Previous research highlighted the existence of multiple educational leadership styles; however, evidence on their multidimensional application is limited. The current study defines an innovative cross-national classification for school leaders along the two dimensions of instructional and distributed leadership. We apply a three-step Latent Class Analysis to transnationally generalizable Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's Teaching and Learning International Survey 2013 data, with N = 9384 school principals surveyed across 32 countries. From here, we identify four sub-groups of leaders: integrating leaders (64.9% of the sample), who adopt instructional and distributed leadership in an integrated way, participative leaders (22.2%) and supportive leaders (8.5%), who are respectively high only on distributed or instructional leadership, and contingent leaders (4.4%), without a specific a priori leadership approach. Features specific to the principals, the schools and the school context are significantly related to leadership sub-group membership and important moderators of the correlation between types of leadership and students’ test scores, as analyzed for a subset of countries. As implications for leadership policy and practice, the cross-country prevalence of integrating leaders might increase the level of organizational complexity, while the geographical distribution of leadership classes highlights the important role played by cultural aspects in influencing leadership practices.
AgasistiTBowersAJSoncinM (2019) School principals’ leadership types and student achievement in the Italian context: Empirical results from a three-step latent class analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership47(6): 860–886.
2.
AhnJBowersAJWeltonAD (2021) Leadership for learning as an organization-wide practice: Evidence on its multilevel structure and implications for educational leadership practice and research. International Journal of Leadership in Education: 1–52.
3.
AsparouhovTMuthénB (2014) Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using Mplus. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal21(3): 329–341.
4.
AsparouhovTMuthénB (2018) Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Using the BCH method in Mplus to estimate a distal outcome model and an arbitrary secondary model. Mplus Web Notes Version 321(2): 1–22.
5.
BellibasMSLiuY (2018) The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education21(2): 226–244.
6.
BolckACroonMHagenaarsJ (2004) Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis12(1): 3–27.
7.
BowersA (2020) Examining a congruency-typology model of leadership for learning using two-level latent class analysis with TALIS 2018, OECD Education Working Papers, No. 219, OECD Publishing, Paris.
8.
BowersAJBlitzMModestM, et al. (2017) How leaders agree with teachers in schools on measures of leadership practice: A two-level latent class analysis of the comprehensive assessment of leadership for learning. Teachers College Record119(4): 1–34.
9.
BoyceJBowersAJ (2018) Towards an evolving conceptualization of instructional leadership as leadership for learning: Meta-narrative review of 109 quantitative studies across 25 years. Journal of Educational Administration56(2): 161–182.
10.
BushT (2018) Leadership and context: Why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 3–4.
11.
BushTGloverD (2014) School leadership models: What do we know?School Leadership & Management34(5): 553–571.
12.
CeleuxGSoromenhoG (1996) An entropy criterion for assessing the number of clusters in a mixture model. Journal of Classification13(2): 195–212.
13.
ChenY-GChengJ-NSatoM (2017) Effects of school principals’ leadership behaviors: A comparison between Taiwan and Japan. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice16: 5–33.
14.
ChudagrALuscheiTF (2016) The untapped promise of secondary data sets in international and comparative education policy research. Education Policy Analysis24(113): 1–19.
15.
CollinsLMLanzaST (2010) Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
16.
CronbachLJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3): 297–334.
17.
DayCGuQSammonsP (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: How successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educational Administration Quarterly52(2): 221–258.
18.
DayantiPREliyanaAPermana EmurA, et al. (2022) Supportive leadership: A literature review. International Journal of Science and Management Studies (IJSMS)5(2): 74–80.
19.
DziakJJLanzaSTTanX (2014) Effect size, statistical power, and sample size requirements for the bootstrap likelihood ratio test in latent class analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal21(4): 534–552.
20.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
FlessaJBramwellDFernandezM, et al. (2018) School leadership in Latin America 2000–2016. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(2): 182–206.
22.
Gil-IzquierdoMCorderoJM (2018) Guidelines for data fusion with international large scale assessments: Insights from the TALIS-PISA link database. Studies in Educational Evaluation59: 10–18.
23.
Gümüş¸SBellibaşMSEsenM, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 25–48.
24.
HallingerP (2005) Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools4(3): 221–239.
25.
HallingerPHeckRH (2011) Conceptual and methodological issues in studying school leadership effects as a reciprocal process. School Effectiveness and School Improvement22(2): 149–173.
26.
HanushekEAWoessmannL (2010) The Economics of International Differences in Educational Achievement (No. w15949). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
HarrisA (2003) Distributed leadership in schools: Leading or misleading?Management in Education16(5): 10–13.
28.
HeckRHallingerP (2009) Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal46(3): 659–689.
29.
JohnsonLMøllerJJacobsonSL, et al. (2008) Cross-national comparisons in the International Successful School Principalship Project (ISSPP): The USA, Norway and China. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research52(4): 407–422.
30.
KletteK (2018) Individualism and collectivism in Nordic schools: A comparative approach. In: Sustainable Modernity. London: Routledge, pp. 59–78.
31.
KovačevićJHallingerP (2020) Finding Europe’s niche: Science mapping the knowledge base on educational leadership and management in Europe, 1960–2018. School Effectiveness and School Improvement31(3): 405–425.
32.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2008) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. School Leadership and Management28(1): 27–42.
33.
LeithwoodKJantziDSteinbachR (1999) Changing Leadership for Changing Times. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
34.
LeithwoodKLevinB (2005) Assessing School Leader and Leadership Programme Effects on Pupil Learning: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges. London: Department for Education and Skills.
35.
LeithwoodKLouisKSAndersonG, et al. (2004) How Leadership Influences Student Learning: A Review of Research for the Learning from Leadership Project. New York: The Wallace Foundation.
36.
LiuY (2020) Focusing on the practice of distributed leadership: The international evidence from the 2013 TALIS. Educational Administration Quarterly56(5): 779–818.
37.
LiuYBellibaşMŞGümüşS (2021) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership49(3): 430–453.
38.
LoY (2005) Likelihood ratio tests of the number of components in a normal mixture with unequal variances. Statistics & Probability Letters71(3): 225–235.
39.
LoYMendellNRRubinDB (2001) Testing the number of components in a normal mixture. Biometrika88(3): 767–778.
40.
MarksHMPrintySM (2003) Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly39(3): 370–397.
MuthénBO (2004) Latent variable analysis: Growth mixture modeling and related techniques for longitudinal data. In: KaplanD (ed) The Sage Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, pp. 345–370.
43.
MuthénBOMuthénLK (2000) Integrating person-centered and variable-centered analyses: Growth mixture modeling with latent trajectory classes. Alcoholism: Clinical & Experimental Research24(6): 882–891.
NoUHongS (2018) A comparison of mixture modeling approaches in latent class models with external variables under small samples. Educational and Psychological Measurement78(6): 925–951.
46.
Nylund-GibsonKMasynKE (2016) Covariates and mixture modeling: Results of a simulation study exploring the impact of misspecified effects on class enumeration. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal23(6): 782–797.
47.
NylundKLAsparouhovTMuthénBO (2007) Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidiscplinary Journal14(4): 535–569.
48.
OECD (2016) School Leadership for Learning: Insights from TALIS 2013. Paris: OECD Publishing.
OECD (2014b) User Guide for the International Database. Paris: OECD Publishing.
54.
PodsakoffPMMacKenzieSBLeeJY (2003) Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology88(5): 879–903.
55.
PrintySLiuY (2021) Distributed leadership globally: The interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Administration Quarterly57(2): 290–325.
56.
PrintySMMarksHMBowersAJ (2009) Integrated leadership: How principals and teachers share transformational and instructional influence. Journal of School Leadership19(5): 504–532.
57.
RobinsonVMLloydCARoweKJ (2008) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly44(5): 564–588.
58.
SamuelsenKRaczynskiK (2013) Latent class/profile analysis. In: PetscherYSchatschneiderCComptonDL (eds) Applied Quantitative Analysis in the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge, pp. 304–328.
59.
ShakedH (2022) Instructional leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic: The case of Israel. Educational Management Administration & Leadership: 17411432221102521.
60.
SoiniTPietarinenJPyhältöK (2016) Leading a school through change – principals’ hands-on leadership strategies in school reform. School Leadership & Management36(4): 452–469.
61.
SomechA (2005) Directive versus participative leadership: Two complementary approaches to managing school effectiveness. Educational Administration Quarterly41(5): 777–800.
62.
SpillaneJP (2005) Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum69(2): 143–150.
63.
TanCY (2018) Examining school leadership effects on student achievement: The role of contextual challenges and constraints. Cambridge journal of education48(1): 21–45.
64.
TanCYGaoLShiM (2022) Second-order meta-analysis synthesizing the evidence on associations between school leadership and different school outcomes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(3): 469–490.
65.
TavakolMDennickR (2011) Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International Journal of Medical Education2: 53.
66.
TofighiDEndersCK (2008) Identifying the correct number of classes in growth mixture models. Advances in Latent Variable Mixture Models: 317–341.
67.
UrickA (2016) Examining US principal perception of multiple leadership styles used to practice shared instructional leadership. Journal of Educational Administration54(2): 152–172.
68.
UrickABowersAJ (2019) Assessing international teacher and principal perceptions of instructional leadership: A multilevel factor analysis of TALIS 2008. Leadership and Policy in Schools18(3): 249–269.
69.
UrickABowersAJ (2014a) How does principal perception of academic climate measure up? The impact of principal perceptions on student academic climate and achievement in high school. Journal of School Leadership24(2): 386–414.
70.
UrickABowersAJ (2014b) What are the different types of principals across the U.S.? A latent class analysis of principal perception of leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly50(1): 96–134.
71.
UrickAWilsonASPFordTG, et al. (2018) Testing a framework of math progress indicators for ESSA: How opportunity to learn and instructional leadership matter. Educational Administration Quarterly54(3): 396–438.
72.
WarwasJ (2015) Principals’ leadership behaviour: Values-based, contingent or both?Journal of Educational Administration53(3): 310–334.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
