Leadership in educational institutions is widely acknowledged as a crucial factor influencing teachers’ well-being and performance. Among the different leadership models, transactional leadership has received significant attention because of its focus on structure, rewards, and compliance [1]. In schools, transactional leadership manifests through clearly defined goals, monitoring of tasks, and the use of contingent rewards or corrective actions. While this style can ensure discipline and efficiency, its long-term implications for teachers’ emotional health and work outcomes remain a concern. Teaching is a highly demanding profession where educators face continuous pressure to achieve academic goals, manage classrooms, and meet administrative expectations. These challenges often lead to burnout, a psychological syndrome characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment [2]. Burnout not only harms teachers’ well-being but also negatively affects student learning and the overall school climate. Leadership styles, especially transactional leadership, can either aggravate or mitigate such stress depending on how they are applied in schools.

Transactional leaders typically rely on external rewards and punishments to motivate followers. While such practices may enhance compliance, they can also create a rigid work environment that undermines intrinsic motivation [3]. Teachers working under transactional leaders may experience higher stress due to continuous monitoring and performance pressures. This condition can accelerate emotional exhaustion and burnout, especially when recognition is tied solely to meeting short-term targets rather than long-term professional growth [4]. On the other hand, transactional leadership has been found to enhance performance in structured environments by setting clear expectations and reinforcing goal attainment [5]. For teachers, this may result in improved task completion, accountability, and alignment with institutional objectives. However, the quality of performance under transactional leadership may be surface-level, as it emphasizes compliance over creativity and professional autonomy. Thus, the influence of this leadership style on performance may vary depending on context and teachers’ psychological resilience.

The duality of transactional leadership it’s potential to improve performance while also risking burnout makes it an important subject of educational research. In some contexts, it ensures efficiency and order; in others, it may foster stress, disengagement, and decreased job satisfaction. Therefore, the balance between the benefits and drawbacks of transactional leadership in educational settings is still debated [6]. Understanding this balance is essential, particularly in schools where teachers are exposed to heavy workloads and performance accountability. Existing studies have extensively examined the role of transformational leadership in enhancing teacher motivation, creativity, and well-being [7]. However, relatively fewer studies have explored the specific effects of transactional leadership on burnout and work performance in the teaching profession. Moreover, most of the available literature has been conducted in Western contexts, with limited evidence from developing countries, including Pakistan, where educational systems face unique cultural and structural challenges [8]. This gap highlights the need to investigate how transactional leadership influences teachers’ burnout and performance in different educational environments. Although research acknowledges that leadership is a determinant of teacher performance and well-being, the relationship between transactional leadership, burnout, and work performance remains underexplored, particularly in non-Western contexts. Little is known about whether transactional leadership contributes more to efficiency or to emotional exhaustion in schools with high accountability pressures. This study seeks to fill this gap by examining the impact of transactional leadership on teachers’ burnout and work performance, thereby contributing to leadership literature and offering insights for policymakers and school administrator. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate the impact of Transactional leadership on the teachers’ burnout and work performance at higher secondary school level.

The following objectives are made:

• To examine the impact of transactional leadership on teachers’ burnout in the higher secondary school level.
• To analyze the effect of transactional leadership on teachers’ work performance in the higher secondary school level.

Concept of Leadership in Education

Leadership has long been recognized as a key determinant of institutional effectiveness, especially in the field of education. Educational leadership involves guiding, influencing, and motivating teachers and students toward achieving collective goals. Unlike general organizational leadership, educational leadership must balance academic outcomes with teachers’ professional development and students’ holistic growth [9]. The effectiveness of school leadership is thus not only judged by academic results but also by the quality of the school climate and the well-being of teachers.

In the educational context, leadership is more than administrative control; it is the ability to establish a vision, inspire teachers, and create an environment conducive to learning. Leithwood and Jantzi [10] argue that school leaders directly affect teacher motivation, commitment, and performance. This impact highlights the importance of leadership in shaping both the teaching and learning process. Therefore, leadership in schools is fundamentally about creating the conditions under which teachers and students thrive.

Over time, leadership theories have evolved from classical command-and-control approaches to more participatory and human-centered models. Traditional leadership emphasized authority, hierarchy, and compliance, while modern educational leadership emphasizes collaboration, empowerment, and shared decision-making [11]. This shift reflects the growing recognition that schools are complex social organizations where rigid authority may not produce sustainable improvement.

One of the distinctive features of educational leadership is its dual responsibility for administrative efficiency and pedagogical support. School leaders must ensure that institutional operations run smoothly while also fostering instructional quality [12]. This dual role creates unique challenges, requiring leaders to adapt different leadership styles according to the situation, teachers’ needs, and institutional goals. Educational leadership is also closely connected to teacher well-being. Research suggests that effective leadership reduces teacher stress, enhances job satisfaction, and encourages innovation in teaching practices [13]. Conversely, poor leadership may exacerbate teachers’ workload pressures, leading to dissatisfaction and burnout. Thus, leadership is not just an organizational requirement but a critical factor in sustaining a healthy teaching workforce. Cultural and contextual factors play an important role in shaping leadership practices in schools. In Western contexts, leadership often emphasizes autonomy and professional collaboration, while in many Asian and developing countries, leadership tends to be more hierarchical and directive [14]. This difference indicates that leadership in education cannot be generalized across cultures, as the effectiveness of leadership styles is highly context-dependent.

In recent years, researchers have highlighted the significance of distributed and instructional leadership in schools. Distributed leadership focuses on shared responsibility, where teachers and administrators collectively engage in decision-making [15]. Instructional leadership, on the other hand, emphasizes leaders’ direct involvement in improving teaching quality and student achievement. Both approaches suggest that leadership in education is multidimensional and extends beyond transactional authority. In sum, the concept of leadership in education encompasses vision, collaboration, accountability, and support for teachers. It is not limited to managing resources but extends to shaping the school culture and fostering teacher and student success. This foundational understanding of educational leadership provides the basis for examining specific leadership styles-such as transactional leadership and their influence on teacher burnout and work performance.

Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is one of the most traditional and widely applied leadership models in organizational and educational settings. Rooted in the work of Max Weber and later expanded by Burns (1978) and Bass [1], this style is characterized by structured authority, clear expectations, and the use of rewards and punishments to influence performance. Leaders adopting a transactional approach emphasize compliance with established rules and procedures, thereby maintaining stability and ensuring task completion. In schools, this leadership style is often visible in principals who monitor teachers’ performance closely, reward high achievers, and apply corrective measures when standards are not met.

The core mechanisms of transactional leadership are contingent reward and management by exception. Contingent reward refers to the exchange process where leaders reward followers for meeting objectives, while management by exception involves corrective action when performance deviates from expected standards [3]. These practices can enhance short-term efficiency and accountability, as teachers are motivated to comply with expectations. However, the heavy reliance on external motivators may limit creativity, autonomy, and intrinsic job satisfaction, making this style less effective for long-term professional growth [1]. While transactional leadership has often been contrasted with transformational leadership, it remains significant in contexts requiring order, discipline, and measurable outcomes. In educational environments with rigid accountability systems, transactional leadership can ensure compliance with curricular demands and standardized testing requirements [5]. However, scholars caution that overemphasis on transactional practices may increase teacher stress and burnout if leaders fail to balance discipline with emotional support and recognition of teachers’ professional needs. Thus, transactional leadership is both a facilitator of efficiency and a potential risk factor for teacher well-being.

Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Teachers’ Burnout

Transactional leadership, with its emphasis on control, compliance, and performance monitoring, has been found to significantly influence teachers’ psychological well-being. Burnout, characterized by emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal accomplishment [2], often emerges in environments where leaders prioritize outcomes over teachers’ professional needs. When teachers are constantly evaluated and rewarded or punished based on short-term achievements, they may experience stress and a sense of pressure, which can contribute to burnout. Research indicates that transactional leadership can heighten teachers’ emotional exhaustion due to its rigid structures and constant accountability demands. For example, Breevaart et al. [4] argue that excessive reliance on contingent rewards and corrective feedback may undermine intrinsic motivation, leaving teachers feeling undervalued and controlled. Over time, such conditions increase frustration, stress, and disconnection from teaching, fueling the burnout process. Teachers working under transactional leaders may comply with rules but at the cost of their emotional well-being. At the same time, transactional leadership may reduce burnout in certain contexts by providing clear expectations and structured guidance. Some teachers, particularly in highly regulated school systems, may appreciate the predictability and fairness that transactional leadership provides [1]. By establishing order and recognizing task completion through contingent rewards, transactional leaders can lower ambiguity and role conflict, which are known predictors of stress. Thus, the relationship between transactional leadership and burnout is complex, varying by cultural context and teachers’ resilience.

Overall, while transactional leadership ensures efficiency and accountability, it may inadvertently contribute to teacher burnout when applied in a highly rigid or punitive manner. The challenge for school leaders is to strike a balance-using transactional practices to provide structure without ignoring teachers’ emotional needs and professional autonomy. This nuanced relationship highlights the importance of investigating transactional leadership’s dual impact on teacher burnout, especially in contexts where teachers already face heavy workloads and systemic pressures.

H_01: Relationship of Transactional Leadership with Teachers’ burnout

Relationship between Transactional Leadership and Teachers’ Work Performance

Work performance in the teaching profession refers to how effectively teachers deliver instructional tasks, manage classrooms, and contribute to student outcomes. Transactional leadership can directly influence these behaviors by establishing clear expectations and linking rewards to performance outcomes. Bass [1] noted that contingent reward practices often motivate employees to complete assigned tasks effectively. In schools, transactional leaders reward teachers for meeting curricular goals, maintaining discipline, and achieving high student performance, thereby reinforcing desired work behaviors.

Studies have demonstrated that transactional leadership can enhance teacher performance in structured and highly regulated environments. For instance, [5] found that contingent reward leadership behaviors are positively associated with task performance, as they reduce ambiguity and create accountability. Teachers under such leadership often have a strong sense of direction, which leads to higher efficiency in meeting deadlines and completing administrative tasks. This structured approach benefits schools where maintaining order and consistency is crucial. However, reliance on transactional leadership may also create limitations for teachers’ long-term professional growth. [3] Argue that while transactional leadership boosts compliance and short-term productivity, it does not encourage innovation, collaboration, or intrinsic motivation. Teachers motivated primarily by rewards may focus only on meeting minimum standards rather than exploring creative instructional strategies. This can hinder the overall quality of teaching and reduce opportunities for pedagogical improvement.

Overall, transactional leadership has a dual impact on teachers’ work performance. On one hand, it ensures accountability, discipline, and task completion; on the other, it may restrict creativity and deeper professional engagement. The challenge lies in balancing transactional practices with supportive strategies that nurture teachers’ intrinsic motivation. A blended approach, integrating both transactional and transformational elements, may therefore be more effective in sustaining high-quality teacher performance in the long run.

H₀₂: Relationship of Transactional Leadership with Teachers’ work performance

Figure 1: Conceptual Model.

This study was based on the positivist research philosophy and employed a correlational research design to investigate the relationship between transactional leadership, teachers’ burnout, and their work performance. The population of the study consisted of 1,379 subject specialists working in five districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, namely Dera Ismail Khan, Tank, Lakki Marwat, Bannu, and Karak. To determine a representative sample, formula was applied, resulting in a sample size of 310 respondents. Data were collected through a structured questionnaire that included three standardized instruments: the transactional leadership scale, the burnout scale, and the work performance scale. The validity of the questionnaire was ensured through the Index of Item-Objective Congruence (IOC), which confirmed that all items were appropriate and aligned with the constructs under study. The reliability of the research instrument was confirmed using Cronbach’s Alpha, with values of 0.7884 for the transactional leadership scale, 0.739 for the burnout scale, and 0.827 for the work performance scale, indicating acceptable internal consistency. After data collection, responses were analyzed using SPSS. Pearson product-moment correlation was used to examine the relationships among the variables, linear regression analysis was conducted to test the predictive effect of transactional leadership on burnout and work performance, and independent samples t-tests were applied to assess group differences. These statistical techniques provided comprehensive insights into the research questions and ensured the rigor of the findings.

Data Analysis

Table 1: Correlation between Transactional Leadership and Teachers’ Burnout (N = 310).

There is a significant negative correlation (r = -.462, p < .01) between transactional leadership and teachers’ burnout. This indicates that higher transactional leadership practices are associated with reduced burnout levels among teachers.

Table 2: Correlation between Transactional Leadership and Teachers’ Work Performance (N = 310).

The analysis reveals a significant positive correlation (r = .514, p < .01) between transactional leadership and teachers’ work performance. This suggests that transactional leadership contributes positively to improving teachers’ performance.

Table 3: Regression Analysis Predicting Teachers’ Burnout From Transactional Leadership (N = 310).

The regression analysis shows that transactional leadership significantly predicts teachers’ burnout, F (1, 308) = 68.4, p < .001. The model explained 21.3% of the variance in burnout (R² = .213, Adjusted R² = .211), indicating a meaningful effect. The unstandardized coefficient (B = –0.428, SE = 0.052) reveals that for every one-unit increase in transactional leadership, teachers’ burnout decreases by 0.428 units. The standardized coefficient (Beta = –0.462) confirms a moderate negative effect, while the t-value (–8.27, p < .001) establishes the predictor’s statistical significance. These findings suggest that higher levels of transactional leadership are associated with lower levels of teacher burnout, highlighting the importance of leadership practices in reducing stress and improving teacher well-being.

Table 4: Regression Analysis Predicting Teachers’ Work Performance From Transactional Leadership (N = 310).

The regression results show that transactional leadership is a significant predictor of teachers’ work performance, explaining 26.4% of the variance in performance (R² = .264, Adjusted R² = .261). The overall model was statistically significant, F = 73.1, p < .001, confirming the strength of the relationship. The unstandardized coefficient (B = 0.573, SE = 0.067) indicates that for every one-unit increase in transactional leadership, teachers’ work performance increases by 0.573 points. The standardized coefficient (Beta = .514) suggests a moderately strong positive effect, while the t-value (8.55) and significance level (p < .001) confirm the predictor’s reliability. The constant value (B = 1.842) represents the baseline level of teachers’ performance when transactional leadership is absent. These findings highlight that transactional leadership positively contributes to improving teachers’ work performance.

The findings indicate that transactional leadership has a significant negative correlation with teachers’ burnout (r = –0.462, p < .01) and a significant positive correlation with teachers’ work performance (r = .514, p < .01). These results imply that when school leaders adopt transactional leadership behaviors-such as setting clear expectations, rewarding good performance, and monitoring tasks closely-teachers are less likely to experience emotional exhaustion and more likely to enhance their job performance. This aligns with recent literature, which shows that transactional leadership can reduce teacher stress levels by providing structured guidance and timely reinforcement, thereby lowering the risk of burnout [16,17]. In contexts such as developing countries where educational challenges are acute, transactional leadership offers a practical and structured management style that safeguards teachers’ mental health while ensuring accountability and improved outcomes.

The regression results further support this relationship by demonstrating that transactional leadership significantly predicts both burnout and work performance among teachers. Specifically, the model explained 21.3% of the variance in burnout and 26.4% of the variance in work performance, highlighting the substantial role leadership style plays in shaping teachers’ professional experiences. The negative predictive effect on burnout suggests that effective transactional practices, such as contingent rewards and corrective feedback, directly contribute to lowering stress and emotional fatigue, while the positive predictive effect on performance underscores how clear direction and recognition enhance teachers’ productivity and classroom effectiveness. These findings are consistent with recent studies that have reported transactional leadership as a key factor in fostering teacher motivation, engagement, and retention while minimizing professional exhaustion [18,19] Together, the results emphasize the importance of leadership development initiatives in schools that encourage leaders to balance transactional strategies with supportive practices to optimize teacher well-being and performance.

The findings of this study conclude that transactional leadership plays a significant role in shaping teachers’ professional experiences by reducing burnout and enhancing work performance. The results highlight that structured leadership practices, such as setting clear expectations, providing rewards, and offering corrective feedback, not only improve teachers’ productivity but also safeguard their well-being. It is therefore evident that transactional leadership, when applied effectively, creates a balanced educational environment where accountability and support coexist. These insights emphasize the importance of leadership training for school heads to adopt approaches that foster both teacher effectiveness and mental health. The study recommended that educational authorities should organize professional development programs for school leaders that focus on effective transactional leadership practices to enhance teacher performance. Moreover, schools should integrate leadership strategies with teacher well-being initiatives to minimize burnout and sustain long-term motivation.

Research Implications

The implications of this research suggest that transactional leadership has practical significance for educational management, particularly in improving teacher outcomes. By demonstrating that transactional leadership reduces burnout and enhances work performance, the study highlights the importance of leadership style as a determinant of teacher effectiveness and well-being. For policymakers, these results underline the need to design leadership training modules that equip school heads with structured management skills to balance accountability with teacher support. Furthermore, the findings provide a foundation for future research to explore the interaction of transactional leadership with other leadership styles, such as transformational or instructional leadership, to develop a more holistic approach to teacher development and school improvement.

1. Bass BM. From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics. 1990; 18: 19-31.
2. Maslach C, Leiter MP, Burke RJ, Cooper CL. Burnout: A multidimensional perspective. In (Eds.) The Routledge Companion to Wellbeing at Work. Routledge. 2016; 35-49.
3. Judge TA, Piccolo RF. Transformational and transactional leadership: A meta-analytic test of their relative validity. J Appl Psychol. 2004; 89: 755-768.
4. Breevaart K, Bakker AB, Hetland J, Demerouti E, Olsen OK, Espevik R. Daily transactional and transformational leadership and daily employee engagement. J Occupational Organizational Psychol. 2014; 87: 138-157.
5. Podsakoff PM, Bommer WH, Podsakoff NP, MacKenzie SB. Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2006; 99.
6. Rowold J, Schlotz W. Transformational and transactional leadership and followers’ chronic stress. Leadership Review. 2009; 9: 35-48.
7. Leithwood K, Sun J. The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2012; 48: 387-423.
8. Khan A, Khan S, Khan MN. Leadership styles and teacher performance: Evidence from educational institutions in Pakistan. Bulletin Edu Res. 2021; 43: 53-70.
9. Bush T. Theories of educational leadership and management (4th ed.). Sage. 2011.
10. Leithwood K, Jantzi D. Transformational leadership. In B. Davies (Ed.), the essentials of school leadership. Sage. 2005; 31-43.
11. Hallinger P, Heck RH. Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration & Leadership. 2010; 38: 654-678.
12. Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2016; 52: 221-258.
13. Ng TWH, Nguyen D, Chen CC. Leader behaviors and workplace stress in educational settings. J Educ Administration. 2017; 55: 316-
14. Walker A, Hallinger P. A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. Rev Educ. 2015; 3: 85-107.
15. Spillane JP. Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass. 2006.
16. Ali S, Zubair A, Shah SH. The influence of leadership styles on teachers’ job stress and performance in higher education institutions. J Educ Res. 2021; 24: 89-104.
17. Sultana R, Rashid M. Exploring the relationship between leadership practices and teacher burnout in secondary schools. Asian J Educ Training. 2022; 8: 45-53.
18. Nguyen TT, Bui HT, Vo MH. School leadership styles and teacher job satisfaction: Evidence from Vietnam. Int J Educ Management. 2021; 35: 995-1010.
19. Farid T, Iqbal S, Jawad M, Shah SZA. Transactional and transformational leadership and teacher outcomes: The mediating role of work engagement. Front Psychol. 2023; 14: