The concept of agency has become widely used in education, social sciences, psychology, and more. This article explores the concept of agency and provides a critical review from two main bodies of work: The social cognitive theory and the structure agency theory. The two are not the same. Structure agency theory was used to illuminate agency from an organizational perspective. Social-cognitive theory was used to better understand leader agency from a social perspective. In order to understand the relationship between structure agency and leader agency, both of these theories are reviewed through the same lens: agency within the workplace, mainly in school structure and school leadership. Conclusions are drawn to a better understanding of how to develop a school leadership agency. We can summarize that the implications of agency in school are the key to effective school leadership.
AndenoroA. C.DulikarvichL. M.McBrideC. H.StedmanN. L.ChildersJ. (2019). A new lens for leadership education: Developing agency and effective decision-making in the face of counter-reality. Journal of Leadership Education, 18(1), 161–173. https://doi.org/10.12806/V18/I1/A2
5.
ArcherM. (2003). Structure, agency and the internal conversation. Cambridge University Press.
Asikin-GarmagerA. (2017). Indonesian public school principals’ enactment of agency within the boundaries set by social systems. [Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and theses Global.
BakerZ. (2019). Reflexivity, structure and agency: Using reflexivity to understand further education students’ higher education decision-making and choices. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 40(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2018.1483820
BanduraA. (2018). Toward a psychology of human agency: pathways and reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 13(2), 130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
BattilanaJ.D’AunnoT. (2009). Institutional work and the paradox of embedded agency. In Institutional work: Actors and agency in institutional studies of organizations (Vol. 9780521518550, pp. 31–58). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511596605.002
15.
BillettS. (2011). Subjectivity, self and personal agency in learning through and for work. In MallochM.CairnsL.EvansK.O’ConnerB. (Eds.), The international handbook of workplace learning (pp. 60–72). Sage.
16.
BunninN.YuJ. (2008). The blackwell dictionary of western philosophy. John Wiley & Sons.
17.
BuscoC. (2009). Giddens’ structuration theory and its implications for management accounting research. Journal of Management & Governance, 13(3), 249–260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-008-9081-6
18.
CaldwellR. (2012). Systems thinking, organizational change and agency: A practice theory critique of Senge’s learning organization. Journal of Change Management, 12(2), 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.647923
CaseyC. (2007). Workers, subjectivity and decent work. In Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 229–245). Dordrecht: Springer.
21.
ChingaraR.HeystekJ. (2019). Leadership as agency in the context of structure. International Journal of Educational Management, 33(7), 1596–1609.
22.
CliftonA.RepperJ.BanksD.RemnantJ. (2013). Co-producing social inclusion: The structure/agency conundrum. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 20(6), 514–524. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2012.01953.x
23.
CoburnC. E. (2016). What’s policy got to do with it? How the structure-agency debate can illuminate policy implementation. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 465–475. https://doi.org/10.1086/685847
24.
CohenJ.LoebS.MillerL. C.WyckoffJ. H. (2020). Policy implementation, principal agency, and strategic action: improving teaching effectiveness in New York city middle schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(1), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719893338
25.
CollinK.SintonenT.PaloniemiS.AuvinenT. (2011). Work, power and learning in a risk filled occupation. Management Learning, 42(3), 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507610394411
26.
DurrantJ.HoldenG. (2006). Teachers leading change: Doing research for school improvement. Paul Chapman Educational Publishing.
27.
ElderG. H.ShanahanM. J. (2006). The life course and human development. In LernerR. M.DamonW. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: VOL.1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 665–715). Hoboken, NF: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
28.
EteläpeltoA.VähäsantanenK.HökkäP.PaloniemiS. (2013). What is agency? Conceptualizing professional agency at work. Educational Research Review, 10, 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2013.05.001
29.
EvansK. (2007). Concepts of bounded agency in education, work, and the personal lives of young adults. International Journal of Psychology, 42(2), 85–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590600991237
30.
FenwickT. (2007). Escaping/becoming subjects: Learning to work the boundaries in boundaryless work. In Work, subjectivity and learning (pp. 21–36). Springer.
31.
FrostD. (2006). The concept of agency in leadership for learning. Leading and Managing, 12(2), 19–28.
32.
GiddensA. (1979). Central problems in social theory: action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). University of California Press.
33.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society. University of California Press.
34.
GilliesD. (2013). Educational leadership and Michel Foucault. Routledge.
35.
GollerM.HarteisC. (2017). Human agency at work: towards a clarification and operationalization of the concept. In GollerM. & PaloniemiS. (Eds.), Agency at work: An agentic perspective on professional learning and development (pp. 85–103). Cham: Springer.
36.
GreenwoodR.SuddabyR.HiningsC. R. (2002). Theorizing change: The role of professional association in the transformation of institutional fields. Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58–80.
GutiérrezK. D.Calabrese BartonA. (2015). The possibilities and limits of the structure–agency dialectic in advancing science for all. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(4), 574–583. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21229
39.
HaapasaariA.KerosuoH. (2015). Transformative agency: The challenges of sustainability in a long chain of double stimulation. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 4, 37–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.07.006
40.
HarteisC.GollerM. (2014). New skills for new jobs: Work agency as a necessary condition for successful lifelong learning. In HalttunenT.KoivistoM.BillettS. (Eds.), Promoting, assessing, recognizing and certifying lifelong learning. Lifelong learning book series, (vol. 20) (pp. 37–56). Springer.
41.
HatchM. J. (1999). Exploring the empty spaces of organizing: How improvisational jazz helps redescribe organizational structure. Organization Studies, 20(1), 75–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840699201004
42.
HeiskanenT. (2004). Information society, agency and identity positions. In HeiskanenT.HearnJ. (Eds.), Information society and the workplace: spaces (pp. 193–204). Boundaries and Agency.
JenkinsG. (2020). Teacher agency: The effects of active and passive responses to curriculum change. The Australian Educational Researcher, 47(1), 167–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-019-00334-2
45.
KingA. (2011). The deep questions: Structure/agency, micro/macro and time/space. In CrothersC. (Ed.), Historical developments and theoretical approaches in sociology, Vol. 1, encyclopedia of life support systems (pp. 65–94). UNESCO.
46.
LePelleyJ. M. (2020). Understanding Principal Agency within the Context of School Autonomy: How Do School Principals and Central Office Navigate Principal Leadership? [Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania]. ProQuest Dissertations and theses Global.
47.
LizardoO. (2010). Beyond the antinomies of structure: Levi-Strauss, Giddens, Bourdieu, and Sewell. Theory and Society, 39, 651–688. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-010-9125-1
48.
LokJ.WillmottH. (2019). Embedded agency in institutional theory: Problem or paradox?Academy of Management Review, 44(2), 470–473. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0571
49.
McCormickM. J. (2001). Self-efficacy and leadership effectiveness: applying social cognitive theory to leadership. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(1), 22–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/107179190100800102
50.
Mizrahi-ShtelmanR. (2019). School principals as agents: autonomy, embeddedness and script. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 58, 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X20190000058005
51.
MumfordM. D.ZaccaroS. J.HardingF. D.JacobsT. O.FleishmanE. A. (2000). Leadership skills for a changing world: Solving complex social problems. The Leadership Quarterly, 11(1), 11–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00041-7
52.
NeumannA.TeroskyA. L.SchellJ. (2006). Agents of learning: strategies for assuming agency, for learning, in tenured faculty careers. In BrackenS. J.AllenJ. K.DeanD. R. (Eds.), The balancing act: gendered perspectives in faculty roles and work lives (pp. 91–120). Stylus Publishing.
53.
ObornE.BarrettM.DawsonS. (2013). Distributed leadership in policy formulation: A sociomaterial perspective. Organization Studies, 34(2), 253–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612473552
OspinaS.FoldyE. (2009). A critical review of race and ethnicity in the leadership literature: Surfacing context, power and the collective dimensions of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 20, 876–896. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2009.09.005
56.
PaloniemiS.CollinK. (2012). Discursive power and creativity in inter-professional work. Vocations and Learning, 5(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-011-9064-7
57.
RaelinJ. A. (2016). Imagine there are no leaders: Reframing leadership as collaborative agency. Leadership, 12(2), 131–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742715014558076
58.
RafieeM.MirzaeiH.MirzaeeA.HashemzadehA. (2014). The relationship between structure and agency in communicative action theory. Bulletin of environment. Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 3(Spl issue II), 141–149.
59.
RigbyJ. G.WoulfinS. L.MärzV. (2016). Understanding how structure and agency influence education policy implementation and organizational change. American Journal of Education, 122(3), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1086/685849
SeashoreL. S.RobinsonV. M. (2012). External mandates and instructional leadership: School leaders as mediating agents. Journal of Educational Administration, 50(5), 629–665. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231211249853
63.
SemperD. (2019). Machina Ex Deus? From Distributed to Orchestrated Agency. In Agents, Actors, Actorhood: Institutional Perspectives on the Nature of Agency, Action, and Authority. Emerald Publishing Limited.
64.
SergiV.LusianiM.LangleyA.DenisJ. L. (2013). Saying what you do and doing what you say: The performative dynamics of lean management theory. Department of Management, Università Ca'Foscari Venezia Working Paper, (35).
65.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1086/229967
66.
ShanahanM. J.HoodK. E. (2000). Adolescents in changing social structures: Bounded agency in life course perspective. In CrockettL. J.SilbereisenR. K. (Eds.), Negotiating adolescence intimes of social change (pp. 123–134). Cambridge University Press.
67.
StonesR. (2005). Structuration theory. Macmillan International Higher Education.
68.
TempletonL.O'mearaK. (2018). Enhancing agency through leadership development programs for faculty. The Journal of Faculty Development, 32(1), 31–36.
69.
TornauK.FreseM. (2013). Construct clean-up in proactivity research: A meta-analysis on the nomological net of work-related proactivity concepts and their incremental validities. Applied Psychology, 62(1), 44–96. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00514.x
70.
VallasS. P. (2006). Empowerment redux: structure, agency, and the remaking of managerial authority. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1677–1717. https://doi.org/10.1086/499909
71.
WelzelC.InglehartR. (2010). Agency, values, and well-being: A human development model. Social Indicators Research, 97(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9557-z
72.
WolfgrammR.Flynn-ColemanS.ConroyD. (2015). Dynamic interactions of agency in leadership (DIAL): An integrative framework for analyzing agency in sustainability leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 126, 649–662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-1977-7
73.
YangK. (2012). Further understanding accountability in public organizations: Actionable knowledge and the structure–agency duality. Administration & Society, 44(3), 255–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711417699
