Advertisement

Underperforming teachers: the impact on co-workers and their responses

  • Loth Van Den OuwelandEmail author
  • Jan Vanhoof
  • Piet Van den Bossche
Article

Abstract

Research indicates that underperforming teachers have a profound impact on students and on principals who struggle to deal with the underperformance. However, the impact on, and responses of, other teachers (i.e. co-workers) is rarely studied, in spite of the importance of teacher collaboration in contemporary education. Therefore, we interviewed co-workers about incidents of teacher underperformance, using the Critical Incident Technique. Our respondents reported various types of underperformance, including student-related and team-related underperformance, as well as task underperformance and counterproductive work behaviours. Dependent on the specific incident, co-workers were more directly or indirectly affected by the underperformance. They expressed frustrations, concerns, and feelings of injustice, not only about the underperformance itself, but also about a lack of response by the school principal. Moreover, we found that co-worker responses depended on how they perceived the necessity, appropriateness, and utility of responding, as well as their responsibility to respond. This was influenced by characteristics of the underperformance, underperformer and co-worker, and leadership and team factors. Implications for educational research, policy, and practice are discussed.

Keywords

Underperforming teachers Co-workers Performance management School leadership Critical Incident Technique 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Participation was anonymous and voluntary, and participants signed an informed consent stating the purpose and method of the study, as well as participant rights. The Ethics Committee of the University of Antwerp also approved the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5), 422–436.Google Scholar
  2. Bisel, R. S., & Arterburn, E. N. (2012). Making sense of organizational members’ silence: a sensemaking-resource model. Communication Research Reports, 29(3), 217–226.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08824096.2012.684985.Google Scholar
  3. Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003). Spirals of silence: the dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1393–1417.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00385.Google Scholar
  4. Bowling, N. A., & Lyons, B. D. (2015). Not on my watch: facilitating peer reporting through employee job attitudes and personality traits. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 23(1), 80–91.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12097.Google Scholar
  5. Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5), 607–631.  https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500501.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.Google Scholar
  7. Brinsfield, C. T. (2009). Employee silence: investigation of dimensionality, development of measures, and examination of related factors. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1236294604&disposition=inline.
  8. Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A.-S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794105056924.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, J. P., & Wiernik, B. M. (2015). The modeling and assessment of work performance. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 47–74.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111427.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, J. L., Quincy, C., Osserman, J., & Pedersen, O. K. (2013). Coding in-depth semistructured interviews: problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294–320.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124113500475.Google Scholar
  11. Causey, K. (2010). Principals’ perspectives of the issues and barriers of working with marginal teachers. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/causey_kelly_k_201012_edd.pdf
  12. Chell, E. (2004). Critical incident technique. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 45–60). London: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  13. Cheng, J. N. (2014). Attitudes of principals and teachers toward approaches used to deal with teacher incompetence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(1), 155–175.  https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.1.155.Google Scholar
  14. Cheng, Y., & Tsui, K. (1999). Multimodels of teacher effectiveness: implications for research. The Journal of Educational Research, 92(3), 141–150.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220679909597589.Google Scholar
  15. Christ, O., Van Dick, R., Wagner, U., & Stellmacher, J. (2003). When teachers go the extra mile: foci of organisational identification as determinants of different forms of organisational citizenship behaviour among schoolteachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(3), 329–342.  https://doi.org/10.1348/000709903322275867.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dalal, R. S. (2005). A meta-analysis of the relationship between organizational citizenship behavior and counterproductive work behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1241–1255.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1241.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L., & Rothman, R. (Eds.) (2011). Teacher and leader effectiveness in high-performing education systems. Washington , DC: Alliance for Excellent Education and Stanford, CA: Stanford Centre for Opportunity Policy in Education.Google Scholar
  19. Detert, J. R., Burris, E. R., Harrison, D. A., & Martin, S. R. (2013). Voice flows to and around leaders: understanding when units are helped or hurt by employee voice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 58(4), 624–668.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839213510151.Google Scholar
  20. Edwards, M. S., Ashkanasy, N. M., & Gardner, J. (2009). Deciding to speak up or to remain silent following observed wrongdoing: the role of discrete emotions and climate of silence. In J. Greenberg & M. Edwards (Eds.), Voice and silence in organizations (pp. 83–109). Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the barrel: negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational Behavior, 27, 175–222.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(06)27005-9.Google Scholar
  22. Ferguson, A. J., Ormiston, M. E., & Moon, H. (2010). From approach to inhibition: the influence of power on responses to poor performers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(2), 305–320.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018376.Google Scholar
  23. FitzGerald, K., Seale, N. S., Kerins, C. A., & McElvaney, R. (2008). The critical incident technique: a useful tool for conducting qualitative research. Journal of Dental Education, 72(3), 299–304.Google Scholar
  24. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.Google Scholar
  25. Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.Google Scholar
  26. Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16(2), 399–432.Google Scholar
  27. Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65–89.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504266138.Google Scholar
  28. Gruys, M. L., Stewart, S. M., & Bowling, N. A. (2010). Choosing to report: characteristics of employees who report the counterproductive work behavior of others. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 18(4), 439–446.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2389.2010.00526.x.Google Scholar
  29. Hallinger, P., Heck, R., & Murphy, J. (2014). Teacher evaluation and school improvement: an analysis of the evidence. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 26(1), 5–28.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9179-5.Google Scholar
  30. Hanushek, E., Kain, J., O'Brien, D.,& Rivkin, S. (2005) The market for teacher quality. NBER working paper no. w11154. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=669453.
  31. Hargreaves, A. (2001). The emotional geographies of teachers’ relations with colleagues. International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 503–527.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-0355(02)00006-X.Google Scholar
  32. Harvey, P., Madison, K., Martinko, M., Crook, T. R., & Crook, T. A. (2014). Attribution theory in the organizational sciences: the road traveled and the path ahead. Academy of Management Perspectives, 28(2), 128–146.  https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2012.0175.Google Scholar
  33. Haycock, K. (1998). Good teaching matters... a lot. Magazine of History, 13(1), 61–63.Google Scholar
  34. Henriksen, K., & Dayton, E. (2006). Organizational silence and hidden threats to patient safety. Health Services Research, 41(4), 1539–1554.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00564.x.Google Scholar
  35. Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (2004). Organizational justice in schools: no justice without trust. International Journal of Educational Management, 18(4), 250–259.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540410538831.Google Scholar
  36. Huber, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2016). Teacher evaluation—accountability and improving teaching practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 28(2), 105–109.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-016-9241-1.Google Scholar
  37. Huber, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2017). Standardization and assessment practices. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 29(1), 1–3.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-017-9257-1.Google Scholar
  38. Hughes, H., Williamson, K., & Lloyd, A. (2007). Critical incident technique. In S. Lipu (Ed.), Exploring methods in information literacy research (pp. 49–66). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies, Charles Sturt University.Google Scholar
  39. Hung, T. K., Chi, N. W., & Lu, W. L. (2009). Exploring the relationships between perceived coworker loafing and counterproductive work behaviors: the mediating role of a revenge motive. Journal of Business and Psychology, 24(3), 257–270.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-009-9104-6.Google Scholar
  40. Jackson, C. L., & LePine, J. A. (2003). Peer responses to a team’s weakest link: a test and extension of LePine and Van Dyne’s model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 459–475.  https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.3.459.Google Scholar
  41. Johnson, S. M., & Donaldson, M. L. (2007). Overcoming the obstacles to leadership. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 8–13.Google Scholar
  42. Kaye, E. B. (2004). Turning the tide on marginal teaching. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 19(3), 234–258.Google Scholar
  43. King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11–22). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. King, G., & Hermodson, A. (2000). Peer reporting of coworker wrongdoing: a qualitative analysis of observer attitudes in the decision to report versus not report unethical behavior. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 28(4), 309–329.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00909880009365579.Google Scholar
  45. Knoll, M., & van Dick, R. (2013). Do I hear the whistle…? A first attempt to measure four forms of employee silence and their correlates. Journal of Business Ethics, 113(2), 349–362.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1308-4.Google Scholar
  46. Koopmans, L., Bernaards, C. M., Hildebrandt, V. H., Schaufeli, W. B., de Vet, H. C. W., & van der Beek, A. J. (2011). Conceptual frameworks of individual work performance a systematic review. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 53(8), 856–866.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0b013e318226a763.Google Scholar
  47. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.Google Scholar
  48. Lavely, C. (1992). Actual incidence of incompetent teachers. Educational Research Quarterly, 15(2), 11–14.Google Scholar
  49. Le Fevre, D. M., & Robinson, V. M. J. (2014). The interpersonal challenges of instructional leadership: principals’ effectiveness in conversations about performance issues. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(1), 58–95.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x13518218.Google Scholar
  50. Lepine, J. A., & van Dyne, L. (2001). Peer responses to low performers: an attributional model of helping in the context of groups. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1), 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2001.4011953. Google Scholar
  51. Liden, R. C., Wayne, S. J., & Kraimer, M. L. (2001). Managing individual performance in work groups. Human Resource Management, 40(1), 63–72.  https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.4016.Google Scholar
  52. Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. The Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.Google Scholar
  53. Lomos, C. (2017). To what extent do teachers in European countries differ in their professional community practices? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 276–291.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1279186.Google Scholar
  54. Marcus, B., Taylor, O. A., Hastings, S. E., Sturm, A., & Weigelt, O. (2016). The structure of counterproductive work behavior: a review, a structural meta-analysis, and a primary study. Journal of Management, 42(1), 203–233.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313503019.Google Scholar
  55. Marzano, R. J. (2012). Wat werkt op school. Research in actie [What works in schools. Research in action]. Meppel: Printsupport4U.Google Scholar
  56. Menuey, B. P. (2007). Teachers’ perceptions of professional incompetence and barriers to the dismissal process. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 18(4), 309–325.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-007-9026-7.Google Scholar
  57. Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). An exploratory study of employee silence: issues that employees don’t communicate upward and why. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1453–1476.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00387.Google Scholar
  58. Morrison, E. W. (2011). Employee voice behavior: integration and directions for future research. Academy of Management Annals, 5, 373–412.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2011.574506.Google Scholar
  59. Morrison, E. W. (2014). Employee voice and silence. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 173–197.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091328.Google Scholar
  60. Morrison, E. W., Wheeler-Smith, S. L., & Kamdar, D. (2011). Speaking up in groups: a cross-level study of group voice climate and voice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(1), 183–191.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020744.Google Scholar
  61. Mortelmans, D. (2007). Handboek Kwalitatieve Onderzoeksmethoden [Handbook qualitative research methods]. Leuven: Acco.Google Scholar
  62. Motowildo, S. J., Borman, W. C., & Schmit, M. J. (1997). A theory of individual differences in task and contextual performance. Human Performance, 10(2), 71–83.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1002_1.Google Scholar
  63. Mowbray, P. K., Wilkinson, A., & Tse, H. H. M. (2015). An integrative review of employee voice: identifying a common conceptualization and research agenda. International Journal of Management Reviews, 17(3), 382–400.  https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12045.Google Scholar
  64. Neff, N. L. (2009). Peer reactions to counterproductive work behavior. (Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/9413
  65. Nixon, A., Packard, A., & Dam, M. (2013). Principals judge teachers by their teaching. The Teacher Educator, 48(1), 58–72.  https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2012.740154.Google Scholar
  66. OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results. An international perspective on teaching and learning. Retrieved from  https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264196261-en
  67. OFSTED/TTA. (1996). Joint review of head teacher and teacher appraisal: summary of evidence. London: TTA.Google Scholar
  68. Oplatka, I. (2009). Organizational citizenship behavior in teaching. International Journal of Educational Management, 23(5), 375–389.  https://doi.org/10.1108/09513540910970476.Google Scholar
  69. Page, D. (2016). The multiple impacts of teacher misbehaviour. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(1), 2–18.  https://doi.org/10.1108/jea-09-2014-0106.Google Scholar
  70. Penninckx, M., Vanhoof, J., & Van Petegem, P. (2011). Evaluatie in het Vlaamse onderwijs: beleid en praktijk van leerling tot overheid. [Evaluation in Flemish education: policy and practice from student to government.] Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
  71. Plas, D., & Vanhoof, J. (2016). Onderpresterende leraren in het Vlaamse secundair onderwijs: een situatieschets vanuit schoolleiderperspectief. [Underperforming teachers in Flemish secondary education: the school leader’s perspective.]. Impuls - Tijdschrift voor Onderwijsbegeleiding, 46(3), 131–143.Google Scholar
  72. Pugh, E. (2014). Pittsburgh teachers receive comprehensive view of their performance on first educator effectiveness reports in state [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.pps.k12.pa.us/Page/4184
  73. Range, B. G., Duncan, H. E., Scherz, S. D., & Haines, C. A. (2012). School leaders’ perceptions about incompetent teachers: implications for supervision and evaluation. NASSP Bulletin, 96(4), 302–322.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636512459554.Google Scholar
  74. Rhodes, C., & Beneicke, S. (2003). Professional development support for poorly performing teachers: challenges and opportunities for school managers in addressing teacher learning needs. Journal of In-service Education, 29(1), 123–140.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13674580300200205.Google Scholar
  75. Richardson, B. K., Wheeless, L. R., & Cunningham, C. (2008). Tattling on the teacher: a study of factors influencing peer reporting of teachers who violate standardized testing protocol. Communication Studies, 59(3), 202–219.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10510970802257531.Google Scholar
  76. Rivers, J. C., & Sanders, L. (2002). Teacher quality and equity in educational opportunity: findings and policy implications. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.Google Scholar
  77. Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: a multidimensional scaling study. Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.  https://doi.org/10.2307/256693.Google Scholar
  78. Robinson, S. L., Wang, W., & Kiewitz, C. (2014). Coworkers behaving badly: the impact of coworker deviant behavior upon individual employees. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1, 123–143.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091225.Google Scholar
  79. Roe, R. A. (1996). Arbeidsprestaties. [Work performance.]. In P. J. D. Drenth, H. Thierry, & C. J. de Wolff (Eds.), Handboek Arbeids- en Organisatiepsychologie. [Handbook of Work and Organizational Psychology.] (pp. 1–103). Deventer: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  80. Runhaar, P., Konermann, J., & Sanders, K. (2013). Teachers’ organizational citizenship behaviour: considering the roles of their work engagement, autonomy and leader–member exchange. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30, 99–108.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.10.008.Google Scholar
  81. Sackett, P. R., Berry, C. M., Wiemann, S. A., & Laczo, R. M. (2006). Citizenship and counterproductive behavior: clarifying relations between the two domains. Human Performance, 19(4), 441–464.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup1904_7.Google Scholar
  82. Schwappach, D. L. B., & Gehring, K. (2014). Trade-offs between voice and silence: a qualitative exploration of oncology staff’s decisions to speak up about safety concerns. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 303–312.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-14-303.Google Scholar
  83. Sonnentag, S., & Frese, M. (2002). Performance concepts and performance theory. In S. Sonnentag (Ed.), Psychological management of individual performance (pp. 5–25). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  84. Stronge, J. (2013). Educational assessment, evaluation, and accountability: Special issue introduction. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 25(3), 155–158.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-013-9172-z.Google Scholar
  85. Struthers, C. W., Miller, D. L., Boudens, C. J., & Briggs, G. L. (2001). Effects of causal attributions on coworker interactions: a social motivation perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23(3), 169–181.  https://doi.org/10.1207/153248301750433560.Google Scholar
  86. Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. (2004). The impact of poor performers on team outcomes: an empirical examination of attribution theory. Personnel Psychology, 57(4), 935–968.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2004.00011.x.Google Scholar
  87. Taggar, S., & Neubert, M. J. (2008). A cognitive (attributions)-emotion model of observer reactions to free-riding poor performers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 22(3), 167–177.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-008-9058-0.Google Scholar
  88. Tam, A. C. F. (2015). The role of a professional learning community in teacher change: a perspective from beliefs and practices. Teachers and Teaching, 21(1), 22–43.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2014.928122.Google Scholar
  89. Tangirala, S., & Ramanujam, R. (2008). Employee silence on critical work issues: the cross level effects of procedural justice climate. Personnel Psychology, 61(1), 37–68.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2008.00105.x.Google Scholar
  90. Tremblay, M., Cloutier, J., Simard, G., Chênevert, D., & Vandenberghe, C. (2010). The role of HRM practices, procedural justice, organizational support and trust in organizational commitment and in-role and extra-role performance. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 21(3), 405–433.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09585190903549056.Google Scholar
  91. Tuytens, M., & Devos, G. (2017). Teacher evaluation policy as perceived by school principals: the case of Flanders (Belgium). Teachers and Teaching, 24(3), 209-222.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2017.1397508.
  92. Vakola, M., & Bouradas, D. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of organisational silence: an empirical investigation. Employee Relations, 27(5), 441–458.  https://doi.org/10.1108/01425450510611997.Google Scholar
  93. Van Den Ouweland, L., Vanhoof, J., & Roofthooft, N. (2016). Onderpresterende vastbenoemde leraren door de ogen van schoolleiders. Een verkennend, kwalitatief onderzoek naar hun visie op onderpresteren, aanpak en ervaren obstakels. [Underperforming tenured teachers through the eyes of school leaders. An exploratory, qualitative study of their views on underperformance, actions and perceived obstacles.]. Pedagogiek, 36(1), 71–90.  https://doi.org/10.5117/PED2016.1.OUWE.Google Scholar
  94. Van Dyne, L., Ang, S., & Botero, I. C. (2003). Conceptualizing employee silence and employee voice as multidimensional constructs. Journal of Management Studies, 40(6), 1359–1392.  https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6486.00384.Google Scholar
  95. Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., & Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration: a systematic review. Educational Research Review, 15, 17–40.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2015.04.002.Google Scholar
  96. Vanhoof, J., Vanlommel, K., Thijs, S., & Vanderlocht, H. (2013). Data use by Flemish school principals: impact of attitude, self-efficacy and external expectations. Educational Studies, 40(1), 48–62.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2013.830245.Google Scholar
  97. Vekeman, E., Devos, G., & Valcke, M. (2016). Human resource architectures for new teachers in Flemish primary education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(6), 970–995.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215587309.Google Scholar
  98. Vekeman, E., Devos, G., Valcke, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2017). Do teachers leave the profession or move to another school when they don’t fit? Educational Review, 69(4), 411–434.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2016.1228610.Google Scholar
  99. Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573.Google Scholar
  100. Weiner, B. (2010). The development of an attribution-based theory of motivation: a history of ideas. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 28–36.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433596.Google Scholar
  101. Whiteside, D. B., & Barclay, L. J. (2013). Echoes of silence: employee silence as a mediator between overall justice and employee outcomes. Journal of Business Ethics, 116(2), 251–266.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-012-1467-3.Google Scholar
  102. Yariv, E. (2004). ‘Challenging’ teachers: what difficulties do they pose for their principals? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(2), 149–169.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143204041881.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Training and Education SciencesUniversity of AntwerpAntwerpBelgium
  2. 2.School of Business and EconomicsMaastricht UniversityMaastrichtthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations