Key Assumptions About Leadership in Schools

When we talk about leadership in schools, it’s easy to assume there’s a single formula – a checklist of traits that every headteacher must possess to succeed. But the reality is far more nuanced. Leadership in education is shaped by a web of assumptions – about what leaders should do, how they differ from managers, whether their role ever truly changes, and whether anyone else can take their place. Understanding these assumptions is the first step toward becoming a more effective and self-aware school leader.

Leadership is not one-dimensional 🔗

One of the most persistent assumptions about school leadership is that it follows a single, universal model. In truth, research published by the UK’s National College for Teaching and Leadership makes it clear: successful headteachers draw on the same basic leadership practices, but there is no single model for achieving success. Context matters – the size of the school, the socio-economic background of students, the existing school culture, and even the national policy environment all shape the kind of leadership a school needs.

This is what we mean by the multidimensional nature of leadership. A headteacher in a large urban secondary school dealing with high student turnover faces fundamentally different challenges than one leading a small rural primary school with a stable community. The former might need to prioritise behaviour management and stakeholder engagement, while the latter might focus more on curriculum enrichment and community partnerships.

Different styles for different needs 🔗

Educational research broadly recognises three major leadership frameworks that headteachers tend to draw upon: transformational leadership, instructional (or pedagogical) leadership, and distributed leadership. According to the Education Development Trust’s review of school leadership evidence, these three approaches are not mutually exclusive. In practice, successful school leaders blend these styles depending on what their school requires at a given time.

Transformational leadership focuses on setting a shared vision and motivating staff to pursue goals that go beyond their own self-interest. Instructional leadership is more hands-on – it centres on improving the quality of teaching and learning directly. Distributed leadership, meanwhile, involves sharing responsibilities across the staff so that leadership is not dependent on any single individual.

The key takeaway here is that leadership is not static. A headteacher may begin their tenure relying heavily on transformational practices to build trust and set direction, then shift towards more instructional approaches as the school stabilises. This layering of strategies is a hallmark of effective leadership, as highlighted in seven strong claims about school leadership published by the UK government.

Management and leadership: two sides of the same coin 🔗

There is a long-standing debate in education about whether headteachers should be “leaders” or “managers.” The short answer is: they must be both. But understanding the distinction between the two is essential because each serves a different purpose in a school.

Management is about operational efficiency. It involves the day-to-day tasks of running a school – budgeting, scheduling, staffing, ensuring compliance with regulations, and maintaining facilities. Leadership, on the other hand, is about vision, inspiration, and change. It involves motivating people, setting strategic direction, and fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Why schools need both 🔗

According to an analysis by Loeb Leadership, leadership drives transformation by embracing new teaching methods and technologies, while management ensures stability by maintaining established routines and processes. Leaders are people-oriented – they build relationships and develop talent. Managers are process-oriented – they optimise workflows and allocate resources.

The problem arises when one is favoured at the expense of the other. A headteacher who focuses only on inspiring staff but ignores the timetable, budgets, and policy compliance will quickly run into chaos. Conversely, a headteacher who is a perfect administrator but fails to articulate a clear vision or inspire teachers will lead a school that functions efficiently but never truly improves.

As educational scholars Connolly, James, and Fertig (2019) have argued, educational management (carrying delegated responsibility for systems) and educational leadership (influencing others) are categorically different activities. Yet in practice, a headteacher must move fluidly between the two. In one hour, they might be reviewing budget allocations; in the next, they’re coaching a struggling teacher or presenting a new whole-school strategy.

The tension between administration and inspiration 🔗

In many education systems, headteachers report spending an overwhelming proportion of their time on administrative tasks. The UNESCO-affiliated research on school leadership and educational transformation notes that principals in several countries focus primarily on administrative duties when they may need to reinforce pedagogical knowledge and build organisational capacity for improvement instead. This is a structural issue – systems that overload headteachers with paperwork and compliance demands effectively prevent them from being the inspirational leaders their schools need.

The assumption, then, is not that headteachers must choose between being leaders or managers. It’s that the balance between these two roles must be intentional and context-dependent.

The evolving role of headteachers 🔗

School leadership has never been a fixed job description. What headteachers did fifty years ago looks quite different from what they do today, and their role will likely continue to shift. But here’s the important assumption: while the specific tasks may change, the core responsibilities remain constant.

From administrators to change agents 🔗

Historically, headteachers were seen as administrative authority figures. They enforced rules, managed finances, and ensured compliance. Today, the expectations are dramatically broader. Modern headteachers are expected to act as agents of change – people who can introduce new teaching methods, use data for decision-making, foster inclusive environments, and navigate complex accountability frameworks.

This shift is happening globally. An OECD report on improving school leadership identified four key policy levers for transforming school leadership: redefining responsibilities, distributing leadership, developing leadership skills, and making school leadership an attractive profession. These are responses to the reality that the role has grown far beyond what any single set of administrative skills can address.

Core responsibilities that remain 🔗

Despite all these changes, some responsibilities endure. Headteachers must still set a clear direction for their school. They must still ensure the quality of teaching and learning. They must still build relationships within the school and with the broader community. They must still manage resources wisely. And they must still model the values and behaviours they expect from staff and students.

The Education Development Trust’s comprehensive review identifies key dimensions that remain at the heart of successful leadership regardless of context: defining vision and values, improving teaching and learning conditions, redesigning organisational roles, enhancing teacher quality, and building internal and external relationships. These dimensions have remained remarkably consistent across decades of research and across vastly different national contexts.

So while a headteacher today might spend more time on data analysis and digital strategy than their predecessor did, the underlying purpose of their work – to create the conditions for excellent teaching and learning – hasn’t changed.

There is no substitute for leadership 🔗

In recent decades, there has been a strong push towards distributed leadership – the idea that leadership responsibilities should be shared across multiple people in a school rather than concentrated in one person. This is a sensible and well-supported approach. But it comes with a critical caveat: distributing leadership does not mean the headteacher becomes optional.

What distributed leadership really means 🔗

Distributed leadership is about creating capacity within a school. It means empowering department heads, senior teachers, and other staff members to take ownership of specific areas of school improvement. Research published in a 2024 study on distributed leadership in educational contexts describes this approach as a framework that promotes inclusivity, shared responsibilities, and sustainable educational practices through decentralised decision-making.

This sounds promising – and it is. When done well, distributed leadership leads to greater teacher engagement, improved professional development, and more sustainable improvement efforts. Schools that report the highest levels of student achievement tend to attribute this to high levels of influence from school teams, parents, and students – not just from the headteacher alone.

Why headteachers still matter 🔗

However, that same body of research is emphatic on one point: headteachers remain the most influential figures in their schools. The UK government’s research on school leadership found that headteachers were consistently rated as having the greatest influence – both positive and negative – across all types of schools studied. Even in schools with highly distributed models, someone has to set the overall direction, maintain coherence, and ensure accountability.

As one executive headteacher put it in a reflection published by The Headteacher, while executive and distributed models are growing, the best model for any school fundamentally relies on a committed, visible leader at the centre. Without that guiding figure, distributed efforts risk becoming fragmented – everyone leads, but no one steers.

The assumption, then, is not that headteachers must do everything themselves. It’s that no amount of delegation, decentralisation, or team-based leadership can fully replace the need for a clear-sighted individual who holds the vision, makes the difficult decisions, and keeps the school moving in the right direction.

The accountability question 🔗

There is also a practical dimension to this. Regardless of how leadership is distributed, headteachers remain ultimately accountable for outcomes in most education systems. Whether it’s student performance, safeguarding, financial management, or staff welfare, the headteacher is the person held responsible. This means that even when authority is shared, the headteacher must maintain oversight and ensure coherence across all distributed functions.

This does not mean headteachers should be controlling or reluctant to delegate. Quite the opposite – the most effective headteachers are those who build strong teams, trust their staff, and empower others to lead. But they do so while maintaining a clear line of sight to every critical aspect of school life.

Bringing it all together 🔗

These four assumptions about leadership in schools – that it is multidimensional, that it involves both management and leadership, that the role evolves but core responsibilities remain, and that there is no true substitute for a headteacher’s guiding influence – are not just theoretical ideas. They are practical realities that shape the daily work of every school leader.

Understanding these assumptions helps headteachers make better decisions about how to allocate their time and energy. It helps them recognise when they need to shift their leadership approach to meet changing circumstances. And it helps them build the kind of collaborative, distributed leadership culture that supports school improvement without losing the strategic clarity that only a strong central leader can provide.

The best school leaders are not those who fit neatly into one leadership style or model. They are the ones who understand the complexity of their role, accept that it is always evolving, and remain committed to the fundamental purpose of schools: ensuring that every child has the opportunity to learn, grow, and succeed.

What do you think? Do you believe distributed leadership can ever fully replace the role of a headteacher, or is a strong central leader always essential? How do you balance the demands of management and leadership in your own educational setting?

References

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-strong-claims-about-successful-school-leadership
2. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED614324.pdf
3. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7df7f9e5274a2e87daeb06/seven-claims-about-successful-school-leadership.pdf
4. https://www.loebleadership.com/insights/difference-between-leadership-and-management-in-education
5. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1741143217745880
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9628287/
7. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/improving-school-leadership_9789264044715-en.html
8. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590291124000329
9. https://www.theheadteacher.com/staff-management/school-structures/an-evolution-in-leadership