Understanding the Contribution of Leadership to School Improvement

Full text

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
Understanding the Contribution of Leadership to School Improvement
Philip Hallinger
Mahidol University
and
Ronald Heck
University of Hawaii

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
1
Since the emergence of research focusing on school effectiveness in the late 1970’s,
educators internationally have joined the leadership bandwagon. Despite the admonition of
respected scholars (e.g., Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee, 1982; Bridges, 1982; Cuban, 1988;
Miskel, 1982; Rowan, Dwyer, & Bossert, 1982; van de Grift, 1989, 1990) the assumption of
positive leadership effects in schooling prevailed in research and practice. In fact, in the years
since 1980 leadership has became a newly influential domain of educational management.
This is the case despite the fact that there are more questions than answers with respect to the
nature and role of school leadership.
In this chapter, we discuss findings drawn from a review of empirical literature on
principal leadership effects disseminated internationally between 1980 and 2000. We seek to
understand what scholars have learned about the substance of claims that principal leadership
makes a difference in school effectiveness. For the purposes of this chapter, we refer to
leadership as an influence process by which school administrators, focusing especially on
principals, seek to influence others towards the achievement of organizational goals.
The body of the chapter is devoted to a discussion of findings drawn from a series of
related papers that have investigated state-of-the-art perspectives on school leadership and its
effects (Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b, 1997, 1999; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1994; Heck &
Hallinger, 1999). This paper builds on the earlier efforts by synthesizing and extending our
findings on school leadership as it operates in an international context (see also Hallinger,
1995; Hallinger & Kantamara, 2001; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1998; Heck, 1996). Moreover,
in this chapter we pay particular attention to the methodology of literature reviews and their
role in the process of building the knowledge base in our field.
The Perspective for this Review
Any attempt to integrate a body of research into a coherent conceptual framework that
analyzes conceptual, substantive and methodological issues must acknowledge its limitations
at the outset. The field’s conceptualization of organizational processes, including leadership
constructs, is constantly evolving. Hence, we assert that no universal paradigm or theory exists
for examining organizational behavior that is valid in all contexts (Hallinger, 1995; Heck,
1996; Leithwood & Hallinger, 1993). Moreover, the complexity of extra- and intra-
organizational processes represents a particular challenge for researchers who study causal
relationships involving leadership and school effectiveness (Bossert et al., 1982; Boyan, 1988;
Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b; Heck & Hallinger, 1999; Marcoulides & Heck, 1992, 1993;
Pitner, 1988). While a perusal of the professional literature of the 1980’s and 1990’s would
suggest that we have learned much about the principal’s role in school effectiveness, this
review started with a cautious view towards such claims.
We chose to demarcate our review with the year 1980 in recognition of landmark efforts
that reviewed research in that period. In our view, the summer 1982 issue of the Educational
Administration Quarterly marked a turning point in the recent study of educational
administrators, especially with respect to their effects on schooling. Contained in this issue
were two articles, Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967-1980

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
2
(Bridges, 1982) and The instructional management role of the principal: A review and
preliminary conceptualization (Bossert et al., 1982). These reviews examined research on
principal leadership conducted over the previous decade and more.
Interestingly, however, the reviews drew quite different conclusions. Based upon his
assessment of the literature, Bridges (1982) concluded:
Research on school administrators for the period 1967-80 reminds one
of the dictum: “The more things change, the more they remain the
same.” The state-of-the-art is scarcely different from what seemed to be
in place 15 years ago. Although researchers apparently show a greater
interest in outcomes than was the case in the earlier period, they
continue their excessive reliance on survey designs, questionnaires of
dubious reliability and validity, and relatively simplistic types of
statistical analysis. Moreover these researchers persist in treating
research problems in an ad hoc rather than a programmatic fashion.
Equally disturbing is the nature of the knowledge base accumulated
during this period. Despite the rather loose definition of theory that was
used in classifying the sample of research. . . , most of it proved to be
atheoretical. Likewise the research seemed to have little or no practical
utility. (pp. 24-25)
This conclusion was sobering for those who hoped that research might assist in solving
problems of educational policy and practice in educational administration. In contrast, Bossert
and his colleagues (1982) at the Far West Laboratory for Research and Development
suggested that principals could have a positive impact on a variety of in-school factors, and at
least indirectly affect the achievement of students. The Far West Lab group’s assessment
received support from independent reviews conducted by scholars at the Ontario Institute for
Studies in Education (Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982), the Santa Clara (CA) County Office
of Education (Murphy, Hallinger & Mitman, 1983), the Northwest Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development (Purkey & Smith, 1983), and the Connecticut State Department of
Education (Sirois & Villanova, 1982). While not blind to methodological problems of the
literature, their conclusions were distinctly more optimistic than those of Bridges’ review.
The divergence of these conclusions was both startling and difficult to reconcile at the
time. If the methodological and conceptual state-of-the-art was as Bridges suggested, how
could other respected scholars draw such dissimilar conclusions? In retrospect, it may be
explained by several factors. First, Bridges’ review did not include publications that were
featuring the early effective schools research. Yet these studies formed an important body of
evidence for the other reviews.
Second, the school effects research was comprised of general investigations into the
effectiveness of schools. The research questions and designs, therefore, were not intended to
test the effects of principals on school outcomes. This feature was noted by Miskel (1982) as
well as by Bossert and colleagues in a second review (Rowan et al., 1982). Thus, studies

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
3
included in these other reviews may not have met Bridges’ selection criteria, even if they had
appeared in the journals included in his review.
Third, it would be fair to say that the foci of the reviews also differed. Bridges was
primarily concerned with methodological issues, while the other reviewers evinced greater
interest in conceptual linkages within the literature and on the direction of substantive results.
They also were more eclectic and drew upon studies from a variety of sister domains (e.g.,
school improvement, general management).
Finally, it is also true that if the early effective schools studies had been included in
Bridges’ 1982 review, they would have been aptly described by several characteristics noted
in his methodological critique. The effective schools research relied heavily on cross-sectional
survey research and tended to be atheoretical in the selection and modeling of variables.
Moreover, the research designs and statistical methods were not always up to the task of
determining causal relationships.
Together, these factors explain the incongruence in findings drawn from reviews
conducted at the same time. In a sense, however, these reviews all predated a new generation
of research on principal effectiveness. During the 1980’s, stimulated by findings from the
school effectiveness literature, researchers began to reconceptualize the principal’s leadership
role and lay the groundwork for more systematic empirical investigation. In particular this led
to the emergence of conceptual frameworks focusing on instructional leadership, a hitherto
much discussed but lightly studied role of the principal (Andrews & Soder, 1987; Bossert et
al., 1982; Hallinger, 2001; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood & Montgomery, 1982;
Sirois & Villanova, 1982). With the advent of the 1990’s, an international group of scholars
continued to push this literature forward with a program of research focusing on
transformational school leadership and its effects (Cheng, 1994; Leithwood, 1994; Leithwood
& Jantzi, 1990; Leithwood, Jantzi, Ryan, & Steinbach, 1998; Sheppard & Brown, 2000; Silins,
1994; Silins, Mulford, Zarins, & Bishop, 2000; Wiley, 1998)
Instrumentation evolving from this conceptual work has made it possible to design studies
that would more reliably determine the nature and effects of the principal’s leadership
behavior (e.g., Andrews & Soder, 1987; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood, 1994; van de
Grift, 1990; Villanova, Gauthier, Proctor, & Shoemaker, 1981). Increased attention to
emerging analytical techniques such as structural equation modeling and hierarchical linear
modeling further allowed researchers to explore more complex theoretical models of
leadership effects (e.g., Heck & Marcoulides, 1992; Marks, Seashore Louis, & Printy, 2000;
Rowan, Raudenbush, & Kang, 1991; Silins, 1994; Wiley, 1998). The two decades following
publication of these reviews in 1982 was fruitful, at least if measured by the number of studies
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1996b), and set the stage for this review.
Identification and Selection of Studies for Review
We began the review of literature on principal leadership and its effects with a search of
the ERIC (Resources in Education) and CJIE (Current Journals in Education) databases and

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
4
used these sources as well as personal knowledge of published and presented research to
identify additional studies. Consequently, the review includes journal articles, dissertation
studies, and papers presented at peer-reviewed conferences. We are reasonably confident that
our reviews captured most of the empirical studies of principal effects disseminated
internationally between 1980 and 2000.
Three criteria guided selection of studies for our review. First, we sought studies that had
been designed explicitly to examine the effects of principal’s leadership beliefs and behavior.
The research must have conceptualized and measured principal leadership as one of the
independent variables. The nature of the conceptualization of leadership was not considered at
the point of selection. That is, we did not limit the review to studies of instructional leadership,
transformational leadership or any other specific model. Indeed, one of the goals of the review
was to identify the predominant models being used by scholars in empirical studies of
principal effects.
Second, the studies also had to include an explicit measure of school performance as a
dependent variable. Most often performance was measured in terms of student achievement,
but occasionally other definitions of effectiveness were also used. It was our desire, though not
a necessary condition for inclusion, to also identify studies that examined the principal’s
impact on teacher and school level variables as mediating factors. The dual focus reflects the
priority that we assign to student outcomes as an important goal for school improvement and
to classroom and school-level variables as the avenues through which principals reach this
goal.
We acknowledge that concerns can be raised about the validity and reliability of student
achievement measures. We felt, however, that the policy implications of such outcomes (e.g.,
student achievement, school effectiveness) outweigh the potential concerns within this domain
of study. Notably, however, we did not include studies that examined principal effects on
intervening variables if they did not also incorporate some measure of school outcomes. This
criterion especially shifted the focus towards studies of leader effects, as opposed to the
principal's work. Consequently, some qualitative studies were picked up as well.
Third, given the growing interest in international perspectives on school improvement, we
made an effort to seek out studies that examined the effects of principals conducted outside the
U.S. Although we do not undertake comparative analysis in this chapter, the review included
over a dozen studies conducted in countries outside the United States including Canada,
Singapore, England, Netherlands, the Marshall Islands, Israel, and Hong Kong (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996a, 1996b).
Using these criteria, we identified 50 studies that explored the relationship between
principal leadership behavior and school effectiveness. Twenty-eight of the studies were
published in blind-refereed journals. Eight were presented as papers at peer reviewed
conferences. Eleven were dissertations. Two were book chapters and one was a synthesis of
studies conducted by the author.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
5
Avenues of Leader Influence
Our reviews of this literature generated a range of findings. One review focused on
the methodological characteristics of this literature (Hallinger & Heck, 1996b; Heck &
Hallinger, 1999). Another examined the conceptual and substantive findings (Hallinger &
Heck, 1996a, 1997). Here we focus only on the substantive conclusions and refer the reader
elsewhere for in-depth assessments of the methodology and conceptual features of this
literature.
We constructed our findings from the review around a frameworks that proposes
leadership as a construct that influences the attitudes and behavior of individuals and also the
organizational system in which people work (see also Leithwood, 1994; Ogawa & Bossert,
1995). We found evidence for the proposition that leadership influences the organizational
system through three avenues: 1) purposes, 2) structure and social networks, 3) people.
Purposes
The past 20 years in organizational leadership could be termed the era of vision. The
literature generated during this era exhorts leaders in all sectors to articulate their vision,
create a sense of shared mission, and set clear goals for their organizations. Our review
supports the belief that formulating the school’s purposes represents an important leadership
function. In fact, our review of the literature suggested that mission building is the strongest
and most consistent avenue of influence school leaders use to influence student achievement
(Hallinger & Heck, 1996a, 1997, 2002).
Despite this conclusion, lack of theoretical clarity has hinders our understanding of
how school leaders shape organizational purposes to influence school effectiveness.
Researchers have included a wide variety of operational measures under the heading of goal-
setting: teachers’ educational expectations, the framing of educational purposes, principal’s
clarity in articulating a vision, the substance of the school’s mission, consensus on goals, and
the principal’s role in goal-setting processes (e.g., Andrews & Soder, 1987; Bamburg &
Andrews, 1990; Brewer, 1993; Cheng, 1994; Goldring & Pasternak, 1994; Hallinger,
Bickman & Davis, 1996; Hallinger & Murphy, 1986; Heck et al., 1990; Leithwood, 1994;
Scott & Teddlie, 1987; Silins, 1994). Researchers often use terms such as vision, mission,
and goals synonymously in discussions of leadership while operationalizing them quite
differently in empirical investigations. This lack of conceptual clarity is problematic in that
the terms have different theoretical foundations and point towards alternate
conceptualizations of how leaders influence school outcomes.
Vision
. Personal vision refers to the values that underlie a leader’s view of education.
The use of the word vision is not accidental. A vision enables one to see facets of school life
that may otherwise be unclear, raising their importance above others.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
6
The foundation of vision is moral or spiritual in nature. For example, the use of vision in
religious contexts suggests the notion of a sacred calling from within the individual. While
secular education disavows formal religious practice in schools, education itself remains
fundamentally a sacred craft in which we offer service to others. Education is a most of all a
moral enterprise (Barth, 1990; Bolman & Deal, 1992a; Deal & Peterson, 1990; Fullan, 1993;
Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992; Sergiovanni, 1992).
Roland Barth (1993), among the most articulate proponents of vision as an inspiration for
educational leadership, claims that personal visions grow out of the values we hold most
dearly. He suggests several questions that may clarify an educator's personal vision:
 In what kind of school would you wish to teach?
 What brought you into education in the first place?
 What are the elements of the school that you would want your own children to
attend?
 What would the school environment in which you would most like to work look
like, feel like, and sound like?
 If your school were threatened, what would be the last things that you would be
willing to give up?
 On what issues would you make your last stand? (Barth, 1996, personal
communication)
The power of a personal vision lies both in its impact on the leader’s own behavior and in
its potential to energize others. A clearly formed personal vision shapes our actions, invests
our work with meaning, and reminds us why we are educators. When others share a personal
vision, it can become a catalyst for transformation (Barth, 1990; Bolman & Deal, 1992,
1996).
Caldwell (1998) draws an explicit linkage between the personal vision of a school leader,
school learning, and school improvement. He refers to a variety of data–quantitative and
qualitative–suggesting the importance of vision, though he emphasizes the need to use a
small “v” in referring to the concept. To support this view, Caldwell references research
conducted by Johnston (1997) on “learning focused leadership.” In the context of her case
study, Johnston described the role of vision.
The principal was clearly influential but, at the same time, was
regarded as a team player. She was particularly adept at
demonstrating what the current reality was while exposing the school
to a vision of what could be. She articulated the creative tension gap
and indicated the way forward. In the process the school was infused
with an energy and optimism not often seen in schools at this time.
The idea that all within the school should be leaders captures the

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
7
notion of leadership of teams. . . (Johnston, 1997, p. 282; cited in
Caldwell, 1998, p. 374)
School mission. An organizational mission exists when the personal visions of a
critical mass of people cohere into a common sense of purpose within a community. Like
"vision" the word "mission" often connotes a moral purpose. The moral or spiritual character
of a shared mission reaches into the hearts of people and engages them to act on behalf of
something beyond their own immediate self-interest. Thus, proponents of transformational
leadership construct often talk about the leader’s ability to help others find new goals
individually and collectively. Note also that a vision or mission is a quest in the sense that
success does not necessarily depend upon its achievement. Its power lies in the motivational
force of a shared quest to works towards the accomplishment of something special.
Achieving commitment to group goals, while more difficult, is generally viewed as a key
factor in organizational effectiveness (Cuban, 1984a, 1984b; Drucker, 1995; Kotter, 1996;
Senge, 1990). Where a mission exists, staff will take greater responsibility for managing their
own behavior and making decisions consistent with common norms (Jantzi & Leithwood,
1993; Leithwood et al., 1998; Senge, 1990; Silins, Mulford, Zarins, & Bishop, 2000).
This type of commitment to a shared mission has been a hallmark of the school
effectiveness and improvement literature of the past two decades. For the purposes of
understanding school improvement, we are especially interested in how shared vision –
mission -- develops and is sustained within a school community. An organizational mission
may emerge from varying sources. The catalyst may be the personal vision of an individual
leader (Bolman & Deal, 1992, 1996; Deal & Peterson, 1990; Hallinger & Heck, 2002).
Alternatively, it may emerge over time out of the shared experiences and aspirations of a
community of people (Barth, 1990; Fullan, 1993).
Leithwood and colleagues (1998) provide empirical support for the balancing act that
leaders play in fostering a shared vision or mission:
This leadership dimension . . . [is] aimed at promoting cooperation
among staff and assisting them to work together toward common
goals. Although there was at least one teacher comment from every
school affirming their principal’s role in goal [mission]
development, most of the comments simply indicated that the
principal initiated the process, was a member of the goal-setting
committee, or asked for input. . . One of the teachers in that school
said, “we all seem to want the same things. . . we’re kind of
working towards the same goals.” (p. 72)
Leithwood and colleagues (1993) provided evidence of small effects of principal
behavior in this domain. They found that principal vision, group goals, high expectations,
individual support have effects on several in-school processes such as goal formulation,
school culture, teachers, policy and organization. In turn, these influence school improvement

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
8
outcomes including commitment to professional change, achievement of school reform goals,
policy and organizational change.
Finally, Wiley (1998) investigated the relationships among principal leadership,
professional community and school improvement using multilevel modeling. Her results are
of special interest because they derive from a particularly sophisticated modeling of
leadership effects. She found:
This evidence suggests that transformational leadership with
minimal professional community is influential in facilitating
improvement of student achievement in mathematics in a
school, while professional community is an influential factor
only in combination with above average transformational
leadership. (Wiley, 1998, p. 14)
Wiley’s analysis is interesting in two respects. First, her findings reinforce the
importance of vision as a behavioral attribute of successful school leadership. Leaders who
were able to articulate their visions for learning were able to contribute to learning even
where the degree of professional community was not high. Second, leaders who were able to
foster shared vision via development of a professional community created a synergy that had
even greater effects. The conceptual and methodological frameworks laid out in this study are
good examples for other researchers in this domain.
Goals
. In contrast to vision and mission, a goal is a functional target. An educational
goal might describe the state that a school wishes to achieve by the end of the year in relation
to student learning, attendance, graduation rates, or school climate. We often define success
by whether or not the school's functional goal(s) has been achieved. Unlike vision or mission,
the power of a goal lies not in its inspirational force, but in its ability to focus the attention of
people on a limited frame of activity.
A distinction between the school effectiveness and school improvement research
traditions is apparent with respect to the investigation of goals. In school effectiveness
research, goals have often been operationally defined in general terms such as “clear goals”
and “high expectations.” As noted earlier, publication of the effective schools identified a
“clear academic mission” as a key component of school effectiveness.
Policymakers came to view this as a key point of leverage for school improvement and
devised ways of conveying this to school leaders through training and policies (Barth, 1990,
1993; Edmonds 1979, 1982; Honig, 1984; Purkey & Smith, 1983). Scholars and practitioners
subsequently translated this work into school improvement programs and practices that drew
widespread attention and dissemination during the ensuing period (e.g., Edmonds, 1982;
Honig, 1982). It is not inaccurate to say that developing a clear school mission soon became
a new leadership mantra for superintendents and principals.
Notable critiques of this approach were forthcoming (e.g., Barth, 1990; Cuban, 1984a,
1984b). These critiques focused in part on the assumptions of rational organization behavior

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
9
made by proponents of the “goal-setting” strategy. These critics questioned whether
educational organizations really met the assumptions of rational embedded in the goal
transmission approach to improvement (Cuban, 1984a).
In contrast, school improvement research has been more focused on how schools can
move toward greater productivity over time (Barth, 1990; Cuban, 1984a; Fullan, 1993;
Seashore-Louis & Miles, 1990; Ouston, 1999; Stoll & Fink, 1992, 1994; Teddlie &
Reynolds, 2000). Outcomes have been generally conceptualized more broadly, for example,
as “increased academic performance,” or included perceptions such as “teacher commitment
to,” “agreement with,” or “resistance to” proposed changes. Within the British context, a
debate ensued over the “possible” goals of education against the limited “official” goals as
part of the process of implementing improvement (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000).
As Ouston (1999) argued, there was no reason for the theory and practice of changing and
improving schools to be related to the research on school effectiveness--in fact, many
theories of change were built on quite different foundations. Where the effectiveness
literature emphasized “clear mission” and “clearly-defined goals,” the school improvement
literature also included the importance of vision, school culture, leadership, and pedagogy.
These were examined in somewhat different ways, however. In the school improvement
literature, greater emphasis was placed on how school leaders facilitated staff planning, goal
setting, and self-evaluation. Unfortunately, there was rarely any attempt to develop a
dynamic model of school processes that might indicate how improvement would be
accomplished within differing school contexts. Moreover, the focus was often the school,
despite knowledge of the importance of classroom effects and the need to change teacher
practices (Creemers, 1994; Marks, Seahsore-Louis, & Printy, 2000; Teddlie & Reynolds,
2000).
In sum, vision, mission building, and goal setting take on different emphases in the
practice of school leadership. By way of illustration, we are reminded of Roland Barth’s
(1986) observation that educators do not jump eagerly out of bed at 6:00 a.m. and rush off to
school because they wish to raise scores on achievement tests. Engaging in a shared quest to
accomplish something special motivates educators. Yet, school improvement policy
frequently mandates that principals engage in goal-setting exercises in the belief that research
supports this prescription (Barth, 1986; Cuban, 1988).
Despite the potential impact of this leadership function, there remains considerable
ambiguity in how leaders shape the school’s purposes to foster student learning. At this point
in time, we are confident that this avenue is important. However, scholars should view this
conclusion as a solid starting point for further elaboration rather than a practical prescription.
Structure and Social Networks
A second avenue of leadership influence involves the interplay between
organizational structures and social networks in and around the school. Ogawa and Bossert

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
10
(1995) define social structures and networks as the regularized aspects of relationships
existing among participants in an organization.
School structures are many and varied. Primary schools now often operate with
grade-level teams, cross-grade teams, and school management councils. These produce new
roles and responsibilities. Secondary schools have traditionally operated with academic
departments and more varied structures. Principals play a key role by organizing these
structures proactively in order to achieve the school’s mission. It is the principal’s role to
make the structures work on behalf of the students.
Social networks are equally important in leading the school towards its goals. The
principal must access the social network of the school in order to gain important information,
communicate values as well as information, and to gain support for the school’s vision and
strategies. The social network is also a source of additional leaders who can help move the
school forward.
Empirical evidence from our review supports this view of leadership. For example,
Leithwood found that the principal’s leadership shapes three distinct psychological
dispositions of teachers: their perceptions of various school characteristics, their commitment
to school change, and their capacity for professional development. Weil and colleagues
(Weil, Marshalek, Mitman, Murphy, Hallinger, & Pruyn 1984) found that principal support
of teachers and a proactive stance on problem solving differentiated leadership in effective
vs. typical elementary schools. Leithwood and colleagues (1993, 1994) and also Silins (1994)
determined that leadership that provides individualized support and challenging work, and
which fosters a shared mission in the school contributes to successful school improvement.
Studies across several national contexts found that greater involvement from
stakeholders in decision-making is characteristic of higher-producing schools. For example,
Heck (1993) found that collaborative decision making and more flexible rule structures were
associated with higher-achieving secondary schools in Singapore. Cheng (1994) concluded
that strong primary school principal leaders in Hong Kong schools tended to promote
participation in decision making. This resulted in stronger and more cohesive social
interactions, greater staff commitment, and higher morale. In a Canadian study, Leithwood
(1994) reported greater implementation of school improvement outcomes where there was
greater collaboration in decision-making.
A recent trend towards viewing the school as a learning organization represents a
noteworthy approach to invigorating structure and social networks with educational content.
The principal’s role in a learning organization involves creating structures that facilitate
communication and collaboration among staff around the school’s valued purposes. This
conceptualization suggests a different set of intervening variables linking leadership to
school effectiveness than predominated during the effective schools era. These include but
are not limited to a shared mission, teacher participation in decision-making, scheduling, use
of teaming, principal stimulation of staff learning, patterns of collaboration, and team
learning (see Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt, 1997).

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
11
People
Several frameworks (e.g., Bossert et al., 1982; Bridges, 1977; Leithwood, 1994;
Ogawa & Bossert, 1995) propose that administrative activity is largely directed at influencing
people in the school organization. Evidence accumulated from the past 20 years of research
on educational leadership provides considerable support concerning this domain of principal
leadership.
For example, Leithwood (1994) highlights "people effects" as a cornerstone of the
transformational leadership model. More specifically, Leithwood’s (1994) empirical
investigation found that principal effects are achieved through fostering group goals,
modeling desired behavior for others, providing intellectual stimulation, and individualized
support (e.g., toward personal and staff development). With respect to outcomes, leadership
had an influence on teachers' perceptions of progress with implementing reform initiatives
and teachers' perceptions of increases in student outcomes.
Other studies using an instructional leadership model also provide support for
principal effects on people as a means to affect outcomes. Heck, Larson and Marcoulides
(1990) found that teachers in higher-producing schools spent more time in direct classroom
supervision and support of teachers. At both the primary and secondary levels, they also gave
greater attention to working with teachers to coordinate the school's instructional program,
solving instructional problems collaboratively, helping teachers secure resources, and
creating opportunities for in-service and staff development.
These conclusions reinforce the image of school leadership as a people-oriented
activity. Strategy, planning, and resource management are important facets of the educational
manager’s role. Yet, in the end leadership involves working with and through people
(Bridges, 1977; Cuban, 1988). Researchers have begun to identify the means by which school
leaders put this into practice to foster high quality learning environments.
The Context of School Leadership
The assumption that leadership makes a difference is supported by our review. Yet
scholars have also noted that leaders operate in different contexts and that these contexts
place constraints on leadership behavior (see for example, Bridges, 1977, 1982; Cuban, 1988;
Rowan et al., 1982). While researchers have only begun to include context variables in their
empirical models, this is an area that demands greater attention. Initial findings reinforce the
hypothesis that a variety of school context factors shape the particular needs for leadership
that may exist within a school. Moreover, it appears that the ability to provide leadership that
is suited to a particular school context carries over to effects on students.
The School as a Context for Leadership
Despite a range of conceptual and methodological problems in incorporating context
variables into studies of leadership effects, we discerned an interesting trend among the

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
12
studies. Socioeconomic factors in the school and community appear to influence principal
leadership and its impact on school effectiveness (e.g., Andrews & Soder, 1987; Hallinger &
Murphy, 1986; Rowan & Denk, 1984). For example, Andrews and Soder (1987) reported
that principal leadership affected reading and math outcomes in elementary schools. When
controlling for SES and ethnicity, however, the effects of principal leadership on reading and
math outcomes tended to disappear in high SES or predominately Caucasian elementary
schools. They remained significant in predominately African-American or low SES schools.
This supported their hypothesis of context effects on principal leadership.
Hallinger and Murphy (1986) found that community SES affected how elementary
school principals perceive their work. For example, they worked quite differently in defining
the school mission in low and high SES effective schools. In low SES schools, principals
stressed the mastery of basic skills and did appear to define clear school-wide goal-targets for
instruction. They allocated more time to basic skills instruction and built fairly elaborate
systems of rewards and recognition for student success. Moreover, principals in low SES
schools tended to define their leadership role more narrowly in terms of curriculum
coordination, control of instruction, and task orientation.
In contrast, principals in high-SES effective schools focused more on using mission
as a motivational force. Interviews with staff confirmed widespread understanding of the
school’s mission – their shared values and the school’s direction. Yet, in several cases these
principals did not even define specific measurable goals for their schools (Hallinger &
Murphy, 1986).
This research was unable to untangle whether differences in the use of mission and
goals were related to SES or to the life cycle of improvement. It is possible that the low-SES
effective schools had been in a “turn-around” phase and goals were used to focus staff
attention. In contrast, the high-SES effective schools may have passed onto a more mature
phase in which the culture of school was carrying the behaviors that contributed to
effectiveness.
Scott and Teddlie (1987) identified a link between SES and elementary school
principals’ expectations. Principals' expectations, in turn, affected their sense of
responsibility; however, Scott and Teddlie determined that principal responsibility was not
directly related to outcomes. Although untested by Scott and Teddlie, we noted a possible
indirect effect (likely statistically significant) of principal expectations on school outcomes
through principal responsibility.
Context influences were also found to impact upon principal behavior with respect to
structures and social networks. For example, Hallinger and Murphy (1986) found that school
linkages to the home and parent involvement were weaker in low SES effective schools. In
contrast, linkages to the home and parent involvement were strong and pervasive in high SES
schools. In the lower SES schools, principals acted as buffers, controlling access to the
school and protecting the school's program from outside influences that might dilute its
effectiveness. In higher SES schools, the principal acted as a boundary spanner, constantly

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
13
seeking ways to involve community members who had great interest and stake in the school's
operation. These findings hint at the relationship between wider community context, the
corresponding school culture and the role of the principal. The different extent of contact
between school staff and community is important because teacher and administrator attitudes
appear to be shaped by expectations and beliefs of the wider community (e.g., Hallinger &
Murphy, 1986; Ogawa & Bossert, 1995).
Cheng (1994) noted that other contextual factors (e.g., school size, teacher
background) were not generally found to exert any important influence over principal
leadership in secondary school settings. Heck (1992) found differences in principal
discussion of instructional issues and problems and discussion about how instructional
techniques impact student achievement to be similar across school level, with principals in
both effective elementary and high school schools more involved with these variables than
their counterparts at low-achieving schools. There is an interaction with level, however, with
principals in effective elementary schools more heavily involved than principals in effective
high schools. Heck (1992) also noted that principals in elementary schools (controlling for
effectiveness) spend more time attempting to communicate goals to teachers and others than
principals in secondary schools.
Again, research in this domain has only begun to identify patterns of effective
leadership. It is only with the recent advent of better statistical tools that researchers are able
to empirically study comprehensive models that incorporate context variables along with
leadership and school outcomes (Hallinger & Heck, 1996b). We would encourage the
conduct of mixed-methods studies as qualitative data have the potential to tease out important
patterns identified in quantitative research (Heck & Hallinger, 1999).
The Cultural Context of School Leadership
Another feature of context that begs systematic investigation is the cultural context in
which leaders act. It is possible -- even likely -- that differences in the social construction of
the leadership role differ across societies (Hofstede, 1980). As Getzels and colleagues
(Getzels, Lipham, & Campbell, 1968) theorized and researchers outside educational
administration have empirically investigated, organizational culture is only a portion of a
broader social culture (Brislin, 1993; Hofstede, 1980; Ralston, Elissa, Gustafson, & Cheung,
1991). The broader societal culture exerts an influence on administrators beyond the
influence exerted by a specific organization’s culture (Getzels et al., 1968; Gerstner & Day,
1994; Hofstede, 1976, 1980). Surprisingly, scholars in educational administration have
devoted little effort towards uncovering the cultural foundations of leadership when used in
this broader sense (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng, 1995; Dimmock & Walker, 1996; Hallinger, 1995,
2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996b; Heck & Hallinger, 1999).
Gerstner and O’Day (1994) assert: “Because leadership is a cultural phenomenon,
inextricably linked to the values and customs of a group of people, we do not expect
differences in leadership prototypes to be completely random. Rather they should be linked
to dimensions of national culture” (p. 123). Their own cross-cultural research in the business

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
14
sector found significant differences in how different nationalities perceive the traits of
leaders. Additional analyses found that these perceptual differences were also significant
when countries were grouped as being an Eastern or Western culture. Unfortunately, less
empirical data is available concerning the impact of culture on the behavior, as opposed to
the perceptions of leaders.
Culture is the source of values that people share in a society. As such culture can be
viewed as having effects on multiple features of the school and its environment. Culture
shapes the institutional and community context within which the school is situated by
defining predominant value orientations and norms of behavior (Getzels et al., 1968). It
influences the predilections of individual leaders as well as the nature of interactions with
others in the school and its community. Moreover, it determines the particular educational
emphasis or goals that prevail within a cultures system of schooling. Since cultural values
vary across nations, we would expect cross-cultural variation in the educational goals of
societies as well as the normative practices aimed towards their achievement (Getzels et al.,
1968).
Current conceptualizations of administrative practice represent a useful point of
departure for better understanding the relationships between leadership and societal culture.
Frameworks such those proposed by Bossert and colleagues (Bossert, Dwyer, Rowan, & Lee,
1982) point to important antecedents of leadership -- variables that shape the needs and
requirements of leadership within the organization -- as well as paths by which leaders may
achieve an impact on the organization. What remains is to make the social culture explicit in
such frameworks in order to explore its impact on the social and institutional system in which
leadership is exercised. Theoretical work in educational administration (e.g., Getzels et al.,
1968; Cheng, 1995; Cheng & Wong, 1996) and research in the general leadership literature
provide useful direction in this quest (e.g., Brislin, 1993; Hofstede, 1976, 1980).
Given the general trends of globalization and broader, faster access to information,
we expect that investigations of the nature of leadership across cultures will assume a central
place in the research community in the coming decade. Investigations of the cultural context
of schooling and the subsequent roles played by leaders at different organizational levels
(e.g., district administrators, principals, senior teachers) represents a rich vein for future
exploration (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng, 1995; Cheng & Wong, 1996; Hallinger, 1995, 2002;
Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996; Heck, 1996; Wong, 1996).
The trend towards globalization makes it even more critical that we ground future
leadership development efforts in a “knowledge base” that is not only relevant to global trends in
educational development but also grounded in the norms of local cultures (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng,
1995; Hallinger, 2002; Hallinger & Leithwood, 1996, 1998).

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
15
Future Directions for Research in Educational Management and Leadership
Research conducted over the past two decades answers the question -- Can leadership
enhance school effectiveness? -- in the affirmative. In the two decades since the advent of the
school effectiveness research, scholarship has benefited from improvements in the
application of both theory and methodology. Consequently, we have increasing confidence in
the belief that school leaders -- especially principals -- do make a difference in schooling
outcomes.
While our review supports the belief that principal leadership influences school
effectiveness, we temper this conclusion in two important respects. First, school leaders
achieve effects on their schools indirectly. Skillful school leaders influence school and
classroom processes that have a direct impact on student learning. Second, school leaders
themselves are subject to considerable influence via the norms and characteristics of the
school and its environment.
The fact that leadership effects on school achievement appear to be indirect is neither
cause for alarm nor dismay. As noted previously, achieving results through others is the
essence of leadership. A finding that principal effects are mediated by other in-school
variables does nothing whatsoever to diminish the principal's importance. Understanding the
routes by which principals can improve school outcomes through working with others is
itself a worthy goal for research. Most importantly with respect to this point, the research
illustrates that these effects appear to compound as principals pursue school-level action.
The fact that the effects noted in these studies remain small is also of little concern. In the
words of Ogawa and Hart (1985):
[the study’s] most important finding was that the principal variable
accounted for between 2 and 8 percent of the variance in test scores.
While such figures may seem small, there are at least two reasons they
should not be dismissed as unimportant. . . . findings of research on
school effectiveness suggest that even small proportions of variance are
important. Jencks and his associates demonstrate that only about 15
percent of the total variance in student achievement is attributable to
between school differences. Further, Rowan and his associates conclude
that about 5 percent of the total variance in student achievement can be
attributed to stable state-level properties. In light of these results, the
discovery that 2-8 percent of variance in student performance is
attributable to principals takes on a glow of relative importance. (p. 65)
Thus, although the findings reinforce the notion that leadership makes an important
difference in school effectiveness, they do not support the image of the heroic school leader.
School leaders do not make effective schools. Rather the image we draw from this review is
that of leaders who are able to work with and through the staff to shape a school culture that
is focused yet adaptable. They work with staff to foster development of a school culture in

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
16
which staff find meaning in their work and are motivated learn and solve problems with a
greater degree of collaboration than typifies many schools.
Our satisfaction of seeing significant progress towards answering a potentially
important question for policy and practice is moderated, however, by continuing limitations
in this knowledge base. Persisting blind spots and blank spots (Heck & Hallinger, 1999) in
the research base form the basis for our identification of priorities in this field.
1. Untangle the conceptual confusion concerning how school leaders employ vision,
mission, and goals to influence school effectiveness.
Both the frequency with which vision/mission/goals appeared as a significant
intervening variable and the general popularity of this construct among scholars and
practitioners suggest that it ought to receive high priority in the next phase of investigation.
Attacking this problem will entail require researchers to link their conceptual and operational
definitions of variables more clearly. For example, researchers have at times operationalized
vision and mission as functional goal targets. The absence of clarity in language has led to
confusion in interpretation of results.
Scholars must also extend this research by clearly explicating in advance of
investigation the theoretical rationale for relationships among variables. We found a tendency
among researchers to offer a framework of commonly used variables (e.g., mission, teacher
expectations, principal supervision), without fully elaborating on how and why these
variables would interact to result in the proposed effects (see Rowan & Denk, 1984 and Weil
et al., 1984, Wiley, 1998 as worthy exceptions to this tendency). For example, if vision is
part of a model of leadership effects, how would the researcher expect leaders to employ
vision and why would this interaction likely influence other variables in the model?
2. Broaden investigation of school leadership and its effects beyond the principalship.
The notion of distributed leadership is not only theoretically attractive, but also
potentially powerful in practice. The past decade witnessed a normative shift away from the
dominant leader and towards an egalitarian model of leadership. Yet the fact remains that
school principals occupy a position of significance in the structural hierarchy of schools.
In the year 2,002 it is as foolish to think that only principals provide leadership for
school improvement as to believe that principals do not influence school effectiveness.
Unfortunately, whether out of inconvenience or conceptual ambiguity, few researchers have
undertaken empirical investigation of alternate sources of leadership in educational
management. With some notable exceptions, rhetoric, prescription and advocacy continue to
dominate discussions of distributed leadership in schools (see Leithwood, Jantzi, Ryan &
Steinbach, 1998). Concerted effort is needed to define and investigate leadership more
broadly while simultaneously maintaining a focus on leadership that emanates from the
principal’s office.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
17
3. Incorporate the construct of the school as a learning organization into explorations
of school leadership and its effects.
The bulk of published research in our review was theoretically grounded in the school
effectiveness research (e.g., Andrews & Soder, 1987; Cheng, 1994; Heck et al., 1991). This
reflects the general popularity of this framework during the 1980’s and 1990’s. Although this
remains a useful heuristic, scholars in educational management would benefit from
expanding their approach to conceptualizing and studying school leadership effects.
We believe in the potential efficacy of the learning organization construct for research
in this domain. It is notable that the main avenues of leader influence identified in this review
-- shared mission, structure and social networks, people -- are hallmark components of the
learning organization (Senge, 1990). These represent a complementary perspective for
viewing the manner by which leaders contribute to school effectiveness. Use of this construct
in empirical research is already evident in the work of Leithwood and colleagues (1997) and
appears worthy of a wider effort.
4. Study leadership in its cultural context with an intention to explicate the influence of
cultural norms on the conceptualization and exercise of leadership.
While the studies included in our review were conducted in numerous different countries,
none was conducted with a specific eye towards the influence of that nation’s culture. In each
case, culture was an assumed background variable; in effect, it was “held constant.”
There is much to learn through explicit attention to the exploration of leadership
within its cultural context. Theoretical and practical advances in the field will derive from
two sources. First, the ready dissemination of knowledge and educational policies
internationally makes it imperative to understand how local culture reshapes globally
popularized policies and practices (Cheng, 1995; Hallinger, 1995; Hallinger & Leithwood,
1998; Heck, 1996). For example, the means by which leaders share decision-making, provide
instructional leadership, articulate a vision, and set goals may well differ across cultures.
These differences have practical implications for achieving school effectiveness (e.g., see
Cheng & Wong, 1996).
Second, differences in cultural construction of leadership that researchers may
identify in practice will have acute implications for theory. To date, the international
knowledge base in educational management reflects a severely limited set of conceptions
grounded in Judeo-Christian notions of human motivation (Bajunid, 1996; Cheng, 1994). The
field will benefit from further development of this perspective via exploration of this
potentially rich vein.
These directions by no means represent the only ones suggested by this research.
They do, however, represent priority directions by virtue of their theoretical and practical
significance. It is this intersection of theoretical and practical concerns that will continue to
make research in this domain exciting in the coming decade.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
18
References
Andrews, R., & Soder, R. (1987). Principal instructional leadership and school achievement.
Educational Leadership, 44, 9-11.
Bajunid, I. A. (1996). Preliminary explorations of indigenous perspectives of educational
management: The evolving Malaysian experience. Journal of Educational
Administration, 34(5), 50-73.
Bamburg, J., & Andrews, R. (1990). School goals, principals and achievement. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 2(3), 175-191.
Barth, R. (1990). Improving schools from within. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (1992). Reframing organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of
the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34-64.
Brislin, R. (1993). Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. New York: Harcourt
Brace.
Brewer, D. (1993). Principals and student outcomes: Evidence from U.S. high schools.
Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 281-292.
Bridges, E. (1982). Research on the school administrator: The state-of-the-art, 1967-1980.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 12-33.
Bridges, E. (1977). The nature of leadership. In L. Cunningham and R. Nystrand (Eds.),
Educational administration: The developing decades (pp. 203-230). Berkeley:
McCutchan.
Caldwell., B. (1998). Strategic leadership, resource management and effective school
reform. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 445-461.
Cheng, Y.C. (1994). Principal’s leadership as a critical factor for school performance:
Evidence from multilevels of primary schools. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 5(3), 299-317.
Cheng, K.M. (1995). The neglected dimension: Cultural comparison in educational
administration. In K.C. Wong and K.M. Cheng (Eds.), Educational leadership and
change: An international perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
19
Cheng, K.M., & Wong, K.C. (1996). School effectiveness in East Asia: Concepts, origins
and implications. Journal of Educational Administration, 34(5), 32-49.
Cuban. L. (1988). The managerial imperative and the practice of leadership in schools.
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Cuban, L. (1984a, April 24). The sham of school reform: Sleight of hand with numbers. San
Jose Mercu
ry, 1c, 2c.
Cuban, L. (1984b). Transforming the frog into a prince: Effective schools research, policy,
and practice at the district level. Harvard Educational Review, 54, 129-151.
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (1990). The principal’s role in shaping school culture. Washington
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Dimmock, C., & Walker, A. (1998). Transforming hong kong’s schools: Trends and
emerging issues. Journal of Educational Administration, 36(5), 476-491.
Eberts, R., & Stone, J. (1988). Student achievement in public schools: Do principals make a
difference? Economics of Education Review, 7(3), 291-299.
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-
24.
Edmonds, R. (1982). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational
Leadership, 40, 4-11.
Gerstner, C., & Day, D. (1994). Leadership Quarterly, 5(2), 121-134.
Getzels, J., Lipham, J., & Campbell, R. (1968). Educational administration as a social
process. New York: Harper & Row.
Glasman, N., & Heck, R. (1992). The changing leadership role of the principal: Implications
for principal assessment. Peabody Journal of Education, 68(1), 5-24.
Goldring E., & Pasternak, R. (1994). Principals’ coordinating strategies and school
effectiveness. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 239-253.
Hallinger, P. (2001). A review of studies of principal leadership using the Principal
Instructional Management Rating Scale. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association. San Francisco, CA.
Hallinger, P. (1995). Culture and leadership: Developing an international perspective in
educational administration. UCEA Review, 36(1), 3-7.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, P. (1999). Can leadership enhance school effectiveness? In T. Bush
R. Glatter, R. Bolam, P. Ribbins, and L. Bell (Eds.), Redefining educational
management. London: Paul Chapman/Sage.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
20
Hallinger & Heck (1998). "Exploring the principal's contribution to school effectiveness:
1980-1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996a). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980-1995. Educational Administration Quarterly,
32(1), 5-44.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996b). The principal’s role in school effectiveness: A review of
methodological issues, 1980-95. In K. Leithwood et al. (Eds.), The international
handbook of research in educational administration (723-784). New York: Kluwer.
Hallinger, P., & Kantamara, P. (2001). Learning to lead global changes across cultures:
Designing a computer-based simulation for Thai school leaders. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39(3), 197-220.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1994). Exploring the impact of principal leadership. School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3), 206-218.
Hallinger, P., & Leithwood, K. (1998). Unseen forces: The impact of social culture on
leadership. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(2), 126-151.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1986). The social context of effective schools. American
Journal of Education, 94(3), 328-355.
Heck, R. (1996). Leadership and culture: Conceptual and methodological Issues
in comparing models across cultural settings. Journal of Educational Administration,
30(3), 35-48.
Heck, R. (1992). Principal instructional leadership and the identification of high- and low-
achieving schools: The application of discriminant techniques. Administrator’s
Notebook, 34(7), 1-4.
Heck, R. (1993). School context, principal leadership, and achievement: The case of
secondary schools in Singapore. The Urban Review, 25(2), 151-166.
Heck, R., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Conceptual models, methodology, and methods to
study school leadership. In J. Murphy & K.S. Louis (Eds.), The second handbook of
research on educational administration. New York: Longman.
Heck, R., Larson, T., & Marcoulides, G. (1990). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement: Validation of a causal model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 26,
94-125.
Heck, R., & Marcoulides, G. (1996a). School culture and performance: Testing the
invariance of an organizational model. School Effectiveness and School

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
21
Improvement, 7(1), 76-95.
Heck, R., & Marcoulides, G. (1996b). The assessment of principal performance: A multilevel
approach. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 10(1), 11-28.
Heck, R., Marcoulides, G., & Lang, P. (1991). Principal instructional leadership and school
achievement: The application of discriminant techniques. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement, 2(2), 115-135.
Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related
values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hofstede, G. (1976). Nationality and espoused values of managers. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 61(2), 148-155.
Honig, B. (1984, May 6). School reform is working: What's wrong with goal setting and
measurement? San Jose Mercury, 1c, 2c.
Leithwood, K. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
Leithwood, K., Begley, P., & Cousins, B. (1992). Expert leadership for future schools.
London: Falmer Press.
Leithwood, K., & Hallinger, P. (1993). Cognitive perspectives on educational
administration: An introduction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 24(3), 296-301.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help
reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(1), 249-280.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D., Ryan, S., & Steinbach, R. (1998). Distributed Leadership and
student engagement in school . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1997). Conditions fostering organizational
learning in schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International
Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement, Memphis, TN.
Leithwood, K., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary principal in program
improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52(3), 309-339.
Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (1992). Assessing instructional leadership effectiveness with "g"
theory. International Journal of Educational Management, 6(3), 4-13.
Marcoulides, G., & Heck, R. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and
testing a model. Organization Science, 4(2), 209-225.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
22
Marks, H., Seashore-Louis, K., & Printy, S. (2000). The capacity for organizational learning:
Implications for pedagogical quality and student achievement. In K. Leithwood (Ed.),
Understanding schools as intelligent systems (pp. 239-266). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Miskel, C. (1982, April). An analysis of principal effects. Unpublished speech to the National
Graduate Student Seminar in Educational Administration, Princeton, New Jersey.
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement and conceptual problems in the study of
instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117-139.
Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Mitman, A. (1983). Research on educational leadership: Issues
to be addressed. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 5(3), 297-305.
Ogawa, R., & Bossert, S. (1995). Leadership as an organizational quality. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 31(2), 224-243.
Pedhazur, E., & Schmelkin, L. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated
approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Purkey, S., & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools--a review. The Elementary School Journal,
83
, 426-452.
Ralston, D., Elissa, P., Gustafson, D., & Cheung, F. (1991). Eastern values: A comparison of
managers in the United States, Hong Kong, and the People’s Republic of China.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 77(5), 664-671.
Rowan, B., & Denk, C. (1984). Management succession, school socioeconomic context and
basic skills achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21(3), 17-537.
Rowan, B., Dwyer, D., & Bossert, S. (1982, March). Methodological considerations in the
study of effective principals. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New York.
Rowan, B. Raudenbush, S., & Kang, S. (1991). Organizational design in high schools: A
multilevel analysis. American Journal of Education, 99(2), 238-266.
Schein, E. (1996). Culture: The missing concept in organization studies. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 41, 229-240.
Scott, C., & Teddlie, C. (1987, April). Student, teacher, and principal academic expectations
and attributed responsibility as predictors of student achievement: A causal modeling
approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Washington D.C.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline. New York Doubleday.
Sergiovanni, T. (1992). Moral leadership: Getting to the heart of school improvement.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
23
San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Sheppard, B., & Brown, J. (2000). The transformation of secondary schools in learning
organizations. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as intelligent systems
(pp. 293-314). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Silins, H. (1994). The relationship between transformational and transactional leadership and
school improvement outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 5(3)
272-298.
Silins, H., Mulford, W., Zarins, S., & Bishop, P. (2000). Leadership for organizational
learning in Australian schools. In K. Leithwood (Ed.), Understanding schools as
intelligent systems (pp. 267-292). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Sirois, H., & Villanova, R. (1982). Theory into practice: A theoretical and research base for
the characteristics of effective schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, New York.
van de Grift, W. (1990). Educational leadership and academic achievement in elementary
education. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(3), 26-40.
van de Grift, W. (1989). Self perceptions of educational leadership and mean pupil
achievements. In D. Reynolds, B.P.M. Creemers, & T. Peters (Eds.), School
effectiveness and improvement, Cardiff/Groningen: School of Education/RION (227-
242).
van de Grift, W. (1987). Zelfpercepties van onderwijskundig leiderschap. In F.J. Van der
Krogt (Ed.), Schoolleiding en management (33-42), Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.
Weil, M., Marshalek, B. Mitman, A., Murphy, J., Hallinger, P., & Pruyn, J. (1984, April).
Effective and typical schools: How different are they? Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Wiley, S. (1998). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and
professional community. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Sociological Association.
Wong, K.C. (1996, December). Developing the moral dimensions of school leaders. Invited
paper presented at the meeting of the APEC Educational Leadership Centers, Chiang
Mai, Thailand.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
24
Bio Note
Dr. Philip Hallinger is Professor and Executive Director at the College of Management,
Mahidol University, Bangkok Thailand.
Ronald Heck is Professor of Education and Chair of the Dept. of Educational Administration
and Policy at the University of Hawaii, Manoa. His research interests include the role of the
principal and educational policy and politics.

Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2003). Understanding the principal’s contribution to school
improvement. In M. Wallace and L. Poulson (Eds.), Learning to read critically in
educational leadership and management. London: Sage.
25
Correspondence:
Dr. Philip Hallinger
Executive Director
College of Management
Mahidol University
SCB Park Plaza, Tower II West
Bangkok, 10900
THAILAND
(661) 881-1667 (phone)
(1-813-354-3543 (fax)
Philip@leadingware.co