school leadership research questions

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

Why is school leadership key to transforming education? Structural and cultural assumptions for quality education in diverse contexts

Monica mincu.

1 Department of Philosophy and Educational Sciences, University of Turin, Palazzo Nuovo, Via Sant’Ottavio, 20, 10124 Torino, TO Italy

2 Institute of Education, UCL, Centre for Educational Leadership, London, United Kingdom

Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling is unfortunate and must be redressed. Leadership is fundamentally about organized agency and collective vision, not managerialism, since it is an organizational quality, not merely a positionality attribute. Most important, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur uniquely at the individual teachers’ level. School organization is fundamental to circulating and consolidating new innovative actions, cognitive schemes, and behaviors in coherent collective practices. This article engages with the relevance of governance patterns, school organization, and wider cultural and pedagogical factors that shape various leadership configurations. It formulates several assumptions that clarify the importance of leadership in any organized change. The way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, while their ability to act with agency is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change. A hierarchical imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation.

In recent years, transformation has emerged as a high priority in key policy documents (OECD, 2015 , 2020a , 2020b ; Paterson et al., 2018 ; UNESCO, 2021 ) and been recognized as a major pillar on which the very future of education is based. A galvanized international scene has put transformation at the top of the agenda. One reason is found in the recent Covid-19 emergency and the need to recover, and possibly to “build back better”. Other reasons are longer-term and relate to dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many parts of the world. Major international agencies have been directly involved in reform and have variously endorsed “educational planning” (e.g., Carron et al., 2010 ), systemic reform in highly centralized countries, school autonomy (framed as school-based management or decentralization), systemic adjustment and restructuring (e.g., Carnoy, 1998 ; Samoff, 1999 ), and accountability (Anderson, 2005 ), as well as capacity building and development (De Grauwe, 2009 ). However, in practice, only segments of reforms have been enacted, focusing on one aspect of the school system while neglecting others, without considering the larger governance and school architecture, and local pedagogical cultures. Some agencies have also expressed a renewed interest in innovation and the possibility to measure it (Vincent-Lancrin et al., 2019 ), from a rather managerial perspective.

The transformation of education is a trendy movement nowadays, with the potential to generate lasting change through wide-reaching actions, not just stylistically or in local projects. Transformation of this kind will occur when structural and organizational conditions are in place in a range of different settings. When this happens, transformation as a revamped concept of change can be wholeheartedly embraced. Nonetheless, both academic and development-oriented NGO research has long dedicated itself to and learned from systemic change, improvement, and reform, based on what have been defined as effective practices (Ko & Sammons, 2016 ; Townsend, 2007 ). The school effectiveness findings are typically transversal principles of what has proved valuable despite contextual variation, whilst noting the local variability of such principles (Teddlie & Stringfield, 2017 ) especially in low and middle income countries (Moore, 2022 ) and even in similar areas of education development (Boonen et al., 2013 ; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008 ). Some variability often occurs between consolidated and less consolidated school systems. School improvement has been based on scholars’ findings on school effectiveness, as these two areas can merge up to a certain point (Creemers & Reezigt, 2005 ; Stoll & Fink, 1996 ). Reform at the top and improvement at the ground level have long been trialed in different national and organizational settings and with different school populations, with the aim of establishing generalizability or local variation. Quality teaching (Bowe & Gore, 2016 ; Darling-Hammond, 2021 ; Hattie, 2009 ) or teachers (Hanushek, 2010 , 2014 ; Mincu, 2015 ; Akiba & LeTendre, 2017 ), as well as equitable effective practices (Sammons, 2010 ) have also been classic research topics that have emerged center-stage in any change project.

In order for quality-promoting endeavors such as change, improvement, and reform to produce a transformed education, several assumptions are indispensable: (a) recognize the larger school and organizational context as crucial, alongside school architecture and processes, (b) define what quality education means across a variety of country contexts and with regard to specific structural arrangements and pedagogical cultures, (c) distinguish the degree and type of autonomy for schools and teachers, and estimate the effectiveness of their mixed interactions, (d) understand and cope from a change perspective within a variety of school cultures, (e) recognize the structural limitations faced by school leadership, as well as the margins to produce local, gradual improvement that can pave the way to radical transformation, and (f) start any significant change at the school level, in the interaction of leaders and teachers.

What is school leadership and how can it bring about change? On the one hand, leadership is about a vision of change, collectively shaped and supported. In this sense, radical change—i.e., transformation—cannot occur without leaders and especially school leaders. In addition, an effective vision about a desired change grows from the interactions of the school actors and is stimulated and orchestrated by the school leadership. An imposition from above as well as a lack of leadership vision in fragmented school cultures cannot determine any transformation, nor its subsequent stability or growth, given that some grass roots changes happen accidentally, in limited school areas. In fact, if change is to be systemic and transformative, it cannot occur at the individual teachers’ level, as then it cannot be circulated and consolidated in stable, coherent collective practices. Action at the school level is fundamental for change to occur and last, as well as for individual teachers to be encouraged, supported, and rewarded for their innovative behavior. On the other hand, change is often conceptualized as a gradual process of a series of stages (Fullan, 2015 ; Kotter, 2012 ), carefully incorporating structural and cultural adjustments (Kools & Stoll, 2016 ). Transformation, a less orthodox and robust concept, incorporates the desire for more abrupt and radical change. It is imagined as a possibility to “leapfrog”. This desire to move rapidly forward resonates with the “window of opportunity” phase when big changes can occur more smoothly. However, at the school and even systemic level, complex changes resulting in net improvements are most often gradually prepared and stimulated, since any change is cultural in essence, and as such it needs time to occur. Another relevant aspect is related to leadership as an ingredient and quality, not just a positionality attribute. Both assumptions suggest the inevitability of its role to any change in education as an organized endeavor.

Larger contexts and school organizations are key in any transformation

Education does not occur in an organizational vacuum, since deschooling, mass home-schooling, or online-only paradigms are neither implemented nor envisioned. In addition, a concept of education exclusively posed in philosophical and theoretical terms, especially when aimed at transforming the status quo, neglects to take into account that schooling is enmeshed with different organizational and governance forms, at times in contradiction with its own theoretical bases. Most important, forms of sociality such as those sustained by schools have not declined in relevance but increased, in the aftermath of the global online experiment of the pandemic emergency. At the same time, improvements and even radical changes in education have been embraced and actively promoted in certain parts of the world. For instance, in Norway, renewed weekly timetables are in place, allowing for deep learning as well as better integration with virtual knowledge in high-stakes exams. One should not forget that most pupils around the world are educated in environments displaying significant structural convergences across countries, despite locally diverse values. Such teaching-oriented settings are characterized by the centrality of the adult as teacher, and most often by textbook-based education. The organizational arrangements are linear, based on daily subjects and teachers’ contractual time, mainly dedicated to teaching activities (the stavka system, see Steiner-Khamsi, 2016 , 2020 ) or to ad hoc self-help actions in extreme emergency contexts. Linked to these, school cultures can be both hierarchical (rules are delivered “from above”) and fragmented, since class teachers may be left to themselves without adequate professional support. Whilst the reality is nuanced and school typologies are in any case sociological abstractions, most systems can still be described as basically centralized or decentralized, depending on the level of autonomy granted to schools or local authorities. The larger school contexts as well as the local ones are even today very diverse in these two cases, despite a global increase in diversified combinations of centralization of some aspects and decentralization of others. What Archer ( 1979 ) theorized in her landmark work is still a key valid explanation of how school organizations usually operate and change. With renewed categories, a centralized system is largely characterized by “hierarchies”, real or perceived, and less by “networks and markets”, whilst in the case of decentralized systems, the opposite is true. The same differences can be highlighted in more comprehensive or selective school types, whose visions and ways of functioning are coherent with their structural patterns and influence, and in turn, with how leaders perceive their role and mission.

In terms of leadership, differing configurations will bring differing consequences. Centralized countries with weak school autonomy approach the role of school leaders in a rather formalist way: as primus inter pares or as administrative and legal head. In these settings, the intermediate level is also very weak and largely based on ad hoc tasks. Flat organizations may not support leadership as an essential element in the school’s operational life, and instead focus primarily on teaching, which is mainly viewed as an individual endeavor. School organizations at odds with leadership as a system quality, both in organizational and instructional terms, often exhibit forms of fragmentation (Mincu & Romiti, 2022 ), even in societies that may share a collectivistic or communitarian ethos, such as in East Asia. In countries with significant school autonomy, leadership structures are more manifestly in place, given the increased tasks performed by schools. Often, an excess of hierarchical leadership is a major negative outcome. However, the school context can be characterized by mixed combinations of types of governance (hierarchies, networks, markets) (Mincu & Davies, 2019 ; Mincu & Liu, 2022 ), which have a significant influence on the way leadership is oriented and how it accomplishes its visionary, organizational, and instructional functions within the school and in relation to society. School leadership is both a processual quality and a positional trait, and thus it can be variously performed in high autonomy school systems. In the case of centralized arrangements, it can be much harder to identify leadership as process where there is just some form of leadership positionality: a legal school head or the existence of subject-matter departments. School contexts and organizations around the world are also diverse in terms of leadership configurations and roles: some schools may share the same leader (Italy), some may not provide many leadership positions at all (India), and others may specify a headship position which does not in fact offer any leadership or cohesion in organizational and pedagogical matters. Indeed, leadership may be entirely missing from certain school systems.

To summarize, the way teachers act and represent their reality is strongly influenced by the architecture of their organization, along with the quality, direction, and margins of power that can be exerted by leadership at the school and intermediate levels. Nevertheless, schools are large organizations, and as such a certain amount of alignment and direction is needed, which is what leadership provides.

The autonomy of schools and that of teachers are not mutually exclusive

Closely related to the first assumption, for a functional and dynamic school organization, a certain amount of school autonomy is required to adequately balance teachers’ autonomy. In high school autonomy systems, there is a tendency to assume that teachers’ autonomy is quite reduced, and this is certainly the case if the education model is accountability-oriented and leadership is hierarchical. In less autonomous systems, huge resistance to instill more autonomy at the school level is usually deployed—for example, in strongly unionist cultures, which aim to extend and expand teachers’ independence. This translates into quite radical teachers’ autonomy on pedagogical matters, as is the case in certain European school systems (Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

An excess of teachers’ autonomy is detrimental to coherence and alignment at the school level and affects both quality and equity. The metaphors of teachers in their classes as eggs in their egg crates or lions behind closed doors, in the words of a ministry official in Italy, are particularly telling about flat, non-collaborative structures. The idea that high teacher autonomy may automatically support collegiality in flat organizations is not supported by the reality on the ground in certain school systems. In sociological terms, any human organization requires a certain amount of hierarchy and collegiality. In fact, a certain quantity of school autonomy is beneficial in many ways and can enhance teachers’ agency: (a) it emphasizes the role of leaders, including the possibility for teachers to act with leadership, (b) it offers a direction that can be shared, (c) it stimulates people to come together in effective ways (communities of practice) whilst presenting the risk of some contrived collegiality, and (d) it encourages teachers to feel more supported in their own work and professional development.

In a nutshell, leadership’s margins of influence are shaped not only by overall system governance, but also by the amount of school autonomy they enjoy. In addition, the extent of organizational autonomy is directly linked to the existence of flat or prominent hierarchies, both potentially problematic for deep and systemic change.

School cultures converge and diverge in multiple ways within and across countries

Pedagogical transformation is about a change in cultural assumptions, which entails a slow process of cognitive and emotional modification that has to be supported beyond school walls by concerted social and economic actions. Structural change will not be successful without an adjustment in people’s cognitive schemes about their practices and values. How teachers conceive of teaching and learning, and of equitable and inclusive approaches, is not essentially a matter of “lack of training”, for which more preparation may be the solution. It is instead a matter of deep pedagogical beliefs, whose roots are shared and societal. How to discipline class misbehavior, for example, and even what inappropriate classroom behavior is, varies widely across societies: it denotes (generational at times) power distance, gender relations, assumptions about individuality and collectivistic entities, as well as merit recognition and social envy avoidance. For Hargreaves ( 1994 ), school culture is the result of the intertwining of attitudes such as individualism, collaboration, contrived collegiality, and “balkanization”, i.e., fragmentation of ethical goals. Stoll ( 2000 ) herself describes schools in terms of social cohesion and social control as traditional, welfarist, “hothouse”, or anomic. In contrast, for Hood ( 1998 ), there are four possible combinations of social cohesion and regulation: (a) fatalistic: compliance with rules but little cooperation to achieve results, (b) hierarchical (bureaucratic): social cohesion and cooperation and a rules-based approach, (c) individualist: fragmented approaches to organizing that require negotiation among various actors, and (d) egalitarian: very meaningful participation structures, highly participatory decision-making, a culture of peer support.

In reality, mixed combinations of two, three, or more types of cultures can be found and supported by a variety of factors within and beyond schools as organizations. Some Southern European realities, as well as some Eastern European systems, belong to the individualist typology: weak collaboration and weak hierarchy, given the absence of a teaching career structure with levels of preparation and strong autonomy of the individual teacher. Some aspects of institutional “fatalism” are present, because a certain culture of respect for rules nevertheless exists, and of egalitarianism of a rather formal type. In fact, while the collegial culture on a formal level may appear robust—given the presence of collegial bodies—in practice organizational coherence remains very weak. The reason lies in the fact that these bodies can also decide not to agree on any systemic solution and defer decisions to the individual teacher, since teacher autonomy is still the superior criterion governing informal culture in schools. In the Anglo-Saxon and Scandinavian school systems, for example, schools express more coherent and cohesive cultures that oscillate between very hierarchical and more participatory models, with more diffuse leadership (Seashore-Louis, 2015 ). Even though these latter school systems favor a mostly cohesive ethos, it is not uncommon to find fragmented and inconsistent schools with weak leadership.

As an example of how school cultures work, a culturally well-rooted premise that teachers “are all good” is very much at work in certain flat hierarchical or Confucian-oriented school cultures, meaning they are equally effective because morally oriented for the profession. This is, in fact, a convenient belief allowing those within it to oppose forms of evaluations (including between peers and in the wider community of parents and stakeholders) and to resist more school autonomy and cohesiveness measures that might be envisioned by school or system leadership. Whilst teachers may be reluctant to work together and observe each other (as in a lesson study format) in most countries, this may be particularly the case where teachers’ autonomy is quite radical, where collaboration and mentoring are not common practices, or where stimulated by school arrangements and work contracts (e.g., in Italy; see Mincu & Granata, 2021 ).

Another way to characterize pedagogical cultures is with reference to formalism (respect for rules and social distances, focus on adults’ role and transmissive pedagogies) or to progressivism (more egalitarian interactions and a focus on the learner and their way of acquiring and creating knowledge). There are many ways in which various school cultures can be appropriately characterized, offering plenty of nuances and details of social, economic, and cultural stratifications and contradictions: for instance, in certain East Asian contexts, there is a combination of Confucianism, socialist egalitarianism, and revised individualism of consumption or of possession, based on previous rural forms of it. However, along the lines of centralized/decentralized typologies that are still valid for describing school functioning and structures, the reality of countries around the world allows scholars to characterize school cultures as formalist versus progressivist. It is legitimate to do so in spite of the local nuances and anthropological cultures that may filter and support such pedagogies (Guthrie et al., 2015 ).

Any cultural change imposed from above or from abroad may be doomed to failure if the hardware is that of centralized systems and if school actors are not allowed to engage in a cultural exercise of adaptation, adequately supported with infrastructural measures. Whilst there is no single model, there are some pillars of good teaching and some key lessons about how to produce change. A major premise is that any change must reach the school level and be able to activate and energize its school actors. School systems may be distinguished therefore in terms of formalist/progressivist typologies, which is coherent with other types of systemic characteristics, including lack of leadership (be it hierarchically formalized, legally representative only, or peer-oriented) that may preclude any effort of cultural transformation.

Without leadership, individual teachers may act as a loosely connected group, without vision and motivation to produce an expected and socially praised change. The expectation to encourage reforms from the regional and district level, when not from the top, is purely utopian. Schools remain remote realities in such change models. Most systems in poorly resourced contexts are entangled in hierarchical school models and grounded in traditional power distance and colonial legacies. Without significant leadership processes stimulated by school principals at the very heart of such systems, cultural and new structural processes cannot be expected. To produce cultural change, the top leadership stratum must create the proper conditions, such as salaries, workload, and other incentives for training and knowledge dissemination; but action and cognitive schemes characterize the school level and teachers cannot be blamed for what they cannot do by themselves.

Defining quality for present times education in context

We cannot move toward possible futures without deeply understanding what good education can be in our present societies, in a variety of localities around the world. Research has long dedicated itself to the task of defining quality in education, particularly in the fields of school effectiveness and school improvement. Meta-research has become a bestseller scholarly genre (Hattie, 2009 ), and the drive toward evidence-based knowledge has been equally impressive, across universities, NGOs, and other major international players. Research studies distinguish between quality teachers (their attributes, amount of preparation, and years of experience) and teaching quality, based on dimensions of quality teaching that produce effective learning. Since structures and cultures can be effectively encapsulated in categories (centralized/autonomous, formalist/progressivist, etc.), quality teaching is also condensed (a) in key dimensions, for instance by Bowe and Gore ( 2016 ), subsuming further aspects, or (b) as rankings of most effective factors in terms of learning.

Mistrust of evidence-based and best-practice research traditions is justified when ready-made solutions are implemented without adaptations and the engagement of those involved. Even the adoption of South-South solutions can be ineffective at times (Chisholm & Steiner-Khamsi, 2008 ). Since problems in education are messy and “wicked” (Ritter & Webber, 1973 ) changes must be systemic and cultural.

Anderson and Mundy, 2014 proved that improvement solutions and practices in two groups of countries—developed and less developed—are very much convergent. Both developing and developed countries present a series of common challenges: the need for fewer top-down approaches, for instance, and for approaches less narrowly focused on the basics. Comparative evidence and perspectives on student learning in developing countries converge on a common cluster of instructional concepts and strategies: (a) learning as student-centered, differentiated, or personalized, associated with using low-cost teaching and learning materials in the language which students understand, and (b) the appropriate use of small group learning in addition to large group instruction. This enables regular diagnostic and formative assessment of student progress to guide instructional decision-making, clear directions, and checking student understanding of the purpose of learning activities. It also involves personalized feedback to students based on assessments of their learning, and explicit teaching of learning skills to strengthen students’ problem-solving competencies. With the possible exception of low-cost learning materials, these prescriptions for good teaching are consistent with international evidence about effective instruction (Anderson & Mundy, 2014 ). But quality teaching and teachers equally assume specific contextual meanings. For instance, Kumar and Wiseman ( 2021 ) indicate that traditional measures of quality (teacher preparation and credentials) are less relevant in India compared to non-traditional measures such as teachers’ absenteeism and their attitude/behavior toward their students.

Teachers alone cannot make a better school

Teachers and their actions at the classroom level are key to inspiring learning and students’ progress. Nonetheless, a misreported finding from an OECD ( 2010 ) study that “the quality of an education system can never exceed the quality of its teachers” is only partially correct. In fact, the full quotation said that the system’s quality cannot exceed the quality of its teachers and leaders. The incomplete quote mirrors a common misconception that teachers alone can and should improve the system. Instead, teachers are part of organizations, and as such they behave and respond to dynamics in place in those contexts, and not as individuals, or as a professional group, not even in the most unionized countries. The quality of a public service cannot be attributed solely to its members, but also to their organization and to specific choices made by its leadership, which is responsible for organizational vision and translating theories into action. Launching heartfelt calls for teachers to change their practices is both naive and sociologically inaccurate regarding how people act and behave in social organizations, such as schools. The presence of leadership as a processual and qualitative dimension at the school level also indicates the existence of the structures of school leadership teams and middle managers, in which leadership is robustly in place as positionality.

In this sense, the quote indicates the relevance of teachers’ work in carefully designed organizations, in which hierarchy and horizontal interactions of collaboration between peers are in a functional equilibrium. In other words, schools and teachers’ autonomy reciprocally reinforce one another.

Whenever teachers are required to act with leadership, autonomy, and innovation, the larger system and school culture should be carefully considered. Teachers cannot by themselves be directly responsible for systemic changes. National-level teams of experts cannot blame teachers for a lack of change when the necessary knowledge and resources are not cascaded effectively to the school level. As the end point of the chain of change, teachers cannot be accused for a lack of success and adequate culture to facilitate innovation when decision makers do not consider the school architecture and how leaders are prepared and ready to support a change in culture. This has been the case with reforms in less resourceful countries around the world, often in highly centralized systems, where more progressivist changes are expected from teachers in the absence of proper consideration of the school architecture, long-standing interactions with the school leaders, and the overall pedagogical culture. Unfair blame for these teachers is expressed at times by international or national teams of experts, unrealistically expecting individual teachers to produce significant structural and cultural changes, otherwise they play the part of “those who wait on a bus” for a change to happen. The possibility to develop, to act innovatively, and to be motivated for teaching depends largely on the organizational support received by teachers at the school level from their head teacher and the wider environment. Professional development is a key ingredient that impacts teacher quality (Cordingley, 2015 ), and its effectiveness and provision depends heavily on the school leadership. Without support from the larger school context and leadership, even the most autonomous teachers may not act with the necessary teaching quality that can make a difference, as clearly illustrated by TALIS 2020.

Leadership, as an organizational quality, is indispensable

The final assumption involves the idea that one cannot crudely distinguish between teachers and leaders, especially middle managers and more informal leaders. Obviously, there is a continuum between such roles: teachers themselves can act with agency and leadership, formally or informally, and head teachers may draw upon their experience as teachers.

Since schools are organizations and not collections of individuals, the field of school effectiveness and school improvement has incontrovertibly identified the influence of leadership as vital: “school leadership is second only to classroom teaching as an influence on pupil learning” (Leithwood et al., 2008 ). Through both organization and instructional vision (Day et al., 2016 ), effective leadership significantly enhances or diminishes the influence that individual teachers have in their classes. Regardless of cultural considerations, when teachers’ work is uncoordinated and fragmented, the overall effect in terms of learning and education cannot be amplified and adequately supported. A lack of coherence within organizations is unfavorable to more localized virtuous dynamics that may be diminished or suffocated.

Moreover, unjustified allegations of managerialism and the striking absence of this topic from key policy documents, including those of UNESCO ( 2021 ), should be highlighted. Whilst the “executive” components implicit in any leadership function must be in place in organizations enjoying wide autonomy, this does not necessarily translate into managerialism and quasi markets. It is indeed the larger school context that can make an autonomous school perform in a managerial way or simply, with broader margins of action, that can facilitate good use of teachers’ collective agency, as in some Scandinavian countries. In order to produce even modest change, let alone radical transformation, we must overcome the widely held misconception that leadership has to do with managerial tasks, competition, and effectiveness from a highly individualistic stance. Whilst this can be the case in certain country contexts and with particular disciplinary approaches, educational leadership does not simply overlap with managerialism as a technical ability. It is essentially about vision and collaboration around our global commons, as well as locally defined school goals.

School leadership is correctly identified as a key strategy to improve teaching and learning toward SDG4 (the Incheon Declaration and Framework for Action adopted by the World Education Forum 2015). A specific task assigned to school leadership is an increase in the supply of qualified teachers (UNESCO, 2016 ). At the same time, the need to transform schools is sometimes decoupled from the potential of school and system leadership to ensure such transformation. Failing to recognize the role of leaders in quality and equitable schooling must be rectified. A humanistic vision and a focus on the global public good cannot be at odds, programmatically, with a field dedicated to understanding how contemporary schools are organized and how they operate.

Conclusion: Leadership is about organized agency, not managerialism

Innovations in education are complex because they can often be incremental and less frequently radical, but some have the potential to be truly transformative. The more effective tend to be small micro-context innovations that diffuse “laterally” through networks of professionals and organizations but need facilitation and effective communication from above to be deep and long-lasting. They are never just technical or structural, but rather cultural and related to visions about education. In this context, leadership and leaders are crucial in a variety of aspects, but foremost in shaping a coherent organization and engaging collectively to clarify and make explicit key pedagogical and equity assumptions, which has a dramatic direct and indirect influence on the effectiveness of the school. Most significantly, school leadership at all levels is the starting point for the transformation of low-performing (and) disadvantaged schools.

We should not underestimate the impact that the larger political, social, and economic context has on schools and leaders around the world. A variety of autonomous schools can perform in a managerial way or simply make good use of teachers’ collective agency, and a variety of less autonomous organizations may dispose or not of a certain dose of organizational coherence and leadership (Keddie et al., 2022 ; Walker & Qian, 2020 ).

What has proved valuable in most contexts may not always be effective in every case; a balance has to be struck between cultural awareness related to pedagogies in contexts and lessons learned across cultural boundaries. Available universal solutions have to be pondered, and adaptations are always required. It can be the case that, in certain conditions, we borrow not only solutions but the problems they address, in the way these are rhetorically framed. However, since convergences occur in structures and cultures, problems may also converge across contexts. In addition, micro-changes occur fluidly at any time, but for transformation to emerge, we need to draw on the accumulated wisdom and the potential implicit in system and school leadership. Last but not least, the complexity lying at the heart of learning from others and from comparison should not be assumed to be insuperable.

is an associate professor in comparative education with the Department of Philosophy and Education, University of Turin, and a lecturer in educational leadership with the Institute of Education, University College, London. She has acted as a consultant with UNESCO and other major Italian NGOs. She engages with education politics and governance from a social change and equity perspective.

Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Torino within the CRUI-CARE Agreement.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Akiba M, LeTendre G. International handbook of teacher quality and policy. Routledge; 2017. [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, J. A. (2005). Accountability in education . UNESCO IIPE.
• Anderson S, Mundy K. School improvement in developing countries: Experiences and lessons learned. Aga Khan Foundation Canada; 2014. [ Google Scholar ]
• Archer M. Social origins of educational systems. Routledge; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Boonen T, Van Damme J, Onghena P. Teacher effects on student achievement in first grade: Which aspects matter most? School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2013 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2013.778297. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bowe J, Gore J. Reassembling teacher professional development: the case for Quality Teaching Rounds. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice. 2016; 23 (3):352–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carnoy M. Globalisation and educational restructuring. Melbourne Studies in Education. 1998; 39 (2):21–40. doi: 10.1080/17508489809556316. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Carron, G., Mahshi, K., De Grauwe, A., Gay, D. (2010). Strategic planning. Organisational arrangements . UNESCO IIPE.
• Chisholm L, Steiner-Khamsi G. South-South transfer: Cooperation and unequal development in education. Teachers College Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Cordingley P. The contribution of research to teachers’ professional learning and development. Oxford Review of Education. 2015 doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1020105. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Creemers B, Reezigt G. Linking school effectiveness and school improvement: The background and outline of the project School Effectiveness and School Improvement. An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice. 2005; 16 (4):359–371. [ Google Scholar ]
• Darling-Hammond L. Defining teaching quality around the world. European Journal of Teacher Education. 2021 doi: 10.1080/02619768.2021.1919080. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P. The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly. 2016; 52 (2):221–258. doi: 10.1177/0013161X15616863. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• De Grauwe, A. (2009). Without capacity there is no development . UNESCO.
• Fullan M. The new meaning of educational change. Teachers College Press; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• Guthrie G, Tabulawa R, Schweisfurth M, Sarangapani P, Hugo W, Wedekind V. Child soldiers in the culture wars. Compare. 2015; 45 (4):635–654. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2015.1045748. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. The difference is teacher quality. In: Weber K, editor. Waiting for "Superman": How we can save America’s failing public schools. Public Affairs; 2010. pp. 81–100. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hanushek E. Boosting teacher effectiveness. In: Finn CE, Sousa R, editors. What lies ahead for America's children and their schools. Hoover Institution Press; 2014. pp. 23–35. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hargreaves A. Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hattie J. Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hood C. The art of the state, culture rhetoric and public management. Clarendon Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keddie A, MacDonald K, Blackmore J, Boyask R, Fitzgerald S, Gavin M, Heffernan A, Hursh D, McGrath-Champ S, Møller J, O'Neill J, Parding K, Salokangas M, Skerritt C, Stacey M, Thomson P, Wilkins A, Wilson R, Wylie C, Yoon E-S. What needs to happen for school autonomy to be mobilised to create more equitable public schools and systems of education? Australian Education Research. 2022 doi: 10.1007/s13384-022-00573-w. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ko, J. & Sammons, P. (2016). Effective teaching. Education Development Trust.
• Kools, M. & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation ? OECD.
• Kotter J. Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press; 2012. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kumar P, Wiseman AW. Teacher quality and education policy in India: Understanding the relationship between teacher education, teacher effectiveness, and student outcomes. Routledge; 2021. [ Google Scholar ]
• Leithwood K, Harris A, Hopkins A. Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management. 2008; 28 (1):27–42. doi: 10.1080/13632430701800060. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M. Teacher quality and school improvement: What is the role of research? Oxford Review of Education. 2015; 41 (2):253–269. doi: 10.1080/03054985.2015.1023013. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Davies P. The governance of a school network and implications for Initial Teacher Education. Journal of Education Policy. 2019; 36 (3):436–453. doi: 10.1080/02680939.2019.1645360. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu, M. & Granata, A. (2021). Teachers’ informal leadership for equity in France and Italy during the first wave of the education emergency. Teachers and Teaching , Special Issue, 1–21.
• Mincu M, Liu M. The policy context in teacher education: Hierarchies, networks and markets in four countries. In: Tierny R, Rizvi F, editors. International Encyclopaedia in Education. Elsevier; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Mincu M, Romiti S. Evidence informed practice in Italian education. In: Brown C, Malin J, editors. The Emerald international handbook of evidence-informed practice in education. Emerald; 2022. [ Google Scholar ]
• Moore R. Variation, context, and inequality: comparing models of school effectiveness in two states in India. School Effectiveness and School Improvement. 2022 doi: 10.1080/09243453.2022.2089169. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2010). PISA 2009. Results: What makes a school successful? Resources, policies and practices (Volume 4) . 10.1787/9789264091559-en
• OECD . Schooling redesigned. OECD; 2015. [ Google Scholar ]
• OECD (2020a). What students learn matters. Towards a 21st century curriculum . OECD.
• OECD (2020b). Back to the future of education: Four OECD scenarios for schooling, educational research and innovation . OECD.
• Palardy GJ, Rumberger RW. Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2008; 30 :111–140. doi: 10.3102/0162373708317680. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paterson A, Dumont H, Lafuente M, Law N. Understanding innovative pedagogies. OECD; 2018. [ Google Scholar ]
• Rittel HW, Webber MM. Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences. 1973; 4 (2):155–169. doi: 10.1007/BF01405730. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sammons P. Equity and educational effectiveness. In: Peterson P, Baker E, McGaw B, editors. International encyclopedia of education. 3. Elsevier; 2010. pp. 51–57. [ Google Scholar ]
• Samoff J. Education sector analysis in Africa: Limited national control and even less national ownership. International Journal of Educational Development. 1999; 19 (4–5):249–272. doi: 10.1016/S0738-0593(99)00028-0. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Seashore-Louis K. Linking leadership to learning: State, district and local effects. Nordic Journal in Educational Policy. 2015; 3 :7–15. [ Google Scholar ]
• Steiner-Khamsi, G. (2016). Teach or perish: The stavka system and its impact on the quality of instruction. Voprosy obrazovaniya/Educational Studies Moscow , National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2, 14–39.
• Steiner-Khamsi G. Prefazione [Foreword] In: Mincu M, editor. Sistemi scolastici nel mondo globale. Mondadori; 2020. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L. School culture. Professional Development. 2000; 3 :9–14. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stoll L, Fink D. Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Open University Press; 1996. [ Google Scholar ]
• Teddlie C, Stringfield S. A differential analysis of effectiveness in middle and low socioeconomic status schools. The Journal of Classroom Interaction. 2017; 52 (1):15–24. [ Google Scholar ]
• Townsend T. International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement. Springer; 2007. [ Google Scholar ]
• UNESCO (2016). Incheon declaration and framework for action for the implementation for Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning. UNESCO.
• UNESCO (2021). Futures of education: Learning to become . UNESCO.
• Vincent-Lancrin, S., Urgel, J., Kar, S., & Jacotin, G. (2019). Measuring innovation in education: A journey to the future . OECD.
• Walker A, Qian H. Developing a model of instructional leadership in China. Compare. 2020; 52 (1):147–167. doi: 10.1080/03057925.2020.1747396. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Original research article, school leaders' perspectives on successful leadership: a mixed methods case study of a private school network in pakistan.

• 1 Department of Education, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Pakistan
• 2 Department of Teacher Education, University of Okara, Okara, Pakistan
• 3 Department of Educational Research and Assessment, University of Okara, Okara, Pakistan

Private school culture dominates the public-school culture in Pakistan. With no central regulating organization, private schools in the country autonomously construct their educational philosophy that underpins curriculum choice, pedagogic approaches, and school operations. In this perspective, there is an increasing inquisitiveness in the understanding of what determines a private school as a “successful” school. The researchers intend to understand the determinants of a successful private school and aim to explore the leadership behaviors of head teachers of such schools in Pakistan. The Beaconhouse School System (BSS), the largest private school system in Pakistan, took part in this case study. A sample of a total of 128 participants, comprising of teachers (n = 120), School Group Heads (SGH) (n = 4) and school head teachers (n = 4) of four most successful primary schools of BSS, was drawn to participate in this case study employing a mixed-methods design. Two survey instruments, Determinants of School Success (DSS) and Leadership Practice Index (LPI) were developed on a five-point Likert Scale and applied to identify four most successful primary schools of BSS. It was found that head teachers had established a whole-school approach towards students high achievement, promoted a culture of trust, commitment, shared vision, practiced distributed leadership and involved all stakeholders in creating a shared sense of direction for the school. Recommendations have been generated for improving the performance of school leaders.

Introduction

About one-third of school-going children in Pakistan attend private schooling ( Andrabi et al., 2013 ; Nguyen and Raju, 2014 ). The industry of Pakistan’s private schools largely comprises of institutions that are for-profit, autonomous, and unregulated by any central institution. Around two percent of average household income, in both rural and urban areas constitute the industry of private schooling consequently resulting in producing magnanimous annual gross income recorded in the academic year 2013—2014 up to four ninety-seven million ( Pakistan Education Statistics, 2014 ). The annual survey report of All Pakistan Private Schools Association (APPSA) presents a tentative number of private schools operating in Pakistan; there is no accurate number of institutions that can be categorized as a “Private School”. As of 2014, one hundred seventy-three thousand one hundred and ten private schools were operating nationwide, 56% of which were concentrated in one province, Punjab.

The history of private schooling in Pakistan goes back to the era of British Rule in the sub-continent. The first private school, Karachi Grammar School was established in 1847 in Karachi. In the 1990s, on account of the decentralization of primary education, there was a dramatic boom in the emergence of private primary schools across the country. The research proposes unsatisfactory service delivery in government schools as one of the factors for this boom ( Andrabi et al., 2008 ; Baig, 2011 ). Another often-stated reason is low operating costs and high revenue mainly due to low labor wages; private school teachers are paid less than government schoolteachers ( Baig, 2011 ; Andrabi et al., 2013 ). Lack of a standard pre-requisite level of education and professional training makes it easier to find teachers who are willing to work on low wages set by private schools. A third contributing factor is a mutual consensus by the local community to associate a necessary students higher achievement with private schooling. However, this assumption is not backed by authentic academic research.

Nonexistence of a central regulatory authority to ensure the standardized quality of service at private schools in Pakistan, service delivery decisions are directed by prevailing market trends and influenced by policymakers of individual schools ( Salfi, 2011 ). Private schools enjoy full autonomy to select school curriculum, pedagogical methods, staff training models and inclusion of society. Some wide-spread networks of school branches belonging to a school system practice standardized procedure across all branches. Research asserts that even at these large school networks the pre-requisites for selecting a head teacher are not standard and may be greatly compromised in some underdeveloped cities of Pakistan.

It has been repeatedly reported by researchers around the world that head teacher plays a vital role in determining the success of a school in terms of management, high teacher performance, positive students’ learning outcomes and social reputation in the community ( Böhlmark et al., 2016 ; Education Review Office, 2018 ; Felix-Otuorimuo, 2019 ; Leithwood et al., 2019 . Fullan (2001) has gone as far to conclude that, “Effective school leaders are key to large-scale, sustainable education reform” (p. 15). These arguments suggest the need to determine what factors and determinants contribute to a successful school leadership particularly in the context of a private school system in a country where the absence of central regulatory authority creates a situation of non-standardized quality of services that leads to a state of disorganized school management.

The Focus of the Research

International studies confirm a positive relationship between the role of head teacher and school success ( Haydon, 2007 ; Leithwood et al., 2006 ; Winton, 2013 ). In the case of Pakistan, the meaning of school success is relative and varies hugely from one school to another. Lack of standard prerequisites for the hiring of head teachers in the private education sector creates a troubling void in understanding the relationship between leadership qualities of head teachers and school success ( Iqbal, 2005 ). To avoid heterogeneity this research maintains its focus only on the largest private primary schools’ network the Beaconhouse School System (BSS).

The objective of this study is two-fold; to identify determinants of school success conceived by the largest private school network of Pakistan and to understand common leadership qualities of successful school head teachers. The synthesis of results determines the relationship between school heads and school success. The core research questions addressed in this study are:

1) What are the determinants of a successful school in the private sector of Pakistani schools?

2) What are school head teachers’ leadership qualities in successful private primary schools of BSS in the province of Punjab?

3) What are the common trends in the leadership qualities of these school head teachers?

Significance of the Research

Beaconhouse School System (BSS) is the largest and most wide-spread network of private schools in Pakistan contributing up to 38% to the total number of private primary school enrolment in the province of Punjab ( PES, 2014 ). It is the first school network in the country to set in-place a School Evaluation Unit (SEU) that carries out cyclical school evaluations to report periodic individual school performance in terms of “good” practices and areas for further development. However, these are internal documents and not to be used as a resource for sharing of good practices and remain a missed opportunity to draw descriptors of a successful BSS school in the context of Pakistan and to further identify the qualities of a good school leader. This research is an attempt to fill this gap by synthesizing this information to help Pakistan’s largest private schools network to learn from their success and to use findings to design targeted head teachers training programs.

This study concentrates in the primary school section due to the high impact the selected section has on the overall education standard in the region. BSS takes approximately 38% of primary school enrollment in Punjab through a range of their education products including The Educators, United Chartered Schools, and mainstream Beaconhouse Schools. The study has significant implications for the other networks of private schools in Pakistan for bringing reforms in school leadership programs. It can augment for establishing effective school leadership practices for the success of other schools in BSS and the schools of other networks in general. The study signifies to reduce a gap of quality school leadership between one of the most popular school networks in the country and public sector schools of the province of Punjab.

Methodology

This study employed a mixed methods research design using four schools working under the umbrella of the Beaconhouse School System. An in-depth case study was undertaken by using multiple sources of data collection, analysis, and interpretation ( Johnson and Onwuegbuzie, 2004 ). In the quantitative standard, the researchers collected data from the selected teachers working in the four schools of BSS through two questionnaires; Determinants of School Success (DSS) and Leadership Practice Index (LPI) formulated on a five-point Likert scale. This was followed by in-depth semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders including the school head teachers and SGHs. This research process was accomplished within 3 weeks. The researchers employed a mixed-methods research approach to make the research findings more reliable, valid, and to minimize the level of bias by comparing sets of data by data triangulation and grasping an in-depth understanding of the case of BSS ( Gurr et al., 2005 ; Osseo-Asare et al., 2005 ).

Beaconhouse School System (BSS), the largest private school network operating in Pakistan with more than three hundred and seventy-five branches spread across the country, serves as the primary population and a case of study for this research. The school system was established in the province of Punjab in 1975 and it is now the largest school system of its type in the country catering to over two hundred forty-seven thousand students across Pakistan. Most of the students come from upper-middle-class families with a gross monthly household income between fifty thousand rupees up to three hundred thousand rupees ( Andrabi et al., 2013 ). BSS caters to modern educational needs and follows a customized curriculum influenced by the British and Scottish national curricula.

Organizational Setup

The network of BSS school branches is divided into three geographic regions namely Southern Region, Central Region and Northern Region. Policy planning, curriculum development, assessment development, and other related school management and teacher development issues are addressed at the Head Office which is situated in Lahore, Punjab. All three Regional Offices report to the Head Office. Academic and administrative support to school branches in each region is provided by four School Group Offices (SGOs). These SGOs report directly to Regional Directors (RD).

Note. The Figure 1 explains the division of regions and organizational structure and identifies the research population.

FIGURE 1 . Organizational Structure of the Beaconhouse School System and Research Population.

A total of fifty-seven primary school head teachers, four School Group Heads (SGHs), and two thousand eight hundred and fifty teachers comprised the overall population for this study.

Sample Size

The research is accomplished in two cycles using different sampling approaches, in the first cycle of research the Central Region was selected purposively due to the largest number of school branches operating in this region. All School Group Heads (SGHs) took part in the first cycle of research and identified one most successful primary school branch in their cluster therefore, following a subjective sampling technique. The second cycle of research was carried out at the identified branches. To maintain the anonymity of these school branches they will be referred to as School A, B, C and D. A total of one hundred and twenty teachers also participated in the second cycle of research.

Research Design

An explanatory mixed methods research design comprising of both quantitative and qualitative methods of research respectively was employed for an in-depth understanding of the case and to achieve the study objectives.

Research Instrument

Data were collected using a mixed-methods research design that includes: two questionnaires namely Determinants of School Success (DSS) and Leadership Practice Index (LPI) were formulated on a five-point Likert scale and combined with in-depth semi-structured interviews with different stakeholders including the school head teachers and SGHs. This study was carried out in a two-phase model, the first phase explored and reported determinants of school success as perceived by the senior leadership of the school system. The second phase of research investigated the leadership traits of effective school leaders at schools perceived as “successful” based on the outcome of research phase -1. Figure 2 illustrates the phases in research design.

FIGURE 2 . Research Design Phases.

There is a plethora of research struggling to find an answer to what constitutes a successful school. Some researchers have strongly linked it with elevated students learning outcomes ( Scheerens, 2004 ; Winton, 2013 ), others attempted to find the answer by increased reporting causes of school failure, for instance, Salmonowicz (2007) recognized fifteen conditions associated with unsuccessful schools including lack of clear focus, unaligned curricula, inadequate facilities, and ineffective instructional interventions. Edmonds (1982) offered a list of five variables correlated with school success, Lezotte (1991) evolved the list by adding two more variables: 1) instructional leadership, 2) clear vision and mission, 3) safe and orderly environment, 4) high expectations for students achievement, 5) continuous assessment of student achievement, 6) opportunity and time on task and, 7) positive home-school relations. The meaning of school success is contextual and existing research is yet to conclude a fixed list of variables that determine the success of a school.

DSS used in this research is based on five broad themes namely: positive outcomes for students, quality teaching and curriculum provision, effective leadership and school management, safe and positive school environment, quality assurance. All these variables are well supported by the existing research and have been extracted from the internal school evaluation framework of BSS. Twenty-five items inspired by Marzano Levels of School Effectiveness (2011) formulate the sub-categories of these domains. The response format on a five-point Likert scale for the items was, strongly agree = 5, agree = 4, neutral = 3, disagree = 2, strongly disagree = 1. The levels of school effectiveness suggested by Marzano (2011) fit well with the internal evaluation indicators of the high-performing school system of BSS. This method of research is new in the context of Pakistan however; evidence from internationally set-up research confirms Marzano levels of school effectiveness being utilized to study the long-term performance of schools in Oklahoma, United States (OSDE, 2011) and Ontario, Canada ( Louis et al., 2010 ). Researchers assert that Marzano’s levels of school effectiveness “Extends our understanding of the explanatory potential of research on school performance” ( Louis et al., 2010 , p.8).

In the second research cycle, Leadership Practice Index (LPI) was developed by the researchers to index successful leadership qualities. LPI comprised a five-point Likert scale and the responses were collected from teachers (n = 120) in terms of frequency of demonstration of a variety of leadership qualities by the school head teacher. The format was 0 = Never, 1 = Seldom, 2 = Often, 3 = Regularly, and 4 = Routine Practice. LPI constitutes twenty-eight performance indicators for effective leadership qualities under five primary domains: personal, professional, organizational, strategic and relational. The Evidence from large-scale school-based leadership research conducted in high-performing economies such as Canada ( Louis et al., 2010 ) and the United States ( Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006 ) assert that these domains breakdown the knowledge of role and impact of school leadership on instruction, school performance, and students learning outcomes.

During the second cycle of research, head teachers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview style. The interview guide was divided into six overarching categories: students achievement, teaching, and learning, instructional leadership, and management, establishing the direction for the school, social links with the community, and quality assurance. A total of four interviews were conducted during this study in a traditional modality; the average interview time was 47 minutes. Ethical and practical guidelines were shared and agreed with the interviewees and all interviews were recorded, and fully transcribed before inducing for data analysis.

Pilot Study

To ensure the internal reliability and clarity of items of DSS the researchers conducted a pilot study within the same research population. From the Southern Region of the same organization School Group Heads (n = 2), School head teachers (n = 4), and primary school teachers (n = 6) were invited for the pilot the research. The questionnaire was disseminated through the Internet using Google Forms. 12 min was recorded as average time taken by respondents to attempt the questionnaire. There were no negative observations noted for language difficulty however, two items were reported to be overlapping under the section effective leadership and quality assurance. Consequent modifications in the questionnaire was made to address this discrepancy. There were no negative observations for the semi-structured interview questions developed for the school head teachers.

Data Analysis and Discussion

One hundred twenty-eight respondents participated in this multi-method study. Respondents represented various layers of organizational hierarchy complying with extant literature that asserts effective school leadership and successful achievement as a product of multi-tiered support system within the school organizational set-up that initiates at senior leadership and permeates to classroom teachers through individual school leadership ( Mikesell, 2020 ).

Demographic Data of First Cycle Sample.

Sample for the first research cycle comprised of four female SGHs. The demographic data defining their academic qualifications and the total number of years of professional experience is given in Table 1 .

TABLE 1 . Demographic Data for First Research Cycle.

The conclusion of the first cycle of research led to the sample that took part in the second cycle of research. All teachers ( n = 120) and head teachers ( n = 4) of primary school branches identified as most successful by the SGHs took part in this research. Table 2 represents the demographic data about participants of this research including age, gender, academic qualification, and professional experience.

TABLE 2 . Demographic Data for Second Research Cycle.

The qualitative data were analyzed using MaxQD and the quantitative data was studied using SPSS version 22 for Windows. The analysis led to the emergence of some themes common with those determined in the West. The next section details key findings from the analysis of DSS and LPI.

Research Q1: Results of DSS

The research question; what are the determinants of a successful school in the private sector of Pakistani schools was addressed through the results of DSS. All SGHs account for high students learning outcomes measured in terms of academic, co- and extra-curricular activities as the most significant determinant of a school’s success. Quality of teaching and curriculum provision has been identified as other influencing determinants and lastly, there was a consensus that effective school leadership is responsible to bring these factors together.

Table 3 shows the accumulative mean for all five domains of DSS in order of highest to lowest. The bivariate correlation of study variables projects a strong relationship with each other. The first domain, “Positive outcomes for students” accounts a positive relationship with all other determinants with the highest correlation with “Quality Teaching and Curriculum Provision” (r = 0.78) which asserts that teaching practices have a tremendous impact on students achievement. Analysis of results emphasizes the role of school leadership in boosting teaching and learning in classrooms with r=.66. Extensive long-term studies identify the school head teacher as the central source of school leadership ( Mulford, 2003 ; OECD, 2013; Louis et al., 2010 ) that significantly impacts pupil outcomes ( Leithwood et al., 2006 ). In this study, it is noteworthy that leadership was best correlated with “Quality Assurance” (r = 0.72) setting the significant foundation of self-evaluation and self-review. A strong culture of self-review is an indicator of thoughtful leadership ( Ofsted, 2010 ). The interrelationship of all these variables brings effective leadership as a vital determinant of school success.

TABLE 3 . Mean and Bivariate Correlation of Variables.

At the end of the first cycle of study, the SGHs were able to place effective school leadership at the heart of school success. This research supports the persuasive evidence present in favor of the strong influence of school leadership on school success. School success indicators presented by Hull (2012) , The Wallace Foundation, (2013) and DuFour and Marzano, (2011) in different contexts and regions of the world identify pupil achievement, quality of teaching, leadership and self-review in variable order of significance. Moreover, Felix-Otuorimuo (2019) found that the practices and experiences of school leaders influenced the strategies and approaches they can use to become successful school leaders.

Research Q2: Results of Leadership Qualities Index (LQI)

One hundred and twenty teachers from four different schools participated in the second cycle of research carried out to identify key leadership practices of school head teachers. Responses were gathered in the five levels of frequency for the demonstration of leadership practices. Table 4 presents the results of Leadership Qualities Index (LQI) calculated through SPSS and presented in an order of highest to the lowest mean score for the most prominent three leadership qualities practiced by school head teachers of four selected schools. The results of this section answer the research question; what are school head teachers leadership qualities in successful private primary schools of BSS in the province of Punjab?

TABLE 4 . Most Prominent Leadership Qualities.

Research Q3: Factor Analysis.

A factor analysis on Likert-type survey items involving Varimax rotation and Kaiser normalization, led the researcher to answer the research question; what are the common trends in the leadership qualities of the selected school head teachers? It determined the common leadership traits of the four successful schools. With the Varimax rotation, the indicators were uncorrelated and independent from one another ( Kim and Mueller, 1982 ; Khan et al., 2009 ). With a sample size n = 120, loadings of at least 0.50 were considered significant and used to draw common attributes ( Khan et al., 2009 ) which were pronounced as the commonly occurring leadership traits of leaders of successful primary school head teachers as shown in Table 5 and discussed in the proceeding section.

TABLE 5 . Common Leadership Qualities of Successful School Head Teachers.

These results can be broadly divided into two types of leadership style dimensions; qualities directed towards task accomplishment, and qualities focusing on interpersonal relations ( Hydon, 2007 ; Nystedt, 1997 ).

Qualities Directed Towards Task Accomplishment

Establish a coherent and continuous professional development for teachers and other staff..

Analysis of this indicator reveals that all four head teachers taking part in this study rigorously planned the professional development exercises drawing upon training needs analysis, context, and school development targets. Seventy-two percent of teachers reported this aspect as a matter of routine practice for selected schools head teachers. Research tends to view leading teachers professional learning in coherence with their needs as an instructional leadership ( Gumus et al., 2018 ; Mulford, 2007 ; The Wallace Foundation, 2013 ).

All the head teachers taking part in the second cycle of study shared their views that support the methodical agenda for teachers in-service education. Head teachers strongly connected students learning outcomes with the quality of teaching and teachers professional learning and development.

“I make sure that our school development plan projects vision of commitment to greater achievement and success for all students that come with committed teachers in my opinion, access to opportunities for continuous learning strengthens teachers as the change agents I try to create opportunities for them to take part in professional education that is embedded in their daily job life and the best of their and the school’s interest” (Head Teacher School Branch C).

Three out of four schools promoted a strong culture of mentoring and regular peer-coaching with a purpose to embed learning within daily school routines to improve the quality of teaching. In an interview, a School head teacher stated:

“high achievement comes with good teaching; good teaching comes with learning, training we don’t have enough budget for training its better when teachers learn from their colleagues, it’s practical and situational learning learning on-job from peers is the best solution for us From their senior colleagues, they learn better without any hesitation.”

One out of four head teachers maintained that teachers learning portfolios which not only provided a learning graph but also serve as a source of information for setting annual appraisal targets. Longitudinal data for teachers training needs provide school leaders an opportunity to: graph individual professional development of teachers; address the most accurate training needs; and redefine induction criteria for new teachers ( Knapp and Hopmann, 2017 ).

Development of School Vision, Development Goals, Action Plan, and Evaluation Criteria in Collaboration with Teachers

The second leadership quality commonly identified by the analysis of qualitative and quantitative results is a shared vision. A majority of 68% of teachers identified this as a positive leadership trait possessed by their respective head teacher. Three out of four head teachers formulated an annual school development plan together with teachers to encourage individual ownership for achieving these targets. When teachers have formal roles in the decision-making processes regarding school initiatives and plans, they are more likely to perform better and take higher ownership of their decisions ( DuFour and Marzano, 2011 ). The same was reported by the head teacher of School B “when teachers have a direct input in formulating the school development plan, they take responsibility to achieve these targets because it is their plan, not a dictated idea”. Head teachers participating in this study regularly consulted BSS school evaluation framework and engaged in rigorous self-review to keep themselves and their staff aware of school performance.

Clear and Effective Distribution of Leadership Responsibilities and Sharing Day-To-Day Tasks in School with Teachers and other Staff Members

Analysis of head teachers interviews provided strong evidence of involvement of all staff to make leadership a combined endeavor, rather than practicing a model of single leader atop the school hierarchy. Research also supports that the distribution of leadership promotes a culture of trust, high motivation and coherent vision for school development ( Copland, 2003 ; Gronn, 2003 ; Spillane et al., 2005 ). A considerably high mean value for this indicator (3.72) and 63% of teachers vote for this leadership trait concludes it as one of the prime leadership qualities of successful school leaders. One of the head teachers from School “A” was of the view:

Heading a school is not a one-man show you know It requires joining hands together with all the stakeholders within the school premises and outside of the school I would not ignore the active engagement of parents, our academic liaison with other educational organizations, academia, and professionals of BSS and even the results of the latest research on school leadership.

Thus, the results show that the school heads believe in effective school headship as a joint venture and running the school democratically in collaboration with other relevant academic and administrative personnel of the school. It was revealed in a study conducted by Felix-Otuorimuo (2019) in Nigerian perspective that “successful primary school leadership in Nigeria is a collective and direct effort of the entire school community working together as a family unit, which cuts across the cultural and national boundaries of sub-Saharan Africa” (p. 218).

Qualities Directed Towards Interpersonal Relations

Acknowledgment of teachers and students achievement.

Appreciation, motivation, and empathy refer to the level of interpersonal care from senior leadership ( Gurr et al., 2005 ). Findings of the study revealed that about 59% of teachers indicate that their school head teachers mostly or always demonstrated a motivating, encouraging and facilitating behavior to project an increase in achievement of different cohorts of teachers and students. An emerging theme from head teachers interviews sets the intention of fostering a culture of support, trust, the concept of shared achievement and a sense of sensitivity when dealing with cohorts of students and teachers struggling to produce desired results. One of the senior school heads working in School “D” reflected:

The students, teachers, parents, BSS higher authorities and the head teachers work like a community who believe in mutual help, support and appreciation. We learn from each other strengths and weaknesses and acknowledge each other’s efforts in achieving the common school goals. Achievement of a single student is the achievement of the whole team working behind him and we must appreciate them all.

They have set systems in place to acknowledge, share and celebrate students and teachers achievements. Previous researchers have also emphasized on the significance of this indicator ( Day et al., 2016 ; Hitt and Tucker, 2016 ; Leithwood et al., 2017 ; Louis and Murphy, 2017 ; Leithwood and Sun, 2018 ). Williams (2008) reported that in high-poverty communities, successful school leaders primarily invest in relationship building focusing on individuals for collective progress. In an annual report on Education in Wales, Estyn, (2015) argues that a culture of trust, mutual empowerment, care, collaboration and genuine partnerships amongst all levels of staff serve as the driving force for effecting school improvement. Also, one of the most recent studies in this field conducted in the Nigerian perspective found that the school heads vision, trust in mutual relationship and personal belongingness established a strong relationship of school with the home and influenced the overall improvement in the school leadership ( Felix-Otuorimuo, 2019 ).

Development of Positive and Strong Links With the Community

There are systems in place for involvement of diffused communities such as art and literary societies in the city, health service providers, and global partnerships with other international schools. Exchange of work samples, networking of parents and distant mentoring for teachers via Skype are regularly practiced at these schools. A large percentage of teachers (68%) identified the culture of developing strong links with the outer community as a reason for the success of their school, the head teacher from School “C” supported: “we are not in a closed shell, I encourage teachers to adopt good practices, as long as they add to pupil achievement, change is good for developing”. All school head teachers engaged others outside the immediate school community, including parents and the local community. Community—School partnership was a positive trend that emerged from this study; research in the international context asserts that the impact of community involvement on school success is vague ( Hull, 2012 ). Nevertheless, a connection between school and family is an influencing factor to determine a school’s success and to improve students learning outcomes ( Boyko 2015 ; Goodall, 2017 ); Dodd and Konzal, 2002 ; Epstein, 2001 ). One of the head teachers who was working in School “A” asserted her remarks in these words:

Learning does not begin when students enter the school, it begins at homes and when they walk through the school gate they bring with them culture, behaviors, language, attitudes, skills and learning from homes and when they leave here they take back knowledge, culture and values from the school, therefore, there is a strong link between children, school, and families.

The participant school heads elaborated that annual orientation sessions for parents to: keep them informed about the school development plans; curricular interventions; teacher training initiatives; and quantitative surveys to inquire parents aspirations on improving the school environment and teaching practices were some of the regular attempts at these school branches to build a better relationship with families. It was interesting to find that three out of four schools communicated with parents through an official webpage.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In relation to the existing academic literature, this study reinforces the significance of effective school leaders for students high achievement. School head teacher has the strongest impact on student achievement across life, school practices, culture and quality of performance ( Boyko 2015 ; Böhlmark et al., 2016 ; Day et al., 2016 ; Felix-Otuorimuo, 2019 ; Gurr et al., 2003). Research and practice confirm that a school head teacher has a tremendous capacity to revolutionize school culture to promote success and change ( Elmore, 2002 ; Louis et al., 2010 ; Leithwood et al., 2019 ). Findings of this study synthesize that head teachers of the most successful primary school branches of BSS:

• had established a whole-school approach towards students high achievement;

• promoted a culture of trust, commitment, shared vision and celebrate achievement at all levels of hierarchy in the school;

• practiced distributed leadership and promote a culture of sharing;

• involved all stakeholders in creating a shared sense of direction for the school;

• prioritized teachers professional development by setting contexts for learning and creating opportunities for learning embedded in day-to-day campus-life; and

• practiced democratic leadership style and worked towards building positive links with the community.

The repertoire of effective leadership practices presented in existing academic literature encompasses the findings reported by this study. Research categorizes leadership development as a lifelong learning process ( Hull, 2012 ), the researchers make the following recommendations that contribute more to school success:

Provision of Training

Although there was no standard approach to the provision of leadership development the Beaconhouse School System should organize in-service programs for school head teachers concerning their school context. When there are no other prerequisites, strong in-service programs should encourage the development of advanced leadership skills. Three out of four school head teachers who participated in this research did not have 16 years of education, on a larger scale school senior leadership teams should be encouraged to uplift their academic qualifications to keep abreast of modern educational trends.

Sharing of Good Practices

For a vast network of school systems underpinned by identical vision, philosophy and standard operating procedures; the Beaconhouse School System should promote the culture of sharing of good practices of successful schools to promote excellence across the system.

Lessons for Other Schools

These recommendations are specifically supportive for further improvement of the school leadership and consequently school success for the BSS- one of the largest private school networks in the country. Nevertheless, the results of the study have implications for the other competitive private school networks that share common characteristics of school headship. Some of the results may be useful for the primary schools being governed and managed by the government of Punjab in Pakistan.

Findings from this study my serve like a blueprint for low-cost private schools to establish systems for in-house teachers professional development, strategic school improvement planning, monitoring and evaluation, and create a sense of school community in collaboration with multi-stakeholders. This study has opened several avenues for other private schools to explore, contextualize and advance towards a systematic leadership program within their organization.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was not required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.

Author Contributions

MR conceived of the idea, worked on research design and collected data. She conducted a preliminary analysis, and outlined major parts of the manuscript. NG, and SW conducted additional interviews to saturate the data, analyzed the interview transcripts and finalized the draft for submission. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja, A. I. (2008). A dime a day: The possibilities and limits of private schooling in Pakistan. Comp. Edu. Rev. 52 (3), 329–355. doi:10.1086/588796

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Andrabi, T., Das, J., and Khwaja, A. I. (2013). Students today, teachers tomorrow: Identifying constraints on the provision of education. J. Public Econ. 100, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.12.003

Baig, S. (2011). The personal values of school leaders in Pakistan: A contextual model of regulation and influence. J. Values-Based Leadersh. 4 (2), 26.

Google Scholar

Böhlmark, A., Grönqvist, E., and Vlachos, J. (2016). The headmaster ritual: The importance of management for school outcomes. Scand. J. Econ. 118 (4), 912–940. doi:10.1111/sjoe.12149

Boyko, A. I. (2015). Socio-philosophical analysis of the problems and leadership in the field of science. Perspect. Philos. 1 (63), 25–30.

Copland, M. A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educ. Eval. Pol. Anal. 25 (4), 375–395. doi:10.3102/01623737025004375

Day, C., Gu, Q., and Sammons, P. (2016). The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes. Educ. Adm. Q. 52 (2), 221–258. doi:10.1177/0013161x15616863

Dodd, A. W., and Konzal, J. L. (2002). How communities build stronger schools: Stories, strategies and promising practices for educating every child . New York: Palgrave Macmillan . doi:10.1007/978-0-230-60214-4

CrossRef Full Text

DuFour, R., and Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement . Bloomington: Solution Tree Press .

Edmonds, R. R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educ. Leadersh. 40, 4–11.

Education Review Office (2018). Evaluation at a glance: A decade of assessment in New Zealand primary schools - Practice and trends . Wellington, New Zealand: Education Review Office .

Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging a New Structure for School Leadership . Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute . doi:10.2514/6.2002-t2-52Available online at: http://www.shankerinstitute.org/education.html

Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and improving schools . Colorado: Westview Press .

Estyn (2015). The Annual Report of Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education and Training in Wales 2013-2014 . Cardiff: Estyn. [Online]. Available from: http://www.estyn.gov.uk/english/annual-report/annual-report-2013-2014 .

Felix-Otuorimuo, I. (2019). The qualities, values, skills and strategies of successful primary school leaders: Case studies of two primary school head teachers in Lagos, Nigeria (doctoral dissertation) . England: University of Nottingham .

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change . San Francesco: Jossey-Bass . doi:10.4324/9780203986561

Goodall, J. (2017). Narrowing the achievement gap: Parental engagement with children’s learning . New York: Routledge . doi:10.4324/9781315672465

Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 23 (3), 267–291. doi:10.1080/1363243032000112784

Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., and Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 46 (1), 25–48.

Gurr, D., Drysdale, L., and Mulford, B. (2005). Successful principal leadership: Australian case studies. J. Educ. Admin 43 (6), 539–551. doi:10.1108/09578230510625647

Haydon, G. (2007). Values for educational leadership . New York: Sage Publications .

Hitt, D., and Tucker, P. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement. Rev. Educ. Res. 86 (2), 531–569.

Hull, J. (2012). The principal perspective: Full report . Alexandria: Center for Public Education . Retrieved April 13, 2020 from http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/principalperspective .

Iqbal, M. (2005). A comparative study of organizational structure, leadership style and physical facilities of public and private secondary schools in Punjab and their effect on school effectiveness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) . Lahore: Institute of Education & Research, University of Punjab .

Johnson, R. B., and Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educ. Res. 33 (7), 14–26. doi:10.3102/0013189x033007014

Khan, S. H., Saeed, M., and Fatima, K. (2009). Assessing the Performance of Secondary School Headteachers. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 37 (6), 766–783. doi:10.1177/1741143209345572

Kim, J. O., and Mueller, C. W. (1982). Factor analysis statistical methods and practical issues . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications .

Knapp, M., and Hopmann, S. (2017). “School leadership as gap management: Curriculum traditions, changing evaluation parameters, and school leadership pathways,” in Bridging Educational Leadership, Curriculum Theory and Didaktik . Educational Governance Research . Editors M. Uljens, and R. Ylimaki (Cham: Springer ).

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning . London: DfES and Nottingham: NCSL .

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manag. 40 (1), 5–22. doi:10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. Sch. Effectiveness Sch. Improvement 17 (2), 201–227. doi:10.1080/09243450600565829

Leithwood, K., and Sun, J. (2018). Academic culture: A promising mediator of school leaders’ influence on student learning. J. Educ. Adm. 56 (3), 350–363.

Leithwood, K., Sun, J., and Pollock, K. (2017). How school leadership influences student learning: The four paths . Netherlands: Springer .

Lezotte, L. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation . Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products, Ltd .

Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., Anderson, S., Mascall, B., Michlin, M.,, et al. (2010). Learning from districts’ efforts to improve student achievement . New York: Report to the Wallace Foundation .

Louis, K. S., and Murphy, J. (2017). Trust, caring and organizational learning: the leader's role. Jea 55 (1), 103–126. doi:10.1108/jea-07-2016-0077

Mikesell, J. M. (2020). Multi-Tiered Systems of Support and School Leadership in HighAchieving Pennsylvania Schoolwide Title 1 Elementary Schools . Texas: Abilene Christian University Press . Retrieved July 8, 2021from https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1292&context=etd .

Mulford, B. (2007). An overview of research on Australian educational leadership 2001-2005 . Winmallee, NSW: Australian Council for Educational Leaders .

Mulford, B. (2003). School leaders: Changing roles and impact on teacher and school effectiveness . Paris: OECD .

Nguyen, Q. T., and Raju, D. (2014). “Private school participation in Pakistan,” in Policy Research working paper No. 6897 (Washington, DC: World Bank ). doi:10.1596/1813-9450-6897

Nystedt, L. (1997). Who should rule? Does personality matter? Eur. J. Pers. 11, 1–14. doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0984(199703)11:1<1::aid-per275>3.0.co;2-h

Ofsted (2010). Good professional development in schools . Manchester: Ofsted. Retrieved April 13, 2020, from https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/1109/1/Good%20professional%20development%20in%20schools.pdf .

Osseo-Asare, E., Longbottom, D., and Murphy, D. (2005). Leadership best practices for sustaining quality in UK higher education from the perspective of the EFQM Excellence Model Augustus. Qual. Assur. Edu. 13 (2), 148–170.

Pakistan Education Statistics (2014). Ministry of Education . Pakistan: Government of Pakistan .

Salfi, N. A. (2011). Successful leadership practices of head teachers for school improvement. J. Educ. Admin 49 (4), 414–432. doi:10.1108/09578231111146489

Salmonowicz, M. J. (2007). Scott O'Neill and Lincoln Elementary School. J. Cases Educ. Leadersh. 10 (2), 28–37. doi:10.1177/1555458907301439

Scheerens, J. (2004). “The meaning of school effectiveness,” in Presentation at the 2004 summer school (Oporto, Portugal: ASA Publishers ).

Spillane, J., Diamond, J., Sherer, J., and Coldren, A. (2005). “Distributing Leadership,” in Developing leadership: Creating the schools for tomorrow . Editors InnM. Coles, and G. Southworth (New York: OU Press ).

The Wallace Foundation (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning . New York, NY: The Wallace Foundation . from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/schoolleadership/effective-principal-leadership/Pages/The-School-Principal-as-LeaderGuiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.aspx (Retrieved April 13, 2020).

Williams, H. W. (2008). Characteristics that distinguish outstanding urban principals: Emotional intelligence, social intelligence and environment adaptation. J. Manag. Dev. 27 (1). doi:10.1108/02621710810840758

Winton, S. (2013). Rhetorical analysis in critical policy research. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Edu. 26, 158–177. doi:10.1080/09518398.2012.666288

Keywords: leadership qualities, private school, successful school leadership, school success, primary school leaders

Citation: Raza M, Gilani N and Waheed SA (2021) School Leaders' Perspectives on Successful Leadership: A Mixed Methods Case Study of a Private School Network in Pakistan. Front. Educ. 6:656491. doi: 10.3389/feduc.2021.656491

Received: 20 January 2021; Accepted: 26 July 2021; Published: 17 August 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Raza, Gilani and Waheed. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Syed Abdul Waheed, [email protected]

This article is part of the Research Topic

Emotions and Leadership in Organizations and Educational Institutes

Three Questions About Education Leadership Research

Anna J. Egalite

A commonly cited statistic in education leadership circles is that 25 percent of a school’s impact on student achievement can be explained by the principal, which is encouraging for those of us who work in principal preparation, and intuitive to the many educators who’ve experienced the power of an effective leader. It lacks nuance, however, and has gotten us thinking about the state of education-leadership research—what do we know with confidence, what do we have good intuitions (but insufficient evidence) about, and what are we completely in the dark on? With this in mind, we’ve brainstormed three big questions about school leaders. The research in this area is incomplete, but a recent development makes us hopeful that better data are on the horizon.

1. Do principals impact student performance?

Quantifying a school leader’s impact is analytically challenging. How should principal effects be separated from teacher effects, for instance? Some teachers are high-performing, regardless of who leads their school, but effective principals hire the right people into the right grade levels and offer them the right supports to propel them to success.

Another issue relates to timing: Is the impact of great principals observed right away, or does it take several years for principals to grapple with the legacy they’ve inherited—the teaching faculty, the school facilities, the curriculum and textbooks, historical budget priorities, and so on. Furthermore, what’s the right comparison group to determine a principal’s unique impact? It seems crucial to account for differences in school and neighborhood environments—such as by comparing different principals who led the same school at different time points—but if there hasn’t been principal turnover in a long time, and there aren’t similar schools against which to make a comparison, this approach hits a wall.

Grissom, Kalogrides, and Loeb carefully document the trade-offs inherent in the many approaches to calculating a principal’s impact, concluding that the window of potential effect sizes ranges from .03 to .18 standard deviations. That work mirrors the conclusions of Branch, Hanushek, and Rivkin, who estimate that principal impacts range from .05 to .21 standard deviations (in other words, four to 16 percentile points in student achievement).

Our best estimates of principal impacts, therefore, are either really small or really large, depending on the model chosen. The takeaway? Yes, principals matter—but we still have a long way to go to before we can confidently quantify just how much.

2. What skills are needed to ensure success as a modern school leader?

The fundamentals haven’t changed, as a quick read of Dale Carnegie’s classic text will reveal—smile; don’t criticize, condemn, or complain; show appreciation. Specific applications to the field of education administration are obvious: Be a good manager, be organized, and follow the policies you set. These are concrete skills that can be taught in a preparation program and their value has been quantified. See, for instance, Grissom and Loeb , who point to the importance of practical managerial skills; Hess and Kelly , who write about the principal’s role in supporting curriculum and instruction; and Grissom, Loeb, and Master , who demonstrate the value of teacher coaching.

But there are also intangible skills that cannot be easily taught—being visionary and motivating, showing compassion, being a force for good, keeping children at the center of the work, and being cognizant of whether civil rights are being advanced or inhibited by the culture you build. This latter list highlights the skills that principal candidates need to bring to the table before their preparation program even begins, and it’s this latter list that matters the most in our current context.

3. What are the characteristics of high-quality principal preparation programs?

Principal preparation programs have two primary responsibilities: Identify and admit the most promising candidates, then provide them with concrete skills that will equip them to be successful upon graduation. Studying exemplary programs offers a roadmap for how to do this well, but data limitations restrict how closely we can actually monitor their success in meeting these responsibilities.

We can show that there is sufficient systematic variation between programs in terms of test-score growth, for instance, that allows us to sort them into high, medium, and low performance categories. But we know too little about differences in the actual training received across programs. Administrative datasets rarely allow us to link principals to the specific program from which they graduated. Most programs can’t even self-evaluate because they don’t have data systems to track their graduates.

So what are we doing about all this?

With support from the Wallace Foundation’s $47 million initiative to improve the quality of principal preparation, NC State has been engaged in redesigning our program to train principals who are ready to meet the demands of a constantly changing job. We joined forces with local school leaders to identify the skills and attributes of effective school leaders. We then developed our program selection criteria, curricula, assessments, and internship to align with this framework. We’re now partnering with the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction and SAS to develop a leadership-development dashboard that tracks the career pathway and performance of our graduates, with a vision of scaling the system state-wide to include all North Carolina-based principal preparation programs and school districts.

The data don’t exist yet to answer the most pressing questions about the relationship between principal preparation and leadership effectiveness. It’s our hope that’s about to change.

— Anna Egalite and Tim Drake

Anna J. Egalite is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership, Policy, and Human Development at North Carolina State University. Tim Drake is an Assistant Professor of Education Leadership and Policy at North Carolina State University.

This post originally appeared on Rick Hess Straight Up .

Last Updated

License this Content

Latest Issue

Spring 2024.

Vol. 24, No. 2

We Recommend You Read

Five Questions About Data Use for School Leaders

by Anna J. Egalite

Some Practical Advice for School Leaders Facing Familiar Challenges

by Frederick Hess

School Leaders Can Help Reduce Minority Teacher Turnover

Search menu

Leading change: achieving effective implementation in schools.

Have you ever tried to improve, change, or implement something in your school? If you have, I am sure, like many other school leaders, you realise how hard a challenge this can be. Navigating the complexities of change can be a daunting task.

A new guide from the Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) is aimed at helping school leaders to overcome the challenges and obstacles that often accompany change initiatives.

Based in research evidence, the guide should help school leaders to make informed decisions, paving the way for meaningful and sustainable improvements. The guidance report is based on an extensive review of evidence on implementation in schools. It outlines three key elements for effective implementation:  

• The behaviours that drive implementation.
• The contextual factors that influence implementation.
• A structured process to enact implementation. 

Implementation is key and it is imperative to not only focus on what to implement but also on how to do it effectively. This article explores the latest insights and strategies from the guidance report.

Driving implementation

Implementation is fundamentally a collaborative and social process driven by people’s thoughts, behaviours, and interactions. The research review suggests that school leaders can enhance implementation by:

• Engaging people so they can shape the changes while providing overall direction.
• Uniting people around the purpose, process, and significance of the changes.
• Reflecting on progress, identifying barriers, and adapting to improve implementation.

Engaging people

Meaningful engagement is crucial in the implementation process. To effectively engage people, leaders can:

• Provide opportunities for staff members to share their perspectives, ideas, and concerns, making them feel valued and included in decision-making processes.
• Encourage collaborative processes where knowledge and expertise can be shared, ideas can be discussed, and problems can be solved together.
• Maintain clear communication and provide active guidance to ensure alignment with the direction of the changes, explain decisions, motivate staff, and keep the implementation on track.

Uniting people

Poor implementation often stems from differences in values, understanding, and practices among staff members. To ensure effective implementation, actions can focus on uniting people:

• Unite views and values by exploring common goals, addressing concerns, and discussing the risks and benefits of the changes to foster buy-in and alignment with the values of the school.
• Foster a shared understanding of the changes by defining what is being implemented, how it will be implemented, and why it matters. This clarity helps create consistency among staff in terms of expectations and support for the implementation process.
• Promote the development of skills and techniques related to the changes through professional development activities such as modelling, rehearsal, and feedback.
• Establish shared values and practices regarding the implementation process itself, emphasising the importance of on-going improvement rather than a punitive accountability function.

Reflection plays a vital role in evidence-informed decision-making during implementation. It enables leaders to assess pupil needs, select appropriate interventions, identify barriers to change, and monitor implementation for continuous improvement. To facilitate effective reflection, leaders can:

• Reflect on pupil needs and current practices to inform decisions on what and how to implement, constantly adapting to evolving needs.
• Reflect on the fit and feasibility of an intervention within the school’s context, ensuring that the selected approach is suitable, motivating, and supported by appropriate resources.
• Reflect on implementation progress to understand what is working, for whom, under what circumstances, and why. This reflection helps ensure that the intervention is delivered as intended and supports assessment of its impact on pupil outcomes.
• Reflect on implementation barriers and enablers by analysing data and identifying solutions to improve the implementation process.

In considering the above, school leaders might ask themselves:

• How can I involve teachers, teaching assistants, parents, and pupils to gain a comprehensive understanding of the current situation and identify barriers to change?
• How can I align everyone’s understanding of the purpose, nature, and process of these changes?
• How can I implement these changes in a way that promotes continuous learning and improvement?

Contextual factors

The successful implementation of any initiative is greatly influenced by various contextual factors. These factors include what is being implemented, the existing systems and structures, and the presence of individuals who can drive change. These factors can either enable or hinder the implementation process. Therefore, leaders should consider the following actions:

• Evaluate the suitability of the initiative: Determine if the initiative is evidence-informed, appropriate for the specific setting, and manageable to implement.
• Establish supportive systems and structures: Develop systems and structures that facilitate the implementation process. This includes allocating sufficient time for implementation and implementing effective data monitoring systems.
• Ensure capable change agents: Identify individuals who can support, lead, and positively influence the implementation process. This includes senior leaders, implementation teams, early adopters, pupil representatives, and support staff. 

It is also crucial to recognise the impact of the implementation climate on the overall success of the initiative. The implementation climate refers to people’s prior experiences and beliefs about implementation and their perception of how evidence-informed approaches are valued and supported. To foster a positive implementation climate, leaders can:

• Reflect on past implementation experiences: Assess previous challenges and learn from them. 
• Emphasise positive outcomes: Celebrate successes and acknowledge the positive impact of implementation efforts. 

In considering the above, school leaders might also want to ask themselves:

• Who is well placed to help with implementation?
• How can we protect time for staff to engage in CPD sessions?
• How can we use existing data systems to understand whether the programme is being delivered as intended by the developers?
• What specific resources, equipment, and admin support will be needed?

Structuring implementation

A structured yet flexible approach to implementation is essential for sustained success. The Explore-Prepare-Deliver-Sustain framework provides a roadmap for schools to navigate change systematically.  

The complex nature of schools can make it challenging to identify areas for improvement and determine the best approach to address them. Leaders should adopt a systematic approach to understanding their needs and making evidence-informed decisions regarding implementation. Consider the suitability of an approach, then focus on practical considerations regarding feasibility. By weighing these factors, leaders can select evidence-informed approaches that align with their needs and their school.

This phase focuses on establishing a clear direction and coherence for the planned changes. Effective planning plays a crucial role in utilising evidence-based approaches and improving pupil outcomes. It involves understanding various factors, including:

• Identifying the problem that needs to be addressed.
• Defining the core components of the intervention.
• Determining the implementation strategies.
• Monitoring the progress of implementation.
• Setting the final objectives of the implementation.

Collaborative planning is key. Involving the school community in the development and discussion of plans creates a sense of ownership and buy-in. While planning begins in the “prepare” phase, implementation plans should be treated as living documents that are continuously revised and updated. Once the implementation plan is in place, practical preparations are necessary to ensure a smooth transition, including:

• Reiterating the purpose of the approach and clarifying expectations, support, and rewards for its use.
• Creating opportunities for discussions about the upcoming changes.
• Using evidence to demonstrate the anticipated benefits of the proposed change compared to previous/current practices.
• Identifying and empowering individuals who can positively influence the implementation process.

Consider, too, adaptations to fit the setting:

• Carefully adapt the approach to improve buy-in, fidelity, and outcomes.
• Focus on how the approach is delivered rather than changing its core components.
• Discuss appropriate adaptations with those staff involved.

Provide high-quality professional development:

• Support staff in changing their behaviour and practices through effective professional development.
• Continuously provide professional development throughout the implementation process.

Prepare the systems and structures that enable implementation:

• Ensure that the necessary systems and structures are in place, such as administrative support, data collection and reporting systems, technical support and equipment, sufficient time for implementation, funding, and defined governance and leadership.

Implementing a new approach can be challenging as it requires learning new behaviours and structures while letting go of old habits. This can create uncertainty, but there are ways to enable on-going improvement:

• Demonstrate leadership support.
• Motivate staff.
• Identify and solve problems.
• Provide on-going professional development.

It is important for leaders to support staff and encourage their buy-in. This includes managing expectations, promoting staff wellbeing, and addressing any emotional stress or burn-out that may arise.  

Leaders often feel pressured to make changes and produce quick results. While rapid change is sometimes necessary, a focus on short-term goals can cause projects to lose momentum or deviate from their original purpose. After reviewing implementation, leaders have several options. They can choose to sustain the approach by integrating it into the school’s daily operations and policies. Scaling up may be appropriate for successful approaches, while de-implementing ineffective practices can make room for better strategies. In considering the above, school leaders might ask themselves:

• Is there sufficient support to maintain the implementation effort as new priorities emerge?
• Are leaders continuing to acknowledge and support effective implementation practices?
• Are a variety of staff members involved to avoid over-reliance on individuals?
• Before making a decision, have the previous implementation efforts and outcomes been thoroughly reviewed?

Final thoughts

Effective implementation is a lynchpin for driving positive change. By adopting evidence-informed practices, fostering collaboration, and embracing structured processes, leaders can lead their schools towards equitable outcomes for all pupils, breaking the barriers imposed by socio-economic disparities.

• Nikki Arkinstall is director of Staffordshire Research School and is deputy head at Little Sutton Primary School in Birmingham. She is leader of the #WomenEd East Midlands Network and Step Up Network lead. 

Further information & resources

• EEF: Putting evidence to work: A school’s guide to implementation, 2024: https://eef.li/implementation  

Related articles

Leading change in your school, getting interventions right: popular eef implementation guidance is revamped and updated, climate wise schools: cpd to underpin high-quality climate change education.

Take a Virtual Tour

Food for thought .

Developing Anti-Racism Awareness

2023-24 IEL Priorities

ONTARIO LEADERS COLLABORATING FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT, EQUITY AND WELL-BEING

IEL accomplishes this task by focusing on three key areas: professional inquiry, influence on leadership practice, and promotion and engagement of research on effective leadership practice.

Necessary Conversations about Equity, Diversity and Inclusion:

Moving from Awareness to Action

Ontario Leadership Framework (OLF)

Deepen the implementation of the OLF

Strong District & Their Leadership

Collaborating to Lead and Learn

Leader as Coach

Well-being for leadership.

Personal Leadership Resources

Leadership Resource Bank

Self-Assessment Tools

Leading Safe, Caring & Inclusive Schools

• < Previous

Home > Graduate College > Student Work > Dissertations and Theses @ UNI > 1641

Dissertations and Theses @ UNI

School vision, teacher autonomy, school climate, and student achievement in elementary schools.

Connie J. Erpelding , University of Northern Iowa

Availability

Open Access Dissertation

Academic achievement; Elementary school principals; School environment; Teacher-principal relationships;

The purpose of this study was to determine within an elementary school context (a) the relationship among teachers' perceptions of their principal's school's vision, of their sense of autonomy, and of the school climate; and (b) how these core variables were associated with student achievement and student socioeconomic status. Leadership and effective schools literature link the visionary principal with a variety of school-related variables including those in this study.

Data were collected using three survey instruments and a questionnaire administered to fourth grade general education teachers in the sample. The principals of the schools included in this study were also asked to complete a questionnaire. A total of 69 teachers and 66 principals returned the questionnaires mailed to them. This represented a match of 39% of the elementary school buildings in the study having both a principal and at least one general education teacher returning information for analysis.

Analyses of the data included an investigation into the demographic characteristics of the respondents and statistical analyses related to the research questions and hypotheses. Pearson correlations were calculated for school vision, teacher autonomy, and school climate; for the subscales of the three core variables; and for the demographic variables selected for investigation. Multiple regressions were used to further analyze the relationships among the subscales of the core and demographic variables.

Results of the study indicated that while positive correlations were found to exist among a principal's vision, teacher autonomy, and school climate at the descriptive level, the only statistically significant correlation was established between teacher autonomy and school climate. Teacher autonomy and school climate were also significantly correlated with student achievement and socioeconomic status. In an investigation of the relationship of the subscales of the three core variables, correlations were found to exist. The autonomy and school climate subscales correlated with the highest number of other subscales.

Findings indicated that as determined by teachers' perceptions, a principal's vision was not found to be correlated with school climate or teacher autonomy as total concepts. It was found that specific subscales, representing subconcepts of the total concepts, were correlated. Further research is warranted.

Year of Submission

Degree name.

Doctor of Education

Department of Educational Psychology, Foundations, and Leadership Studies

Department of Educational Leadership and Counseling

First Advisor

William P. Callahan

If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation and wish to have it removed from the Open Access Collection, please submit a request to [email protected] and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.

Date Original

Object description.

1 PDF file (191 pages)

©1999 Connie J. Erpelding

File Format

application/pdf

Recommended Citation

Erpelding, Connie J., "School Vision, Teacher Autonomy, School Climate, and Student Achievement in Elementary Schools" (1999). Dissertations and Theses @ UNI . 1641. https://scholarworks.uni.edu/etd/1641

Since May 23, 2024

Included in

Educational Administration and Supervision Commons

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS
• Collections
• Disciplines

Author Corner

• Graduate College
• Research and Sponsored Programs
• Rod Library
• University Archives
• Offensive Materials Statement
• UNI ScholarWorks ISSN 2578-3637

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement | Contact Us

Privacy Copyright

University of Northern Iowa Rod Library 1227 W. 27th Street Cedar Falls, IA 50614-3675 www.library.uni.edu

Laidlaw Foundation Gift Expands Research and Leadership for Duke Students

Share this story.

Duke University has received a $1.125 million gift from the Laidlaw Foundation that will greatly expand the Hart Leadership Program’s capacity to support community-engaged experiential learning opportunities for Duke undergraduate students.

The gift will establish the Laidlaw Research and Leadership Scholarship Program at Duke University, a 24-month leadership development program for cohorts of up to 25 students. During their two years in the program, Laidlaw Scholars will receive support for two summers of community-engaged research and civic practice, beginning in the summer of 2025. At full capacity, the program will provide support for up to 50 undergraduate students per year. The initial gift is for three years and is subject to renewal.

The program aligns with Duke’s strategic vision of transforming teaching and learning through experiential education, creating more opportunities for undergraduate research, and building community engagement in North Carolina and globally.

“Sanford is deeply committed to deepening the undergraduate experience of students,” Dean Judith Kelley said. “This program provides robust learning and global connections, and this gift augments the already extraordinary track record of the Hart Leadership Program in training undergraduate students for lives of leadership and service. We are grateful for the support of the Laidlaw Foundation for our students.”

The Laidlaw Scholars Program is designed to develop ethical leaders in every sector and field of interest. Through academic courses, experiential learning programs, community-based research and co-curricular initiatives, Duke students will be challenged to develop their own frameworks for leadership and work alongside others toward a common purpose.

Andrew Nurkin, director of the Hart Leadership Program, said the Laidlaw Scholars Program at Duke will incorporate all of the hallmark elements of the Hart Leadership Program: learning leadership through experience, conducting research with a civic mission, connecting classroom learning to community contexts, practicing mindful reflection, and growing alongside a strong community of peers and practitioners.

“Our aim has always been for each student to develop their own sense of public purpose in community with others,” Nurkin said.

The Laidlaw Scholars Program will be open to all first- and second-year Duke students. Students will apply in the fall, be required to take a spring gateway seminar, and receive full funding for two summers to participate in the program. The first summer will be focused on research with Duke faculty advisors, and the second summer will focus on “leadership-in-action” projects. At least one of the two summers will be spent outside the United States. Students will also receive ongoing leadership development through an overnight retreat and a colloquium dinner series, a certificate in ethical leadership from the University of Oxford, as well as access to the international Laidlaw Scholars Network.  

The Laidlaw Scholars Network includes some of the world’s top research universities, creating opportunities for collaboration at both the undergraduate and faculty levels. The network is comprised of 19 top universities in Europe, North America and Asia, including the University of Oxford, the London School of Economics, Columbia University, Georgetown University, Brown University, University of Hong Kong–and now Duke.

Susanna Kempe, CEO of the Laidlaw Foundation, said, “We are absolutely delighted to be partnering with Duke University, whose commitment to promoting an intellectual environment built on free and open inquiry, and developing students to lead with unwaveringly high ethical standards, completely aligns with our purpose in funding Laidlaw Scholars at the top universities in the world.”

The program at Duke will feature shared aspects, as well as specific features that make it “uniquely Duke.” One unique feature will be a Duke gateway class on community engaged research and leadership, required in the spring before the first summer of the program. In addition, the summer of research will be team-based and led by Duke faculty.

“We are thrilled that in the coming years up to 50 Duke students each summer will be expanding their research and leadership skills through this prestigious program,” Nurkin said. “This program will offer characteristic Hart Leadership moments found in our other programs while adding valuable new opportunities for students to grow as leaders, scholars and global citizens.”

Learn more about the Hart Leadership Program: https://hart.sanford.duke.edu/

About the Laidlaw Foundation: The Laidlaw Foundation invests in the education of the underprivileged and underrepresented in order to break the cycle of poverty, reduce inequality and develop a new generation of ethical leaders. Learn more: https://laidlawfoundation.com/

Related Stories

2024 Graduation Stories: Journalism at Duke

Sanford Celebrates the Class of 2024

Graduation Stories 2024: Grace Endrud

Leadership Blossoms in Parental Warmth: Positive Parenting Practices Shape Adolescent Leader Emergence via Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Mechanisms

• Empirical Research
• Published: 23 May 2024

Cite this article

• Zhengguang Liu   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7267-1637 1 ,
• Wenjun Bian   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3389-7523 1 &
• Yufang Bian   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0005-5895-8179 2  

Developing leadership skills during adolescence is crucial for future career success. Previous studies have primarily focused on the impact of school settings, academic courses, and simulated team tasks on leader emergence, neglecting the significant role of parental influence in this process. Employing a mixed-methods approach, this research investigated the positive relationship between parental warmth and adolescent leader emergence and the underlying mechanisms of this relationship. The quantitative study (Study 1) collected multi-source data from 1255 adolescents ( M age  = 14.2, SD age  = 0.56, 48.2% male) and their parents, teachers and peers. Findings from Study 1 revealed a positive correlation between parental warmth and adolescent leader emergence. Structural equation modeling showed two mediating pathways: an intrapersonal pathway involving self-esteem and leader self-efficacy, and an interpersonal pathway involving empathy and prosocial behavior. Encouragement of independence, as an additional adolescents-focused parenting practice, strengthened the observed positive relationship. The qualitative study (Study 2) conducted in-depth interviews with adolescents to identify the parental practices that facilitate or hinder adolescent leader emergence for the triangulation of the central research question. Study 2 collected data from 32 adolescents ( M age  = 15.16, SD age  = 1.37, 50% male). Findings from Study 2 corroborated the significance of parental warmth and the encouragement of independence for adolescent leader emergence, elucidating specific parenting behaviors conducive to these positive parenting practices, such as providing companionship and communication, as well as encouraging adolescents to participate in household tasks. This mix-methods research prepositioned the stages of leadership development, advocating for the importance of the warmth and autonomy from parents as formative factors for cultivating the next generation of leaders.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Social desirability is a concerning issue (Bernerth et al., 2016 ), so this study considered it as an important exclusion indicator. Social desirability was evaluated using all of ten self-report items from the New Social Desirability Scales developed by Strahan & Gerbasi ( 1972 ). This shortened version of the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale has been widely employed. Students rated these items on a Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Higher scores on this scale indicated a greater tendency to respond in a socially desirable manner. This information was crucial in identifying and subsequently excluding invalid data. If a participant responded “strongly agree” to all 10 items, the data from him or her would be excluded from the analyses (29 participants excluded; 1.9% were excluded on this basis). The scale’s reliability remained high, with a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.84.

The detailed calculation can be seen in Online Resource 3 in https://osf.io/7x3ys/?view_only=27732f29c8db43d69e5f2280e318c470 .

The detailed interview protocol can be found in Online Resource 2 ( https://osf.io/7x3ys/?view_only=27732f29c8db43d69e5f2280e318c470 ).

The additional three categories of parenting practices related to adolescent leader emergence are not the focus of this study. The detailed information about these three categories can be found in Online Resource 2 ( https://osf.io/7x3ys/?view_only=27732f29c8db43d69e5f2280e318c470 ).

Allen, J. P., & Miga, E. M. (2010). Attachment in adolescence: A move to the level of emotion regulation. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships , 27 (2), 181–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407509360898 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R. B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A. M., & Rao, S. M. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychologist , 73 (1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000191 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review , 84 (2), 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191 .

Barber, B. K., Stolz, H. E., & Olsen, J. A. (2005). Parental support, psychological control, and behavioral control: Assessing relevance across time culture and method. Monographs for the Society of Research in Child Development , 70 , 1–37.

Google Scholar  

Barnes, G. M., Reifman, A. S., Farrell, M. P., & Dintcheff, B. A. (2000). The effects of parenting on the development of adolescent alcohol misuse: a six-wave latent growth model. Journal of Marriage and Family , 62 (1), 175–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00175.x .

Article   Google Scholar  

Barnett, M. A. (1987). Empathy and related responses in children. In N. Eisenberg & J. Strayer (Eds.), Empathy and its development (pp. 146–162). Cambridge University Press

Baruch, Y., O’Creevy, M. F., Hind, P., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2004). Prosocial behavior and job performance: Does the need for control and the need for achievement make a difference? Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , 32 (4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2004.32.4.399 .

Bass, B. M., & Bass, R. (2008). The Bass handbook of leadership: Theory, research and managerial applications (4th ed.). Free Press

Bernerth, J. B., Aguinis, H., Bernerth, J. B., & Aguinis, H. (2016). A critical review and best-practice recommendations for control variable usage. Personnel Psychology , 69 (1), 229–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12103 .

Bilhuber Galli, E., & Müller-Stewens, G. (2012). How to build social capital with leadership development: Lessons from an explorative case study of a multibusiness firm. The Leadership Quarterly , 23 (1), 176–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.014 .

Block, J. H., Block, J., & Morrison, A. (1981). Parental agreement-disagreement on child-rearing orientations and gender-related personality correlates in children. Child Development , 52 (3), 965 https://doi.org/10.2307/1129101 .

Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2015). Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing (3rd ed.). Sage Publications

Boele, S., Bülow, A., Beltz, A. M., de Haan, A., Denissen, J. J. A., de Moor, M. H. M., & Keijsers, L. (2024). Like No Other? A Family-Specific Network Approach to Parenting Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 53 (4), 982–997. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01912-5 .

Bouty, I. (2000). Interpersonal and interaction influences on informal resource exchanges between R&D researchers across organizational boundaries. Academy of Management Journal , 43 (1), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.2307/1556385 .

Bryant, B. K., Zvonkovic, A. M., & Reynolds, P. (2006). Parenting in relation to child and adolescent vocational development. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 69 (1), 149–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2006.02.004 .

Carlo, G., McGinley, M., Hayes, R., Batenhorst, C., & Wilkinson, J. (2007). Parenting styles or practices? Parenting, sympathy, and prosocial behaviors among adolescents. The Journal of Genetic Psychology , 168 (2), 147–176. https://doi.org/10.3200/gntp.168.2.147-176 .

Chan, D. W. (2000). Assessing leadership among Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong: The use of the Roets Rating Scale for leadership. Gifted Child Quarterly , 44 , 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400204 .

Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2004). General self-efficacy and self-esteem: toward theoretical and empirical distinction between correlated self-evaluations. Journal of Organizational Behavior , 25 (3), 375–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.251 .

Chen, X., Cen, G., Li, D., & He, Y. (2005). Social functioning and adjustment in Chinese children: the imprint of historical time. Child Development , 76 (1), 182–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00838.x .

Chen, X., Liu, M., & Li, D. (2000). Parental warmth, control, and indulgence and their relations to adjustment in Chinese children: A longitudinal study. Journal of Family Psychology , 14 (3), 401–419. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.14.3.401 .

Chuang, S. S., & Su, Y. (2009). Do we see eye to eye? Chinese mothers’ and fathers’ parenting beliefs and values for toddlers in Canada and China. Journal of Family Psychology , 23 (3), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016015 .

Clough, W. R. (2006). To be Loved and to Love. Journal of Psychology and Theology , 34 (1), 23–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/009164710603400103 .

Cook, W. L., & Kenny, D. A. (2005). The actor-partner interdependence model: a model of bidirectional effects in developmental studies. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 29 (2), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250444000405 .

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications

Cuff, B. M. P., Brown, S., Taylor, L., & Howat, D. (2014). Empathy: A review of the concept. Emotion Review , 8 (2), 144–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073914558466 .

Davidovitz, R., Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Izsak, R., & Popper, M. (2007). Leaders as attachment figures: Leaders’ attachment orientations predict leadership-related mental representations and followers’ performance and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 93 (4), 632–650. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.4.632 .

Davis, M. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology , 10 (4), 1–17.

Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly , 11 (4), 581–613. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(00)00061-8 .

Day, D. V., & Dragoni, L. (2015). Leadership development: an outcome-oriented review based on time and levels of analyses. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 2 (1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111328 .

Day, D. V., & Liu, Z. (2018). What is wrong with leadership development and what might be done about it? In R. E. Riggio (Ed.). What’s wrong with leadership? Improving leadership research and practice (pp. 226–240). Routledge

Day, D. V. (2011). Integrative perspectives on longitudinal investigations of leader development: From childhood through adulthood. The Leadership Quarterly , 22 (3), 561–571. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.012 .

Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior , 4 (1), 19–43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108 .

Dong, Q., & Lin, C. D. (2011). The psychological development characteristics of contemporary Chinese children and adolescents: The general report of the survey project on the psychological development characteristics of Chinese children and adolescents . Beijing: Science Press.

Dwyer, L. P. (2019). Leadership self-efficacy: review and leader development implications. Journal of Management Development , 38 (8), 637–650. https://doi.org/10.1108/jmd-03-2019-0073 .

Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (1998). Parental socialization of emotion. Psychological Inquiry , 9 (4), 241–273.

Eldad, R., & Benatov, J. (2018). Adult attachment and perceived parental style may shape leadership behaviors. Leadership & Organization Development Journal , 39 (2), 261–275. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-06-2016-0155 .

Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 85 (2), 317–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.317 .

Eva, N., Helen De, C., Susan, E. M., & Lowe, K. B. (2021). Leader development for adolescent girls: State of the field and a framework for moving forward. The Leadership Quarterly , 32 (1), 101457–101457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101457 .

Fearon, R. M. P., & Roisman, G. I. (2017). Attachment theory: Progress and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology , 15 , 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.002 .

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin , 51 (4), 327–358. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470 .

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adulthood: meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmental mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 6 (2), 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0602_03 .

Goldstein, S. E., Docherty, M., Boxer, P., Bushman, B. J., Huesmann, L. R., O’Brien, M., Anderson, C., Gentile, D. A., & Dubow, E. F. (2023). Developmental changes in the relation between youth disclosure and parenting behavior: a cohort-sequential analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 52 (10), 2095–2112. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-023-01823-5 .

Green, J., Nelson, G., Martin, A. J., & Marsh, H. (2006). The causal ordering of self-concept and academic motivation and its effect on academic achievement. International Education Journal , 7 (4), 534–546.

Harms, P. D. (2011). Adult attachment styles in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review , 21 (4), 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.006 .

Hart, C. H., Newell, L. D., & Olsen, S. F. (2003). Parenting skills and social-communicative competence in childhood. In H. Giles & R. St. Clair (Eds.), Handbook of communication and social interaction skills (pp. 753–797). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: A meta-analytic assessment of the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology , 45 (3), 740–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015362 .

Holden, G. W. (2015). Parenting: a dynamic perspective . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Jak, S., Jorgensen, T. D., Verdam, M. G. E., Oort, F. J., Elffers, L., Jak, S., Jorgensen, T. D., Verdam, M. G. E., Oort, F. J., Elffers, L., Jak, S., Jorgensen, T. D., Verdam, M. G. E., Oort, F. J., Elffers, L., Jak, S., Jorgensen, T. D., Verdam, M. G. E., Oort, F. J., & Elffers, L. (2021). Analytical power calculations for structural equation modeling: A tutorial and Shiny app. Behavior Research Methods , 53 (4), 1385–1406. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01479-0 .

Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Ilies, R., & Gerhardt, M. W. (2002). Personality and leadership: A qualitative and quantitative review. Journal of Applied Psychology , 87 (4), 765–780. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.765 .

Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2011). Implications of core self-evaluations for a changing organizational context. Human Resource Management Review , 21 (4), 331–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2010.10.003 .

Karagianni, D., & Jude Montgomery, A. (2017). Developing leadership skills among adolescents and young adults: A review of leadership programmes. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth , 23 (1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2017.1292928 .

Keller, T. (2003). Parental images as a guide to leadership sensemaking: an attachment perspective on implicit leadership theories. The Leadership Quarterly , 14 (2), 141–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(03)00007-9 .

Kellett, J. B., Humphrey, R. H., & Sleeth, R. G. (2002). Empathy and complex task performance: Two routes to leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 13 (5), 523–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00142-x .

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling . New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., & Wagner, W. (2011). The handbook for student leadership development . John Wiley & Sons

Levesque, R. J. (Ed.). (2011). Encyclopedia of adolescence . Springer Science & Business Media

Li, Y., & Lerner, R. M. (2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology , 47 (1), 233–247. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021307 .

Li, W. D., Arvey, R. D., & Song, Z. (2011). The influence of general mental ability, self-esteem and family socioeconomic status on leadership role occupancy and leader advancement: The moderating role of gender. Leadership Quarterly , 22 (3), 520–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.009 .

Liang, Z., Zhang, G., Chen, H., & Zhou, B. (2007). The relationship between maternal parenting styles during childhood and school adjustment at age 11. Psychology and Behavior Research , 5 (1), 36–40. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms2/article/abstract?v=3uoqIhG8C44YLTlOAiTRKgchrJ08w1e7aLpFYbsPrqFqwyQetVrj4pmY-hLmVHMNgn9zCfUovOCDyo8iiZgACaskKbg0ew-u&uniplatform=NZKPT

Lippold, M. A., Hussong, A., Fosco, G. M., & Ram, N. (2018). Lability in the parent’s hostility and warmth toward their adolescent: Linkages to youth delinquency and substance use. Developmental Psychology , 54 (2), 348–361. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000415 .

Liu, Z., Riggio, R. E., Day, D. V., Zheng, C., Dai, S., & Bian, Y. (2019). Leader development begins at home: Overparenting harms adolescent leader emergence. Journal of Applied Psychology , 104 (10), 1226–1242. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000402 .

Liu, Z., Venkatesh, S., Murphy, S. E., & Riggio, R. E. (2020). Leader development across the lifespan: A dynamic experiences-grounded approach. The Leadership Quarterly , 32 (5), 101382 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2020.101382 .

Locke, K. (2008). Grounded theory in management research . Sage Publications

Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Trautwein, U., & Köller, O. (2007). Umgang mit fehlenden Werten in der psychologischen Forschung. Psychologische Rundschau , 58 (2), 103–117. https://doi.org/10.1026/0033-3042.58.2.103 .

MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., & Williams, J. (2004). Confidence limits for the indirect effect: Distribution of the product and resampling methods. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 39 (1), 99–128. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3901_4 .

Masten, A. S., Morison, P., & Pellegrini, D. S. (1985). A revised class play method of peer assessment. Developmental Psychology , 21 (3), 523–533. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.21.3.523 .

McCauley, C. D., & Ellen Van Velsor. (2004). The Center for Creative Leadership Handbook of Leadership Development . John Wiley & Sons.

Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Boosting attachment security to promote mental health, prosocial values, and Inter-Group tolerance. Psychological Inquiry , 18 (3), 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/10478400701512646 .

Mitchell, M. S., Greenbaum, R. L., Vogel, R. M., Mawritz, M. B., & Keating, D. J. (2019). Can you handle the pressure? The effect of performance pressure on stress appraisals, self-regulation, and behavior. Academy of Management Journal , 62 (2), 531–552.

Morris, A. S., Ratliff, E. L., Cosgrove, K. T., & Steinberg, L. (2021). We know even more things: a decade review of parenting research. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 31 (4), 870–888. https://doi.org/10.1111/jora.12641 .

Morton, K. L., Barling, J., Rhodes, R. E., Mâsse, L. C., Zumbo, B. D., & Beauchamp, M. R. (2010). Extending transformational leadership theory to parenting and adolescent health behaviours: An integrative and theoretical review. Health Psychology Review , 4 (2), 128–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437191003717489 .

Murphy, S. E., & Reichard, R. (2019). Early development and leadership: Building the Next Generation of Leaders . Routledge.

Murphy, S. E., & Johnson, S. K. (2011). The benefits of a long-lens approach to leader development: Understanding the seeds of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 22 (3), 459–470. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.004 .

Muthén, B. O., Muthén, L. K., & Angeles. (2017). Mplus user’s guide : statistical analysis with latent variables . Muthén & Muthén

Ogg, J. A., & Anthony, C. J. (2020). Process and context: Longitudinal effects of the interactions between parental involvement, parental warmth, and SES on academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology , 78 , 96–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.11.004 .

Oliver, P. H., Gottfried, A. W., Guerin, D. W., Adele Eskeles Gottfried, Reichard, R. J., & Riggio, R. E. (2011). Adolescent family environmental antecedents to transformational leadership potential: A longitudinal mediational analysis. The Leadership Quarterly , 22 (3), 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.04.010 .

Orth, U., & Robins, R. W. (2014). The Development of Self-Esteem. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 (5), 381–387. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414547414 .

Piaget, J. (2008). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood. Human Development , 51 (1), 40–47.

Plunkett, S. W., Henry, C. S., Robinson, L. C., Behnke, A., & Falcon, P. C. (2007). Adolescent perceptions of parental behaviors, adolescent self-esteem, and adolescent depressed mood. Journal of Child and Family Studies , 16 (6), 760–772. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-006-9123-0 .

Popper, M., & Amit, K. (2009). Attachment and leader’s development via experiences. The Leadership Quarterly , 20 (5), 749–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.06.005 .

Popper, M., & Mayseless, O. (2003). Back to basics: Applying a parenting perspective to transformational leadership. The Leadership Quarterly , 14 (1), 41–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1048-9843(02)00183-2 .

Quinn, H. O. (2014, May). Bifactor Models, Explained Common Variance (ECV), and the Usefulness of Scores from Unidimensional Item Response Theory Analyses . Carolina Digital Repository; University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. https://cdr.lib.unc.edu/concern/dissertations/w95051780

Roets, L. F. (1997). Leadership: A skills training program (8th ed.). Leadership Publishers

Rom, E., & Mikulincer, M. (2003). Attachment theory and group processes: The association between attachment style and group-related representations, goals, memories, and functioning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 84 (6), 1220–1235. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1220 .

Rothbaum, F., Rosen, K. S., Ujiie, T., & Uchida, N. (2002). Family systems theory, attachment theory, and culture. Family Process , 41 (3), 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.2002.41305.x .

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSE). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy . Measures Package , 61

Rutkowski, D., & Rutkowski, L. (2013). Measuring socioeconomic background in PISA: One size might not fit all. Research in Comparative and International Education , 8 (3), 259–278. https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2013.8.3.259 .

Scherbaum, C. A., & Ferreter, J. (2008). Estimating statistical power and required sample sizes for organizational research using multilevel modeling. Organizational Research Methods , 12 (2), 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428107308906 .

Siu, A. M. H., & Shek, D. T. L. (2005). Validation of the interpersonal reactivity index in a Chinese context. Research on Social Work Practice , 15 (2), 118–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731504270384 .

Staub, E. (2013). Positive Social Behavior and Morality: Socialization and Development . Elsevier

Steinberg, L. (2001). We know some things: Parent-adolescent relationships in retrospect and prospect. Journal of Research on Adolescence , 11 (1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1111/1532-7795.00001 .

Steinberg, L., & Silk, J. S. (2002). Parenting adolescents. Handbook of parenting , 1 , 103–133.

Strahan, R., & Gerbasi, K. C. (1972). Short, homogeneous versions of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology , 28 (2), 191–193. 10.1002/1097-4679(197204)28:2<191::AID-JCLP2270280220>3.0.CO;2-G.

Tackett, J. L., Reardon, K. W., Fast, N. J., Johnson, L., Kang, S. K., Lang, J. W. B., & Oswald, F. L. (2023). Understanding the leaders of tomorrow: The need to study leadership in adolescence. Perspectives on Psychological Science , 18 (4), 829–842. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221118536 .

Wearden, A., Peters, I., Berry, K., Barrowclough, C., & Liversidge, T. (2008). Adult attachment, parenting experiences, and core beliefs about self and others. Personality and Individual Differences , 44 (5), 1246–1257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.11.019 .

Wellman, N., Tröster, C., Grimes, M., Roberson, Q., Rink, F., Gruber, M., Wellman, N., Tröster, C., Grimes, M., Roberson, Q., Rink, F., & Gruber, M. (2023). Publishing multimethod research in AMJ: A review and best-practice recommendations. Academy of Management Journal , 66 (4), 1007–1015. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2023.4004 .

Xu, J., & Zheng, Y. (2023). Parent- and child-driven daily family stress processes between daily stress, parental warmth, and adolescent adjustment. Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 52 (3), 490–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-022-01691-5 .

Yang, F., Chen, X., & Wang, L. (2015). Shyness-sensitivity and social, school, and psychological adjustment in urban Chinese children: A four-wave longitudinal study. Child Development , 86 (6), 1848–1864. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12414 .

Download references

This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [NSFC, grant number 72102210].

Data, analyses syntax, and additional online materials are openly available at the project’s Open Science Framework page ( https://osf.io/7x3ys/?view_only=27732f29c8db43d69e5f2280e318c470 ).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Zhengguang Liu & Wenjun Bian

Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Yufang Bian

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Z.L. participated in the research design and data collection, performed the statistical analyses, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript; W.B. performed the statistical analyses, data visualization, interpreted the results, and drafted the manuscript; Y.B. supervised this research, organized the data collection, reviewed the results, and revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhengguang Liu .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethical Approval

Participant information was rigorously protected, and survey data was used exclusively for research purposes, adhering to stringent ethical standards of American Psychological Association. This research was approved by Collaborative Innovation Center of Assessment toward Basic Education Quality at the doctoral institution of the first author (No.2021-36).

Informed Consent

Parents of adolescent participants were informed, and their consent was obtained.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Liu, Z., Bian, W. & Bian, Y. Leadership Blossoms in Parental Warmth: Positive Parenting Practices Shape Adolescent Leader Emergence via Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Mechanisms. J. Youth Adolescence (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01983-y

Download citation

Received : 01 December 2023

Accepted : 31 March 2024

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-024-01983-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Adolescent leader emergence
• Parental warmth
• Encouragement of independence
• Attachment theory
• Mixed methods
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Liberty University
• Jerry Falwell Library
• Special Collections
• < Previous

Home > ETD > Doctoral > 5651

Doctoral Dissertations and Projects

The lived experiences of secondary christian school administrators as they work to foster an environment conducive to student biblical worldview development: a qualitative phenomenological study.

Margaret E. Pope , Liberty University Follow

School of Education

Doctor of Philosophy in Education (PhD)

Roger C. S. Erdvig

Biblical worldview, Christian education, transformational leadership, faith development, K-12 education

Disciplines

Christianity | Education

Recommended Citation

Pope, Margaret E., "The Lived Experiences of Secondary Christian School Administrators as They Work to Foster an Environment Conducive to Student Biblical Worldview Development: A Qualitative Phenomenological Study" (2024). Doctoral Dissertations and Projects . 5651. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/doctoral/5651

The purpose of this hermeneutical phenomenological study was to understand the lived experiences of Christian school secondary administrators as they foster an environment conducive to student biblical worldview development. The theory guiding this study is Leithwood’s iteration of transformational leadership, as it recognizes the influential role school leaders play in the motivation and growth of teachers. Additional consideration of Erdvig’s model of biblical worldview development in evangelical Christian emerging adults was used as the conceptual framework recognizing that the faith elements of worldview formation are unique and relevant to the topic of the study. The central research question was: What are the lived experiences of Christian school secondary administrators as they foster an environment conducive to biblical worldview development? This qualitative, hermeneutic phenomenological study included 12 study participants who were secondary school administrators serving at ACSI- accredited Christian schools in the United States and who held a role of influence with teachers of Grades 6–12. The research was conducted virtually through interviews, focus groups, and document analysis. An iterative thematic coding approach revealed that administrators support institutional ideals, build relationships and develop people, consider the program framework, and provide instructional support while navigating their emotional considerations related to the task. Administrators fill a multifaceted role vital to fostering an environment conducive to students’ biblical worldview formation.

Since May 22, 2024

Included in

Christianity Commons , Education Commons

• Collections
• Faculty Expert Gallery
• Theses and Dissertations
• Conferences and Events
• Open Educational Resources (OER)
• Explore Disciplines

Advanced Search

• Notify me via email or RSS .

Faculty Authors

• Submit Research
• Expert Gallery Login

Student Authors

• Undergraduate Submissions
• Graduate Submissions
• Honors Submissions

Home | About | FAQ | My Account | Accessibility Statement

Privacy Copyright