POST TWENTY TWO Lokman Mohd Tahir, Siti Nisrin Mohd Anis, and Mohd Fadzli Ali (2023) Authentic and Moral Leadership Practices in Schools

Lokman Mohd Tahir, Siti Nisrin Mohd Anis, and Mohd Fadzli Ali (2023) Authentic and Moral Leadership Practices in Schools 

Within the school leadership perspective, the study of authentic leadership arose within the educational literature in the late 1990s and early 2000s (Berkovich and Gueta 2022). As with the business sector, an authentic leadership perspective within the conceptualisation of school leadership is defined as educational leaders who strongly emphasise the element of value or value-based leadership (Berkovich and Gueta 2022). This definition was later supported by Duignan (2014) who defined authentic leadership as school leaders who practise authentic leadership and emphasise the elements of integrity, moral purpose and ethical attitudes which positively affect teachers’ awareness and commitment. Thus, these leaders need to feel confident, hopeful, optimistic, and resilient whilst demonstrating a high moral personality. 

• Berkovich I, Gueta B (2022) Teachers’ authentic leadership and psychological need satisfaction climate in second chance programmes: the moderating role of teachers’ gender. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh 50(6):995–1012. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220957340

• Duignan AP (2014) Authenticity in educational leadership: history, ideal, reality. J Educ Adm 52(2):152–172. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-01-2014-0012

POST TWENTY ONE Mohammad Noman (2023) Distributed Instructional Leadership: The SHARE Model

Mohammad Noman (2023) Distributed Instructional Leadership: The SHARE Model

One of the major requirements of successful instructional leadership practices is the continuous, intense involvement of school principals’ indirect attempts to enhance teaching and learning activities in their schools (Hallinger et al. 2020; Neumerski et al. 2018). The effect of instructional leaders on teaching and learning is indirect through their influence on teachers, in the form of their hiring, coaching, developing, and encouraging teachers to constantly improve their instructional practices (Grissom and Condon 2021). Instructional leaders desperately need help and for this, they need to turn to other members of the school community, particularly their teachers. A couple of decades ago, Spillane and Louis (2002, p. 98) made the following assertion “as a practical matter, school principals who cannot engage others in leading will be unable to spread and mobilize the expertise necessary for school improvement in their schools; they are thus unlikely to be very effective”.

• Hallinger P, Gümü¸ s S, Belliba¸ s MS (2020) ‘Are principals instructional leaders yet?’ A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122(3):1629–1650. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03360-5

• Neumerski CM, Grissom JA, Goldring E, Rubin M, Cannata M, Schuermann P, Drake TA (2018) Restructuring instructional leadership: how multiple-measure teacher evaluation systems are redefining the role of the school principal. Elem Sch J 119(2):270–297. https://doi.org/10.1086/700597

• Grissom JA, Condon L (2021) Leading schools and districts in times of crisis. Educ Res 50(5):315–324. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211023112

• Spillane JP, Louis KS (2002) School improvement processes and practices: professional learning for building instructional capacity. Teach Coll Rec 104(9):83–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/016 146810210400905

POST TWENTY Ashley Yoon Mooi Ng , 2023. Leadership for Learning in Schools in the Twenty-First Century

Ashley Yoon Mooi Ng , 2023. Leadership for Learning in Schools in the Twenty-First Century  

Leadership for learning refers to the various strategies that school leaders use to achieve school outcomes, specifically on student learning (Leithwood 2016). Besides instructional leadership, this chapter of this article by Ng (2023) provides an overview of other main leadership theories, such as transformational leadership, distributed leadership, and teacher leadership and it traces the transformation of instructional leadership to its reincarnated form of ‘leadership for learning’. Research on principals’ instructional leadership and leadership for learning is predominantly from the West. As a result, policy makers and practitioners from other region, particularly the East, continue to rely on research findings from Western leadership literature (Walker and Hallinger 2015) to conceptualize new leadership roles and policies. As successful leadership practices are shaped by organizational and socio-cultural context, this chapter emphasizes a need to take into account the regional setting that affects leading learning in the schools of different contexts and environment.

The emphasis of principals being responsible for student achievement originated with the study by Edmonds (1979), which led to the influential Effective School Movement in the 1980s (Townsend 2019). Principals in their role of instructional leaders were considered experts in instruction and curriculum (Lai and Cheung 2013) and as a result, principals were described as strong and directive with a focus on achieving goals, and work with teachers to improve teaching and learning (Mestry 2017)

• Leithwood K (2016) Department-head leadership for school improvement. Leadersh Policy Sch 15(2):117–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1044538

• Walker A, Hallinger P (2015) A synthesis of reviews of research on principal leadership in East Asia. J Educ Adm 53(4):554–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2015-0038

• Townsend T (2019) Changing understandings of school leadership. In: Townsend T (ed) Instructional leadership and leadership for learning in schools: understanding theories of leading.Palgrave Macmillan, pp 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23736-3_1

• Edmonds R (1979) Effective schools for the urban poor. Educ Leadersh 37(1):15–24. https://www.ascd.org/el/articles/effective-schools-for-the-urban-poor

• Mestry R (2017) Principals’ perspectives and experiences of their instructional leadership functions to enhance learner achievement in public schools. J Educ 69:257–280. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_abstract&pid=S2520-98682017000200012

POST NINETEEN Donnie Adams (2023). Educational Leadership Contemporary Theories , Principles and Practices

Donnie Adams (2023). Educational Leadership Contemporary Theories , Principles and Practices

Consequently, the literature has established that school leadership matters for student achievement and school improvement (Adams 2018; Bush 2022; Özdemir et al. 2022). An outstanding principal that focuses on instructional rather than administrative leadership may raise student outcomes by as much as 20% across schools (Adams 2018; Bush 2022; Harris et al. 2017). This effect may become more powerful when principals utilise instructional leadership and distribute leadership widely within the school to improve student learning (Day et al. 2016; Harris et al. 2017). Additionally, Hallinger’s (2010) review of empirical research on school leadership over 30 years highlights that those principals who build collaborative organizational learning, structures, and cultures, create a positive school climate, and build staff leadership capacities will in turn increase students’ engagement and motivation in learning. Thus, principals play an important role in developing effectual collaborative working conditions (Jensen et al. 2012). Other scholars suggest that principals now have a broader set of responsibilities, including towards the teachers, such as creating professional learning communities to improve teaching practices, making them better teachers, and keeping them on track to improve student learning outcomes (Adams et al. 2022). Thus, the role of principals has become increasingly challenging as they are viewed as the key personnel for effective schools (Day et al. 2016; Harris et al. 2017). The next section of this chapter outlines leadership challenges encountered by school principals, and how these subsequently affect their job performance.

• Adams D (2018) Mastering theories of educational leadership and management. University of Malaya Press

• Bush T (2022) School leadership in Malaysia: policy, research and practice. Routledge

• Özdemir N, Gümü¸ s S, Kılınç AÇ, Belliba¸ s M¸ S (2022) A systematic review of research on the relationship between school leadership and student achievement: an updated framework and future direction. Educ Manag Adm Leadersh. https://doi.org/10.1177/17411432221118662

• Harris A, Jones M, Cheah KSL, Devadason E, Adams D (2017) Exploring principals’ instructional leadership practices in Malaysia: insights and implications. J Educ Adm 55(2):207–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-05-2016-0051

• Day C, Gu Q, Sammons P (2016) The impact of leadership on student outcomes: how successful school leaders use transformational and instructional strategies to make a difference. Educ AdmQ 52(2):221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863

• Hallinger P (2010, Mar) Leadership for learning: what we have learned from 30 years of empirical research. Paper presentation. Hong Kong School principals’ conference 2010: riding the tide The Hong Kong Institute of Education, Hong Kong. https://www.lib.eduhk.hk/pure-data/pub/201709341.pdf

• Jensen B, Hunter A, Sonneman J, Burns T (2012) Catching up: learning from the best school systems in East Asia. Grattan Institute. https://grattan.edu.au/report/catching-up-learning-from-the-bestschool-systems-in-east-asia/

• Adams D, Abdullah Z, Cheah KSL (2022) Professional learning communities for educational reform. In: Adams D, Abdullah Z (eds) Professional learning communities in Malaysia: research and evidence. Universiti Teknologi Malaysia Press, pp 1–16

𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐄𝐈𝐆𝐇𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 Muljani, Benedicta & Utami, Hamidah & Prasetya, Arik & Fahrudi, Agung. (2025). Digital Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Framework.

Muljani, Benedicta & Utami, Hamidah & Prasetya, Arik & Fahrudi, Agung. (2025). Digital Leadership in Higher Education Institutions: A Conceptual Framework. 10.4108/eai.30-10-2024.2354734. 

The key points about the 5D typology for digital leadership attributes proposed by Ghamrawi and Tamim (2023)  are addressed in what follows: (1) Digital Competence. This refers to the digital expertise and fluency of the leader themselves. Effective digital leaders need to be highly proficient in using and leveraging digital technologies. Leading by example and demonstrating strong digital skills is crucial for inspiring and guiding others; (2) Digital Culture. This involves fostering an organizational culture that embraces digital innovation and the use of digital tools or practices. Developing shared values, norms, and collaborative behaviors around technology integration is important. Creating a digital-friendly environment where faculty and staff feel empowered to experiment and learn is key; (3) Digital Differentiation. This entails developing unique strategies to leverage digital technologies for competitive advantage. Identifying how digital tools and approaches can enhance the institution's programs, services, and learning experiences. Personalizing and customizing the use of technology to meet the diverse needs of students and faculty; (4) Digital Governance. This refers to implementing effective policies, procedures, and controls for managing digital resources and mitigating risks. Having an overarching authority to guide and direct the digital transformation efforts can help minimize resistance. Establishing clear accountability, responsibility, and decision-making structures around technology use is important; and, (5) Digital Advocacy. This involves actively promoting the benefits and value of digital technologies within and beyond the institution. Continuous communication, marketing, and evangelization of the digital agenda is crucial for garnering buy-in. Identifying and leveraging digital champions/early adopters to influence their peers can be an effective advocacy strategy.

Ghamrawi N, M. Tamim R. A Typology for Digital Leadership in Higher Education:

the Case of a Large-Scale Mobile Technology Initiative (using tablets). Educ InfTechnol. 2023;28(6):7089–110.

𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐄𝐕𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 Okunlola, J. O., & Naicker, S.R. (2025). Principals’ Digital Leadership Competencies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Teachers’ Perspectives

Okunlola, J. O., & Naicker, S.R. (2025). Principals’ Digital Leadership Competencies in the Fourth Industrial Revolution: Teachers’ Perspectives. Education Sciences, 15(6), 656. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/educsci15060656

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is taking its toll on several human endeavours by adding digital values and virtues to the societal ecosystem. The vast impacts of digitization are not limited to communication, aviation, health, the public sector, the economy, defence, and education (Okunlola et al., 2024). The 4IR signifies the era of digital technologies’ convergence involving physical, biological, and social systems, fundamentally altering how we live, work, and learn (Datta, 2023). The 4IR has changed pedagogical modes across the globe. Traditional leadership styles are believed to be incapable of effectively addressing the opportunities and challenges brought about by the 4IR

Okunlola, J. O., Naicker, S. R., & Uleanya, C. (2024). Digital leadership in the fourth industrial revolution enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. Cogent Education, 11(1), 2317258. 

Datta, P. (2023). The promise and challenges of the fourth industrial revolution (4IR). Journal of Information Technology Teaching Cases,13(1), 2–15

𝐏𝐎𝐒𝐓 𝐒𝐈𝐗𝐓𝐄𝐄𝐍 Bush T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: theory, policy, and practice