Page 113 - Educational Leadership in a Changing World

Navigating between Principalship, Leadership and Management

sively described and discussed by scholars (Davies & Davies, 2006; Lei-
thwood & Jantzi, 1990; Tian & Huber, 2020). Hallinger (1992) identified
trends in principalship in the usa from 1960 to 1990, which evolved
from programme manager to instructional leader and then to trans-
formational leader. Mango (2018) noted that there are over 60 leader-
ship theories guiding researchers in this field. He conducted a thorough
analysis aiming to consolidate these various theories and found consid-
erable redundancy and similarities among them. After scrutinizing 22
theories, he identified five domains.
This consolidation effort is not unique; for instance, Meuser et al.
(2016) conducted an extensive analysis of leadership theories and iden-
tified one focal theory encompassing six leadership approaches: trans-
formational leadership, charismatic leadership, strategic leadership,
leadership and diversity, participative/shared leadership, and trait the-
ory. Educational leadership is shaped by all of these theories, domains,
and models. They not only address the need of principals to ‘protect’
teachers from non-professionals but also reflect the importance of di-
versity and variety in leadership practices.
Gurr (2015) reported on the International Successful School Princi-
palship Project (isspp), which has been ongoing since 2001, and he
provided an international model of successful school leadership. Ini-
tially involving seven participating countries, the project expanded to
20 countries, incorporating rich, diverse methodologies to explore the
nature of successful principal leadership. Among many findings, Gurr
(2015) highlights the concepts of distributed leadership and heroic lead-
ership that successful principals embody. While heroic leadership may
suggest an emphasis on individual leadership, it is essential to recog-
nize that principals do not lead schools alone. Gurr (2015, p. 144) inten-
tionally uses the term ‘school leaders’ instead of ‘principals’ to empha-
size this point.
The distinction between ‘school leader’ and ‘principal’ is closely tied
to legal frameworks, the roles and positions of principals, and the or-
ganizational structure of schools. Gurr (2015) provides an example re-
garding changes in pedagogy, stating that heads of curriculum areas
can lead improvements in teaching methods. However, the legal frame-
work defines school structures and hierarchies, which in turn dictate
the roles and responsibilities of various school leaders. This observa-
tion suggests that emphasizing principals as school leaders extends be-
yond mere leadership; it pertains to specific roles and positions within

113