Distributive leadership is often associated with teacher autonomy, decentralisation and effective schools. This article aims to investigate how distributive leadership is practiced by principals and is connected to teacher autonomy within the context of federal schools in northwest Nigeria. Adopting a quantitative analysis method, this descriptive survey reveals that the implementation of distributive leadership by principals and teachers’ perspective of their autonomy are both moderate. The study also identified that, contrary to some evidence, teacher autonomy is irrelevant to school effectiveness, while distributive leadership significantly affects school effectiveness. This research explores distributive leadership, teacher autonomy and school effectiveness in a devolved education system. Furthermore, this work contributes to the literature on the subject by presenting evidence that devolution does not necessarily ensure high distributive leadership and teacher autonomy, and its presence does not guarantee highly effective schools. In response to the demand for additional non-Western literature, this study explains the dynamics of distributive leadership, teacher autonomy and school efficacy in a decentralised Nigerian environment.
AjayiIAEkundayoHT (2011) Factors determining the effectiveness of secondary schools in Nigeria. The Anthropologist13(1): 33–38.
2.
AlamGM (2023) Transforming the paradigm of public university leadership into a more political one in emerging nations: a case of Bangladesh. International Journal of Management in Education17(3): 277–296.
3.
BagwellJL (2019) Exploring the leadership practices of elementary school principals through a distributed leadership framework: a case study. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development30: 83–103.
4.
BashirKAlamGM (2024a) Compatibility of distributive leadership, teacher autonomy and school effectiveness in Nigeria. International Journal of Management in Education18(4): 355–375..
5.
BashirKAlamGM (2024b) Does distributed leadership fit the paradigm transformation of secondary school effectiveness in Nigeria?International Journal of Management in Education18(1): 70–90.
6.
BassBM (1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology8(1): 9–32.
7.
BoldenRGulatiAEdwardsG (2019) Mobilizing change in public services: insights from a systems leadership development intervention. International Journal of Public Administration43(1): 26–36.
8.
BushT (2018a) Prescribing distributed leadership: is this a contradiction?Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(4): 535–537.
9.
BushT (2018b) Leadership and context: why one-size does not fit all. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(1): 3–4.
10.
BushTAbdul HamidSNgA, et al. (2018) School leadership theories and the Malaysia education blueprint: findings from a systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Management32(7): 1245–1265.
11.
BushTGloverD (2014) School leadership models: what do we know?School Leadership & Management34(5): 553–571.
12.
BushTNgAYM (2019) Distributed leadership and the Malaysia education blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralized context. Journal of Educational Administration57(3): 279–295.
13.
BushTNgAYMTooWK, et al. (2023) Ensuring acceptability and feasibility: the challenges of educational policy reform in Malaysia. Leadership and Policy in Schools22(2): 314–329.
14.
ChenDNingBBosW (2022) Relationship between principal leadership style and student achievement: a comparative study between Germany and China. SAGE Open12(2): 21582440221094601.
15.
CrawfordM (2012) Solo and distributed leadership: definitions and dilemmas. Educational Management Administration & Leadership40(5): 610–620.
16.
CreswellJWPlano ClarkVL (2018) Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research, 3rd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage Publications, Inc.
17.
DanielsEHondeghemADochyF (2019) A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review27: 110–125.
18.
DayCSammonsPGorgenK (2020) Successful School Leadership. Reading, Berkshire: Education Development Trust.
19.
Döşİ (2014) Some model suggestions for measuring effective schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences116: 1454–1458.
20.
FitzgeraldSMcGrath-ChampSStaceyM, et al. (2019) Intensification of teachers’ work under devolution: a ‘tsunami’ of paperwork. Journal of Industrial Relations61(5): 613–636.
21.
GaskinJLimJ (2016) Model Fit Measures AMOS Plugin. Gaskination’s StatWiki.
22.
GorardS (2010) Serious doubts about school effectiveness. British Educational Research Journal36(5): 745–766.
23.
HallingerP (2018) Surfacing a hidden literature: a systematic review of research on educational leadership and management in Africa. Educational Management Administration & Leadership46(3): 362–384.
24.
HallingerPGumuşSBellibaşMS (2020) Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership 1940–2018. Scientometrics122(3): 1629–1650.
25.
HarrisAJonesM (2020) COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management40(4): 243–247.
26.
HoR (2006) Handbook of Univariate and Multivariate Data Analysis and Interpretation with SPSS. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC.
27.
HulpiaHDevosGRosseelY (2009) Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement69(6): 1013–1034.
28.
JamesonJRumyantsevaNCaiM, et al. (2022) A systematic review, textual narrative synthesis and framework for digital leadership research maturity in higher education. Computers and Education Open3: 100115.
29.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management401: 5–22.
30.
LeithwoodKLouisKS (2021) Organizational Learning in Schools. London: Taylor & Francis.
31.
LezotteLWSnyderKM (2011) What Effective Schools Do: Re-envisioning the Correlates. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.
32.
LinQ (2022) The relationship between distributed leadership and teacher innovativeness: Mediating roles of teacher autonomy and professional collaboration. Frontiers in Psychology13: 948152.
33.
LiuSKeeleyJWSuiY, et al. (2021a) Impact of distributed leadership on teacher job satisfaction in China: the mediating roles of teacher autonomy and teacher collaboration. Studies in Educational Evaluation71: 101099.
34.
LiuYBellibaşMSGumuşS (2021b) 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.
35.
LiuYWerblowJ (2019) The operation of distributed leadership and the relationship with organizational commitment and job satisfaction of principals and teachers: a multi-level model and meta-analysis using the 2013 TALIS data. International Journal of Educational Research96: 41–55.
36.
MbonuVCAzujiIM (2021) Relationship between school principals’ distributed leadership style and teachers’ organizational commitment in public secondary schools in Anambra state, Nigeria. European Journal of Education and Pedagogy2(1): 7–11.
37.
McCauleyCDPalusCJ (2021) Developing the theory and practice of leadership development: a relational view. The Leadership Quarterly32(5): 101456.
38.
MifsudD (2023) A systematic review of school distributed leadership: exploring research purposes, concepts and approaches in the field between 2010 and 2022. Journal of Educational Administration and History52(2): 1–26.
39.
MoshoodYAAsimiranSKadirSA (2020) Relationship impact of principals’ transformational leadership style and effectiveness of school as perceived by teacher’s in Lagos state secondary schools, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in Progressive Education and Development9(3): 160–169.
40.
NaidooJ (2005) Education decentralization in Africa: Great expectations and unfulfilled promises. In: BakerDWisemanAW (eds) Global Trends in Educational Policy. Amsterdam: Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 99–124.
National Policy on Education (NPE) (2013) Nigerian Educational Research and Development Council. Federal Republic of Nigeria.
43.
OduroGK (2004) Distributed leadership’ in schools: What English headteachers say about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. In: British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, pp.16–18. A paper prepared for the BERA Annual Conference 2004 UMIST, Manchester 14–18 September 2004.
44.
OparajiICEzembaEUOkaforJN (2023) Work autonomy as correlate of teachers’ job effectiveness in public secondary schools in Imo State, Nigeria. UNIZIK Journal of Educational Research and Policy Studies15(1): 28–37.
45.
ÖzdemirMBuyukgozeHAkmanY, et al. (2023) Distributed leadership and teachers’ emotional labour: the mediating role of teacher autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration61(4): 405–422.
46.
PearsonLCMoomawW (2006) Continuing validation of the teaching autonomy scale. The Journal of Educational Research100(1): 44–51.
47.
PrintySLiuY (2021) Distributed leadership globally: the interactive nature of principal and teacher leadership in 32 countries. Educational Administration Quarterly57(2): 290–325.
48.
SalokangasMWermkeWHarveyG (2020) Teachers’ autonomy deconstructed: Irish and Finnish teachers’ perceptions of decision-making and control. European Educational Research Journal19(4): 329–350.
49.
SaqipiB (2019) Teacher education policy discourse in the midst of system reorganisation and policy transfer: lessons for small and developing countries. International Journal of Management in Education13(1): 28–39.
50.
SpillaneJPDiamondJB (2007) Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
51.
SupovitzJAD’AuriaJSpillaneJP (2019) Meaningful & sustainable school improvement with distributed leadership. University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons, CPRE Research Reports.
52.
TahirLMLeeSLMusahMB, et al. (2016) Challenges in distributed leadership: evidence from the perspective of headteachers. International Journal of Educational Management30(6): 848–863.
53.
The Research Advisors (2006) Sample size table from the research advisors.
54.
ThienLMChanSY (2022) One-size-fits-all? A cross-validation study of distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism. Educational Management Administration & Leadership50(1): 43–63.
55.
Uhl-BienMMarionRMcKelveyB (2007) Complexity leadership theory: shifting leadership from the industrial age to the knowledge era. The Leadership Quarterly18(4): 298–318.
56.
UNESCO (United Nations Scientific, Educational and Cultural Organization) (2023) Out-of-school numbers are growing in sub-Saharan Africa. Available at: https://www.unesco.org/gem-report/en/2022-outschool (accessed on 29 October 2023).
57.
VangriekenKGrosemansIDochyF, et al. (2017) Teacher autonomy and collaboration: a paradox? Conceptualising and measuring teachers’ autonomy and collaborative attitude. Teaching and Teacher Education67: 302–315.
WermkeWOlason RickSSalokangasM (2019) Decision-making and control: perceived autonomy of teachers in Germany and Sweden. Journal of Curriculum Studies51(3): 306–325.
