Collective Leadership: Principals’ Decision Influence and the Supportive or Inhibiting Decision Influence of Other Stakeholders

Abstract

Purpose: Using the collective leadership framework, this study examines (a) how principals perceive their own influence and that of other key stakeholders in various school decisions and (b) how principals’ perceived influences of other stakeholders are associated with their own influence. Research Method/Approach: This study uses the nationally representative database of public school principals from the 2007 to 2008 School and Staffing Survey. A series of ordinary least squares regression models were estimated to examine how principals’ perceptions of decision influence were associated with principal characteristics, school contextual factors, and influences of other stakeholders. Findings: Among all the stakeholders, principals perceived themselves to have the greatest influence in school decisions in almost all key decision areas, while other stakeholders also exerted significant influences to different extents. Depending on the decision area, principals viewed other stakeholders’ influence as either supporting or inhibiting their own influence. For example, principals perceived influences from teachers and school districts as high and supportive. On the other hand, the influence of state agencies were perceived as generally inhibiting. In addition, collective leadership was more prevalent in some decision areas (e.g., setting standards and establishing curriculum) than others (e.g., hiring and evaluating teachers). Conclusions and Implications: School leadership does not have to be a zero-sum game. Principals’ decision influence does not necessarily diminish when other stakeholders gain more influence. Improving collective leadership and maintaining the right balance of decision influence among stakeholders and across decision zones have the potential to create a harmonious and high-functioning school environment.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 78 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.