from the emerging regions of Asia, Africa and Latin America, 1965–2018. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2020; 48(2):209–30.
- 37. Hunsaker WD. Spiritual leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: Exploring the conditional effects of self-determination and Confucian mindset. International Journal of Business and Society. 2017 Dec 31;18(3):485–502.
- 38. Lin LH, Ho YL, Lin WH. Confucian and Taoist work values: An exploratory study of the Chinese transformational leadership behavior. Journal of business ethics. 2013; 113:91–103.
- 39.
Busch T, Murdock A. Value-based leadership in public professions. Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017.
- 40. Copeland MK. The emerging significance of values based leadership: A literature review. International journal of leadership studies. 2014; 8(2):105.
- 41. Morris RW. The mythic horizon of the university: problems and possibilities for value‐based leadership. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences/Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l’Administration. 2001; 18(4):277–90.
- 42. Prilleltensky I. Value-based leadership in organizations: Balancing values, interests, and power among citizens, workers, and leaders. Ethics & Behavior. 2000; 10(2):139–58.
- 43.
Hofstede G. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks; 2001.
- 44.
Pye L.W. (1972). China: An introduction, Little Brown, Boston.
- 45. Hongping Z. Motivating Teaching Staff in Times of Change in Chinese Universities. Canadian social science. 2006; 2(6):37.
- 46. Bush T, Haiyan Q, Junming F. Educational management in China: An overview. Compare. 1998; 28(2):133–40.
- 47. van Niekerk M, Botha J. Value-based leadership approach: A way for principals to revive the value of values in schools. Educational Research and Reviews. 2017; 12(3):133–42.
- 48. Johnson CS, Stapel DA. Retracted: It depends on how you look at it: Being versus becoming mindsets determine responses to social comparisons. British journal of social psychology. 2010; 49(4):703–23.
- 49.
Dweck CS. Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house; 2006.
- 50. Ng B. The neuroscience of growth mindset and intrinsic motivation. Brain sciences. 2018; 8(2):20. pmid:29373496
- 51. Barhava-Monteith G. & Fong M. Why you need a growth mindset? NZ Business + Management.2018; 32(2), 29.
- 52. Della Corte V, Del Gaudio G, Sepe F, Zamparelli G. The role and implications of values-based leadership. Journal of Organisational Transformation & Social Change. 2017; 14(3):187–213.
- 53. Chan KW. Servant leadership cultivates grit and growth mindset in learners. Servant Leadership: Theory & Practice. 2016; 3(2):2.
- 54. Aronson J, Fried CB, Good C. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of experimental social psychology. 2002; 38(2):113–25.
- 55. Blackwell LS, Trzesniewski KH, Dweck CS. Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child development. 2007; 78(1):246–63. pmid:17328703
- 56. Zeng G, Chen X, Cheung HY, Peng K. Teachers’ growth mindset and work engagement in the Chinese educational context: Well-being and perseverance of effort as mediators. Frontiers in psychology. 2019; 10:839. pmid:31057463
- 57. Han SJ, Stieha V. Growth mindset for human resource development: A scoping review of the literature with recommended interventions. Human Resource Development Review. 2020; 19(3):309–31.
- 58. Bandura A. Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological review. 1977; 84(2):19–215.
- 59. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F. Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological bulletin. 1998; 124(2):240.
- 60.
Bandura A. Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan; 1997.
- 61. Shaffer B. Leadership and motivation. Supervision. 2015; 76(1), 9–12.
- 62. Demerouti E, Bakker AB, Nachreiner F, Schaufeli WB. The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied psychology. 2001; 86(3):499. pmid:11419809
- 63. Lin W, Yin H, Liu Z. The roles of transformational leadership and growth mindset in teacher professional development: The mediation of teacher self-efficacy. Sustainability. 2022; 14(11):6489.https://doi.org/10.3390/su14116489
- 64. Gagné M, Forest J, Vansteenkiste M, Crevier-Braud L, Van den Broeck A, Aspeli AK, et al. The Multidimensional Work Motivation Scale: Validation evidence in seven languages and nine countries. European Journal of work and organizational psychology. 2015; 24(2):178–96. Retrieved November 19, 2019 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2013.877892
- 65.
Garg G, Krishnan VR. Transformational leadership: Value-based management for Indian organizations. In: Bhargava S, editor. New Delhi: Sage Publications; 2003.
- 66. Schwarzer R, Schmitz GS, Daytner GT. The teacher self-efficacy scale. 1999.Retrieved January 17, 2021 from http://www.fu-berlin.de/gesund/skalen/
- 67. Fuller CM, Simmering MJ, Atinc G, Atinc Y, Babin BJ. Common methods variance detection in business research. Journal of business research. 2016; 69(8):3192–8.
- 68.
Nunally J. C., & Bernstein I. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
- 69.
Hair J.F., Hult G.T.M., Ringle C.M. & Sarstedt M. A Primer on Partial Least Squres Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage Publications; 2014.
- 70.
Chin WW. How to write up and report PLS analyses. In: Handbook of partial least squares: Concepts, methods and applications. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg; 2009.
- 71.
Cohen J.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
- 72. Wetzels M, Odekerken-Schröder G, Van Oppen C. Using PLS path modeling for assessing hierarchical construct models: Guidelines and empirical illustration. MIS quarterly. 2009; 177–95.
- 73.
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in simple and multiple mediator models. Manuscript submitted for publication; 2005.
- 74. Eyal O, Roth G. Principals’ leadership and teachers’ motivation: Self‐determination theory analysis. Journal of educational administration. 2011; 49(3):256–75.
- 75. Thoonen EE, Sleegers PJ, Oort FJ, Peetsma TT, Geijsel FP. How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational administration quarterly. 2011; 47(3):496–536.
- 76. Ragab M. & Arisha A. Research methodology in business: a starter’s guide. Management and Organisational Studies. 2017; 5(1), 1–24.
- 77. Ong YS, Wang Y. Relationship between organization culture and managers’ performance: empirical study of a Chinese university. Bus Ethics Leadersh. 2018; 2(2):97–105.