School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence: Full Report - Spring 2003

School Leadership:
Concepts and Evidence

Full Report | Spring 2003
PHOTO REDACTED DUE TO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS OR OTHER LEGAL ISSUES
A review of the literature

carried out for NCSL by
Tony Bush and Derek Glover
of The University of Reading
Contents
Introduction 3
Definitions of school leadership 4
Leadership, management and administration 9
A typology for leadership 11
Other typologies of leadership 23
Generic leadership skills and situational leadership 26
Leadership and school context 29
Conclusion 31
Bibliography 36
Appendix 1: Audit trail 42
National College for School Leadership 2

Introduction
This is the final report of desk research on school leadership commissioned by the National
College for School Leadership (NCSL). An interim report (Bush and Glover 2002) was submitted
in May 2002. This final version responds to points made by NCSL’s International Steering Group
(Brian Caldwell, Ken Leithwood and Joseph Murphy) as well as including additional sources not
available to the authors in May.
The College has also commissioned the University of Manchester to conduct desk research on
the mainstream literature on leadership. Accordingly, such literature is largely omitted from this
review but the two reports will be compared with a view to a possible joint paper at a later stage.
The literature on school leadership alone is vast and it is not possible to do justice to so many
sources in a single report. Indeed, two members of the International Steering Group stated that
the task is “impossible”. This paper has a more modest objective; to provide a summary synthesis
of the most important sources in a form which is intended to be accessible for practitioners and
policy-makers. The report includes theoretical literature, to show how leadership has been
conceptualised, and empirical literature, to demonstrate whether and how the research evidence
supports these concepts of school leadership. The report also summarises the key implications of
the desk research for both leadership development and educational research.

Definitions of school leadership
Leithwood et al (1999) contend that there is no agreed definition of the concept of leadership.
Yukl (2002, pp.4–5) adds that “the definition of leadership is arbitrary and very subjective. Some
definitions are more useful than others, but there is no ‘correct’ definition.” Cuban (1988, p.190)
says that “there are more than 350 definitions of leadership but no clear and unequivocal
understanding as to what distinguishes leaders from non-leaders”. However, given the widely
accepted significance of leadership for school effectiveness (Daresh 1998, NCSL 2001a,
Sammons et al 1995, Sheppard 1996) and for school improvement (Stoll and Fink 1996, Hallinger
and Heck 1999), it is important to establish at least a working definition of this complex concept.
As Beare, Caldwell and Millikan (1989) emphasise:
Outstanding leadership has invariably emerged as a key characteristic of outstanding

schools. There can no longer be doubt that those seeking quality in education must
ensure its presence and that the development of potential leaders must be given high
priority. (Beare, Caldwell and Millikan 1989, p.99)
Leadership as influence
A central element in many definitions of leadership is that there is a process of influence.
Leithwood et al (1999, p.6) say that “influence… seems to be a necessary part of most
conceptions of leadership”. Yukl (2002, p.3) explains this influence process:
Most definitions of leadership reflect the assumption that it involves a social influence
process whereby intentional influence is exerted by one person [or group] over other
people [or groups] to structure the activities and relationships in a group or organisation.
Yukl’s use of ‘person’ or ‘group’ serves to emphasise that leadership may be exercised by teams
as well as individuals. This view is reinforced by Harris (2002) and Leithwood (2001) who both
advocate distributed leadership as an alternative to traditional top-down leadership models.
Ogawa and Bossert (1995, pp.225–26) also state that leadership involves influence and agree
that it may be exercised by anyone in an organisation. “It is something that flows throughout an
organisation, spanning levels and flowing both up and down hierarchies.”
Cuban (1988, p.193) also refers to leadership as an influence process. “Leadership, then refers to
people who bend the motivations and actions of others to achieving certain goals; it implies taking
initiatives and risks”. This definition shows that the process of influence is purposeful in that it is
intended to lead to specific outcomes. Fidler (1997, p.25) reinforces this notion by claiming that
“followers are influenced towards goal achievement”.
Stoll and Fink (1996) use the similar concept of ‘invitational’ leadership to explain how leaders
operate in schools. “Leadership is about communicating invitational messages to individuals and
groups with whom leaders interact in order to build and act on a shared and evolving vision of
enhanced educational experiences for pupils” (p.109).
Leadership and values

Leadership may be understood as ‘influence’ but this notion is neutral in that it does not explain or
recommend what goals or actions should be sought through this process. However, certain
alternative constructs of leadership focus on the need for leadership to be grounded in firm
personal and professional values. Wasserberg (1999, p.158) claims that “the primary role of any

leader [is] the unification of people around key values”. From his perspective as a secondary
headteacher, he argues that these core values should be:
• schools are concerned with learning and all members of the school community are
learners
• every member of the school community is valued as an individual
• the school exists to serve its pupils and the local community
• learning is about the development of the whole person and happens in and out of
classrooms
• people prosper with trust, encouragement and praise
(Wasserberg 1999, p.155).
Greenfield and Ribbins (1993) add that leadership begins with the ‘character’ of leaders,
expressed in terms of personal values, self-awareness and emotional and moral capability.
The values adopted by many school leaders can be illustrated by Day, Harris and Hadfield’s
(2001) study of 12 schools in England and Wales which focused on heads who were deemed
effective by Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) criteria and by the vaguer notion of ‘peer
reputation’. The researchers adopted a 360 degree perspective by interviewing teachers, parents,
governors and students as well as conducting three interviews with each principal. They conclude
that “good leaders are informed by and communicate clear sets of personal and educational
values which represent their moral purposes for the school” (p.53). They elaborate on the nature
of these core ‘personal values’:
These concerned the modelling and promotion of respect (for individuals), fairness and
equality, caring for the well being and whole development of students and staff, integrity
and honesty. These core values were often part of strong religious or humanitarian ethics
which made it impossible to separate the personal and the professional and which
provide empirical support for those who write of the essential moral purposes of those
involved in teaching. (Day, Harris and Hadfield 2001, p.45)
Moos, Mahony and Reeves (1998) reinforce the importance of leaders’ “clear sets of educational
and personal values” and stress the need for a ‘clear personal vision’ (p.70).
Leadership and vision

Vision is increasingly regarded as an important component of leadership. There are different
views about whether vision is an essential aspect of school leadership or, rather, a feature which
distinguishes successful from less successful leaders. Beare, Caldwell and Millikan (1989), for
example, say that “outstanding leaders have a vision of their schools – a mental picture of a
preferred future – which is shared with all in the school community” (p.99). However, in drawing
on the work of Bennis and Nanus (1985), they articulate 10 ‘emerging generalisations’ (present
authors’ emphasis) about leadership, four of which relate directly to vision:
1. Outstanding leaders have a vision for their organisations
The vision… may be a dream expressed in written form as our school will be a learning
centre in the community , where every child will enjoy coming to school and will acquire
the basic skills (p.107).

2. Vision must be communicated in a way which secures commitment among members of
the organisation
They cite Bennis and Nanus’ (1985, p.28) view of how this is achieved by visionary leaders:
Their visions or intentions are compelling and pull people towards them. Intensity coupled
with commitment is magnetic (p.109).
3. Communication of vision requires communication of meaning
They support Bennis and Nanus’ (1985, p.33) assessment that “the management of meaning,
[the] mastery of communication, is inseparable from effective leadership” (p.109). They add that
symbols are important for the communication of meaning.
4. Attention should be given to institutionalising vision if leadership is to be successful
Articulation and communication of the vision need to be supported by a process of ‘implanting’

the vision:
The principal should work with others to implant the vision in the structures and
processes of the school, something that calls for the technical and human skills of policy-
making and planning (p.115).
These generalisations are essentially normative views about the centrality of vision to effective
leadership. However, there is also some empirical support for these prescriptions. Southworth
(1997) summarises the findings of several research projects and commentaries on leadership in
primary schools. Nias et al’s (1992) study of five primary schools shows that their heads
“provided a vision for the staff and the school” (p.46). Southworth (1993) suggests that heads are
motivated to work hard “because their leadership is the pursuit of their individual visions” (p.47)
while Alexander, Rose and Woodhead (1992) say that primary heads should provide a “vision of
what their schools should become” (p.48).
Dempster and Logan’s (1998) study of 12 Australian schools shows that almost all parents (97%)
and teachers (99%) expect the principal to express his or her vision clearly while 98% of both
groups expect the leader to plan strategically to achieve the vision
These projects show the high level of support for the notion of visionary leadership but Foreman’s
(1998) review shows that, in practice, it remains highly problematic . “Inspiring a shared vision is
the leadership practice with which [heads] felt most uncomfortable” (Kouzes and Posner 1996,
p.24) while Fullan (1992a, p.83) adds that “vision building is a highly sophisticated dynamic
process which few organisations can sustain”. Elsewhere, Fullan (1992b) is even more critical,
suggesting that visionary leaders may damage rather than improve their schools:
The current emphasis on vision in leadership can be misleading. Vision can blind leaders
in a number of ways… The high-powered, charismatic principal who “radically transforms
the school” in four or five years can… be blinding and misleading as a role model… my
hypothesis would be that most such schools decline after the leader leaves… Principals
are blinded by their own vision when they feel they must manipulate the teachers and the
school culture to conform to it. (Fullan 1992b, p.19)
The research by Bolam et al (1993) for the School Management Task Force illustrates a number
of problems about the development and articulation of ‘vision’ in English and Welsh schools.
Their study of 12 self selected ‘effective’ schools shows that most heads were able to describe

“some sort of vision” but “they varied in their capacity to articulate the vision and the visions were
more or less sophisticated” (p.33). Moreover, the visions were rarely specific to the school. They
were “neither surprising nor striking nor controversial. They are closely in line with what one might
expect of the British system of education.” (p.35)
The Bolam et al (1993) study also casts doubt on the ability of heads to communicate the vision
effectively and to ensure that it is shared by staff. In only four of the 12 schools were staff clear
about the head’s vision:
In most of the schools comparatively few teachers were able to speak with any
confidence about the elements of the vision. This would suggest that… the headteachers
of these schools had not consciously and deliberately set out to communicate their vision
to colleagues and to ensure that its influence permeated every aspect of organisational
life. (Bolam et al 1993, p.36)
There is contrasting evidence from the research by Greenfield, Licata and Johnson (1992) in the
United States. Using a large sample of 1,769 teachers from 62 schools in rural and small
communities, they demonstrate strong support for the notion that there was a clear vision for the
school and that it was articulated well:
Teachers in this sample seemed to agree that their principals had a vision of what the
school ought to be and that it was in the best interest of their students. Moreover, they
viewed their principals as relatively effective in advancing this vision. (p.74)
The mixed evidence on the efficacy of ‘vision’ as a way of explaining how successful leaders
operate may be explained by using Begley’s (1994) four level analysis of ‘the principal as
visionary’. These levels are examined using five aspects of vision. The ‘vision derived goals’
aspect serves to illustrate the approach (see Table 1).
Level Vision Derived Goals

Basic Possesses a set of goals derived from Ministry and Board expectations.
Intermediate Develops school goals consistent with the principal’s articulated vision.
Advanced Works with the teaching staff to develop school goals which reflect their
collaborative vision.
Expert Collaborates with representative members of the school community to develop
goals which reflect a collaboratively developed vision statement.
Table 1: The Principal as Visionary (Begley 1994)
Table 1 shows that ‘vision’ may operate at different levels. The shift from ‘basic’ to ‘expert’
provides a useful way of categorising the extent to which leaders are able to develop a distinctive
vision, widely regarded as one hallmark of successful leadership. It is evident that the articulation
of a clear vision has considerable potential to develop schools but the empirical evidence of its
effectiveness remains mixed and there are also concerns about the extent to which the leader’s
vision may be imposed on the school. Begley’s (1994) hierarchy suggests that principals vary in
the extent to which they are able to develop and articulate a shared vision for their schools. This
seems to be an area which requires further research.
A further problem relates to the relationship between vision, goals, activities and school
outcomes. Mintzberg (1994) suggests that poor strategic implementation may inhibit the
attainment of vision.

Towards a definition of leadership
The issues addressed in this section of the report provide the basis for a working definition of
school leadership. This definition, shown below, will inform the remaining sections of this report.
Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. Successful

leaders develop a vision for their schools based on their personal and professional values. They
articulate this vision at every opportunity and influence their staff and other stakeholders to share
the vision. The philosophy, structures and activities of the school are geared towards the
achievement of this shared vision.

Leadership, management and administration
The concept of leadership overlaps with two similar terms, management and administration.
‘Management’ is widely used in Britain, Europe and Africa, for example, while ‘administration’ is
preferred in the United States, Canada and Australia. Dimmock (1999) provides one of the few
distinctions amongst these concepts whilst also acknowledging that there are competing
definitions:
School leaders [experience] tensions between competing elements of leadership,

management and administration. Irrespective of how these terms are defined, school
leaders experience difficulty in deciding the balance between higher order tasks designed
to improve staff, student and school performance (leadership), routine maintenance of
present operations (management) and lower order duties (administration). (p.442)
The main focus in this section will be on the differences between leadership and management.
Leadership and management

Cuban (1988) provides one of the clearest distinctions between leadership and management. He
links leadership with change while sharing Dimmock’s (1999) view that management is a
maintenance activity. He also stresses the importance of both dimensions of organisational
activity:
By leadership, I mean influencing others’ actions in achieving desirable ends. Leaders

are people who shape the goals, motivations, and actions of others. Frequently they
initiate change to reach existing and new goals… Leadership… takes… much ingenuity,
energy and skill.
Managing is maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements.

While managing well often exhibits leadership skills, the overall function is toward
maintenance rather than change. I prize both managing and leading and attach no
special value to either since different settings and times call for varied responses.
Starratt (2001) adopts an alternative perspective, focusing on the difference between efficiency
and an approach based on core values:
Rather than emphasising a framework of technical rationality, in which goals and

objectives are set and then appropriate means are operationalised for their efficient and
effective achievement, I want to emphasise leadership as ‘cultivation’. By this I mean that
democratic leadership is primarily concerned to cultivate an environment that supports
participation, sharing of ideas, and the virtues of honesty, openness, flexibility, and
compassion. (p.338)
Day, Harris and Hadfield’s (2001) study of 12 ‘effective’ schools leads to a discussion of several
dilemmas in school leadership. One of these relates to management, which is linked to systems
and ‘paper’, and leadership, which is perceived to be about the development of people.
‘Development and maintenance’ are identified as another tension, linking to the Cuban (1988)
distinction identified above.

Bush (1998, p.328) links leadership to values or purpose while management relates to
implementation or technical issues. This latter point complements Starratt’s emphasis on
‘technical rationality’.
Fidler (1997, p.26) argues against a firm distinction between leadership and management,
claiming that they have an “intimate connection” and “a great deal of overlap, particularly in
respect of motivating people and giving a sense or purpose to the organisation”. West-Burnham
(1997, p.235) seems to support this view in expressing concern about the “increasing emphasis
on school leadership and management as a technical skill. Increasing levels of definition,
specification and imposed goal setting have served to diminish the creative and critical
components of leading and managing.” (present authors’ emphasis)
These comments are redolent of an earlier period when there was concern about an over-
emphasis on technical implementation, and a lack of creativity and innovation, but these notions
were not always linked to distinctions between management and leadership. Bush (1999), in
arguing for a redefinition of educational management, regrets that “the discipline stands accused
of ‘managerialism’, a stress on procedures at the expense of educational purposes and values”
(p.240).
Given the now widely accepted distinction between leadership, an influence process based on
values and a clearly articulated vision leading to change, and management, the effective
implementation of decisions based mainly on notions of maintenance, it is vital that both
dimensions of this duality are given equal prominence. While a clear vision is essential to
establish the nature and direction of change, it is equally important to ensure that innovations are
implemented efficiently and that the school’s residual functions are carried out effectively while
certain elements are undergoing change. Both aspects are necessary for successful schools, as
writers on both sides of the Atlantic emphasise:
Methods… [are] are as important as knowledge, understanding and value orientations…

Erecting this kind of dichotomy between something pure called ‘leadership’ and
something ‘dirty’ called ‘management’, or between values and purposes on the one hand
and methods and skills on the other, would be disastrous. (Glatter 1997, p.189)
Leading and managing are distinct, but both are important. Organisations which are over
managed but under led eventually lose any sense of spirit or purpose. Poorly managed
organisations with strong charismatic leaders may soar temporarily only to crash shortly
thereafter. The challenge of modern organisations requires the objective perspective of
the manager as well as the flashes of vision and commitment wise leadership provides.
(Bolman and Deal 1997, pp.xiii-xiv)
The dichotomy in Britain and elsewhere is that, while leadership is normatively preferred (Millett
1996, Starratt 2001), governments are encouraging a technical-rational approach through their
stress on performance and public accountability (Glatter 1999, Levacic et al 1999). In the current
policy climate, schools require both visionary leadership and effective management.
Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. It involves

inspiring and supporting others towards the achievement of a vision for the school which is based
on clear personal and professional values. Management is the implementation of school policies
and the efficient and effective maintenance of the school’s current activities. Both leadership and
management are required if schools are to be successful.

A typology for leadership
The vast literature on leadership has inevitably generated a plethora of alternative, and
competing, models. Some writers have sought to cluster these various conceptions into a number
of broad themes or ‘types’. In this section, we review eight of these broad theories, using a
typology adapted from Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1999), who identified six ‘models’ from
their scrutiny of 121 articles in four international journals.
Instructional leadership
Leithwood et al (1999) point to the lack of explicit descriptions of instructional leadership in the
literature and suggest that there may be different meanings of this concept. Their definition is:
Instructional leadership… typically assumes that the critical focus for attention by leaders
is the behaviour of teachers as they engage in activities directly affecting the growth of
students. (p.8)
Sheppard (1996) claims that there are ‘narrow’ and ‘broad’ conceptions of instructional leadership
where the latter also involves variables, such as school culture, which may have important
consequences for teacher behaviour:
The narrow definition focuses on instructional leadership as a separate entity from

administration. In the narrow view, instructional leadership is defined as those actions
that are directly related to teaching and learning – observable behaviours such as
classroom supervision. In the broad view, instructional leadership entails all leadership
activities that affect student learning. (Sheppard 1996, p.326)
Southworth (2002, p.78) says that “instructional leadership is likely to be more effective when it is
conceptualised as ‘broad’ rather than ‘narrow’” because it increases the scope for other leaders to
play a role as well as the principal and because it recognises how social organisations operate.
He adds (2002, p.79) that “instructional leadership… is strongly concerned with teaching and
learning, including the professional learning of teachers as well as student growth”. Geltner and
Shelton (1991, p.339) also appear to advocate a broad view in claiming that “effective
instructional leadership… is… characterised by a strategic perspective which leads to the
integrated linkage and deployment of all resources available to the school to achieve its purpose
and mission”.
According to Leithwood et al (1999, p.8), instructional leadership models typically assume that
school leaders, usually principals, have both the expert knowledge and the formal authority to
exert influence on teachers.
Hallinger and Murphy (1985) state that instructional leadership comprises three broad categories:
• defining the school mission

• managing the instructional programme
• promoting school climate
Blase and Blase’s (1998) research with 800 principals in American elementary, middle and high
schools suggests that effective instructional leadership behaviour comprises three aspects:

• talking with teachers (conferencing)
• promoting teachers’ professional growth
• fostering teacher reflection
Southworth’s (2002) qualitative research with primary heads of small schools in England and
Wales shows that three strategies were particularly effective in improving teaching and learning:
• modelling
• monitoring
• professional dialogue and discussion
Southworth’s third category confirms Blase and Blase’s (1998) first point but his other strategies
introduce new notions of which instructional leadership practices are likely to be successful. He
also concurs with Hill (2001) that “school leaders may lack sufficient knowledge of teaching and
learning to provide adequate, let alone successful, instructional leadership” (p.87) and advocates
that this dimension should be included in leadership development programmes.
In contrast, Leithwood (1994, p.499) claims that “instructional leadership images are no longer
adequate” because they are “heavily classroom focused” and do not address “second order
changes… [such as] organisation building” (p.501). He adds that the instructional leadership
image “is now showing all the signs of a dying paradigm” (p.502).
Despite these comments, instructional leadership is a very important dimension because it

targets the school’s central activities, teaching and learning. It may also be undergoing a
renaissance in England, not least because of its specific endorsement by NCSL (NCSL 2001b).
“School leadership must be instructionally focused” (p.5) is one of the 10 ‘propositions’ in the
NCSL Leadership Development Framework. However, this paradigm underestimates other
aspects of school life, such as socialisation, student welfare and self esteem, as well as the wider
school-level issues referred to by Leithwood (1994). In addition, the model gives insufficient
prominence to how leaders exert their influence on teaching and learning and may overestimate
leaders’ preparedness to adopt instructional leadership behaviours.
Instructional leadership focuses on teaching and learning and on the behaviour of teachers in
working with students. Leaders’ influence is targeted at student learning via teachers. The
emphasis is on the direction and impact of influence rather than the influence process itself.
Transformational leadership
Gunter (2001, p.69) says that transformational leadership is about building a unified common
interest between leaders and followers. She and Allix (2000) both attribute this concept to Burns
(1978).
Leithwood et al (1999) provide a detailed definition of this model of leadership:
This form of leadership assumes that the central focus of leadership ought to be the
commitments and capacities of organisational members. Higher levels of personal
commitment to organisational goals and greater capacities for accomplishing those goals
are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity. (p.9)

Transformational approaches are often contrasted with transactional leadership. Miller and Miller
(2001) explain these twin phenomena:
Transactional leadership is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based

upon an exchange for some valued resource. To the teacher, interaction between
administrators and teachers is usually episodic, short-lived and limited to the exchange
transaction. Transformational leadership is more potent and complex and occurs when
one or more teachers engage with others in such a way that administrators and teachers
raise one another to higher levels of commitment and dedication, motivation and morality.
Through the transforming process, the motives of the leader and follower merge. (p.182)
Sergiovanni (1991) makes a similar distinction between transactional and what he calls
‘transformative’ leadership:
In transactional leadership, leaders and followers exchange needs and services in order
to accomplish independent objectives… This bargaining process can be viewed
metaphorically as a form of leadership by bartering. The wants and needs of followers
and the wants and needs of the leader are traded and a bargain is struck. Positive
reinforcement is given for good work, merit pay for increased performance… and so on.
(p.125) (Original author’s emphasis).
In transformative leadership, by contrast, leaders and followers are united in pursuit of

higher-level goals that are common to both. Both want to become the best. Both want to
shape the school in a new direction. When transformative leadership is practised
successfully, purposes that might have started out being separate become fused.
(pp.125–26)
Leithwood (1994) conceptualises transformational leadership along eight dimensions:
• building school vision

• establishing school goals
• providing intellectual stimulation
• offering individualised support
• modelling best practices and important organisational values
• demonstrating high performance expectations
• creating a productive school culture
• developing structures to foster participation in school decisions
Leithwood et al (1999, p.21) claim that transformational leadership is the model that comes
closest to providing a comprehensive approach to leadership although he subsequently states
that “transformational leadership practices ought to be considered a necessary but not sufficient
part of an effective leader’s repertoire” (2001, p.217), referring also to issues of school context.
Day et al’s (2001) research suggests that successful principals are both transactional, “ensuring
that systems were maintained and met and that their schools ran smoothly” and transformative,
“building on esteem, competence , autonomy and achievement” (p.47).
Goldring (1992) points to a shift from transactional to transformational leadership in Israeli

schools and attributes this to systemic changes in the requirements imposed on schools and their

leaders. Her typology of changes affecting principals could apply to many other school systems
(see Table 2).
Areas of change Principals as routine-managers Principals as leader-managers of

of static school organisations dynamic school organisations
Resource allocation Resource receiver Resource mobiliser
Organisational Bureaucratic Professional
framework
Governing system Centralised Pluralistic
Market structure Monopolistic Competitive
Table 2: Changes in the nature of principals’ leadership roles in Israel
(Goldring 1992, p.53)
Goldring (1992) shows that these wide-ranging changes have been the catalyst for a move to a
transformational approach:
Until recently, the principal of a typical Israeli neighbourhood school worked in a relatively
static organisation. Today, principals in experimental project schools aimed at system-
wide diversity are moving towards a dynamic definition of their role. In broad terms, it
seems that principals are being required to move from being routine-managers to leader-
managers, or from transactional to transformational leaders. (p.52)
Murphy and Hallinger (1992) also attribute the shift to transformational leadership to “changes in
the policy context of schools” (p.86) but also show that this is a normative change. “They are
being asked to undergo a metamorphosis, to change from transactional to transformational
leaders.” (p.81) (Present authors’ emphasis)
Leithwood’s (1994) research suggests that there is some empirical support for the essentially
normative transformational leadership model. He reports on seven quantitative studies and
concludes that:
Transformational leadership practices, considered as a composite construct, had

significant direct and indirect effects on progress with school-restructuring initiatives and
teacher-perceived student outcomes. (p.506)
The transformational model is comprehensive in that it provides a normative approach to school

leadership which focuses primarily on the process by which leaders seek to influence school
outcomes rather than on the nature or direction of those outcomes. It may also be criticised as
being a vehicle for control over teachers and more likely to be accepted by the leader than the led
(Chirichello 1999).
Allix (2000) goes further and alleges that transformational leadership has the potential to become
‘despotic’ because of its strong, heroic and charismatic features. He believes that the leader’s
power ought to raise ‘moral qualms’ and serious doubts about its appropriateness for democratic
organisations:
Leadership [is] a special form of power embodied in a structure of action, in which the
acceptance of ‘superior’ values by followers is forged through social conflict in a context
charged by emotional elevation, rather than reason… there lurks implicitly… the
necessary – though not sufficient – conditions for the development of despotic forms of
social organisation and control… this conceptualisation of education carries with it the

seeds of psychological manipulation, in which the indoctrination of falsehoods, and the
cultivation of ignorance, is all too possible. (Allix 2000, pp.17–18)
The contemporary policy climate within which schools have to operate also raises questions
about the validity of the transformational model, despite its popularity in the literature. The English
system increasingly requires school leaders to adhere to government prescriptions which affect
aims, curriculum content and pedagogy, as well as values. There is “a more centralised, more
directed, and more controlled educational system [that] has dramatically reduced the possibility of
realising a genuinely transformational education and leadership” (Bottery 2001, p.215).
Webb and Vulliamy (1996, p.313) take a similar view, arguing that “the current climate…
encourages headteachers to be powerful and, if necessary, manipulative leaders in order to
ensure that the policies and practices agreed upon are ones that they can wholeheartedly support
and defend”.
Coleman (1996, 2002), following large-scale research with female and male heads of secondary
schools in England, concludes that women are more likely than men to display the behaviours
associated with transformational leadership. This is an important issue that is beyond the scope
of this report but merits separate attention and further research.
Transformational leadership describes a particular type of influence process based on increasing

the commitment of followers to organisational goals. Leaders seek to engage the support of
teachers for their vision for the school and to enhance their capacities to contribute to goal
achievement. Its focus is on this process rather than on particular types of outcome.
Moral leadership
Moral leadership assumes that the critical focus of leadership ought to be on the values and
ethics of leaders themselves. Authority and influence are to be derived from defensible
conceptions of what is right or good (Leithwood et al 1999, p.10). These authors add thatthis
model includes normative, political/democratic and symbolic concepts of leadership.
An alternative moral perspective is political in origin and focuses on “the nature of the
relationships among those within the organisation and the distribution of power between
stakeholders both inside and outside the organisation” (Leithwood et al 1999, p.11) Values
central to this form of leadership are derived from democratic theory.
Sergiovanni (1984, p.10) says that “excellent schools have central zones composed of values
and beliefs that take on sacred or cultural characteristics”. Subsequently, he adds that
‘administering’ is a ‘moral craft’ (1991, p.322). The moral dimension of leadership is based on
“normative rationality; rationality based on what we believe and what we consider to be good”
(p.326). His conception is closely linked to the transformational model:
The school must move beyond concern for goals and roles to the task of building
purposes into its structure and embodying these purposes in everything that it does with
the effect of transforming school members from neutral participants to committed
followers. The embodiment of purpose and the development of followership are
inescapably moral. (p.323)
West-Burnham (1997) discusses two approaches to leadership which may be categorised as

‘moral’. The first he describes as ‘spiritual’ and relates to “the recognition that many leaders
possess what might be called ‘higher order’ perspectives. These may well be… represented by a

particular religious affiliation.” (p.239) Such leaders have a set of principles which provide the
basis of self-awareness.
West-Burnham’s (1997) second category is ‘moral confidence’, the capacity to act in a way that is
consistent with an ethical system and is consistent over time. The morally confident leader is
someone who can:
• demonstrate causal consistency between principle and practice

• apply principles to new situations
• create shared understanding and a common vocabulary
• explain and justify decisions in moral terms
• sustain principles over time
• reinterpret and restate principles as necessary
• (West-Burnham 1997, p.241)
Gold et al’s (2002) research in English primary, secondary and special schools provides some
evidence about the nature of the values held and articulated by heads regarded as ‘outstanding’
by OFSTED inspectors. These authors point to the inconsistency between “the technicist and
managerial view of school leadership operationalised by the Government’s inspection regime”
and the focus on “values, learning communities and shared leadership” (p.1).
The heads in Gold et al’s (2002) research demonstrated the following values and beliefs through
their words and deeds:
• inclusivity
• equal opportunities
• equity or justice
• high expectations
• engagement with stakeholders
• co-operation
• teamwork
• commitment
• understanding
Gold et al (1992, p.9) conclude that their case study heads “mediate the many externally-
generated directives to ensure, as far as possible, that their take-up was consistent with what the
school was trying to achieve”.
Grace (2000) adopts a temporal perspective in linking moral and managerial leadership in
England and Wales. He asserts that, for more than 100 years, “the position of the headteacher
was associated with the articulation of spiritual and moral conceptions” (p.241). Subsequently, the
requirements of the Education Reform Act led to the “rising dominance” (p.234) of management,
exemplified by the National Professional Qualification for Headship (NPQH). Grace (2000)
argues, prescriptively, that “the discourse and understanding of management must be matched
by a discourse and understanding of ethics, morality and spirituality” (p.244).

Sergiovanni (1991) takes a different approach to the leadership/management debate in arguing
for both moral and managerial leadership. His conception points to the vital role of management
but also shows that moral leadership is required to develop a learning community:
In the principalship the challenge of leadership is to make peace with two competing
imperatives, the managerial and the moral. The two imperatives are unavoidable and the
neglect of either creates problems. Schools must be run effectively if they are to
survive… But for the school to transform itself into an institution, a learning community
must emerge… [This] is the moral imperative that principals face. (p.329)
Greenfield (1991) also stresses that managerial leadership must have a moral base:
Values lie beyond rationality. Rationality to be rationality must stand upon a value base.
Values are asserted, chosen, imposed or believed. They lie beyond quantification,
beyond measurement. (p.208) (Original author’s emphasis)
Moral leadership is based in the values and beliefs of leaders. The approach is similar to the
transformational model but with a stronger values base, that may be spiritual. Moral leadership
provides the school with a clear sense of purpose.
Participative leadership
“Participative leadership… assumes that the decision-making processes of the group ought to be
the central focus of the group” (Leithwood et al 1999, p.12). This is a normative model which is
based on three criteria:
• participation will increase school effectiveness

• participation is justified by democratic principles
• in the context of site-based management, leadership is potentially available to any
legitimate stakeholder
(Leithwood et al 1999, p.12).
Collegiality is one normatively preferred type of participative leadership:
The head or principal is expected to adopt strategies which acknowledge that issues my
arise from different parts of the organisation and be resolved in a complex interactive
process… the head… [is] the facilitator of an essentially participative process. (Bush
1995, pp.64–65)
Participative leadership may also be conceptualised as ‘distributed’. Neuman and Simmons

(2000) argue that there should be a move away from ‘single person’ leadership to an approach
which stresses collaborative decision-making:
Distributed leadership calls on everyone associated with schools...to take responsibility

for student achievement and to assume leadership roles in areas in which they are
competent and skilled. (p.10)
Sergiovanni (1984, p.13) also points to the importance of a participative approach. This will
succeed in ‘bonding’ staff together and in easing the pressures on school principals. “The
burdens of leadership will be less if leadership functions and roles are shared and if the concept
of leadership density were to emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership” (original
author’s emphasis).

Copland (2001) makes a similar point in claiming that participative leadership has the potential to
ease the burden on principals and avoid the expectation that the formal leader will be a
‘superhead’:
Leadership is embedded in various organisational contexts within school communities,

not centrally vested in a person or an office… exciting work is under way that explores
specific ways in schools might distribute leadership more broadly… [there is] a need to
identify and support aspects of leadership beyond the role of the principal (p.6).
Savery, Soutar and Dyson (1992) demonstrate that deputy principals in Western Australia wish to
participate in school decision-making but their desire to do so varied across different types of
decision. A majority of their 105 respondents wanted joint decision-making in school policy,
student discipline, teaching load, general policy and time allocation but fewer were interested in
participating in what were described as ‘economic variables’, including budgets and staff
selection, and in responding to parental complaints. The authors conclude that “people are more
likely to accept and implement decisions in which they have participated, particularly where these
decisions relate directly to the individual’s own job” (p.24).
Participative leadership is an attractive notion underpinned by democratic ideals. It has been

popular in the literature for many years but evidence of its successful implementation in schools is
sparse. Referring to English primary schools, Webb and Vulliamy (1996) argue that the policy
framework introduced in the 1990s makes it more difficult for school leaders to adopt this
approach:
There is… a growing tension between collegial and top-down management strategies at
the whole-school level...The evidence...suggests that, in all but the smallest primary
schools, the impact of more recent government initiatives...is taking schools further down
that path [towards more managerial and directive approaches]. (Webb and Vulliamy
1996, p.313)
Despite this evidence, there is a continuing focus on participative and distributed leadership.
Harris (2002) argues that democratic leadership styles are inevitable in the complex and rapidly
changing world inhabited by schools in the 21st century, despite the current emphasis on
individual leaders:
The orthodoxy of school leadership that promotes the ‘cult of the individual’ stubbornly
prevails. Fuelled by a view of organisational change that is inherently rational, stable and
predictable, it reinforces the status quo of the leader-follower relationship, creating
dependency cultures and an ownership divide. It is easier, far easier, to point the finger of
accountability in the direction of one person than to acknowledge that leadership is
collective, shared and distributed throughout the organisation... To cope with the
unprecedented rate of change in education requires... establishing new models of
leadership that locate power with the many rather than the few. (Harris 2002, p.11)
It remains to be seen whether such powerful, but essentially normative, ideas will be reflected in
school leadership practice.
Participative leadership is concerned primarily with the process of decision-making. The approach
supports the notion of shared or distributed leadership and is linked to democratic values and
empowerment. Participative leadership is thought to lead to improved outcomes through greater
commitment to the implementation of agreed decisions.

Managerial leadership
The notion of ‘managerial leadership’ may appear to be a contradiction, particularly in the light of
the distinctions outlined earlier in this report. Nevertheless, it merits separate consideration in this
section because it is included in the Leithwood et al (1999) typology and because it serves to
demonstrate that a narrow view of ‘management’ is often adopted. Leithwood et al’s (1999)
definition serves to illustrate this latter point:
Managerial leadership assumes that the focus of leaders ought to be on functions, tasks
and behaviours and that if these functions are carried out competently the work of others
in the organisation will be facilitated. Most approaches to managerial leadership also
assume that the behaviour of organisational members is largely rational. Authority and
influence are allocated to formal positions in proportion to the status of those positions in
the organisational hierarchy. (p.14)
This definition is remarkably close to that adopted earlier by Bush (1986, 1995) in respect to just
one of his six models of management, ‘formal models’. As Leithwood et al (1999, p.15) suggest,
managerial leadership “conveys an orientation to leadership similar to the orientation found in the
classical management literature”. The Bush definition is:
Formal models assume that organisations are hierarchical systems in which managers
use rational means to pursue agreed goals. Heads possess authority legitimized by their
formal positions within the organisation and are accountable to sponsoring bodies for the
activities of their institutions. (p.29)
These two definitions illustrate an interesting temporal phenomenon. During the 1980s and much
of the 1990s, ‘management’ was regarded as the overarching concept and leadership was just
one dimension of this broader notion. During the late 1990s and into the new millennium,
‘leadership’ has been in the ascendancy and Leithwood et al’s (1999) definition suggests that
‘management’ has been reduced to a rump of its former range and significance. At one level, this
matters little because it is partly a matter of semantics and linguistic preference. However, this
narrowing has arisen in part because governments in many countries, including the United
Kingdom, have adopted this limited perspective of management in advancing their reform
programmes (Levacic et al 1999). If heads are simply expected to implement external policy
decisions, they are engaged in a process of managerial leadership sometimes described as
‘managerialism’.
Dressler’s (2001) review of leadership in Charter schools in the United States provides another
perspective on this issue, suggesting that leadership is a ‘management plus’ approach:
Traditionally, the principal’s role has been clearly focused on management

responsibilities... Global and societal influences have increased the span of responsibility.
(p.175)
The additional responsibilities are said to include interpersonal leadership, such as motivating
others, sensitivity and communication skills, and contextual factors, including philosophical and
cultural values, and policy and political influences (p.176).
Myers and Murphy (1995) identify six specifically managerial functions. Four of these are
described as ‘hierarchical’:
• supervision
• input controls (eg teacher transfers)

• behaviour controls (eg job descriptions)
• output controls (eg student testing)
The remaining two are non-hierarchical:
• selection/socialisation
• environmental controls (eg community responsiveness)
(Myers and Murphy 1995, p.14)
Leithwood et al (1999, p.14) claim that leaders need to adopt a ‘bifocal’ perspective, management
and leadership. This also supports the views of Glatter (1997) and Bolman and Deal (1997) cited
earlier in this report. Leithwood (1994) adds that “distinctions between management and
leadership cannot be made in terms of overt behaviour... most of the overt practices of
transformational leaders look quite managerial” (p.515).
Managerial leadership focuses on functions, tasks and behaviours. It also assumes that the
behaviour of organisational members is largely rational and that influence is exerted through
positional authority within the organisational hierarchy. It is similar to the formal model of
management.
Post-modern leadership
This is a relatively recent model of leadership which has no generally agreed definition. One
member of the International Steering Group for the project said that “juxtaposing two concepts
routinely accused of vagueness does not hold much promise”. This criticism seems to be valid in
that Starratt’s (2001) discussion of ‘a postmodern theory of democratic leadership’ does not
define the concept beyond suggesting that postmodernism might legitimise the practice of
democratic leadership in schools (p.347).
Keough and Tobin (2001, p.2) provide a definition as a starting point for linking postmodern
leadership to educational policy: “current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of
subjective truths as defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority”. This view
has certain similarities with subjective or interactionist perspectives, which also stress the notion
of individual experience and interpretation of events (Greenfield 1973, Bush 1995).
Keough and Tobin (p.11–13) identify several key features of postmodernism:
• language does not reflect reality

• reality does not exist; there are multiple realities
• any situation is open to multiple interpretations
• situations must be understood at local level with particular attention to diversity
They offer few clues to how leaders are expected to operate within such a framework. This is also
a weakness of the parallel subjective model (Greenfield 1973). The most useful point to emerge
from such analyses is that leaders should respect, and give attention to, the diverse and
individual perspectives of stakeholders. They should also avoid reliance on the hierarchy because
this concept has little meaning in such a fluid organisation. Starratt (2001) aligns postmodernity
with democracy and advocates a “more consultative, participatory, inclusionary stance” (p.348),
an approach which is consistent with collegiality (Bush 1995).

Post-modern leadership focuses on the subjective experience of leaders and teachers and on the
diverse interpretations placed on events by different participants. There is no objective reality,
only the multiple experiences of organisational members. This model offers few guidelines for
leaders except in acknowledging the importance of the individual.
Interpersonal leadership
West-Burnham (2001, p.1) argues that “interpersonal intelligence is the vital medium. It is
impossible to conceptualise any model of leadership that does not have interpersonal intelligence
as a key component.” This seems to be overstated in that some of the models previously
reviewed do not appear to depend on this notion. His definition is:
Interpersonal intelligence is the authentic range of intuitive behaviours derived from

sophisticated self-awareness, which facilitates effective engagement with others. (p.2)
West-Burnham (2001, p.2) links this model to the moral perspective and adds that “there is...
moral imperative on school leaders to adopt a model of personal effectiveness which exemplifies
the values of the school”.
West-Burnham (2001) stresses the importance of collaboration and interpersonal relationships, a

theme taken up by Tuohy and Coghlan (1997):
Much of the teachers’ day is taken up in an intensity of relationships. Understanding the

changing nature of relationships with young students, the changing context of their lives,
and developing appropriate and effective responses to both their personal and academic
needs requires constant reflection and adjustment. (p.67)
These pressures are even more evident in the work of school leaders and suggests a
requirement for high level personal and interpersonal skills (Johnston and Pickersgill 1992).
Interpersonal leadership focuses on the relationships leaders have with teachers, students and
others connected with the school. Leaders adopt a collaborative approach which may have a
moral dimension. They have advanced personal skills which enable them to operate effectively
with internal and external stakeholders.
Contingent leadership
All the models of leadership examined hitherto are partial. They provide valid and helpful insights
into one particular aspect of leadership. Some focus on the process by which influence is exerted
while others emphasise one or more dimensions of leadership. They are mostly normative and
often have vigorous support from their advocates. None of these models provide a complete
picture of school leadership. As Lambert (1995, p.2) notes, there is “no single best type”.
The contingent model provides an alternative approach, recognising the diverse nature of school
contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation rather than
adopting a ‘one size fits all’ stance. Leithwood et al (1999) offer a definition of this model:
This approach assumes that what is important is how leaders respond to the unique
organisational circumstances or problems... there are wide variations in the contexts for
leadership and that, to be effective, these contexts require different leadership

responses...individuals providing leadership, typically those in formal positions of
authority, are capable of mastering a large repertoire of leadership practices. Their
influence will depend, in large measure, on such mastery. (p.15)
Yukl (2002, p.234) adds that “the managerial job is too complex and unpredictable to rely on a set
of standardised responses to events. Effective leaders are continuously reading the situation and
evaluating how to adapt their behaviour to it.”
Bolman and Deal’s (1984) ‘conceptual pluralism’ provides a similar approach to this issue. An
eclectic stance is required where leaders adapt their styles to the context in which they are
operating. These differences are often described in polar terms; people v. performance, male v.
female, managerial v. visionary etc, but the reality is much more complex. Leadership requires
effective diagnosis of problems, followed by adopting the most appropriate response to the issue
or situation (Morgan 1986, Bush 1995).
Fidler (1997, p.27) takes a similar view, arguing that “the choice of conceptualisation will depend
on the situation and on the purpose for which understanding is being sought”. Subsequently, he
argues that “a contingent approach should take account of both the internal situation in the
organisation and the external context in which the organisation operates” (Fidler 2000, p.403).
Leithwood (1994), p.515) makes an interesting link between transformational and contingent
leadership, saying that “transformational leadership practices are themselves contingent”:
Whereas the dimensions of transformational leadership offer a coherent approach to

school leadership, specific practices within each dimension vary widely. So advocating a
transformational approach to school leadership does not entail the specification of a
uniform or rigid set of leadership behaviours. (p.515)
Contingent leadership focuses on how leaders respond to the unique organisational

circumstances or problems they face. The wide variations in school contexts provide the rationale
for this model. Leaders need to be able to adapt their approaches to the particular requirements
of the school, and of the situation or event requiring attention.

Other typologies of leadership
The Leithwood et al (1999) typology has been taken as the starting point for presenting and
differentiating models of leadership but it is important to note that other writers have chosen to
conceptualise leadership in different ways. This section will provide an overview of three of these
alternative typologies. This will be done briefly because several of these models overlap strongly
with the Leithwood et al (1999) categorisation.
Leadership and excellence

Sergiovanni (1984) identifies five ‘leadership forces’:
1. Technical
This is derived from sound management techniques. The technical leader assumes the role of
‘management engineer’. This category is the same as Leithwood et al’s (1999) ‘managerial
leadership’.
2. Human
This is derived from harnessing available social and interpersonal resources. The human leader
assumes the role of ‘human engineer’. This links to both participative and interpersonal
leadership.
3. Educational
This is derived from expert knowledge about matters of education and schooling. The educational
leader assumes the role of ‘clinical practitioner’. This is closely aligned with instructional
leadership.
4. Symbolic
This is derived from focusing the attention of others on matters of importance to the school.
Purposing is of major concern to the symbolic force. This links to overall definitions of leadership
and has certain similarities to transformational leadership.
5. Cultural
This is derived from building a unique school culture. The cultural leader assumes the role of
‘high priest’, seeking to define, strengthen and articulate those enduring values, beliefs and
cultural strands that give the school its unique identity. This links to contemporary conceptions of
leadership and, specifically, to moral leadership.

Four frames of leadership
Bolman and Deal (1997) identify four types of leadership:
1. Structural
The structural perspective assumes that leaders operate as follows:
• focus on achieving established goals

• design a structure to facilitate goal achievement
• limit the impact of environmental turbulence
• encourage specialisation as a way of raising performance
• exercise co-ordination and control to achieve effectiveness
• address organisational problems through restructuring
• (adapted from Bolman and Deal 1997, p.48)
This perspective is consistent with ‘managerial leadership’, as discussed earlier, and with Bush’s
(1995) formal models.
2. Human resources
The human resource perspective is based on the following assumptions:
• organisations exist to serve human needs

• organisations and people need each other
• when the ‘fit’ between the individual and the organisation is poor, one or both will suffer
• a good fit between individual and organisation benefits both
This model relates to the concepts of transactional and transformational leadership discussed
earlier. When leaders act, within the transformational model, to inspire and empower colleagues,
they are fulfilling their most important needs for esteem and self-actualisation. When they operate
within the transactional model, they are meeting colleagues’ lesser needs for security (Maslow
1954).
The human resources model also links to the interpersonal approach (see above).
3. Symbolic
The symbolic perspective is based on the following assumptions:
• the most important aspect of events and situations is not what happens but what it means
• people interpret the same events in different ways
• many events are ambiguous and uncertain
• faced with uncertainty, people create symbols to reduce confusion

• myths, rituals, ceremonies and sagas help people to find meaning from their experience
• (adapted from Bolman and Deal 1997, p.244).
The symbolic perspective is closely linked to transformational leadership, as the authors
demonstrate. “Transforming leaders... are visionary leaders, and visionary leadership is invariably
symbolic” (p.439). The emphasis on different interpretations of events also echoes one of the
central themes of post-modern leadership.
4. Political
The political perspective is based on the following assumptions:
• organisations are coalitions composed of individuals and interest groups

• there are enduring differences in the values and beliefs of groups and individuals
• these differences lead to conflict which is resolved by power
• goals and decisions are the products of bargaining and negotiation
The political perspective has links to managerial leadership as official leaders invariably have
more power than their colleagues and may use it to ensure the dominance of their own goals
(Bush 1995).
Bolman and Deal’s (1997) notion of ‘conceptual pluralism’ is similar to contingent leadership and
also serves to emphasise that successful leaders may need to operate within most or all of these
frameworks. “The truly effective leader and manager will need multiple tools, the skill to use each
of them, and the wisdom to match frames to situations” (p.12).
Elements of leadership
Dimmock and Walker (2002) recognise eight interrelated elements of leadership. They claim that
“the eight provide a convenient and manageable way of encapsulating school leadership” (p.72):
• collaboration and partnership

• motivation
• planning
• decision-making
• interpersonal communication
• conflict
• evaluation and appraisal
• staff and professional development
The authors claim that these can be regarded as “key operational areas of leadership”,
suggesting a managerial approach.

Generic leadership skills and situational leadership
Concepts of leadership include those that relate to leadership skills and competencies and those
that emphasise situational factors. The purpose of this part of the report is to review the empirical
evidence on the relative significance of generic and contextual factors in school leadership. This
section will summarise these findings but additional desk research is recommended to provide a
more comprehensive treatment of this issue.
The English and Welsh National Standards for Headteachers (TTA 1998) provide a clear set of
expected leadership and management skills and competencies for school leaders. The standards
are in five parts:
1. Core purpose of the headteacher
To provide professional leadership for a school which secures its success and improvement,
ensuring high quality education for all its pupils and improved standards of learning and
achievement.
2. Key outcomes of headship
These are expressed in terms of outcomes for:
• schools
• pupils
• teachers
• parents
• governors
3. Professional knowledge and understanding
These are expressed as 16 separate areas of knowledge. The TTA (1998, p.6) states that these
areas “are relevant to all schools, although some aspects will need to be interpreted differently
according to the phase, size and type of school”, a recognition of the need to balance generic and
school-specific knowledge.
4. Skills and attributes
Thirty five leadership skills and attributes are identified in five categories:
• leadership
• decision-making
• communication
• self-management
• attributes

5. Key areas of headship
This section identifies 33 leadership and management tasks for five ‘key areas’ of headship:
• strategic direction and development of the school

• teaching and learning
• leading and managing staff
• effective and efficient deployment of staff and resources.
• accountability
These national standards are central to the NPQH and candidates are expected to demonstrate
that they meet them before being awarded the qualification.
This generic skills approach to NPQH, particularly part four, is similar to trait theory which
dominated the early years of debate about the nature of leadership. Yukl (2002, p.175) defines
trait as “a variety of individual attributes, including aspects of personality, temperament, needs,
motives and values. Personal traits are relatively stable dispositions to behave in a particular way.
Examples include self-confidence, extroversion, emotional maturity, and energy level.”
Yukl (2002) reviews work by Stodgill (1948, 1974) and concludes that:
The review failed to support the basic premise of the trait approach that a person must
possess a particular set of traits to become a successful leader. The importance of each
trait depends on the situation. (p.177)
This approach to leadership and leadership development is also open to the criticism that it
fragments and oversimplifies the requirements for headship. Glatter (1999, p.259), for example,
warned that “the standards were in danger of fostering an excessively atomised and
disaggregated approach which would not reflect the realities of the job”. It also plays little
attention to the different school contexts likely to be experienced by new heads.
Sergiovanni (1984)’s discussion of competence is similar to that of the TTA (1998) while
“excellence is multidimensional, holistic” (p.4). He distinguishes between competent and excellent
schools:
Competence... is marked by mastery of certain predetermined, essential fundamentals...

In excellent schools... a sense of purpose rallies people to a common cause; work has
meaning and life is significant; teachers and students work together and with spirit, and
accomplishments are readily recognised... Competent schools... get the job done in a
satisfactory manner. Excellent schools, however, exceed the expectations necessary to
be considered satisfactory. (pp.5–6)
Regardless of the merits and demerits of the National Standards, and trait theory, it could be
argued that generic skills and attributes are at their most helpful in developing new heads, most
of whom will take up their first headships in a new school. They are much less useful for in-
service development where heads need to acquire the ability to modify their approaches to the
specific requirements of their schools.
Wasserstein-Warnet and Klein (2000) conducted research in 20 Israeli schools to identify “the
characteristics of effective leadership” (p.435) and to assess “whether successful principals act in
a situational manner or whether they adhere to a particular leadership style” (p.438). Their work

shows that “the more successful principals use contingent leadership” (p.448), requiring the ability
to change perspective using a multi-frame, pluralistic perspective and to avoid a ‘static vision’.

Leadership and school context
The contingency model of leadership, referred to earlier, emphasises that each school is unique
in its combination of situational variables. The purpose of this section is to review the evidence on
the impact of school context on leadership. Before doing so, it is important to acknowledge that
the most important variable may be that of culture, both societal and organisational. Globalisation
has led to simplistic assumptions that leadership styles may be universally applicable. Dimmock
and Walker’s (2000, p.144) warning that policies and practices should not be imported without
“due consideration of cultural and contextual appropriateness” may be sound advice for all school
leaders and is particularly significant for cross-border initiatives.
School size
The research on the impact of school size on styles of leadership is limited. Lashway (2002, p.1)
says that “small schools are more likely to nurture a sense of belonging and community, engaging
active student involvement through a positive, humane and caring atmosphere”. This implies that
leaders are more likely to operate in a participative mode and Cotton (1996), drawing on
American evidence, claims that interpersonal relations are more positive in small schools.
Meier (1996) points to one of the advantages of leadership in small schools:
A school’s total faculty should be small enough to meet around one common table.
Whether it’s hammering out a solution to a crisis or working through a long-range
problem, sustained attention over time is required of everyone... once you have more
than 20 people in a group, you’ve lost it. (pp.12–13)
Wilson and McPake’s (1998) research in small Scottish primary schools shows that the main
difference in leadership for such schools is that the headteacher is invariably also a classroom
teacher. As one of their respondents suggests, “I have to come to terms with whether I am the
headteacher or the teacher. The most difficult task is dividing management time and teaching
time.” (p.4)
These authors conclude that the leadership style for small schools should be described as
“situational management – a style based upon a realistic assessment of context, tasks and
available resources” (p.8). This is consistent with the contingent model.
Other contextual factors

There are several other contextual factors which are likely to be significant in influencing
approaches to leadership in schools. Some of these other variables are:
• school type; early years, primary, secondary, special etc

• school location; inner city, suburban, rural etc
• socio-economic factors
• governance, including the nature and level of activity of governors, particularly the chair
• parents; the nature and level of activity of the parent body
• staffing; the experience and commitment of teachers and other staff

• school culture; the values, beliefs, customs and rituals of schools
There is limited evidence on the impact of most of these factors and it is recommended that
additional research is undertaken to address these issues. There is a developing literature on the
relationship between school culture and leadership and it is recommended that further desk
research is undertaken to explore these links.

Conclusion
Comparing the models

Leadership can be understood as a process of influence based on clear values and beliefs and
leading to a ‘vision’ for the school. The vision is articulated by leaders who seek to gain the
commitment of staff and stakeholders to the dream of a better future for the school, its students
and stakeholders.
Each of the models discussed in this report is partial. They provide distinctive but uni-dimensional
perspectives on school leadership. Sergiovanni (1984, p.6) adds that “the current focus in
leadership theory and practice provides a limited view, dwelling excessively on some aspects of
leadership to the virtual exclusion of others”.
The eight models adapted from Leithwood et al (1999), and summarised in this report, show that
concepts of school leadership are complex and diverse. They provide clear normative
frameworks by which leadership can be understood but relatively weak empirical support for
these constructs. They are also artificial distinctions in that most successful leaders are likely to
embody most or all of these approaches in their work.
Hallinger (1992) provides a helpful, although dated, temporal perspective on what are probably
the three most important models; managerial, instructional and transformational. He argues that
there has been a shift in expectations of American principals which can be explained as changing
conceptions of school leadership. These three phases were:
1. Managerial
During the 1960s and 1970s, principals came to be viewed as change agents for government
initiatives:
These categorical programmes and curriculum reforms represented innovations

conceived and introduced by policymakers outside the local school... the principal’s role,
though apparently crucial, was limited to managing the implementation of an externally
devised solution to a social or educational problem. (p.36) (Original author’s emphasis)
2. Instructional
By the mid 1980s, the emphasis had shifted to the ‘new orthodoxy’ of instructional leadership.
“The instructional leader was viewed as the primary source of knowledge for development of the
school’s educational programme” (p.37).
We noted earlier that this model is primarily about the direction rather than the process of
influence. This view is reflected in two contemporary criticism of instructional leadership:
• an inability “to document the processes by which leaders helped their schools to become
instructionally effective” (pp.37–38)
• principals did not have “the instructional leadership capacities needed for meaningful
school improvement” (p.38)

3. Transformational
During the 1990s, a new conception of leadership emerged based on the assumption that
schools were becoming the “unit responsible for the initiation of change, not just the
implementation of change conceived by others” (p.40). This led to the notion of transformational
leadership, as principals sought to enlist support from teachers and other stakeholders to
participate in a process of identifying and addressing school priorities.
Hallinger (1992) follows Sergiovanni (1992) in stating that instructional leadership should not be
the predominant role of principals:
The legitimate instructional leaders... ought to be teachers. And principals ought to be

leaders of leaders: people who develop the instructional leadership in their teachers.
(p.41)
In this view, transformational leadership is the vehicle for promoting and developing the
instructional leadership capabilities of classroom teachers and those leaders with direct
responsibility for promoting learning.
The Hallinger (1992) distinction provides a starting point for a normative assessment of school
leadership in the 21st century. Managerial leadership has been discredited as limited and
technicist but it is an essential component of successful leadership, ensuring the implementation
of the school’s vision and strategy. Instructional leadership is vital to ensure a continuing focus on
teaching and learning but this focuses on the direction rather than the process of influence. Moral
leadership is similar to the transformational model but with a stronger emphasis on values and
beliefs. The participative model stresses the importance of team work but does not constitute a
distinctive approach to leadership. Postmodern leadership focuses on individual interpretation of
events while the interpersonal model emphasises the need for good relationships between staff,
students and other stakeholders. The contingent model outlines an approach that recognises the
significance of situational leadership, with heads and other senior staff adapting their approach to
the unique circumstances of their schools.
An integrated model needs to start with a contingent approach because a specific vision for the
school, a hallmark of the transformational model, cannot be independent of this context.
Transformational leadership then provides the basis for articulating and working towards this
vision. Instructional leadership is compatible with a transformational approach because it
indicates, in broad terms, what the main priority of any learning organisation ought to be.
Managerial leadership remains important because it is necessary to ensure effective
implementation of policies arising from the outcomes of the transformational process.
Comparing the typologies

The alternative typologies offered by Sergiovanni (1984), Bolman and Deal (1997) and Dimmock
and Walker (2002) demonstrate that there are other plausible ways of explaining school
leadership. The models of leadership and management discussed by Bush (1995) also overlap
with some of these ideas. Table 3 shows the connections between these typologies and the
framework adapted from Leithwood et al (1999).

Leithwood et al (1999), Sergiovanni Bolman and Deal Dimmock and Bush (1995)
adapted by Bush and (1984) (1997) Walker (2002)
Glover (2002)
Instruction Educational
Transformational Symbolic Symbolic
Moral
Participative Collaboration Collegial
and partnership
Managerial Technical Structural Planning and Formal
decision-making
Post-modern Subjective
Inter-personal Human Human resources Interpersonal
communication
Contingent Cultural pluralism
Cultural Cultural
Political Conflict Political
Table 3: Comparing Leadership Typologies
Table 3 shows a large measure of agreement about models of leadership. All five typologies
include managerial leadership, under various titles, while inter-personal or human resource
models appear in four of them and transformational and participative models feature in three of
them.
Implications for leadership development

The leadership models featured in this report provide powerful normative explanations of
leadership behaviour in schools. There is also some empirical evidence to support most of these
concepts. The insights from these models provide helpful guidelines for those devising and
implementing leadership development programmes:
• Given the significance of instructional leadership, these programmes should have a clear
focus on learning, the main purpose of schools, and on the teaching required to
promote effective learning. This inevitably means training to ensure that leaders at all
levels are able to monitor and evaluate teaching and learning and are willing and able to
implement strategies such as classroom observation as part of the evaluation process.
• The continuing endorsement of transformational leadership in the literature, and in formal

policy statements, suggests a need for programmes to develop the portfolio of skills
required to ‘transform’ schools. These include developing an explicit vision for the
school which inspires teachers and other stakeholders to work towards a better future.
• To avoid the problems that may be associated with transformational leadership, including
the potential for manipulation of followers, it is important for leaders to develop a
participative, or team, approach which enables staff and others to contribute to the
process of visioning rather than simply accepting the leader’s personal vision.
• Training should include management as well as leadership to ensure effective

implementation of the vision.

• The contingency model suggests a requirement for leaders to develop a portfolio of
leadership styles. They need to be able to carry out effective situational analysis to
show that they are able to adapt their approaches to the specific context.
Implications for research

This report summarises a substantial body of normative literature on school leadership. However,
despite the contemporary interest in this topic, and its established links with school effectiveness
and school improvement, there are still many gaps in our understanding about leadership. There
are also few empirical studies, particularly in the British context, about the nature of leadership,
the relative efficacy of different approaches and about how effective leaders operate. There is
considerable scope for new research and the following suggestions are intended to be illustrative
rather than comprehensive:
• The current interest in transformational leadership suggests a need to examine what

constitutes a transformational approach. How do successful leaders develop their visions
and to what extent are these shared rather than imposed? How are the visions translated
into actions likely to produce the intended outcomes? It may be particularly helpful to field
test the stages developed by Begley (1994) to categorise leaders’ ability to develop a
distinctive vision for their schools.
• Given the emerging view that women are more likely than men to adopt transformational
leadership styles (Coleman 2002), how and why do women leaders operate within this
paradigm? Qualitative research on how effective women leaders implement
transformational approaches would be a valuable corollary to the wider work on vision
suggested above.
• The current emphasis on distributed or dispersed leadership, for example in NCSL’s

Leadership Propositions, suggests a need to examine what constitutes a distributed
approach? How does this differ from the participative model discussed in this report and
from the collegial approaches which have been popular in the official and academic
literature for almost two decades (Bush forthcoming).
• Given the rapid and multiple changes facing schools in the 21st century, how and to what
extent do leaders adapt their styles to new events and changing situations? Do
successful leaders adopt a contingency approach, choosing the most appropriate tool
from a range of strategies honed from a combination of experience and professional
development?
• What is the impact of different contextual factors on the nature of school leadership? Do
leaders operate differently according to school type, location and socio-economic
factors? How do leaders adapt their approach to cope with stakeholder variables, such as
the nature and level of involvement of governors, parents and staff? What is the impact of
school culture on the nature of leadership and how do new leaders seek to change
school culture?

These suggestions provide a basis for a programme of research which could make a significant
contribution to our understanding of the nature of school leadership and to differentiating
successful and less successful leadership styles. Given the established link between leadership
and school outcomes, such research could make a valuable contribution to school improvement.

Bibliography
Alexander, R., Rose, J. and Woodhead, C. (1992), Curriculum Organisation and Classroom
Practice in Primary Schools: A Discussion Paper, London, Department of Education and Science.
Allix, N.M. (2000), Transformational Leadership: Democratic or Despotic? Educational

Management and Administration, 28 (1), 7–20.
Beare, H., Caldwell, B., and Millikan, R. (1992), Creating an Excellent School. London:
Routledge.
Begley, P.T. (1994), School Leadership: A Profile Document, www.oise.utoronto.ca/~vsvede
Bennis, W. and Nanus, B. (1985), Leaders, New York, Harper and Row.
Blase, J. and Blase, J. R. (1998), Handbook of Instructional Leadership: How Really Good
Principals Promote Teaching and Learning, London, Sage.
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Pocklington, K. and Weindling, D. (1993), Effective Management in
Schools, London, HMSO.
Bolman, L. and Deal, T. (1984), Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing

Organisations, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Bolman, L.G. and Deal, T.E. (1997), Reframing Organizations: Artistry, Choice and Leadership.
San Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass.
Bottery, M. (1999), Globalisation and the UK competition state: no room for transformational
leadership in education?, School Leadership and Management, 21 (2), 199–218.
Burns, J.M. (1978), Leadership, New York, Harper and Row.
Bush, T. (1986), Theories of Educational Management, London, Harper and Row.
Bush, T. (1995), Theories of Educational Management: Second Edition, London, Paul Chapman.
Bush, T. (1998) The National Professional Qualification for Headship: the key to effective school
leadership?, School Leadership and Management, 18(3) 321–34.
Bush, T. (1999) Crisis or Crossroads? The Discipline of Educational Management in the Late
1990s, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3), 239–52.
Bush, T. (Forthcoming), Theories of Educational Leadership and Management: Third Edition,

London, Paul Chapman.
Chirichello, M. (1999), Building Capacity for Change: Transformational Leadership for School
Principals, Paper presented at ICSEI Conference, January 3–6, San Antonio.
Coleman, M. (1996), Management style of female headteachers, Educational Management and

Administration, 24(2), 163–74.

Coleman, M. (2002), Women as Headteachers: Striking the Balance, Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham
Books.
Copland, M. (2001), The myth of the superprincipal, Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 528–32.
Cotton, K. (1996), School Size, School Climate and Student Performance, Portland, Northwest
Regional Educational Laboratory.
Cuban, L. (1988), The Managerial Imperative and the Practice of Leadership in Schools. Albany,
NY, State University of New York Press.
Daresh, J. (1998), Professional development for school leadership: the impact of US educational
reform, International Journal of Educational Research, 29 (4), 323–33.
Day, C., Harris, A. and Hadfield M. (2001), Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school
leadership, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (1), 39–56.
Dempster, N. and Logan, L. (1998), Expectations of school leaders, in MacBeath, J. (Ed.),

Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change, London, Paul Chapman.
Dimmock, C. (1999), Principals and school restructuring: conceptualising challenges as

dilemmas, Journal of Educational Administration, 37 (5), 441–62.
Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (2000), Introduction: justifying a cross-cultural comparative approach

to school leadership and management, School Leadership and Management, 20 (2), 137–41.
Dimmock, C. and Walker, A. (2002), School leadership in context – societal and organisational
cultures, in Bush, T. and Bell, L. (Eds), The Principles and Practice of Educational Management,
Dressler, B. (2001), Charter School leadership, Education and Urban Society, 33 (2), 170–85.
Fidler, B. (1997), School leadership: some key ideas, School Leadership and Management, 17
(1), 23–37.
Fidler, B. (2000), A situational approach to leadership, School Leadership and Management,

20(4), 403–05.
Foreman, K. (1998), Vision and mission, in Middlewood, D. and Lumby, J. (Eds.), Strategic
Management in Schools and Colleges, London, Paul Chapman.
Fullan, M. (1992a), Successful School Improvement, Buckingham, Open University Press.
Fullan, M. (1992b), Visions that blind, Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 19–20.
Geltner, B. and Shelton, M. (1991), Expanded notions of strategic instructional leadership: the
principal’s role with student support personnel, Journal of School Leadership, 1, 338–50.
Glatter, R. (1997), Context and capability in educational management, Educational Management

and Administration, 25(2), 181–92.
Glatter, R. (1999), From struggling to juggling: towards a redefinition of the field of educational
leadership and management, Educational Management and Administration, 27 (3), 253–66.

Gold, A., Evans, J., Earley, P., Halpin, D. and Collarbone, P. (2002), Principled Principals?
Values-driven Leadership: Evidence from Ten Case Studies of ‘Outstanding’ Leaders, Paper
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, April.
Goldring, E.B. (1992), System-wide diversity in Israel, Journal of Educational Administration, 30

(3), 49–62.
Grace, G. (2000), Research and the challenges of contemporary school leadership: the
contribution of critical scholarship, British Journal of Educational Studies, 48 (3), 231–47.
Greenfield, T. (1973), Organisations as social inventions: rethinking assumptions about change,

Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 9(5), 551–74.
Greenfield, T. (1991), Re-forming and re-valuing educational administration: whence and when
cometh the Phoenix, Educational Management and Administration, 19(4), 200–17.
Greenfield, T. and Ribbins, P. (eds.) (1993), Greenfield on Educational Administration: Towards a

Humane Science, London, Routledge.
Greenfield, W., Licata, J. and Johnson, B. (1992), Towards a measurement of school vision,
Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2), 65–76.
Gunter, H. (2001), Leaders and Leadership in Education, London, Paul Chapman.
Hallinger, P. (1992), The evolving role of American principals: from managerial to instructional to
transformational leaders, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–48.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1999), Next generation methods for the study of leadership and
school improvement, in Murphy, J. and Louis, K. (eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Administration, 2nd edition, San Francisco, Jossey Bass, (141–62).
Hallinger, P. and Murphy, J. (1985), Assessing the instructional management behaviour of

principals, The Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–47.
Harris, A. (2002), Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or Misleading?, Paper presented at

the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society annual conference,
Birmingham, September.
Hill, P. (2001), What Principals Need to Know About Teaching and Learning, University of
Melbourne, paper presented to the National College for School Leadership Think Tank, London.
Johnston, J. and Pickersgill, S. (1992), Personal and interpersonal aspects of effective team
oriented headship in the primary school, Educational Management and Administration, 20 (4),
239–48.
Keough, T. and Tobin, B. (2001), Postmodern Leadership and the Policy Lexicon: From Theory,
Proxy to Practice, Paper for the Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium,
Quebec, May.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (1996), The Leadership Challenge, San Francisco, Jossey Bass.
Lambert, L. (1995), New directions in the preparation of educational leaders, Thrust for

Educational Leadership 24 (5), 6–10.
Lashway, L. (1997), Measuring Leadership: Research Roundup 14,2 University of Oregon, ERIC.
Leithwood, K. (1992), The move towards transformational leadership, Educational Leadership,

49(5), 8–9.
Leithwood, K. (1994), Leadership for school restructuring, Educational Administration Quarterly,

30(4), 498–518.
Leithwood, K. (2001), School leadership in the context of accountability policies, International

Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(3), 217–35.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times,
Buckingham, Open University Press.
Levacic, R., Glover, D., Bennett, N. and Crawford, M. (1999), Modern headship for the rationally
managed school: cerebral and insightful approaches, in Bush, T., Bell, L., Bolam, R., Glatter, R.
and Ribbins P. (eds.) Educational Management: refining theory, policy and practice, London: Paul
Chapman.
Maslow, A. (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York, Harper and Row.
Meier, D.W. ( 1996), The big benefits of smallness, Educational Leadership 54 (1), pp.12–15.
Miller, T.W. and Miller, J.M. (2001), Educational leadership in the new millennium: a vision for
2020, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (2), 181–89.
Millett, A. (1996), A head is more than a manager, Times Educational Supplement, 15 July.
Mintzberg, H. (1994), The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey,
Prentice Hall.
Moos, L., Mahony, P. and Reeves, J. (1998), What teachers, parents, governors and pupils want
from their heads, in MacBeath, J. (Ed.), Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change,
Morgan, G. (1986), Images of Organisation, Newbury Park, California, Sage.
Murphy, J. and Hallinger, P. (1992), The principalship in an era of transformation, Journal of

Educational Administration, 30 (3), 77–88.
Myers, E. and Murphy, J. (1995), Suburban secondary school principals’ perceptions of

administrative control in schools, Journal of Educational Administration, 33(3), 14–37.
National College for School Leadership (2001a), First Corporate Plan: Launch Year 2001-2002,
Nottingham, National College for School Leadership, www.ncsl.gov.uk
National College for School Leadership (2001b), Leadership Development Framework,

Nottingham, NCSL.
Neuman, M. and Simmons, W. (2000), “Leadership for student learning”, Phi Delta Kappan, pp.9–
13, September.

Nias, J., Southworth, G. and Campbell, P. (1992), Whole School Curriculum Development in the
Primary School, London, Falmer.
Ogawa, R.T. and Bossert, S.T. (1995), Leadership as an organizational quality, Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31 (2), 224–43.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J. and Mortimore, P. (1995), Key Characteristics of Effective Schools: A
Review of School Effectiveness Research, London, Office for Standards in Education and
Institute of Education, University of London.
Savery, L., Soutar, G. and Dyson, J. (1992), Ideal decision-making styles indicated by deputy
principals, Journal of Educational Administration, 30(2), 18–25.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984), Leadership and excellence in schooling, Educational Leadership, 41(5),

4–13.
Sergiovanni, T.J. (1991), The Principalship: a reflective practice perspective, Needham Heights,
MA, Allyn and Bacon.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992), Moral Leadership: Getting to the Heart of School Improvement, San-
Francisco, CA, Jossey Bass.
Sheppard, B. (1996), Exploring the transformational nature of instructional leadership, Alberta

Journal of Educational Research, XLII(4), 325–44.
Southworth, G. (1993), School leadership and school development: reflections from research,
School Organisation, 13 (1), 73–87.
Southworth, G. (1997), Primary headship and leadership, in Crawford, M., Kydd, L. and Riches,
C, Leadership and Teams in Educational Management, Buckingham, Open University Press.
Southworth, G. (2002), Instructional leadership in schools: reflections and empirical evidence,

School Leadership and Management, 22 (1), 73–92.
Starratt, R. J. (2001), Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: an oxymoron or ironic

possibility? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (4), 333–52.
Stodgill, R. (1948), Personal factors associated with leadership: a survey of the literature, Journal
of Psychology, 25, 35–71.
Stodgill, R. (1974), Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of the Literature, New York, Free Press.
Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996), Changing our Schools, Milton Keynes, Open University Press.
TTA, (Teacher Training Agency), (1998) National Standards for Headteachers; National
Standards for Subject Leaders: National Standards for Qualified Teacher Status, London, TTA.
Tuohy, D. and Coghlan, D. (1997), Development in schools: a systems approach based on

organisational levels, Education Management and Administration, 25 (1), 65–77.
Wasserberg, M. (1999), Creating the vision and making it happen, in Tomlinson, H., Gunter, H.
and Smith, P. (Eds.), Living Headship: Voices, Values and Vision, London, Paul Chapman.

Wasserstein-Warnet, M. and Klein, Y. (2000), Principals' cognitive strategies for changes of
perspective in school innovation, School Leadership and Management, 20 (4), 435–57.
Webb, R. and Vulliamy, G. (1996), The changing role of the primary headteacher, Educational
Management and Administration, 24 (3), 301–15.
West-Burnham, J. (1997), Leadership for learning: reengineering ‘mind sets’, School Leadership
and Management, 17(2), 231–243.
West-Burnham, J. (2001), Interpersonal leadership, NCSL Leading Edge Seminar, Nottingham,

National College for School Leadership.
Wilson, V. and McPake, J. (1998), A Small School Management Style – Appearance or Reality,
Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference.
Yukl, G. A. (2002) Leadership in Organizations, Fifth Edition, Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice-
Hall.

Appendix 1: Audit trail
The literature search for this report was structured around three themes:
• school leadership, management and administration

• models of leadership
• leadership effectiveness
These themes were searched using the BIDS, ERIC, EBSCO, SWETSNET/NESLI and Education
Abstracts search engines. A net search was also used with eight search terms:
• leadership
• management
• administration
• leadership models
• leadership effectiveness
• leadership training
• contingency
This search also included use of the Australian, Hong Kong and Singaporean university web-
sites, which largely produced repeat references. The initial search of all these databases focused
on the period from 1992 until 2002. Following the original trawl, the search focused on material
from 1996 for direct references and on the full period for secondary references.
The original trawl resulted in 849 titles. Many of these were subsequently discarded because the
keywords had been used inappropriately or the areas covered were either too narrow or too
broad for this investigation. From the original list, the abstracts from 482 titles were examined of
which 216 sources were selected for further reading because their content related to definitions,
practice or models of leadership. The 216 titles were included in the initial literature review which,
in turn, formed the basis for the interim report (Bush and Glover 2002) submitted in May 2002. An
additional 32 references were examined following comments from the international consultants.
The audit process is summarised in Table 4:
Audit Trail Numbers of references

Initial trawl of databases 849
Abstracts scrutinised 482
Titles reviewed for the interim report 216
Titles examined following comments from international consultants 32
Total number of titles reviewed for the final report 248
Table 4: Audit trail for the literature review

School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence: Full Report - Spring 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence: Full Report - Spring 2003

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence: Full Report - Spring 2003

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

School Leadership:

Concepts and Evidence

A review of the literature

Definitions of school leadership 4

Leadership, management and administration 9

A typology for leadership 11

Other typologies of leadership 23

Generic leadership skills and situational leadership 26

Leadership and school context 29

Appendix 1: Audit trail 42

National College for School Leadership 2

National College for School Leadership 3

Outstanding leadership has invariably emerged as a key characteristic of outstanding

Leadership and values

National College for School Leadership 4

Leadership and vision

1. Outstanding leaders have a vision for their organisations

National College for School Leadership 5

3. Communication of vision requires communication of meaning

4. Attention should be given to institutionalising vision if leadership is to be successful

Articulation and communication of the vision need to be supported by a process of ‘implanting’

National College for School Leadership 6

Level Vision Derived Goals

National College for School Leadership 7

Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. Successful

National College for School Leadership 8

School leaders [experience] tensions between competing elements of leadership,

Leadership and management

By leadership, I mean influencing others’ actions in achieving desirable ends. Leaders

Managing is maintaining efficiently and effectively current organisational arrangements.

Rather than emphasising a framework of technical rationality, in which goals and

National College for School Leadership 9

Methods… [are] are as important as knowledge, understanding and value orientations…

Leadership is a process of influence leading to the achievement of desired purposes. It involves

National College for School Leadership 10

The narrow definition focuses on instructional leadership as a separate entity from

• defining the school mission

National College for School Leadership 11

Despite these comments, instructional leadership is a very important dimension because it

Leithwood et al (1999) provide a detailed definition of this model of leadership:

National College for School Leadership 12

Transactional leadership is leadership in which relationships with teachers are based

In transformative leadership, by contrast, leaders and followers are united in pursuit of

Leithwood (1994) conceptualises transformational leadership along eight dimensions:

• building school vision

Goldring (1992) points to a shift from transactional to transformational leadership in Israeli

National College for School Leadership 13

Areas of change Principals as routine-managers Principals as leader-managers of

Transformational leadership practices, considered as a composite construct, had

The transformational model is comprehensive in that it provides a normative approach to school

National College for School Leadership 14

Transformational leadership describes a particular type of influence process based on increasing

West-Burnham (1997) discusses two approaches to leadership which may be categorised as

National College for School Leadership 15

• demonstrate causal consistency between principle and practice

National College for School Leadership 16

• participation will increase school effectiveness

Participative leadership may also be conceptualised as ‘distributed’. Neuman and Simmons