Abstract
This review examines the landscape of Ghana's Basic Education (BE) Headteacher Leadership (HTL) literature, revealing essential insights from empirical studies conducted between 1994 and 2022. It originated from the lack of a systematic review summarizing evidence on HTL training, preparation, and practices implemented across the sector. However, research shows Ghana does not provide formal HTL training programs for BE Headteachers before recruitment. Employing the PRISMA framework, we analyzed 23 peer-reviewed empirical studies related to BE HTL, published across ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, EThOS, and Web of Science databases. The purpose was to identify the key characteristics that define Ghana's BE HTL. Findings reveal the absence of formal HTL training before recruitment, non-conventional recruitment criteria, and diverse leadership practices, predominantly transformational leadership, shaped by international training programs like Leadership for Learning. The literature also offers cultural factors that may inhibit training programs’ learning transfer and ways to mitigate them. A trend towards self-directed and informal professional development among Headteachers was identified, suggesting a resilient but unstandardized approach to leadership development to address these systemic gaps. These findings provide a reference for present and future Headteachers and point to the essential need for developing leadership frameworks tailored to Ghana's BE HTL context.
Introduction
In Ghana, the Basic Education (BE) sector is managed by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ghana Education Service (GES). BE, at the time of this review, is an 11-year mandatory sector made of 2-year kindergarten, referred to as Early Childhood Education (ECE), 6-year primary, and 3-year junior high school (JHS) for all school-aged children (GES, 2010; Poku et al., 2013). These three BE schools are often located on the same premises and are led by three Headteachers across the levels or one for all levels, depending on the school's population and catchment area. MOE manages the sector's educational policy development, as the implementation is carried out through a delegated range of the system's agencies (Bosu et al., 2011) with GES at the national level, interdependent education directorates at regional and district levels, and Headteachers at the school level. Ghana's BE appears, therefore, to be managed hierarchically through diverse institutions and systems and directors from the national to the school level.
According to GES, the BE Headteacher is responsible for the “efficient and effective mobilization and management of resources and energy at the school and community levels” (GES, 2010: iii). To effectively mobilize and manage the school and community's resources and energy, Ghana's BE Headteachers are mandated to use the Headteachers’ Handbook—a 346-page document, as the reference guide for their daily school leadership activities. This document describes BE's structure, Headteacher Leadership (HTL) practices titled Managing Your School, and strategies for improving the quality of learning. Initially published in 1994, it was revised in 2010 to include the leadership for learning (LfL) guidelines (GES, 2010). However, the sector features small-scale HTL studies without a single empirical review summarizing evidence on HTL training, recruitment, and practices. Research does show that Ghana, like the wider West African region, does not provide formal HTL training programs for BE Headteachers before recruitment (Bush and Glover, 2016; Donkor, 2015; Zame et al., 2008). Regardless, these Headteachers lead schools and communities toward the curriculum outcomes, including the teaching and learning process.
This review delves into the empirical literature related to Ghana's BE HTL, aiming to answer the question: What unique characteristics define BE HTL in Ghana? In seeking this answer, the review methodically analyzed the related literature to uncover what the research says about the distinctive characteristics of BE HTL, including how Headteachers are prepared, recruited, and supported as school leaders and what leadership practices they enact after that. The primary objective of this review is to identify the unique characteristics that define BE HTL in Ghana, setting it apart from other educational systems.
Methods
This review is established through the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) framework for screening, data extraction, analysis, and findings presentation (Moher et al., 2009; Page et al., 2021). Based on this framework, the four-stage searching method of the PRISMA flowchart highlighting the information sources’ identification, determination of the eligibility criteria, screening of the sources, and study inclusion was developed (See Figure 1). This provides an avenue for standardized screening, interpretation, combination, and presentation of the study findings gathered from different databases to ensure review consistency (Pati and Lorusso, 2018). The review was conducted by three authors with expertise in school leadership research. Additionally, a neutral person was invited at the inclusion and exclusion stage to offer [their] reflections when conflicts of interest arose to ensure the reliability of the review process (Pati and Lorusso, 2018).
The PRISMA flow diagram.
Electronic databases, namely, ERIC, ProQuest, Scopus, Electronic Theses Online System (EThOS), and Web of Science, were searched to obtain the related BE HTL literature. These databases were selected using the criteria in Table 1. The generic searched keywords across all databases were (“Headteacher” OR “Head teacher” OR principal OR “school leader”) AND (“basic school”) AND (leadership) AND (Ghana). In addition, relevant articles were hand-searched across journals such as the ‘African Educational Research Journal,’ including those determined through relevant references and citations. Using the eligibility criteria identified in Table 1, 168 studies (ERIC = 79, ProQuest = 31, Scopus = 28, EThOS = 8, Web of Science = 17, and hand-searched = 5) were identified and exported to Covidence using Endnote (see flow chart, i.e., figure 1 for screening process).
Criteria for database selection and inclusion.
Note: Sourced from Authors’ gathered data.
The articles included (please refer to Table 2) were examined for significant codes relating to the research question(s). Items related to titles, leadership training and professional development programs, recruitment, and HTL practices were grouped and presented as findings. The reviewers observed varying measures to assess the interrater reliability of the review (Belur et al., 2021), from identifying potential databases to extracting data and coding. Furthermore, the researchers implemented predetermined standards such as strict database and paper inclusion/exclusion criteria, including using themes to categorize the related HTL literature.
Summary of included articles.
Note: Sourced from the Authors’ survey (2024).
Results
This section presents findings derived from the analysis of 23 studies to identify the key characteristics of BE HTL in Ghana. Essentially, it focuses on determining how Headteachers are prepared, recruited, and supported as school leaders and what leadership practices they implement afterward.
Key characteristics of Ghana's BE HTL
Ghana's BE HTL pathways
Two studies (Donkor, 2015; Zame et al., 2008) examined how Ghana's BE Headteachers become school leaders by exploring how they are prepared and recruited for leadership roles. Zame et al. (2008) was the earliest study to investigate Headteacher qualifications, preparation, training, leadership proficiencies, and practices in Ghana within the Greater Accra region through a quantitative approach involving 350 Headteachers. Using descriptive statistical analysis, Zame et al. reported that there were no BE HTL training and preparation programs in Ghana and that Headteachers ‘lacked leadership proficiencies’ and ‘performed managerial tasks’ (p. 115). The study further reports that Headteachers mainly attained a four-year certificate “A.” However, some held the two-year certificate “B” qualification, with no acknowledgment of any Headteacher recruitment processes. Examining these qualifications alongside the absence of training programs shows that Headteachers have less awareness of their proficiencies in managerial practices.
Seven years later, Donkor (2015) revisited BE Headteacher preparation and recruitment using a narrative analysis strategy and thematic frameworks through focus group discussions, interviews, and documentary analysis involving participants who were Headteachers, teachers, students, tutors, and MOE officials (e.g., circuit supervisors). Subsequently, like Zame et al. (2008), Donkor (2015) reported that formal pre-HTL training programs were still absent but indicated that Headteachers took random non-standardized in-service training programs as required by donor agencies, supported by the data, e.g., “we organize in-service training for Headteachers as a requirement from donor agencies” (Donkor, 2015: 235).
Donkor found BE's Headteachers were recruited on the criteria that a teacher: a) has been in long service; b) has achieved the superintendent rank or deputy; c) belongs to a particular faith (in religious schools) under which the school is regulated; d) is politically affiliated to the ruling government; and e) available for a vacant position.
These criteria raise significant concerns about the efficacy and integrity of leadership in BE schools. For instance, criteria (c) and (d), which emphasize religious affiliation and political alignment, are particularly troubling considering that Ghanaian society is diverse (Salm and Falola, 2002). Having fair conventional criteria could enhance inclusivity, leading to equitable opportunities for potential Headteachers and school leaders, improving best pedagogical practices (Blackmore, 2004; Bush, 2020). Similarly, the political affiliation criterion could erode the professionalism best suited to educational leadership. When Headteachers are selected based on their loyalty to the ruling government rather than education standards and quality, it risks the politicization of education, leading to decisions driven by Government desires rather than the educational needs of students. This could perpetuate a cycle of underachievement, as leadership positions could be filled not by merit but by allegiance. Shifting a focus toward a merit-based selection system holds greater potential to foster school innovation and progress (Eacott, 2013; Gunter, 2012; Thomson, 2009).
For Ghana's BE Headteachers, these criteria suggest a leadership framework prioritizing conformity over competence, challenging the development of strong, independent, and visionary school leaders. This could have long-term implications for the quality of education, as leadership shaped by non-pedagogical factors is less likely to inspire excellence or foster a culture of continuous improvement (Pashiardis and Johansson, 2016). Although these criteria appear problematic and non-universal and are not used in the recruitment process of all Headteachers across Ghana (Dampson, 2019), the reported criteria extend Zame et al.'s discussion on HTL recruitment.
Donkor also refers to HTL as a “taken for granted sub-topic” that is taught in a teacher training course titled “Trends in Education and School Management” (Donkor, 2015: 234); meanwhile, the GES officials (e.g., circuit supervisors) believed Headteachers required at least 4-years formal training before appointment (Donkor, 2015: 235). The GES officials’ awareness of Headteachers’ pre-training needs raises questions about the absence of such programs in Ghana over the years. Thus, Donkor's findings bridged the literature gap that Zame et al. (2008) did not address by illustrating BE's Headteacher recruitment criteria.
Ghana's BE HTL training programs
The articles reviewed suggest that Ghana's BE Headteachers do not undertake formal HTL training programs before recruitment but indicate that a few training and professional development programs are available to them after they are recruited. These programs, seemingly influenced by international programs, are limited and inaccessible to all Headteachers across Ghana (Sofo and Abonyi, 2018). In this study, five articles reported empirical findings on HTL programs adopted from the UK and USA between 2008 and 2018.
Following Zame et al. (2008) reported findings that there were no existing formal HTL training and preparation in Ghana (see section 3.1.1 for methods) at the time, their recommendations led to the adaptation of the Leadership for Learning (LfL) to train over 3000 BE Headteachers for three years (2009–2012). In partnership with the Institute for Educational Planning and Administration (IEPA) at the University of Cape Coast, Ghana, Jull et al. (2014) report that the LfL, initially founded in the UK, was organized by the Centre for Commonwealth Education (CCE), Cambridge University. The program notably has five principles: 1) focus on learning, 2) conditions for learning, 3) learning dialogue, 4) shared leadership, and 5) a shared sense of accountability (Jull et al., 2014: 69). It is worth noting that this project was previously implemented across Europe (Norway, Denmark, Austria, England, and Greece), the USA, and Australia (across 24 schools) (Jull et al., 2014). It appears that LfL's training of Headteachers in 2009 led to a significant surge in BE HTL research.
Consequently, Jull et al. (2014) conducted a mixed-method inquiry involving LfL questionnaires, semi-structured interviews with repeated measures ANOVA, and thematic analysis to examine 125 Headteachers’ views of the program. The authors found that Headteachers reported on their implementation of all five LfL principles in their everyday leadership practices. Their findings also revealed a positive change in the question of “importance” (p. 49) of the program for their leadership. On this basis, Jull et al. suggested that the program significantly impacted HTL practices. Jull et al.'s (2014) LfL report, six years later, seems to respond to Zame et al.'s (2008) significant research contribution on the absence of HTL training programs that led to LfL in Ghana. Exploring the program's impact, Asare (2017) investigated 30 teachers’ perspectives (among schools led by Headteachers who had completed the initial 2009 LfL training) through semi-structured interviews and comparative content analysis. Asare (2017) states that the program successfully developed transformational leaders as the 30 teachers reported that the program had empowered Headteachers as leaders to motivate them, yet also noted that the motivation was ‘more monetary than intrinsic’ (Asare, 2017: 17). Apart from Jull et al.'s (2014) and Asare's (2017) reports, researchers examined and reported significant findings concerning LfL, including adopting the program as a national policy.
Swaffield (2017) investigated the impact of the LfL project using mixed methods and a longitudinal design involving the LfL project's 3000 Headteachers and found a significant impact on Headteachers’ attitudes, behaviors, leadership knowledge, and professionalism, including parent-community engagement initiatives in school development. Swaffield (2017) reported that LfL was consequently proclaimed a national policy for Headteacher training and retraining (GES, 2010: iv), hence, added to the 2010 edition of the Headteachers Handbook. While Swaffield's (2017) findings provide significant insights into the initial project, by particularly investigating the 3000 Headteachers who initially undertook the training, the findings also offer a context for understanding those reported by prior researchers (e.g., Asare, 2017; Jull et al., 2014). Even though the LfL had a significant impact on the trainees, Swaffield (2017), recognizing the crucial role of context and culture in leadership (Antonakis et al., 2003; Oc, 2018), acknowledged that “….[t]he Cambridge team was acutely aware of the dangers of policy borrowing and the centrality of context in leadership and learning” (p. 281). Subsequently, later studies (Brion, 2020; Brion and Cordeiro, 2018b) reported that leadership training transfer could be affected by cultural factors.
In addition to the LfL project, Brion & Cordeiro (2018b) reports on an American NGO (unnamed) that organized a 3-day school leadership training in July 2016 (in coordination with the University of San Diego) for low-fee private school Headteachers from both Ghana (Kumasi) and Burkina Faso (Ouagadougou). Following the program, the authors examined barriers to and promoters of learning transfer among 13 Headteachers using a qualitative comparative framework, interviews, and documents with content analysis. What they found was that learning transfer occurred, although the process was affected by cultural factors (e.g., collaborating with elders), working attitudes (e.g., modifying habits challenges), and financial constraints (e.g., loan repayments). Cultural expectations, such as collaborating with elders, often could impose traditional practices that conflict with modern leadership necessities, fostering resistance to change and slowing the adoption of innovative strategies. Similarly, rigid working attitudes can stifle the integration of new methodologies, as Headteachers may revert to familiar but outdated practices, thus reducing the impact of leadership development initiatives and meeting contemporary leadership needs. Notably, financial burdens like loan repayments could impact Headteachers’ focus on professional growth, as financial instability could detract them from their ability to fully engage with and apply contextualized and culturally functional, contemporary leadership skills, thereby compromising the overall effectiveness of leadership training and development (Bennell and Akyeampong, 2007; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Spillane, 2005).
Therefore, Brion and Cordeiro's (2018b) report offers a cultural perspective when adapting and internalizing international leadership training programs in a different context. As such, the study made a significant contribution to Ghana's BE HTL research as prior studies (e.g., Asare, 2017; Jull et al., 2014; Swaffield, 2017) reported no data on cultural inclinations of training programs, offering implications for the local context. These findings also seem to respond to Swaffield's (2017) and the Cambridge Team's acknowledgment of the cultural implications of policies different from the context of their origins.
Ghana's BE headteacher professional development
Three studies were reported to investigate Headteacher professional development in Ghana's BE reflecting before and after situations when leadership learning seemed to be more of a policy agenda for workforce action (Addae-Kyeremeh, 2020; Sofo and Abonyi, 2018; Suaka and Kuranchie, 2018). To bridge the BE HTL gap—following reports on the non-existence of formal HTL training programs prior to recruitment (Donkor, 2015; Zame et al., 2008), Suaka and Kuranchie (2018) explored the Headteacher professional development needs among 21 Headteachers and Circuit Supervisors to identify how Headteachers were supported following recruitment. Using the qualitative interpretative design, interviews, and thematic analysis, the researchers reported inadequate continuous Headteacher professional development opportunities and that ‘personnel facilitating these programs, at times, lacked the required competence’ (p. 27), which could subvert leadership growth and perpetuate underperformance within schools. Expressed as limited, the programs allegedly do not meet Headteachers’ professional development and administrative needs, as they lamented the programs were randomly organized without their consent (Suaka and Kuranchie, 2018). Meanwhile, the circuit supervisors hinted at the lack of formal Headteacher induction programs and HTL incompetence, suggesting professional development is critical to resolving Headteacher competency issues. These findings further offered a well-rounded understanding of HTL by providing insights on Headteacher professional development needs (e.g., competency), mainly including GES leadership's (e.g., Circuits Supervisors’) perception of Ghana's BE Headteachers and requirements (e.g., lack of formal induction).
Examining the professional development of Headteachers further, Sofo and Abonyi (2018) explored how they professionally develop their leadership skills upon appointment among 200 participants. Utilizing mixed methods (survey questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, and descriptive and thematic analyses), the study found that Headteachers appear to adopt self-directed and informal professional development activities (i.e., meetings, workshops, unstructured or non-intentional activities, seminars) to support their leadership practices. These findings contradict Suaka and Kuranchie's (2018) statement that Headteacher professional development programs were occasionally organized, although determinable by ‘donor agencies and contracts’ (p. 235). Sofo and Abonyi (2018) further reported that though limited professional development may exist, rural Headteachers have limited access when such programs are organized.
Likewise, a doctoral dissertation (Addae-Kyeremeh, 2020) examined Headteachers’ perspectives and experiences of their professional development among 34 participants. Through thematic coding and sociometric analysis with UCINET for the mixed research design using interviews, observations, and survey questionnaires, the study found that Headteachers were a “learning community” (p. 173) who learn and teach themselves through networking and interactions with peers. These interactions reportedly were not influenced by age, information, advice sought, experience, school types, or qualifications. Therefore, Ghana's BE Headteacher professional development could be perceived as experiential learning through networking with peers and relevant others (Addae-Kyeremeh, 2020). Although these findings indicated that professional development is non-standardized, self-directed, and networking, they offer insights into how Headteachers support themselves despite the lack of formal pre-headship leadership training.
International HTL leadership policies and Ghana's BE cultural context
An interesting theme that emerged from the empirical BE HTL literature analysis was the cultural factors that could inhibit the transfer of learning among international leadership programs and the ways to mitigate them. Following the LfL project (2009–2012) and the 3-day American school leadership training program organized in July 2016, researchers’ inquiry related to cultural factors that may have affected the training transfer of these programs. As such, Brion and Cordeiro (2018b) examined the barriers to and promoters of learning transfer after the training (see section 3.1.2 for methods). The study found that while learning transfer occurred, cultural values (such as respecting age), staff working attitudes (e.g., change resistance), and financial constraints (e.g., loan repayments) affected the process. This study addresses a significant gap in the literature by examining learning transfer among school leaders in Ghana, as prior research primarily focused on the programs’ impact on HTL practices with no emphasis on factors that may have inhibited the training transfer process. These findings suggest the crucial role of context when adapting or adopting international training programs (Antonakis et al., 2003; Oc, 2018), i.e., provide a viewpoint for understanding how to effectively design and implement international leadership training programs to maximize results in the local context.
Furthermore, Brion (2020) investigated the cultural factors influencing learning transfer in foreign programs in Ghana and Burkina Faso when the author worked as a training consultant in both countries. The data collected through observations, discussions, and diary-keeping were analyzed quantitatively. To interpret the results, the researcher adopted the six cultural dimensions model of Hofstede et al. (2010): power distance, individualism versus collectivism, masculinity versus femininity, uncertainty avoidance index, long/short-term orientations, and indulgence or restraint. Based on this framework, Brion (2020) reported that although learning transfer occurred in both countries, cultural factors such as the power distance of leaders, individualism and collectivism, masculinity, indulgence, long-term orientation, and avoidance of uncertainty affected the process. While Brion (2020) maintained that power distance and individualism and collectivism domains were predominantly featured in both countries, the author offered guidelines such as ‘considering local facilitators’ status, building trust among trainees, and considering how the local culture could potentially affect learning style’ (p. 390) as ways to mitigating these cultural factors.
These recommendations suggest that program organizers and facilitators heighten their awareness of local power distance and cultural norms by tailoring leadership training content to align with local expectations and values. Prioritizing local facilitators could enhance empowerment and collaboration, suggesting contextualization is crucial in addressing cultural dynamics and sensitivity to respect local norms and foster trust-building in attempts to maximize the outcomes of adapted training programs.
In addressing how national cultural factors may influence the transfer of leadership programs and offering ways to mitigate them, Brion (2020) makes a unique contribution to Ghana's BE HTL. This is because, although learning transfer may have occurred in prior programs (evident in the significant impact of training programs), it appears no empirical findings were available in the BE HTL literature. Subsequently, these findings contribute to the contextual understanding of Ghana's BE leadership, thus commending Swaffield's (2017) and the Cambridge Team's acknowledgment of contextual factors that may affect leadership training policies from different contexts. The findings also point to the need for culturally sensitive leadership training programs that orient from specific cultural contexts of Ghana and similar settings (i.e., philosophies, values, norms). Like Brion (2020), we also believe it is essential to acknowledge these factors when adapting programs and policies that are not initially from the context.
Ghana's BE HTL practices
Zame et al. (2008) reported that HTL training programs were absent in Ghana's BE at the time. Based on their recommendation, the LfL was adapted to train Headteachers from 2009 to 2012 (Swaffield, 2017). However, the BE's HTL literature analysis showed that Headteachers implement diverse leadership practices, ranging from transformational to ethical leadership, aligning with a complex leadership framework.
GES is revealed to operate under a bureaucratic framework, with significant policy decisions taken by MOE and GES (as central government representatives) in close coordination with the national-level directorate. Regional, metropolitan, or municipal educational activities are managed by inter-dependent directorates who preside over decisions and reports from the cognate district directorates and School Improvement Support Officers at the lower level (i.e., education zones) within the district and then to the BE Headteacher. Headteachers implement BE's policies and manage the general school in close coordination with the School Management Committees (SMCs), Parent Associations (PAs), and community members at the school level (GES, 2010) (See Figure 2). This hierarchy arguably forms part of Ghana's BE context, which could impact the sector's training transfer and HTL practices. The analysis suggests that to enact leadership practices within this hierarchy, Headteachers employed leadership practices such as transformational, instructional, managerial, ethical, democratic, distributive, and authoritative to support their practices.
The GES leadership framework.
Transformational leadership
Four studies reported evidence of Headteachers’ transformational leadership in Ghana's BE (Adarkwah and Zeyuan, 2020; Adu, 2016; Asare, 2017; Malakolunthu et al., 2014). According to Burns (1978), this leadership style involves “a relationship of mutual stimulation and elevation that converts followers into leaders and may convert leaders into moral agents” (p. 4). This concept was later enunciated by Bass (1998) to feature four behavioral characteristics: individual consideration, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and idealized influence. While individual consideration involves recognizing seemingly marginalized members, inspirational motivation communicates high-performance standards. In contrast, intellectual motivation strengthens followers’ initiative, encourages them to think about past problems, and enhances idealized influence, enabling leaders to model exemplary behaviors (Bass et al., 1990).
Based on this leadership frame, Malakolunthu et al. (2014) adopted a qualitative case study approach, focus groups, interviews, and observations alongside thematic analysis and coding strategies to investigate the impact of the LfL project among 60 participants. Through analytical coding, the findings hinted at Headteachers’ transformation, emergence in collaboration, teacher professional growth, pedagogical adaptations, parent and community involvement, and student achievement (p. 705–706). Notably, Malakolunthu et al.'s findings resonate with the principles of LfL, suggesting the program's implementation, whereas the transformation concept denotes Headteachers being ‘transformed people’ when collaborating and reinforcing teacher development to promote student achievement, varying from Bass’ (1998) transformational leadership concept. Thus, Malakolunthu et al.'s (2014) findings fall within the LfL principles identified by Jull et al. (2014) and Swaffield (2017) earlier. In contrast, Asare (2017) confirmed that Headteachers practiced the leadership style within Bass’ (1998) framework (esp., individualized consideration and inspirational motivation) (see section 3.1.2 for methods). Although Asare's project was based on the LfL framework, unlike others, the author argued that “more than the influence of Headteachers” (p. 1), stating ‘monetary incentives’ (p. 17) were needed to motivate teachers towards roles.
While Malakolunthu et al.'s (2014) findings commend the LfL concepts, Asare's (2017) corroborated Bas'’s (1998) transformational concepts, presenting evidence on Headteacher transformational development through the LfL program, even though the LfL project instigated both studies. On the other hand, Adu (2016) explored the role of HTL and community involvement among Headteachers, teachers, and parents via qualitative case study using thematic analysis. Headteachers were revealed to implement a transformational leadership model influenced by protective and safe schools and teaching-learning factors. Additionally, Adu (2016) indicated that these Headteachers were visionaries who inspire and motivate teachers and students to work collectively towards academic goals. These findings collectively present an all-round discussion of Ghana's BE Headteachers’ transformational leadership practices at the time.
More so, Adarkwah and Zeyuan (2020) examined the leadership style's impact on teacher motivation among five Headteachers and 100 teachers involved in correlational and quantitative paradigms, furthering the discussion of Ghana's BE Headteacher transformational leadership. Unlike prior studies (e.g., Adu, 2016; Asare, 2017; Malakolunthu et al., 2014), a negative relationship between transformational leadership and teacher motivation was reported. The findings’ variation could be attributed to the research sites and participants involved, e.g., the Brong-Ahafo region (Asare, 2017), Greater Accra (Adu, 2016), and Eastern, Central, and Greater Accra (Malakolunthu et al., 2014) regions. Nevertheless, Adarkwah and Zeyuan (2020) significantly contributed to Headteacher transformational leadership discussions since prior studies reported only the significant implementation of the leadership approach. This finding may have implications for present and future Headteachers by reminding them that transformational leadership application and outcomes could vary across contexts.
Instructional leadership
Instructional leadership's definition varies among researchers, although there is a consensus that it relates to school leaders’ practice of facilitating teaching-learning, teacher collaboration, coaching, employing instructional research during decision-making, and adult-learning principles (Blase and Blase, 1999). On this basis, Agezo (2010), through a qualitative interpretive paradigm involving interviews, observations, and documents (staff attendance, parent-teacher association meetings, and log books) and thematic analysis, examined the instructional leadership practices of five female Headteachers. These Headteachers reportedly adopted the instructional leadership practices through a) purposeful observation, teacher evaluation, and classroom instructions, b) shared school vision, and c) interpersonal relations. Besides, the Headteachers were described as transformational leaders in the study's abstract, although the study reports they were instructional leaders in practice, suggesting there is no one-size-fits-all leadership (Bush, 2018).
Instructional leadership was not revisited until 2021, when Abonyi and Sofo (2021) assessed 14 Headteachers’ practices using a qualitative approach with interviews and thematic analysis strategies. This 11-year gap could be attributed to the prevalence of LfL's motivated transformational leadership research or researchers’ interests. HTL practices were reportedly predetermined by GES (school objectives, instructional supervision, and assessment, protecting instructional periods) and teachers’ and students’ incentives. In contrast, Abonyi and Sofo indicated that these Headteachers’ practices embed idiosyncratic managerial and behavioral beliefs. Labeling Headteachers’ practices as “idiosyncratic” despite being under the guidance of GES policies suggests a degree of individual interpretation and application of these policies, indicating that policy enforcement may allow for or fail to constrain personalized approaches. Regardless, a significant limitation of both studies was the female emphasis neglecting experiential understanding of their male counterparts.
Interestingly, Abonyi et al. (2024) compared 263 Headteachers’ (106 males and 157 females) instructional leadership practices using a quantitative descriptive paradigm and independent t-test analysis, bridging the gender gap that was not addressed by prior studies (e.g., Abonyi and Sofo, 2021; Agezo, 2010). However, Abonyi et al. (2024) reported no significant gender differences. This could indicate that gender may pose fewer challenges to implementing this leadership practice in Ghana's BE, though the study's setting could have played a significant part. Intriguingly, females and males exhibited similar instructional leadership practices, such as institutional goal setting, evaluation, and curriculum coordination, significantly contributing to instructional leadership discussion among Ghana's BE Headteachers by illustrating these gender insights.
Managerial leadership
Managerial leadership posits that leaders should concentrate on tasks, functions, and behaviors, with the assumption that proficiently executing these functions will facilitate others’ work (Leithwood et al., 1999). Examining managerial leadership, Zame et al. (2008) reported that Headteachers practiced this leadership due to inadequate attainment of GES policies’ proficiency requirements (see section 3.1.1 for methods). Not until 2017, when transformational leadership in practice surged, Semarco and Cho (2017) assessed Headteacher managerial leadership behaviors and teacher retention among 558 teachers using a quantitative correlational study design. Through descriptive analysis, ANOVA, and correlational techniques, Headteacher managerial behaviors were reported to include problem-solving, removing obstacles, and monitoring tasks. Therefore, Semarco and Cho's (2017) findings extended Zame et al.'s (2008), providing a framework for discussing Ghana's BE Headteacher managerial behaviors.
Ethical leadership
While ethical leadership concepts may vary across contexts, they fundamentally involve integrity and appropriate values, constituting a leader's solid moral character (Mendonca and Kanungo, 2007; Mihelic et al., 2010). To understand Ghana's BE Headteachers’ ethical leadership practices, Agezo and Hope (2011) examined practices related to this leadership approach among 601 participants (14 male and 38 female Headteachers, with 571 teachers) in the Cape Coast Municipality, the central region of Ghana. Using a quantitative approach, the participants completed the Principal Leadership Behavior Questionnaires. Through independent samples t-test analysis, Agezo and Hope (2011) reported no significant difference between male and female Headteachers’ ethical leadership practices, including decision-making, interpersonal relations, instructional practices, collaboration, and professional development practices. A few years after Cape Coast attained a Metropolitan status, Agezo (2013) conducted a similar study using akin methods, sample size, and analysis techniques and reported similar findings. These identical findings could be attributed to the fact that both studies examined the ethical leadership practices of Headteachers sampled from 2008–2009 in both cases (Agezo, 2013; Agezo & Hope, 2011), using the exact sample sizes and methods. Therefore, it questions why similar sample sizes and methods were used. As such, we argue that varying methods and research sites could produce different findings. Nonetheless, the quantitative nature of these studies appears to have narrowed the scope of Headteacher ethical leadership practices to decision-making, interpersonal relations, instructional practices, collaboration, and professional development practices, which may have also influenced the findings. Like Abonyi et al. (2024), Agezo and Hope (2011) and Agezo (2013), the insignificant findings extended our discussion on Ghana's BE HTL along gender lines.
Democratic leadership
The democratic leadership style endeavors to augment the engagement and sway of stakeholders in decision-making processes, foster discourse and deliberation, and cultivate a collective identity wherein individuals perceive themselves as collaborative architects of a communal entity. Democratic trajectories highlight power, dialogue, and belonging (Bush and Oduro, 2006). Unlike the prior approaches, only Kumedzro et al. (2016) reported empirical findings on this leadership style by examining the relationship between BE HTL styles and teacher retention among 140 teachers through a quantitative paradigm. Significant correlations between Headteacher democratic leadership and teacher retention were reported. However, there is no evidence of how teacher retention was enhanced by these democratic practices, arguably due to the quantitative nature of the study, which offered a narrow perspective on Ghana's BE Headteacher democratic practices, unlike other leadership practices.
Distributive leadership
From Gibb's work, distributive leadership implies dispersing leadership roles amongst stakeholders (Spillane et al., 2001) to engender interdependencies among teams and individuals, rendering a profoundly social and distinctly human-centric pursuit—a collaborative endeavor as opposed to a solitary one (Hammershaimb, 2018). Like democratic leadership, Dampson and Frempong (2018) was the only study to report on Headteacher distributive leadership practices via a comparative paradigm between 65 Headteachers and assistants in Ghana and the UK. Adopting mixed methods (semi-structured interviews, observations, and descriptive and thematic analysis), Headteachers in both contexts were reported to practice self-directed distributive leadership through shared vision, readiness to share and support financial ability, and good interpersonal relationships. These Headteachers believed hierarchical leadership practices affected their practices, citing workload, dishonesty, limited trust, insecurity, and accountability that impact their HTL experiences. This supports Ghana's BE professional development practices as reportedly self-directed (e.g., Sofo and Abonyi, 2018), i.e., providing a similar perspective in viewing professional development and distributive leadership practices.
Authoritative leadership
Lastly, Brion and Cordeiro (2020) examined authoritative leadership practices among Headteachers under sustainable development goal number 4 (to ensure inclusive and equitable quality and promote life-long learning opportunities for all) through a longitudinal qualitative framework from September 2016 to October 2017 using interviews and observations, document analysis, and coding. This leadership practice characterizes deliberate emphasis on overseeing performance and outcomes to achieve organizational objectives bolstered by unwavering allegiance from followers. Brion and Cordeiro's (2020) one-year study showed that Headteachers implemented an authoritative style. However, since the study involved only private schools (where Headteachers were predominantly school owners), it was impossible to comprehend authoritative leadership from the perspective of public BE schools. Additionally, unlike other leadership styles, such as transformational, where there are multiple empirical author reports, we could not relate the private schools’ perspective of authoritative leadership to other public schools or participants. We recommend that future studies empirically examine authoritative leadership practices among public BE schools to enhance a comprehensive understanding of the leadership style.
Discussion, implications, and limitations
This study's exploration of BE HTL literature published between 1994 and 2022 identified key characteristics of BE HTL, including how Headteachers are prepared, recruited, and supported as school leaders and the leadership practices they enact. From the dataset of 23 empirical studies analyzed, this review showed that BE leadership research emphasis varied over time across the nearly 30-year span. Specifically, it appears that Ghana's BE lacks HTL training programs prior to recruitment, whereas international leadership training programs, like the LfL, are employed to train Headteachers following recruitment. However, BE's literature indicated that the training transfer of these leadership training programs could be affected by cultural factors, hence offering guidelines to mitigate them. Additionally, the review revealed the absence of a universal HTL recruitment criterion (e.g., Donkor, 2015: 234), whereas Headteachers employed self-directed and informal professional development to support themselves. As a consequence of these contextualized factors, the review illustrated that Ghana's BE Headteachers exhibited varying leadership practices ranging from transformational to instructional, managerial, ethical, democratic, distributive, and authoritative practices. These findings are discussed as follows.
Key characteristics of Ghana's BE HTL
Ghana's BE HTL literature illustrated varied characteristics over time, including the absence of formal HTL training programs prior to appointment. In contrast, Headteachers are recruited through non-universal criteria across the country. This appears to subvert the potential effectiveness of Headteachers in practice and points to a broader misalignment between the qualifications sought for HTL roles and the competencies required to fill them effectively. HTL is argued to be a critical factor that either hinders or promotes student learning achievement (Hallinger and Heck, 2011) and the transformation of school culture. As such, the absence of formal HTL training programs for Ghana's BE Headteacher prior to appointment may lead to recruiting less qualified Headteachers, suggesting these individuals and their schools may struggle to implement GES policies to foster academic excellence and student well-being in the context (Day et al., 2009; Day et al., 2016; Robinson et al., 2008).
Like Jull et al. (2014), we note that Headteachers require extensive training and preparation before appointment in Ghana's BE. In support, Leithwood et al. (2008) suggest that adequately training Headteachers to acquire leadership skills could improve the general quality of the teaching and learning process and, subsequently, the educational quality. Likewise, several researchers argue that when Headteachers are adequately trained for their leadership roles, they are reported to simultaneously execute their duties and empower both teachers and students to develop self-confidence, motivation, self-awareness, meta-cognition, self-efficacy, and problem-solving skills (Aas, 2017; Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2004; Petridou et al., 2017; Stroud, 2006), i.e., improve the general school atmosphere. This illustrates the significant impact training Headteachers prior to appointment may have on the general school system, including sustained interminable school performance, such as enhanced teacher-job and student performances (Oketcho et al., 2020).
Ghana's BE HTL literature also showcases a paradigm shift to externally influenced training initiatives, such as adapting the LfL in attempts to infuse rigor and structure into BE HTL. Although such initiatives appeared to fill the formal BE HTL training gap, heralded for yielding positive reports on their implementation and significance to HTL practices, they are not without limitations. The emergence of cultural factors that could render the training transfer of these programs susceptible to adaptability conflicts raises questions about their sustainability and cultural significance in Ghana's BE context. Later research foregrounds the cultural complexities of transferring leadership training programs into Ghana's BE (Brion, 2020; Brion and Cordeiro, 2018b). The barriers to learning transfer identified, such as cultural values, e.g., respect for age, staff working attitudes (change resistance), financial constraints (loan repayments), power distance, and collectivism, speak to the broader issues of adopting policies from different contexts (Swaffield, 2017: 281). This draws attention to the nuanced interplay between socio-cultural factors and leadership training efficacy in Ghana's BE.
Ghana is characterized by a rich tapestry of cultural, linguistic, religious, and historical elements that shape its development, especially in education and leadership (Osei, 2006). While reflecting the nation's identity, this cultural diversity impacts the educational system's socio-cultural dynamics, such as policy interference, respect for age, and change resistance (Boadi, 2017), subsequently inhibiting aspects of education development. Hofstede (2001) posits that Ghana exhibits high power distance, implying that respect for age could corroborate and enforce power distance between leaders and followers. Thus, it corresponds with Boadi's (2017) notion that Ghanaians respect age, do not question hierarchies, and accept decisions made by the hierarchy, as reflected in Brion and Cordeiro's (2018b) study that respecting age could inhibit the transfer of learning.
On the other hand, Hofstede (2001) indicated that Ghanaians, nationally, demonstrate high collectivism and prioritize the ability to take care of themselves and their extended families. They also promote tribal and clan identity but discourage individualism. These collective traits could result in change resistance among Headteachers, inhibiting the success of adapted programs. For instance, Boadi (2017) reports that teachers report to work late with the assumption that their colleagues or superiors may protect them against misconduct due to collectivism, confirming Brion's (2020) finding that collectivism could threaten Headteachers’ training transfer. From Boadi's perspective, foreign policies or programs may not favor such attitudes where change resistance becomes a consequence.
From this perspective, sociocultural factors could play a significant role in the adaptability of new policies to the local context. For example, Elenkov and Manev (2005) argued that socio-cultural factors affect organizational leadership innovations (e.g., in education), and with logistical consequences, financial constraints (Brion and Cordeiro, 2018b) could hamper the proliferation of leadership programs in Ghana's BE (Brion, 2020; Brion and Cordeiro, 2018b). From a national cultural perspective, the learning transfer of Ghana's adapted international leadership training programs could have been affected by leaders’ power distance, individualism and collectivism, masculinity, indulgence, short-term orientation, and avoidance of uncertainty unless otherwise mitigated, as warned by Brion (2020).
While this perfectly aligns with Hofstede et al.'s (2010) national cultural framework, it is criticized for measuring specific national cultures. Ghana's cultural framework may vary from the countries to which these international leadership programs are native. As such, we support the assertion that a disconnection from context could inhibit the success of international leadership programs, as expressed by the LfL Cambridge leadership team (Swaffield, 2017). Although Hofstede's dimensions provided a succinct interpretation of Ghana's national culture, the framework has also been criticized as scoring and averaging unrelated items, hence, may not represent individual Headteachers’ and BE's cultural characteristics (Venaik and Brewer, 2013). Whereas these criticisms are supported by similar comments made in Hofstede's (2001) original research article (p. 17), the current findings offer a context for viewing the factors that could hinder the learning transfer of adopted programs in Ghana's BE. Therefore, we recommend conducting empirical studies to examine specific cultural and circumstantial factors that may impede the success of foreign international leadership training programs in Ghana's BE. This may have implications for future leadership agendas informing policies and programs.
Ghana's BE HTL practices
Ghana's BE HTL literature exhibits a multifaceted interplay of international influences and indigenous practices. The lack of pre-HTL training programs led to the adaptation of international leadership training initiatives like LfL. However, Ghana's BE Headteachers’ implementation of these programs reflects a diverse range of leadership practices that adapt to and are shaped by a complex hierarchical framework set by the GES and MOE. As Headteachers adapt to these structures to lead BE schools, they draw upon an array of leadership practices, including transformational, instructional, managerial, ethical, democratic, distributive, and authoritative leadership, to fulfill their roles and manage schools effectively. These practices are not only a response to the hierarchical directives but also a reflection of the leader's efforts to innovate and collaborate within the constraints and cultural context of GES and BE.
Transformational leadership: focusing on mutual elevation and moral agency (Bass, 1998), has been a prevalent practice among Ghanaian Headteachers, promoting collaboration and pedagogical adaptation. This practice has been adapted to suit Ghanaian schools’ collaborative and communal cultural contexts, albeit with variations from the original theoretical frameworks. For instance, Malakolunthu et al. (2014) denote that Headteachers are ‘transformed’ in the collaboration process and reinforced teacher developments, varying from Bass’ original concepts (1998). Following transformational leadership was instructional leadership, which emphasizes teaching-learning facilitation and coaching and appears to have been intermittently adopted, with a reported focus on goal setting and curriculum coordination (Abonyi and Sofo, 2021; Agezo, 2010). Besides, managerial leadership, emphasizing task execution and problem-solving (Leithwood et al., 1999), is also reported to be practiced, particularly in alignment with GES policy requirements. This may imply that while Headteachers strive to embody transformational qualities, such as motivational and intellectual stimulation, they must also contend with the managerial responsibilities dictated by GES policies. Additionally, the ethos of ethical leadership practices centering on integrity and moral values (Mendonca and Kanungo, 2007; Mihelic et al., 2010), have been reported to be uniformly applied across genders among Headteachers, suggesting a solid moral foundation in Ghana's BE HTL. More so, using democratic and distributive leadership practices illustrates the Headteachers’ efforts to engage various educational stakeholders in decision-making and distribute leadership roles, i.e., reflecting a communal approach to school leadership in Ghana's BE. However, these practices are mediated by the operational realities of the GES hierarchy and the challenges of implementing collaborative leadership within a traditionally authoritative system.
In sum, the intricate array of leadership practices among Ghana's BE Headteachers highlights their adaptability to both the structural demands of the educational system and the cultural ethos of their environment. The interplay of these practices suggests a dynamic field where BE Headteachers endeavor to harness international leadership training programs to fit the unique socio-cultural landscape of the education sector. This reflects a leadership ecosystem that is both complex and adaptive, striving to balance policy compliance with the needs for innovation and cultural congruence. Therefore, we recommend that further empirical studies be conducted to identify how the BE Headteachers navigate the GES hierarchy to implement leadership practices, including how and what types of practices are implemented after that and what this might mean to Headteachers. This could inform the development of a cohesive agenda, policy, professional development, and induction programs for BE leadership recruits.
Limitations
This review was not without limitations as it was conducted within a short period using only empirical studies published between 1994 and 2022 across selected databases. This process may have led to the exclusion of relevant conceptual studies that may have been published within the same year ranges and in other databases, including those not hosted on the Worldwide Web. In addition, as a review with purported objective(s), we endeavored to challenge and work through bias established through prior experience utilizing open shared discussion and cross-validations. Limited to empirical BE's HTL literature, these findings do not apply to other education or conceptual studies or sectors. Therefore, a traditional systematic review of Ghana's HTL would be the next phase of researching the evolved and emerging leadership trends within the sector.
Conclusion
The review of Ghana's BE HTL from 1994 to 2022 offers insightful revelations into the evolving nature of HTL in the context marked by the absence of formal HTL training programs before recruitment. The review employed the PRISMA framework to enhance the reliability and standardization of the review process, where the analysis suggests the adaptation of international leadership training programs to address the formal HTL training gaps. This leads Ghana's BE Headteachers to employ various leadership practices, heavily influenced by socio-cultural factors and the hierarchical GES framework, to lead schools. These findings draw our attention to a significant reliance on international training programs, which, while beneficial, could have been influenced by identified cultural factors through varying research projects. Therefore, this review has highlighted the need for further empirical research into the leadership of BE.
We suggest that researchers explore, identify, and differentiate HTL practices across the different levels of BE (ECE, Primary, and JHS) to discover practices specific to each level. We suggest this because research shows that leadership must be focused on student learning needs (Leithwood and Seashore-Louis, 2011; Neuman and Simmons, 2000; Tan, 2018) since these school levels constitute children with varying learning and development needs. Therefore, leaders must understand how to ‘lead for learning’ according to the unique developmental learning needs across the different levels of BE (ECE, Primary, and JHS). The outcomes of such investigations may guide future researchers in developing a focal leadership theory that aligns with the hierarchy-horizontal GES leadership needs of these Headteachers, Ghana's BE, and culture.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
