Vol. 25 No. 1 (2025): There are Multiple Forms of Leadership. You Might be Surprised
Different Perspectives in Leadership by Shelleyann & Donald Scott (Co-Editors in Chief)
This issue presents alternative perspectives in leadership theory, philosophies, and practices always remaining mindful of the importance of leadership for enhanced learning. For example, Macpherson explores “pragmatic holism” to develop a “web-of-belief” with practical implications for enhanced ethical leadership in support of quality learning. His approach supports school leaders’ capacity to engage with situational analysis and decision making through an ethical lens. White posits a pluriversal framework inspired by Kantian ethics, Ubuntu philosophy, Confucian thought, Cherokee wisdom, Durkheimian sociology, and Habermasian theory which can transcend individual agency and collective responsibility. The diversity in these theoretical lenses encourages unusual and deep reflection on different perspectives and philosophical orientations which can enable leaders to bridge the tensions of the “collective” versus “individual” concerns in schools. Along a similar philosophical theme, Campbell and MacGregor, examine leadership hegemony and power norms which can perpetuate inequities. Their discussion highlights the tensions between leaders and minority groups in schools. They discuss how many leaders are “dominantly located”, that is, are white, cisgendered, male, and heterosexual, and how their lack of experience can cause power issues with minoritized elements of the school community. Their framework explores the coalescence of identities; lived experiences; and dispositions, beliefs, and assumptions of leaders within a policy decision making dynamic, emphasizing how to create positive change for equity approaches in schools.
Lisi and Friesen’s research focuses on leadership of learning and identified the importance of leaders’ deportment, that is, “how they carried themselves and embodied their leadership roles”, to establish positive environments for fostering and distributing leadership, building capacity, and school improvement. This research provided a unique insight into the leader as a “person”, and how important their deportment is in building trust within their school community.
Similar to Lisi and Friesen’s research, Wu and Chua focused on learning and program quality, but in the childcare rather than the school context. Their paper provides an interesting insight into the Singaporean context and the importance of quality programming for early childhood learning with important implications for leaders of centres. As we know many educational leaders are expected to be pedagogical leaders, however, this paper makes the linkage overt between leaders’ behaviours and program quality.
