This study examines the association between principals’ decision autonomy, digital leadership, and perceived school improvement across OECD education systems. Using data from the TALIS 2024) principal questionnaire (N = 22,450; 29 countries), we estimate within-country associations using regression models with country fixed effects and design-adjusted standard errors. Digital leadership is examined in relation to decision autonomy, digital competence, technological barriers, and institutional stability. We conduct moderation analyses (Autonomy × Competence; Autonomy × Barriers), mediation analyses, cross-level interaction models, and structural equation modelling. Results indicate that decision autonomy shows the strongest positive association with digital leadership after controlling for country fixed effects (β ≈ .34), alongside positive relationships with digital competence (β ≈ .28) and negative relationships with technological barriers (β ≈ −.18). Digital leadership is positively associated with perceived school improvement (β ≈ .27), and mediation analysis indicates a statistically significant indirect relationship between autonomy and perceived improvement through digital leadership (indirect β ≈ .09). The findings indicate that decentralised decision authority is associated with more favourable organisational conditions when accompanied by principals’ digital competence and supportive technological infrastructures.
AnwarASaraihUN (2024) Does digital leadership promote teachers’ instructional engagement? Exploring the mediating role of teacher autonomy. International Journal of Educational Management38(6): 1020–1035.
2.
BrykASSebringPBAllensworthE, et al. (2009) Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226078014.001.0001
3.
BuergerCLincoveJAMataC (2023) How context shapes the relationship between school autonomy and test-scores: An explanatory analysis using PISA 2015. International Journal of Educational Development99. 10.1016/j.ijedudev.2023.102777
4.
ChecchiDvan de WerfhorstHBragaM, et al (2014) The policy response to educational inequalities. In: SalverdaWNolanBSmeedingTM (eds) Changing Inequalities in Rich Countries: Analytical and Comparative Perspectives. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 294–327. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199687435.003.0012
5.
ConnollyFO’BrienDO’CeallaighTJ (2023) Ensuring knowledge sustainability in a digital era: Empowering digital transformation through digital educational leadership. Technology, Knowledge and Learning. 10.1007/s10758-023-09707-0
6.
DexterS (2011) School technology leadership: Artifacts in systems of practice. Journal of School Leadership21(2): 166–189.
7.
ErtnerP (1999) Addressing first and second-order barriers to change strategies for technology integration. Educational Technology Research and Development47: 47–61.
8.
FlanaganLJacobsenM (2003) Technology leadership for the twenty-first century principal. Journal of Educational Administration41(2): 124–142.
9.
FullanM (2016) The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
GriffithsASlaterHMuktarS, et al. (2020) Together we can do so much: A systematic review and conceptual framework of collaboration in schools. Canadian Journal of School Psychology36(1): 59–85.
11.
GrissomJEgaliteALindsayC (2021) How Principals Affect Students and Schools. Washington, DCBrookings Institution.
12.
GuerrieroS (ed)2017Pedagogical Knowledge and the Changing Nature of the Teaching Profession, Educational Research and Innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264270695-en
13.
GurrDDrysdaleLClarkeS (2020) Leading schools in times of change. School Leadership & Management40(4): 259–283.
14.
Håkansson LindqvistMPetterssonF (2019) Digitalization and school leadership: On the complexity of leading for digitalization in school. International Journal of Information and Learning Technology36(3): 218–230.
15.
HallingerP (2003) Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education33(3): 329–352.
16.
HallingerPHeckRH (2011) Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. In: TownsendTMacBeathJ (eds) International Handbook of Leadership for Learning. Dordrecht: Springer, 1123–1247.
17.
HanushekEALinkSWoessmannL (2013) Does school autonomy make sense everywhere? Panel estimates from PISA. Journal of Development Economics104: 212–232.
18.
HargreavesAFullanM (2012) Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in Every School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
HarrisA (2009) Distributed leadership: What we know. In: Distributed Leadership. Dordrecht: Springer, 11–21. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_2
HonigMIRaineyLR (2012) Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here?Educational Policy26(3): 465–495.
22.
HorwoodMParkerPDMarshHW, et al. (2022) School autonomy policies lead to increases in principal autonomy and job satisfaction. International Journal of Educational Research115: 102048.
23.
KarakoseTPolatHTülübaşT, et al. (2024) A review of the conceptual structure and evolution of digital leadership research in education. Education Sciences14(11): 1166.
24.
KarakoseTTülübaşT (2023) Digital leadership and sustainable school improvement—a conceptual analysis and implications for future research. Educational Process: International Journal12(1): 7–18.
25.
KellyKMerryJGonzalezM (2018) Trust, collaboration and well-being: Lessons learned from Finland. SRATE Journal27(2): 34–39.
26.
KimY (2016) Music therapists’ job demands, job autonomy, social support, and their relationship with burnout and turnover intention. The Arts in Psychotherapy51: 17–23.
27.
LeithwoodKHarrisAHopkinsD (2019) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management39(5): 1–18.
28.
LuechaCChantarasombatCSirisuthiC (2022) Program development of digital leadership for school administrators under the office of primary educational service area. World Journal of Education12(2): 15.
29.
McCarthyAMMaorDMcConneyA, et al. (2023) Digital transformation in education: Critical components for leaders of system change. Social Sciences & Humanities Open8(1): Article 100479.
30.
MurphyJMeyersCV (2008) Turning Around Failing Schools: Leadership Lessons from the Organizational Sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
31.
NadeemM (2024) Distributed leadership in educational contexts: A catalyst for school improvement. Social Sciences & Humanities Open9: 100835.
32.
ObiedAS (2025) Digital leadership in the academic environment: A systematic literature review. Social Sciences & Humanities Open11: 101542.
33.
OECD (2019) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume I): Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
34.
OECD (2020) TALIS 2018 Results (Volume II): Teachers and School Leaders as Valued Professionals. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/19cf08df-en
35.
OECD (2023) Digital Education Outlook 2023: Pushing the Frontiers with AI, blockchain and robots. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/c74f03de-en
36.
OECD (2024) Putting AI to the Test: A Framework for Evaluating AI Capabilities. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/2c297e0b-en
37.
OECD (2025) Results from TALIS 2024: The State of Teaching. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/90df6235-en
38.
OkunlolaJO (2024) Unpacking the drivers and barriers of digital leadership practice in education: A study of high school leaders’ experiences. Journal of Education and Learning Technology5(7): 207–220.
39.
SaarivirtaTKumpulainenK (2016) School autonomy, leadership and student achievement: Reflections from Finland. International Journal of Educational Management30(7): 1268–1278.
40.
SaeedSKangMA (2024) The impact of digital leadership on the performance of secondary teachers. Academy of Education and Social Sciences Review4(1): 12–20.
41.
SahlbergP (2015) A model lesson. Finland shows that equity and excellence can co-exist in education. Pensamiento Educativo: Revista De Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana52(1): 136–145.
42.
SchleicherA (2018) World Class. Paris: OECD Publishing. 10.1787/9789264300002-en
43.
ShihSJiangJKleinF, et al. (2011) Learning demand and job autonomy of IT personnel: Impact on turnover intention. Computers in Human Behavior27(6): 2301–2307.
44.
SpillaneJPHalversonRDiamondJB (2001) Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher30(3): 23–28.
45.
TigrePBCuradoCMMHenriquesPL (2023) Digital leadership: A bibliometric analysis. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies30(1): 40–70.
46.
Vázquez-CanoE (2013) Open government and e-leadership in schools mediated by ICT. Croatian Journal of Education15(1): 11–41.
47.
VergerAParcerisaLPagèsM, et al. (2024) School autonomy with accountability as a cross-national policy model: Diverse adoptions, practices and impacts. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy10(3): 167–179.
48.
VoogtJKnezekGCoxM, et al. (2013) ICT In primary and secondary education. Educational Technology Research and Development61(1): 1–21.
49.
WeinerJWoulfinS (2017) Controlled autonomy: Novice principals’ schema for district control and school autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration55(3): 334–350.
50.
WoessmannL (2016) The importance of school systems: Evidence from international differences in student achievement. Journal of Economic Perspectives30(3): 3–32.
51.
WollscheidSTømteCEgebergG, et al. (2025) Research trends on digital school leadership over time: Science mapping and content analysis. Education and Information Technologies30(1): 747–778.
52.
ZhuRAliasBSMohd HamzahMI, et al. (2025) Digital leadership in education: A systematic review. Journal of Education and Learning19(3): 1474–1483.
