Contemporary leadership models and collaboration in primary schools: a mixed-methods study on school quality

School leadership plays a central role in shaping school quality, particularly in primary education, where leadership practices directly influence collaboration, organizational climate, and teaching processes. Contemporary leadership models emphasize shared responsibility, professional collaboration, and relational forms of influence as key mechanisms for school improvement. Despite extensive international research on educational leadership, empirical evidence that simultaneously examines leadership models, collaboration-related professional competencies, and perceived school quality remains limited, especially in education systems undergoing structural transition. This study investigates the relationships between contemporary leadership models, teachers’ professional competencies related to collaboration, and perceived school quality in primary schools. A sequential explanatory mixed-methods design was employed. Quantitative data were collected from 100 primary school teachers using a structured questionnaire, and qualitative data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with school principals. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, Spearman’s correlation, and simple linear regression, while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. The findings indicate that contemporary leadership models are significant positive predictors of perceived school quality. In addition, teachers’ professional competencies significantly predict the leadership-related school work environment, explaining a substantial proportion of variance in teachers’ perceptions of organizational climate. Qualitative findings further illustrate how leadership practices are enacted in everyday school contexts, highlighting the importance of collaboration, ethical leadership, and contextual constraints such as limited resources and infrastructural challenges. The study contributes to the literature by providing integrated empirical evidence on the indirect mechanisms through which leadership practices influence school quality, emphasizing the role of collaboration and professional competencies within a leadership-related organizational climate. The findings offer practical implications for leadership development, teacher professional learning, and policy initiatives aimed at strengthening school management and improving primary education outcomes.

Background

In recent decades, the study of school leadership has increasingly shifted from a focus on individual leaders and positional authority toward an understanding of leadership as a distributed, context-sensitive, and relational process. This shift reflects broader changes in educational governance, accountability systems, and pedagogical expectations, which require school leaders to operate within complex organizational environments marked by uncertainty, reform pressures, and growing demands for school effectiveness (Fullan, 2020; OECD, 2022). Leadership research in volatile and uncertain organizational contexts further emphasizes the importance of leadership agility, shared responsibility, and collaborative decision-making as essential for sustaining organizational performance (Syamsir et al., 2025). As a result, leadership effectiveness is no longer judged solely by administrative efficiency but by the extent to which leaders are able to mobilize teachers, foster collaboration, and support sustainable improvement in teaching and learning. A substantial body of research suggests that leadership effects on student outcomes and school quality are largely indirect. Rather than influencing outcomes through direct intervention in classroom instruction, school leaders shape the organizational conditions under which teaching and learning occur (Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2008). These conditions include professional collaboration, teacher motivation, shared norms, and a supportive school climate. Systematic reviews highlight that such organizational conditions are strengthened through sustained capacity building and the development of professional competencies within collaborative structures (Saputra et al., 2024). In this sense, leadership functions as a mediating force that structures opportunities for collective work and professional growth, particularly in primary education settings where coordination among teachers is essential. Transformational leadership has been one of the most widely studied contemporary leadership models in education. It emphasizes the capacity of leaders to inspire shared commitment, articulate meaningful goals, and support individual teachers’ professional development (Bass and Riggio, 2006). Meta-analytic evidence demonstrates that transformational school leadership is positively associated with teacher commitment, organizational learning, and perceived school effectiveness (Leithwood and Jantzi, 2006; Robinson et al., 2008). However, critics argue that transformational leadership alone may not sufficiently address the distributed nature of expertise in schools, especially in contexts where collaboration and shared responsibility are necessary to manage instructional complexity. Recent evidence reinforces that successful school leadership influences school quality primarily through indirect pathways, particularly by shaping organizational conditions, collaboration, and professional capacity (Leithwood et al., 2020).

Distributed leadership emerged as a response to these limitations, conceptualizing leadership as a collective practice stretched across multiple actors within the school organization (Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2010). Rather than locating leadership in formal roles, this approach emphasizes how leadership tasks are enacted through interaction, collaboration, and professional expertise. Empirical studies indicate that distributed leadership is strongly associated with teacher collaboration, collective efficacy, and positive school climates (Hulpia et al., 2011; Spillane, 2006). These findings are particularly relevant to primary education, where teamwork and shared instructional planning are central to school functioning. Evidence from systematic reviews on collaborative governance further suggests that trust-based coordination and shared accountability mechanisms are critical for managing complex organizational challenges, including those faced by educational institutions (Valentina et al., 2025). Collaboration between school leaders and teachers represents a critical mechanism linking leadership practices to school quality and management outcomes. Research on professional learning communities highlights that collaborative structures support reflective practice, shared accountability, and continuous improvement (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). When school leaders actively facilitate collaboration—through open communication, participatory decision-making, and support for professional learning—teachers report higher levels of motivation, trust, and organizational commitment, all of which contribute to improved perceptions of school quality.

Leadership practices are also deeply embedded in contextual and systemic factors. Education systems undergoing reform or operating under resource constraints face particular challenges in translating leadership ideals into practice. In such contexts, leadership effectiveness depends on leaders’ ability to navigate structural limitations while maintaining professional relationships and fostering collaboration (Pont et al., 2008). Recent systematic evidence underscores that adaptive leadership and organizational resilience are closely linked to leaders’ capacity to promote innovation and collective learning under constrained conditions (Saputra et al., 2025). Empirical studies from transitional and reform-oriented education systems show that leadership practices emphasizing collaboration and adaptability are especially important for sustaining school improvement under conditions of uncertainty (Day et al., 2016). Despite the extensive literature on school leadership, important gaps remain. Many studies focus on single leadership models or examine leadership effects in isolation from collaborative processes and school quality indicators. Moreover, quantitative studies often overlook the lived experiences of school leaders and teachers, while qualitative studies may lack generalizability. Mixed-methods designs offer a valuable approach for addressing these limitations by integrating statistical analysis with contextualized insights (Creswell and Plano Clark, 2018). Nevertheless, empirical studies that combine leadership models, collaboration, and perceived school quality within a coherent analytical framework remain relatively scarce, particularly in primary education and in systems undergoing structural transition.

The present study responds to these gaps by examining how contemporary leadership models are associated with collaboration with teachers and perceived school quality in primary schools. By employing a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, the study captures both the strength of statistical relationships and the ways in which leadership practices are enacted in everyday school contexts. This approach enables a more nuanced understanding of leadership as a relational and context-dependent process, contributing empirical evidence that informs leadership development, school management practices, and educational policy.

School leadership, collaboration, and school quality

Educational leadership theory is rooted in management concepts, yet it focuses specifically on the unique context of schools and the centrality of teaching and learning processes. Unlike leadership in other organizational settings, school leadership operates within a complex social system that involves teachers, students, parents, and the wider community, requiring leadership practices that balance instructional priorities, professional relationships, and organizational development (Bush, 2011; Hallinger, 2011). In primary education, this complexity is particularly pronounced, as leadership practices directly influence instructional coherence, teacher collaboration, and perceptions of school quality (Leithwood et al., 2008; Robinson et al., 2008; Bryk et al., 2010). Research consistently shows that effective school leadership contributes to improved school functioning not through direct control of instruction, but by shaping the organizational conditions that support teaching and learning. A widely accepted framework for understanding educational leadership emphasizes three interrelated dimensions: influence, vision, and values (Bush, 2011). Influence represents a core element of leadership and extends beyond formal authority to include the capacity to motivate, guide, and support teachers and students toward shared educational goals (Yukl, 2002). Empirical studies indicate that leadership influence is most effective when it is exercised through trust-building, professional collaboration, and shared responsibility rather than hierarchical control (Leithwood and Sun, 2012; Louis et al., 2010). Such forms of influence foster stronger professional relationships among teachers and contribute to the development of a leadership-related organizational climate that supports collective action and continuous improvement. Vision constitutes a second key dimension of school leadership and plays a central role in coordinating school improvement efforts. Effective school leaders articulate a clear and achievable vision that aligns instructional priorities with school development goals and communicate this vision in ways that actively engage teachers and other stakeholders (Hallinger and Heck, 2010). Empirical evidence suggests that teachers are more willing to participate in collaborative practices, instructional innovation, and professional learning when leadership vision is perceived as inclusive and responsive to classroom realities (Thoonen et al., 2011; Day and Sammons, 2016). At the same time, the literature cautions against top-down approaches to vision-setting, emphasizing that sustainable school improvement is more likely when goals are negotiated and shared among members of the school community (Sun and Leithwood, 2015). Values and ethics form the third dimension of educational leadership and are closely linked to school climate, trust, and collaboration. Leadership practices grounded in integrity, fairness, and ethical responsibility contribute to positive professional relationships and to an organizational culture that supports collaboration and mutual respect (Begley, 2007). Research in educational leadership highlights that ethical leadership is associated with higher levels of teacher commitment, motivation, and organizational trust, all of which are important components of perceived school quality and effective school management (Klar and Brewer, 2013). In this sense, leadership effectiveness is inseparable from the moral foundations that sustain collaborative school cultures.

Contemporary leadership models in education—particularly transformational and distributed leadership—integrate the dimensions of influence, vision, and values by emphasizing shared decision-making, professional empowerment, and collaborative problem-solving (Bass and Riggio, 2006; Harris, 2010). Transformational leadership focuses on building teachers’ commitment to shared goals and supporting professional growth, while distributed leadership conceptualizes leadership as a collective practice enacted across multiple actors within the school organization (Spillane et al., 2004). Empirical research consistently reports positive associations between these leadership approaches, teacher collaboration, organizational commitment, and improved school climate (Hulpia et al., 2009; Heck and Hallinger, 2009; Gumus et al., 2018).

Collaboration between school leaders and teachers has therefore emerged as a central mechanism through which leadership practices influence school quality and school management outcomes. Studies on professional learning communities indicate that collaborative structures support reflective practice, shared accountability, and improvements in teaching quality (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). When school leaders actively facilitate collaboration through open communication, participatory decision-making, and support for professional learning, teachers are more likely to engage in innovative instructional practices and collective problem-solving (Printy et al., 2009; Vangrieken et al., 2015). Importantly, leadership effects on school quality are predominantly indirect. Rather than influencing outcomes through direct intervention in classroom instruction, school leaders shape the organizational conditions under which teaching and learning occur, including collaboration, trust, collective efficacy, and professional learning opportunities (Hallinger, 2011; Leithwood et al., 2008). From this perspective, leadership-related organizational climate represents a key explanatory factor linking leadership practices, teacher collaboration, and perceived school quality, particularly in primary education settings where teamwork and instructional coordination are essential. Despite the extensive international literature on educational leadership, collaboration, and school quality, these constructs are often examined in isolation. There remains a lack of empirical studies that integrate contemporary leadership models, collaboration with teachers, and school quality within a single analytical framework, particularly in primary education and in education systems undergoing reform and structural transition (Pont et al., 2008; OECD, 2022).

Research methodology

Based on the reviewed literature, the study is grounded in a conceptual framework in which contemporary leadership models are expected to foster collaborative practices within schools, which in turn are associated with higher levels of perceived school quality. This framework guided the formulation of the research questions and the selection of the quantitative and qualitative methods.

Research problem

To explore the attitudes of school leaders and primary school teachers towards contemporary models of educational leadership, this study used a mixed-methods approach. Specifically, a sequential explanatory design was applied, where quantitative data served to provide a general overview of trends, while qualitative data enabled a deeper understanding of background factors.

Quantitative data were collected through questionnaires, which were distributed to 100 teachers working in grades one through five in primary schools. Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with six school principals, purposively selected based on their experience and institutional role. The combination of quantitative and qualitative data has enabled a comprehensive understanding of perceptions and practices related to contemporary models of educational leadership, helping to identify the most effective approaches that impact the functioning and development of primary schools.

Research tasks

The main task of this research was to examine the use of contemporary leadership models among primary school leaders and to explore how these practices are associated with school quality and management processes.

The research question was:

To what extent are contemporary leadership models associated with perceived school quality in primary schools?

Supporting sub-questions included:

1. To what extent do teachers’ professional competencies predict the leadership-related school work environment in primary schools?

2. How do school principals perceive the role of contemporary leadership practices in fostering collaboration and improving school functioning?

H1: Contemporary leadership models are significant positive predictors of perceived school quality in primary schools.

H2: Teachers’ professional competencies are significant predictors of the leadership-related school work environment in primary schools.

Research design

This study employed a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, in which quantitative data collection and analysis were followed by a qualitative phase to further explain and contextualize the quantitative findings. This design was selected to capture both the statistical relationships between leadership-related variables and school outcomes, as well as the perspectives and experiences of school principals regarding leadership practices in everyday school contexts. The mixed-methods approach allowed for methodological triangulation and enhanced the interpretive depth of the study.

Instruments and data collection

Quantitative instrument

Quantitative data were collected using a structured questionnaire designed to measure teachers’ perceptions of contemporary leadership models, professional competencies related to collaboration, the leadership-related school work environment, and perceived school quality. The questionnaire consisted of closed-ended items rated on a Likert-type scale.

Content validity was addressed through expert review, involving specialists in educational leadership and school management who evaluated the clarity, relevance, and alignment of items with the study constructs. Given the exploratory nature of the study and the use of an established theoretical framework, further construct validation procedures (e.g., factor analysis) were not conducted.

Qualitative instrument

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews with school principals. The interview protocol focused on leadership practices, collaboration with teachers, ethical leadership, school challenges, and factors influencing school functioning. This format allowed participants to elaborate on their experiences while ensuring alignment with the research questions. Qualitative data were analyzed thematically following the six-phase approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006).

Measurement of constructs

In this study, three main constructs were measured: contemporary leadership models, teachers’ professional competencies related to collaboration, and perceived school quality. The research instrument consisted of 24 closed-ended items based on a five-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and one supportive open-ended question. Contemporary leadership models were operationalized through a set of items measuring leadership practices oriented toward shared decision-making, innovation, professional support, and collaboration-based leadership. These items focused on teachers’ perceptions of how the school principal promotes new initiatives, open communication, and active staff involvement in school processes. Collaboration between school leaders and teachers was measured through items assessing levels of communication, trust, mutual support, and teachers’ involvement in decision-making. This construct reflects the extent to which the principal builds functional professional relationships with the teaching staff and fosters a collaborative school climate. School quality was operationalized as a perceptual construct encompassing dimensions of school management, organizational climate, support for high-quality teaching, professional motivation, and the promotion of innovative practices in the teaching process. Items related to this construct aimed to capture teachers’ evaluations of the school’s overall functioning and leadership effectiveness.

All items were developed by the authors based on relevant literature and adapted to the primary education context. The instrument was pilot-tested to ensure clarity, resulting in minor refinements. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.91). Content validity was established through expert review by two educational leadership specialists and one experienced primary school teacher.

Findings

The internal consistency of the research instrument was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. The results indicate a high level of internal reliability for the full questionnaire (α = 0.91), suggesting that the items consistently measure the targeted constructs related to leadership practices, collaboration, and school-related outcomes (Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha for the entire questionnaire.

Demographics of respondents

The quantitative phase included 100 primary school teachers. Of the participants, 14% were male and 86% female. Regarding age distribution, the majority of respondents (67%) were between 31 and 41 years old, followed by 20% aged 42–52 years, 10% aged 20–30 years, and 3% over the age of 53. In terms of educational attainment, 66% of participants held a bachelor’s degree, 20% had completed higher school education, 11% held a master’s degree, and 3% had graduated from normal school. Participants were drawn from six primary schools (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2. Respondent demographics.

The data show that primary school principals are experienced and educated, leading schools in a largely effective manner. Communication and relationships with teachers are strong, creating a positive collaborative environment. However, the use of contemporary leadership models and collaboration between the principal and deputy principal is variable. Challenges with school infrastructure and resources continue to limit the effectiveness of leadership. Overall, leadership is on a strong footing, but requires further modernization and support (Table 3).

Table 3

Table 3. Leadership experience and practices in primary schools.

The data in this study were collected through a Likert scale questionnaire (1–5), which represents ordinal data and that is not normally distributed and not equal intervals. For this reason, non-parametric analyses were used, specifically Spearman’s rho (ρ) correlation, which measures the strength and direction of the monotonic relationship between the use of contemporary leadership models and improving school quality (Table 4).

Table 4

Table 4. Spearman correlation between leadership models and school quality.

The results show that the implementation of contemporary leadership models directly impacts school quality. The more leaders implement these models, the higher the ratings for institutional quality, including management, motivation, and innovation in teaching (Table 4).

Principals are motivated primarily by the desire to positively influence the development of the school and to improve the educational process. Their motivation is not only related to the position, but to the responsibility and opportunity to make real change (Table 5).

Table 5

Table 5. Descriptive statistics of motivation factors for assuming leadership.

The results show that leaders who contribute to improving communication and collaboration with teachers have a stronger impact on improving the quality of the learning process. Innovations are mainly related to the use of technology and the promotion of new teaching methods (Table 6).

Table 6

Table 6. Relationship between innovations introduced by leaders and school improvement.

The results indicate statistically significant positive correlations between leadership-related innovations and perceived school improvement (Table 6). Improved communication with teachers shows a strong positive association with school improvement (ρ = 0.61, p < 0.001), followed by the promotion of staff collaboration (ρ = 0.59, p = 0.001). The use of technology in school management (ρ = 0.54, p = 0.002) and the encouragement of innovative teaching methods (ρ = 0.56, p = 0.001) are also moderately to strongly correlated with perceived school improvement. These findings suggest that leadership practices oriented toward communication, collaboration, and innovation are consistently associated with higher perceptions of school improvement (Table 6).

H1: Contemporary leadership models are significant positive predictors of perceived school quality in primary schools.

The linear regression results show that contemporary leadership models are a statistically significant predictor of school quality (β = 0.58, p < 0.001). The model explains approximately 34% of the variance in school quality, suggesting that more positive teacher perceptions of modern leadership practices are associated with higher evaluations of overall school functioning and institutional quality. The findings are interpreted at a predictive and associative level, without causal claims (see Tables 7, 8).

Table 7

Table 7. Linear regression: contemporary leadership models as predictors of school quality.

Table 8

Table 8. Simple linear regression: teachers’ professional competencies as predictors leadership-related school work environment.

H2: Teachers’ professional competencies are significant predictors of the leadership-related school work environment.

In this study, the leadership-related school work environment refers to teachers’ perceptions of leadership support, communication quality, collaboration with school leaders, clarity of expectations, and working conditions shaped by school management practices. The linear regression analysis indicates that teachers’ professional competencies are a statistically significant predictor of the leadership-related school work environment (β = 0.55, p < 0.001). The model explains approximately 30% of the variance in teachers’ perceptions of leadership-related organizational climate (R² = 0.30), suggesting that higher levels of professional competencies—particularly those related to collaboration and professional interaction—are associated with more positive perceptions of leadership practices and school management.

This study follows a sequential explanatory mixed-methods design, in which quantitative findings were used as a basis to guide and deepen the qualitative analysis. The quantitative results identified significant relationships between contemporary leadership models, collaboration, and school quality, while qualitative data from interviews with school leaders were used to explain and contextualize these relationships, offering a deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which these practices influence school functioning.

Qualitative data were collected through interviews conducted with six primary school principals. The analysis of these qualitative data was planned from the beginning of the research process, based on the research questions, definitions of key concepts, and their operationalization (Table 9).

Table 9

Table 9. Thematic codes from school leadership interview.

Personal traits influencing leadership success

Most interviewed principals believe that a successful school leader should be innovative, passionate about their profession, and work diligently with a strong sense of personal responsibility. They should be courteous, well-mannered, and have a clear vision for the school’s development and priorities. Effective collaboration with school staff is also essential. For example, Principal A mentioned, “A leader should not only have the vision but the ability to inspire others to believe in that vision. Innovation and passion are key in motivating the team.” Furthermore, principals must possess adequate managerial preparation, professional development, selfconfidence, patience, and tolerance, and continuously strive for self-improvement. Principal B pointed out, “You need to be patient and adapt to each situation, especially when dealing with teachers or students who face challenges. Leadership is about guiding people through difficult times, not just giving orders.” They should not shy away from challenges but face them boldly, building communication bridges and cooperation with all staff members, parents, and the wider community. Principals emphasized the importance of self-awareness, professionalism, commitment, proactive planning, effective communication, visionary leadership, transparency, innovation, and motivation. Values such as seriousness, creativity, patience, passion, humility, integrity, accountability, ethics, humanism, work ethic, setting a positive example, respect for others’ work and schedules, and fostering a positive school climate are key characteristics of effective leadership. Love for the school, full dedication, adherence to regulations and legal frameworks, working under pressure, enforcing school policies, developing long-term strategic plans, understanding school issues, simplicity, and supporting teachers in difficult situations were also highlighted as critical leadership components.

Strengths contributing to professional success as principals

Most principals indicated that achieving the standards of an ideal school requires collaboration among all stakeholders within and outside the school, including parents, institutions, organizations, the community, and society at large. One principal cited Sahlberg’s idea that “schools develop when things flourish from the bottom, are directed from the top, and are pressured from the sides” (Sahlberg, 2011). A smaller number emphasized the need for well-equipped classrooms, libraries, sports facilities, digitalized teaching, and a motivating environment for students. They also noted the importance of granting managerial staff adequate competencies and accountability. Principal E noted, “Our school was able to improve significantly once we started investing in technology and modern teaching tools. It’s not just about the infrastructure; it’s about creating an environment where students can thrive”.

Motivating factors for accepting school leadership and management

Most interviewees stated that their primary motivation was to improve the school, raise students’ educational levels, enhance the school’s values, and bring qualitative changes for teachers, students, and the community. Motivational factors included inspiration, passion, future vision, integrity, hard work, dedication, responsibility, willingness to face new challenges, professional preparation, and work experience. Principal F shared, “I was motivated by the opportunity to lead change. I wanted to create a school where both teachers and students could excel and feel supported.” Commitment to the teaching profession, managerial skills, creating new opportunities for teaching and learning, introducing innovations, improving school infrastructure, establishing new partnerships, and a desire to contribute fully to school success were frequently mentioned. A smaller group of principals mentioned motivation derived from opportunities and inspiration to contribute more, to motivate others, to showcase abilities beyond past achievements, and to elevate school quality. Some emphasized the influence of the school staff, self-challenge, willingness to help others, improving the school environment, and creating a value-based organizational culture aligned with European standards. An even smaller number mentioned increasing student enrollment, improving infrastructure, achieving developmental goals in all educational aspects, and creating a positive learning climate. The fewest mentioned reasons such as chance, career advancement, salary, loss of teaching hours, or better job offers compared to previous positions.

Main challenges faced by schools

Almost all principals reported that the main challenges relate to student absenteeism, shortages in classrooms and laboratories, insufficient teaching materials for applying core subject concepts practically, and limited school budgets. Principal G explained, “Our biggest challenge is the lack of proper classroom space. We have to make do with what we have, but the students’ needs are evolving, and we need more resources to stay competitive.” Some schools face additional challenges related to geographic location, infrastructure, lack of parental support for academic progress, and the attitudes of local authorities and the community towards the school.

Innovative factors supporting successful leadership and management

Principals highlighted commitment and the will to achieve results as strong influences on success. They also emphasized the positive application of knowledge, experience, professional preparation, systematic planning, dedication, clear vision and mission, goal-setting based on systematic assessment, effective communication, self-confidence, cooperation, determination, transparency, tolerance, respect, implementation of development plans, and adherence to laws and guidelines. For example, Principal C said, “We made a clear plan to enhance communication and trust between teachers, parents, and students. This has helped the entire school community focus on the same goals.” A smaller group mentioned being principled, transparent, patient, applying legal acts, continuous monitoring of student learning outcomes, and taking corrective actions as key factors. Good cooperation with teachers, parents, students, and the wider community was also highlighted. Another group stressed the importance of professional competencies acquired through ongoing professional development activities. Principles such as ethics, preparation, motivation, commitment, confidence in their work, and transmitting these values to others are essential for effective leadership. A smaller number emphasized commitment, experience, and computer skills as very important for leadership success. Principals must be dedicated and believe in their ability to maximize contributions toward achieving school goals, aim for high teaching and learning outcomes through regular performance monitoring, encourage students and staff, promote discipline, organize diverse activities, offer opportunities for inclusion, foster a positive climate, collaborate with the community, and ensure a safe environment for all.

Changes, innovations, and improvements in the educational process attributed to leadership contributions

Most principals reported their contributions were directly linked to introducing innovations in school infrastructure, improving relationships among teaching staff, increasing transparency in school decision-making, and enhancing communication between teachers, students, and parents. A relatively smaller number noted improvements in freedom of expression for students, teachers, and parents; elimination of physical and psychological violence; establishment of positive discipline; use of classrooms and laboratories for practical student work; continuous support for teachers and students in initiatives aimed at raising standards and quality. An even smaller number mentioned contributions to improving the school environment, creating favorable conditions for learning, collaborating with NGOs, increasing student enrollment, and improving hygiene. Principal B emphasized, “We have focused on student-centered learning and providing more opportunities for hands-on experience. This has made a huge difference in engagement and motivation”.

Discussion and conclusions

The findings of this study confirm and extend existing research by demonstrating that the relationship between school leadership and school quality is not isolated, but closely intertwined with collaborative practices within the school environment (Leithwood et al., 2008; Hallinger, 2011). Rather than functioning as a purely managerial role, contemporary leadership in primary education operates through shared responsibility, professional interaction, and the creation of a supportive organizational climate, consistent with research on relational and distributed forms of leadership (Harris, 2010; Spillane, 2006). This interconnected relationship becomes particularly visible in contexts where schools face multiple structural and resource-related challenges.

One of the most prominent findings relates to the everyday difficulties schools encounter, such as student absenteeism, inadequate infrastructure, limited classroom and laboratory space, shortages of teaching materials, and restricted financial resources. These challenges vary depending on geographic location, socio-economic conditions, parental involvement, and levels of institutional support. Such contextual factors are known to shape leadership practices and influence the feasibility of school improvement initiatives, particularly in education systems undergoing reform (Pont et al., 2008; OECD, 2022).

The qualitative findings further indicate that parents increasingly make informed decisions when choosing schools for their children, often comparing public and private institutions based on learning conditions, organizational quality, and perceived professionalism. School principals emphasized that parental choice is closely linked to perceptions of quality and trust, reinforcing the importance of leadership practices that promote transparency, professionalism, and ethical behavior (Day and Sammons, 2016). International policy frameworks emphasize that school leadership is a key lever for improving teaching quality, collaboration, and overall school performance, particularly in systems undergoing reform (OECD, 2019).

Professional ethics emerged as a central element of effective school leadership. Nearly all participating principals described their leadership practice as guided by ethical standards and school codes of conduct. Ethical leadership was consistently associated with trust-building among teachers, students, and parents, as well as with the promotion of collaborative practices that contribute to a positive school climate. This finding aligns with previous research highlighting the role of ethical and value-based leadership in strengthening organizational relationships and institutional effectiveness (Begley, 2007).

Moreover, the findings suggest that effective leadership in primary schools is strongly connected to proactive problem-solving, strategic planning, and the ability to mobilize both internal and external resources. Principals who adopt contemporary leadership approaches characterized by open communication, collaboration, and shared decision-making are more likely to foster positive school environments and support improvements in educational quality. These results are consistent with the literature on transformational and distributed leadership, which emphasizes their role in enhancing teacher motivation, engagement, and instructional quality (Leithwood and Sun, 2018; Robinson et al., 2008).

Final remarks

Overall, the study highlights that improving school quality in primary education requires more than structural reforms or administrative control. School principals play a pivotal role as leaders who must balance legal responsibilities, professional standards, and the human dimensions of school life. Familiarity with legal and normative frameworks, combined with reflective practice and continuous self-evaluation, allows principals to respond more effectively to internal and external challenges.

The findings underscore the importance of collaborative school cultures, where expert teams, shared projects, and partnerships with other institutions support innovation and development. Principals emphasized the value of forming working groups to design projects, seek funding opportunities, and coordinate activities that align with school priorities. Systematic evaluation of both teachers’ performance and principals’ own leadership practices was also seen as essential for sustaining improvement and fostering professional growth.

From a practical perspective, the study suggests that school improvement initiatives should place greater emphasis on developing collaborative and ethical leadership practices. Professional development for school leaders should therefore move beyond administrative skills and focus more explicitly on communication, collaboration, and reflective leadership.

Recommendations

Based on the findings, several practical recommendations emerge. School leaders should develop clear and effective mechanisms to ensure quality leadership and management, while also engaging in continuous self-evaluation and professional learning. At the system level, clearer delineation of responsibilities between central and local educational authorities is needed, alongside stronger institutional support structures for monitoring and evaluation. Schools are encouraged to implement internal self-assessment practices involving teachers, students, parents, and the community, with the aim of identifying strengths and areas for improvement. Regular teacher evaluation, combining formative and summative approaches, can further support instructional quality and professional development.

Limitations

Despite the strengths of this study, certain limitations should be acknowledged. Although the sample size was adequate for the analyses conducted, the use of non-probability sampling limits the generalizability of the findings. The results should therefore be interpreted with caution and understood as indicative of broader trends rather than as definitive causal conclusions.

Data availability statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Ethics statement

This study involved adult participants (school principals and teachers) and did not include any interventions or experiments with children. The research was conducted in accordance with institutional and national ethical standards. Written informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection. Ethical review and approval were not required for this study on human participants in accordance with the local institutional guidelines and regulations.

Author contributions

ML: Project administration, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Resources, Conceptualization, Software, Writing – review & editing. VS: Writing – original draft, Investigation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declared that financial support was not received for this work and/or its publication.

Conflict of interest

The author(s) declared that this work was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The author(s) declared that Generative AI was not used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Bass, B. M., and Riggio, R. E. (2006). Transformational leadership. 2nd Edn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Google Scholar

Begley, P. T. (2007). Values and leadership: theory, practice, and research. Educ. Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 35, 159–172. doi: 10.1177/1741143207075386

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Braun, V., and Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 3, 77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., and Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 32, 330–353. doi: 10.3102/0162373710371490

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bush, T. (2011). Theories of educational leadership and management. 4th Edn: SAGE Publications.

Google Scholar

Creswell, J. W., and Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. 3rd Edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Google Scholar

Day, C., Gu, Q., and Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies. Educ. Adm. Q. 52, 221–258. doi: 10.1177/0013161X15616863

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Day, C., and Sammons, P. (2016). Successful school leadership. Educ. Dev. Trust. doi: 10.4324/9780203766951

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Fullan, M. (2020). The right drivers for whole system success. Melbourne, VIC: Centre for Strategic Education.

Google Scholar

Gumus, S., Bellibas, M. S., Esen, M., and Gumus, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies on leadership models in education. Educ. Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 46, 25–55. doi: 10.1177/1741143216659296

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Lead. Q. 13, 423–451. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. J. Educ. Adm. 49, 125–142. doi: 10.1108/09578231111116699

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hallinger, P., and Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement. Educ. Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 38, 654–678. doi: 10.1177/1741143210379060

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Harris, A. (2010). Distributed leadership: evidence and implications. Educ. Manage. Adm. Leadersh. 38, 503–520.

Google Scholar

Heck, R. H., and Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement. J. Educ. Adm. 47, 659–680. doi: 10.1108/09578230910981052

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., and Rosseel, Y. (2009). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ organizational commitment: a multilevel analysis. Educ. Stud. 35, 153–171. doi: 10.1080/03055690802648739

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hulpia, H., Devos, G., and Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment. Educ. Adm. Q. 47, 728–771. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11402065

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Klar, H. W., and Brewer, C. A. (2013). Successful leadership in high-needs schools. Educ. Adm. Q. 49, 768–808. doi: 10.1177/0013161X13482577

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. Sch. Leadersh. Manage. 40, 5–22. doi: 10.1080/13632434.2019.1581248

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leithwood, K., and Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: Effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 17, 201–227. doi: 10.1080/09243450600565829

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2008). How leadership influences student learning. Educ. Adm. Q. 44, 529–561. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321221

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leithwood, K., and Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership. Educ. Adm. Q. 48, 387–423. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11436268

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Leithwood, K., and Sun, J. (2018). Academic culture: a promising mediator of school leaders’ influence on student learning. J. Educ. Adm. 56, 350–363. doi: 10.1108/JEA-01-2017-0009

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., and Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Sch. Eff. Sch. Improv. 21, 315–336. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2010.486586

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

OECD (2019). Improving school leadership. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Google Scholar

OECD (2022). School leadership for learning: Insights from TALIS. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Google Scholar

Pont, B., Nusche, D., and Moorman, H. (2008). Improving school leadership, volume 1: policy and practice. OECD Educ. Train. Pap. doi: 10.1787/9789264044711-en

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Printy, S. M., Marks, H. M., and Bowers, A. J. (2009). Integrated leadership. Educ. Adm. Q. 45, 501–536. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08330514

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., and Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: an analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educ. Adm. Q. 44, 635–674. doi: 10.1177/0013161X08321509

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sahlberg, P. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Google Scholar

Saputra, N., Putera, R. E., and Zetra, A. (2025). Innovative capacity building strategies for sustainable disaster risk management: a systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. E3S web of conferences, Les Ulis: EDP Sciences, 604.

Google Scholar

Saputra, N., Putera, R. E., Zetra, A., Azwar,, Valentina, T. R., and Mulia, R. A. (2024). Capacity building for organizational performance: a systematic review, conceptual framework, and future research directions. Cogent Bus Manag 11:2434966. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2024.2434966

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Educ. Manag. Adm. Leadersh. 34, 29–46. doi: 10.1177/1741143206059722

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J. B. (2004). Toward a theory of leadership practice. J. Curric. Stud. 36, 3–34. doi: 10.1080/0022027032000106726

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., and Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: a review of the literature. J. Educ. Change 7, 221–258. doi: 10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sun, J., and Leithwood, K. (2015). Direction-setting school leadership practices. Educ. Adm. Q. 51, 238–277. doi: 10.1177/0013161X14557046

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Syamsir, S., Saputra, N., and Mulia, R. A. (2025). Leadership agility in a VUCA world: a systematic review, conceptual insights, and research directions. Cogent Bus Manag 12:2482022. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2025.2482022

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Thoonen, E. E. J., Sleegers, P. J. C., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T. D., and Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: the role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 496–536. doi: 10.1177/0013161X11400185

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Valentina, T. R., Putera, R. E., and Salsabila, L. (2025). Collaborative governance in handling the waste crisis: a systematic literature review. Int. J. Sustain. Dev. Plan. 20, 761–770. doi: 10.18280/ijsdp.200225

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vangrieken, K., Dochy, F., Raes, E., and Kyndt, E. (2015). Teacher collaboration. Teach. Teach. Educ. 49, 17–30. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.007

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Vescio, V., Ross, D., and Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teach. Teach. Educ. 24, 80–91. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations. 5th Edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Google Scholar