A Typology of Multiple School Leadership

Abstract

In facing the challenges of huge transformations in different areas of society, many educators, policy makers, social leaders, researchers and other stakeholders may doubt how schools and their leadership and management remain relevant to and effective for the future of education. Given that multiple school functions are needed to serve society at different levels, the required roles in school leadership are inevitably multiple, diverse and demanding. In past decades, many studies have been conducted with a focus on some aspects of leadership functions and processes. Unfortunately, there is a lack of a typology of school leadership to map out comprehensive leadership profiles and understand their multiple characteristics for leading school development and effectiveness in a fast-changing environment. Based on the framework of multiple school effectiveness, this paper aims to propose a typology of multiple school leadership that can provide a new, comprehensive way to re-conceptualize the multiple nature and characteristics of school leadership in a complicated context. Depending on the rationalities, concerns, actions, outcomes and contexts of leadership in practice, the typology of multiple school leadership may include six models: technological leadership, economic leadership, social leadership, political leadership, cultural leadership, and learning leadership. Within this typology, new possibilities and approaches to school leadership can be drawn for research, practice and development towards the future.

1. Introduction

School education is crucial to the future development of young people and society. In response to increasing challenges from technological innovation, international competition, economic transformation, globalization, pandemic disasters and regional demands for development, numerous reforms and changes in school education have been initiated in different parts of the world since the beginning of the new century. Policy makers, school leaders, educators, parents, researchers and other key stakeholders in many countries have embraced high expectations of developing competent school leaders to implement school changes, perform multiple school functions and achieve new educational aims at different levels for the future [1,2].

The conceptualization and practice of school leadership is expected to be more closely relevant to the multiple functions of schools in a new era of transformation. For example, how school leaders can lead and facilitate the achievements of multiple school functions (such as technological functions, economic functions, social functions, political functions, cultural functions and learning functions) at multiple levels (such as the individual level, institutional level, community/society level and international level) has become a burning issue in school reform and leadership development [3,4,5].

Even though some literature on school leadership types has been reviewed, such as [6,7,8,9,10], there is a lack of a comprehensive typology of school leadership to address the crucial concerns of how school leadership can be conceptually and practically linked with multiple school functions in a new era of multiplicities and complexities in education. Without such a typology, the practice and conception of school leadership may be piecemeal, fragmented and ineffective, focusing on limited perspectives and biased ideas. It is difficult for school leaders, educators, change agents and researchers to have a holistic picture to understand what types or models of leadership are relevant to the issues of school functioning in transformation and globalization [11,12,13] and propose appropriate leadership strategies for school effectiveness and innovation in education reforms [14].

To address the above concerns and issues, this article aims to develop a new typology of school leadership with multiple perspectives to bridge the gaps between school leadership and multiple school functions and enhance the practice and effectiveness of school leadership.

Adapted from the frameworks of multiple school functions [15] and contextualized multiple thinking [16] and previous empirical groundwork in leadership [10], a typology of leadership is proposed to reconceptualize the nature and characteristics of multiple school leadership in a coherent way for research, practice and policy formulation in a complicated and changing context. It assumes that six key models of school leadership, including technological leadership, economic leadership, social leadership, political leadership, cultural leadership and learning leadership are needed in a typology to comprehensively address the basic issues in different aspects of school functioning, development and change.

In different models, the conceptualization and related concerns and characteristics of school leadership are different, as shown in

Table 1. A Typology of Multiple School Leadership.

Characteristics	Models of School Leadership
	Technological Leadership	Economic Leadership	Social Leadership	Political Leadership	Cultural Leadership	Learning Leadership
Rationalities	Technological Rationality	Economic rationality	Social rationality	Political rationality	Cultural rationality	Adaptive rationality
Ideologies	Methodological effectiveness; Goal achievement; Technological engineering; Technical optimization	Efficiency; Cost–benefit; Resources and financial management; Economic optimization	Social relations; Human needs; Social satisfaction	Interest, power and conflict; Participation, negotiation, and democracy	Values, beliefs, ethics and traditions; Integration, coherence and morality	Adaptation to changes; Continuous improvement and development
Key concerns in leadership	What structures, methods and technologies can be used? How can the aims be achieved more effectively? Can any technical innovation and improvement be made or the process be reengineered?	What resources and costs are needed and what benefits can be generated? How can the aims be achieved with minimal cost? How is it possible to innovatively maximize the marginal benefits?	Who are the stakeholders involved? How can they affect the aims, processes and outcomes? How can social synergy be maximized?	What diversities, interests and powers are involved? How can the conflicts and struggles be minimized? How can alliances and partnerships be built?	What values, beliefs and ethics are crucial and shared? How do they influence the aims and nature of action? How can integration, coherence or morality in values and beliefs be maximized?	What learning styles, thinking modes and knowledge can be changed? How can school action be more adaptive to the changes and challenges? How can new thinking modes be achieved?
Leadership action	To use scientific knowledge and technology to solve problems and achieve school aims	To procure and use resources to implement plans and achieve outcomes	To establish social networks and support to motivate members and implement plans	To negotiate and struggle among parties to manage or solve conflicts	To clarify ambiguities and uncertainties and realize the school vision including key shared values and beliefs	To initiate new ideas and approaches to achieving aims
Leadership outcome	A predictable product of good technology and methodology	An output from the calculated use of resources	A product of social networking and relationship building	A result of bargaining, compromise, and interplay among interested parties	A symbolic product of meaning making or culture building	A discovery of new knowledge and approaches to enhancing school functioning
Beliefs about planning/development	To find the right technology and methods to overcome difficulties and problems and get things done; To study technological possibilities, strengths and weaknesses	To find out how minimal resources and efforts can be used to produce outcomes; To calculate any economic value added or hidden costs	To find out the optimal social conditions for action and satisfying human needs; To identify any social capital to be accumulated	To find the balance among various political forces for achieving compromise; To search for any possibility for reaching the “win-win” situation and alliance building	To find out cultural meanings behind alternative actions; To derive meanings from possible overt and hidden outcomes	To reflect on the existing modes of thinking and practice and find new modes; To deepen the level of understanding and thinking
Context in which that leadership is salient	When the aims of school action are clear and it is very urgent to achieve them	When resources for action are scarce or economic values are strongly emphasized	When school success heavily depends on human and social factors	When the school involves diverse interests and resources are limited to meet expectations	When the school environment is uncertain and the aims and nature of action are not so clear	When the school context is changing fast and adaptation to the changes is crucial

Adapted and re-developed from the author [10,15,16].

. Accordingly, the rationalities used in the process of leadership for school change and development may be completely different. The characteristics of each model of school leadership in the typology will be discussed in terms of rationalities, ideologies, beliefs about action, beliefs about outcomes, beliefs about planning/development and the context in which the leadership is salient. It is hoped that this typology can provide a comprehensive spectrum of models and related perspectives to understand the nature and characteristics of school leadership, particularly in the context of pursuing multiple school functions.

2. Technological Leadership

Technological functions. Advances in new technology are creating great impacts, transforming nearly every aspect of human life worldwide. People often believe that the use of technology can enhance the opportunities and capacity for schools and members to pursue their future development in an era of new technology [17]. In education reforms worldwide, the development of technological literacy is becoming a necessary part of students’ learning [18,19,20,21].

Schools can play different functions and roles in the technological development of society. They can be a place for the transfer of technological knowledge, skills and tools. They can prepare young people to serve the needs of their community in transforming towards an intelligent city or a smart city with infrastructures and capacities for applying innovative technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), big data analytics, cloud computing, mobile technology, etc. [17,22,23]. In the long run, this can support the globalization of technology and the pervasive application of innovative ideas and technologies globally to benefit more people in different parts of the world.

Technological rationalities. In school, there may be two different roles in technological leadership. One is leadership that plays a leading role in promoting the use of technology and its development at different levels in school, as mentioned above. The other is leadership that is based on technological rationalities or structural rationalities in the practice of school leadership. Both types of technological leadership are closely related to the school’s technological functions, emphasizing the achievement of planned goals and targets through objective and scientific methodologies and structures.

As shown in Table 1, technological engineering, methodological effectiveness, and technical optimization are the key ideologies and values in the leadership process to pursue school effectiveness and development. Management traditions such as F. Taylor’s principles of scientific management [24,25] or Max Weber’s theory of bureaucracy [26] are mainly based on such a technological or structural rationality.

Technological concerns. With these rationalities, common concerns in technological leadership may include the following [27]:

• What structures, methods, procedures and techniques can be used to achieve the planned goals and targets of a school?
• How can aims and related tasks be achieved more effectively through changes in the structure, methodology or technology of a school? Why?
• Can any technical innovations and improvements be made or the process of school functioning be reengineered to ensure sustainable development and effectiveness?

The basic objectives of technological leadership’s actions are to use scientific knowledge and technology to solve existing problems and achieve planned aims [28]. Therefore, the outcome of leadership is a predictable product of the right technology and methodology being used in leadership action. If any defect occurs in school outcomes, it means that there will be some mistakes in structures, procedures or technology in school leadership or actions.

Technological planning. In planning school development, technological leadership leads to find the right technology and methods to overcome potential difficulties, obstacles and problems in school and get things done. It often needs to study technological possibilities and alternatives and compare their strengths and weaknesses in considering technical optimization.

The process of technological leadership is characterized by scientific reasoning, technological imagination, and methodological considerations. In different contexts, the appropriateness of technological leadership may be different. When the aims and objectives of school action are clearly defined and commonly accepted by the school members and other concerned constituencies and it is very urgent for the school to achieve them, technological leadership seems to be more salient and appropriate than other models of school leadership because the major concern in this situation is how to carry out the action to achieve the clearly defined aims and objectives successfully using appropriate technology and methods. But if the aims of a school are vague, uncertain and controversial and the timing of school action is not so urgent, it means that methodological consideration and technological effectiveness are not yet the top priorities in school leadership [27].

3. Economic Leadership

Economic functions. Schools often have an important role contributing to the economic development and needs of society. They can help students develop economic intelligence, knowledge and skills and plan their future career with the necessary job competencies and attitudes for survival in a competitive economy [29,30,31]. Schools serve the economic needs of the local community by supplying quality labor forces to the economic system, modifying or shaping the economic behaviors of students (future customers and citizens) [32], and contributing to the development and stability of the manpower structure of the economy [16,33]. Given the importance of economic functions in schools as described above, how can school leaders successfully play a role of economic leadership in launching initiatives for economic development and functions in schools?

Economic rationalities. Similar to technological leadership in schools, there are two different roles in economic leadership. One is leadership for promoting economic functions at different levels in schools; the other is leadership based on economic rationalities in practice and planning. Both of them concern maximizing benefits and achieving planned aims and targets in a school through the optimal use of various resources. As shown in Table 1, efficiency, cost–benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness, resources and financial management and economic optimization are some key values and ideologies of economic thinking in pursuit of school effectiveness [34].

Economic concerns. From the economic rationalities, some typical questions or concerns are often raised in the conceptualization and practice of economic leadership [35]:

• What resources and costs are needed and what benefits can be generated in the action cycle of a school or its members?
• How can the planned aims of a school be achieved with minimal cost or resources in the action process?
• In what way can the marginal benefits be innovatively maximized from the action process of a school in general and its members in particular?

In school action, the role of economic leadership is to procure various types of resources from internal and external sources and use these resources to organize and implement the action plan and finally achieve targeted outcomes and other implicit and explicit benefits from the whole process. Thus, the outcome or effectiveness of economic leadership results from the calculated use of various types of resources in school action.

Economic planning. In planning development, economic leadership leads to find out how minimal resources and effort can be used to produce the targeted outcomes and benefits from the school action process or how the returns of school action can be maximized with the given resources. Calculating added values and hidden costs is inevitably necessary in the planning process. Economic leadership concerns economic calculation of costs and benefits and therefore is salient and powerful in a school context where the resources for school action are scarce and very limited but the economic values and benefits are strongly emphasized in pursuit of school development. Given the limited resources available for the school, how resources can be procured, managed and used to achieve the planned aims and produce the expected economic benefits efficiently is inevitably a major concern in such a context. Therefore, economic leadership becomes crucial and necessary in school action for sustainable development.

4. Social Leadership

Social functions. The social functions of schools are crucial, contributing to human development and social relationships at different levels of society [36,37]. As indicated in nearly all formal education goals, schools help students to develop themselves psychologically, socially and physically and help them to develop their potential as fully as possible. Development of students’ social intelligence in general and emotional intelligence in particular is important and necessary in school education [16,38,39].

School leadership and related actions are mainly carried out in a social context, in which human factors such as human needs and development, social relations and social expectations can deeply influence and shape the nature, aims and outcomes of leadership. There is a long tradition in areas of social leadership and organizational management with a focus on the impacts of social relationships and human needs on organizational performance and human behavior [40,41].

Social relationalities. Social leadership reflects concerns and values about the human and social factors involved in school action. It is based on social rationalities that emphasize the importance and necessity of social relationships and human initiative to the completion of action and the achievement of the aims of a school (Table 1). In social leadership, the school leader is supportive to school members, fosters participation, enhances staff commitment and satisfaction and encourages positive interpersonal relationships [9].

The major task of social leadership is to establish social networks and support to motivate members and promote initiative and synergy to implement the action plan and achieve the aims of the school [42,43]. Leadership outcome or effectiveness is the product of successful social networking and solidarity in action. Enhanced social satisfaction, personal or staff development, working relationships and morale among school members are also often perceived as important outcomes for a school to remain effective and sustainable (Table 1).

Social concerns. According to the logic of social leadership, its role in planning sustainable school development is finding out the optimal social conditions for implementing school action, meeting the human needs and expectations of involved school members and establishing social networks and social capital for supporting the action process and achieving outcomes for the school.

Some typical concerns in social leadership for pursuing school effectiveness and development may be listed as follows:

• Who are the major stakeholders and actors involved in school action and what are the social relationships among them?
• How can relationships with these members affect the aims, processes and outcomes of the school and its development?
• How can human needs be satisfied and synergy be maximized among involved members to pursue school effectiveness and development? Why?

Social contexts. The appropriateness of social leadership depends on the nature of the context and the actions of the school. When the success and sustainability of a school is heavily dependent on human and social factors and its outcomes are closely related to or defined by the social expectations of involved members and stakeholders, the role of social leadership may be more salient, powerful and relevant in pursuit of school effectiveness and development. Of course, if the nature and success of school action do not depend on social factors and human initiative, the role of social leadership may not be so significant. In fact, school education is a collective endeavor, heavily depending on various types of cooperation among teachers, educators, experts, parents and community leaders. Therefore, the role of social leadership is important for leading members and developing a positive social climate for all members to perform, develop and work well together [37,38].

5. Political Leadership

Political functions. Due to increasing diversity in expectations and struggles for resources and power among various stakeholders in a complicated competitive environment, the political functions of schools are receiving increasing attention at different levels. School education and political socialization are expected to help students develop political intelligence, positive civic attitudes and skills to exercise their rights and carry out the responsibilities of citizenship [44,45].

Schools act as a place for systematically socializing students into a set of political norms, values and beliefs or for critically discussing and reflecting on existing political events. Schools often become a political coalition of teachers, parents and students that can contribute to the stability of the political power structure. Schools play an important role in serving the political needs of the local community, legitimizing the authority of the existing government, maintaining the stability of the political structure, promoting the awareness and movement of democracy and facilitating planned political developments and changes [16].

Political rationalities. School leaders have the responsibility and role to lead the school and its members to successfully perform multiple political functions as mentioned above. Leaders are persuasive and effective at building alliances and support and resolving conflicts among members in school operations [46]. Similar to technological leadership, there may be two key roles in political leadership. One is leadership that leads initiatives and activities to develop the school’s multiple political functions at different levels; the other is leadership that is based on political rationalities emphasizing the recognition and significance of the diversity of the interests and demands of involved stakeholders in action.

School political leadership involves the resolution and management of conflicts and struggles through various strategies such as alliance-building, negotiation, compromise, participation and democratic process. As shown in Table 1, the major ideologies in political leadership include competition for interest, struggles for power, conflicts among members or parties, negotiation and compromise, participation and democracy in decision-making in school improvement and development [46,47].

Political concerns. Some typical concerns of political leadership in pursuing the multiple political functions of schools are listed below:

• What diversities, interests and powers of school actors and other stakeholders are involved in leadership efforts for achieving school effectiveness and development?
• How can the conflicts and struggles in a school be minimized or managed to sustain school development and stability through alliance building, partnership, negotiation, democratic process and other strategies or tactics? Why?
• How can “win-win” strategies be built to overcome political obstacles, facilitate school action and maximize the achievement of school aims in the long run?

Political context. Political leadership in a complicated school context involving multiple and diverse members inevitably induces a process of negotiation, struggle and conflict management among various parties. To a great extent, leadership outcome is a result of bargaining, compromise and interplay among interested parties during school practices. In planning school development, political leadership makes efforts to find the balance among various political forces for achieving compromise and to search for any possibilities for reaching a “win-win” situation and building alliances among the interested parties of a school. Political leadership involves sophisticated consideration of the impacts and results of micro-politics among interested parties. It is also a calculation of political costs and consequences among alternative strategies or tactics for dealing with the political conflicts in action [44,47].

The applicability of political leadership is somewhat limited by the characteristics of the school context. It is salient and significant only if the school is a context involving diverse interests and competing members and the resources available are limited to meet their diverse expectations. In other words, if there is strong solidarity among members and the resources are sufficient to fulfill their diverse needs and implement school action, political leadership may not be so salient in comparison with other types of school leadership in pursuing school development.

6. Cultural Leadership

Cultural functions. Schools have cultural functions, affecting students’ consistency and confidence in their values and beliefs and grooming their cultural intelligence and skills [48,49,50,51]. They help students develop their creativity and aesthetic awareness and become successfully socialized with the norms, values, and beliefs of society.

Schools can act as a place for systematic cultural reproduction and transmission to the next generation, cultural integration among multiple and diverse school constituencies and cultural re-vitalization from outdated traditions [52]. Schools often serve as a cultural unit carrying the explicit norms and expectations of the local community, transmitting important values and artifacts of society to students, integrating diverse sub-cultures from different backgrounds and revitalizing the strengths of the existing culture such that the society or the nation can reduce internal conflict and wastage and build a unifying force for the benefit of the nation. Schools can foster appreciation of cultural diversity and the acceptance of different norms, traditions, values and beliefs from different countries and regions and can contribute to the development of global culture through the integration of different cultures. [16].

Cultural rationalities. Given the importance of the multiple cultural functions of schools at different levels, school leaders should play a leading role in developing them. There are two different meanings of cultural leadership. One is leadership for launching initiatives in developing and sustaining multiple cultural functions as mentioned above; the other is leadership practice that is based on cultural rationalities assuming the significance of shared values, beliefs, ethics and traditions among school members to the nature, aims, and effectiveness of school action. With cultural leadership, the school leader is inspirational and charismatic, and builds a school culture which can transform the directions, goals, values and norms of individuals, groups or the whole school [51].

Sharing values, beliefs and ethics, integration and coherence among school members and morality in school practice are often key ideologies in cultural leadership. The role of cultural leadership is to clarify ambiguities and uncertainties in the context and realize the school’s vision and related key values and beliefs shared by members (Table 1). In a cultural sense, leadership outcome or performance is a product of meaning making or cultural actualization by school members in an ambiguous context.

Cultural challenges. Currently, there are numerous challenges from internal and external environments to schools’ survival and development and, therefore, school goals are often ambiguous, uncertain and fast-changing, creating great impacts on school members’ performance. In such a context, how can school members remain consistent and confident in their values and beliefs in work? How can the school leader inspire and stimulate members to make greater effort and commitment to realize the school vision and related school goals for future development? How can integration, congruence or morality in values and beliefs be maximized in the practice of cultural leadership? These are concerns related to cultural leadership influencing the future development and achievements of students, teachers and the school [50].

Cultural context. In planning school development, cultural leadership leads to find the cultural meanings behind alternative actions, choose the one most consistent with the values and beliefs strongly shared by key members, and then derive meanings from possible overt and hidden outcomes.

In general, cultural leadership is a process of searching for, clarifying and making meanings in line with shared key values, beliefs and ethics and the morality of the school. When the school environment is full of uncertainties and the school goals are ambiguous, the role of cultural leadership will be significant in clarifying the school’s vision and goals, transforming members’ affective, behavioral and cognitive performance and building up a shared school culture [53,54]. But, if the environment is certain and the aims of the school are clear, further investigating and clarifying the meanings of school action in this context may not be the top priority compared with other concerns (e.g., technological or economic considerations). In other words, cultural leadership may not be as urgent and salient as other types of school leadership.

7. Learning Leadership

Learning functions. Numerous local and global changes are challenging the development and survival of individuals, schools and society in an era of transformation. How to learn and adapt to these challenges has become a burning issue in ongoing education reforms in different parts of the world. Inevitably, schools are expected to perform multiple functions to support the development of learning at different levels.

Traditionally, learning is often perceived only as a means for achieving technological, economic, social, political and cultural functions or goals in schools. Due to rapid developments in the world, people are beginning to view learning itself as an important value for their life. Particularly, lifelong learning becomes increasingly important in a changing society [55,56,57].

It is important for schools to help students achieve learning, intelligence and skills, learn how to learn, and pursue lifelong learning. In addition, schools have multiple roles to play in supporting the development of learning. For example, schools often serve as places for systematic learning, teaching and disseminating knowledge, and as venues for experimenting and implementing educational innovations and developments.

Schools can provide services to meet the diverse educational needs of the community, facilitate the development of educational professions and education structures, disseminate knowledge and information to the next generation and contribute to the formation of a learning society [16].

Learning rationalities. In achieving multiple functions in learning, as mentioned above, school leaders encourage professional development and teaching improvements, diagnose educational problems, support innovation, and give professional opinions and guidance on instructional matters. They often need to play a role in instructional leadership or learning leadership [58,59,60]. In response to fast changes in education, they also play a role as transformational leaders [61], leading continuous adaptation, development, change and innovation in school functioning.

Playing a role in learning leadership, school leaders lead various initiatives and activities for learning development and school functioning. Learning leadership is based on adaptive rationalities emphasizing the importance of continuous learning in terms of development, improvement and adaptation. This leads school members to practice with professionalism, maintain continuous professional development and improvement, promote new thinking, new knowledge and new initiatives, adapt to internal and external changes and achieve optimal educational outcomes [62,63,64].

Learning concerns. With the above rationalities, some typical concerns of learning leadership may be listed as follows:

• What kinds of learning styles, thinking modes and conceptual knowledge can be used in the practice of learning leadership for pursuing multiple learning functions and sustaining school development?
• How can the aims and nature of school action be re-conceptualized to be more adaptive to changes and challenges in the context?
• How can learning gaps be minimized and how can new thinking modes and new understanding about multiple learning functions be achieved?

As the values of learning are strongly emphasized, leadership outcome or performance includes success in the discovery of new knowledge and approaches to action implementation and the enhancement of school actors’ intelligence to understand and deal with challenges from the changing environment.

Learning context. In planning school development, learning leadership involves a process of reflecting on the experiences of previous action cycles, including the strengths and weaknesses of modes of learning, thinking and practice as well as the characteristics of the context, and investigating new modes of school action for more effective learning and deeper understanding in the next cycles. Learning leadership is a process of the generation, accumulation and management of new knowledge about the action, learning and outcomes of a school [65].

Learning leadership is salient and relevant to sustainable school development, particularly when the educational environment is fast-changing and adaptation to contextual changes is crucial to the development and survival of the school and its members. Therefore, it is not a surprise that the learning leadership type, particularly in terms of knowledge management, is receiving more and more emphasis in this new era of huge transformations and serious competition.

8. Profiles of Multiple Leadership

For different school leaders in different contexts, the characteristics of school leadership styles in pursuing school development and effectiveness may be different. Some leaders may strongly emphasize performing certain models of school leadership, such as social leadership, cultural leadership or technological leadership, separately. But other leaders may focus on the use of a combination of models (such as social leadership plus technological leadership, economic leadership plus cultural leadership or other combinations) in their practice of school leadership and management.

With the implications of the above leadership typology (Table 1), a full typology of the six models of school leadership can be used to provide multiple and all-round perspectives to pursue school effectiveness, identify practical problems, understand complicated issues, develop action strategies and achieve school goals and objectives.

Based on the typology, Figure 1 and Figure 2 provide two examples to show how to map out the profiles of multiple school leadership with varied strengths (from strong to very strong) and weaknesses (from weak to very weak) across different models. Figure 1 shows the profile of concerned leaders, with “very strong” performance in social leadership and economic leadership, “strong” performance in technological leadership, learning leadership and cultural leadership and “weak” performance in political leadership. To a great extent, this profile represents “strong or very strong” school leadership in most models of multiple leadership.

In Figure 2, no model of leadership in the typology arrives at the level of “very strong” performance. Only the cultural leadership of the concerned leaders shows “strong” performance and all other models of leadership are at the “weak or very weak” level of performance, including weak technological, social, learning, economic and political leadership. To a great extent, the profile in Figure 2 represents “weak” or “poor” leadership in most models of the typology.

Profiles of multiple school leadership can provide all-round information to understand the strengths and weaknesses of concerned school leaders’ multiple leadership across six models and develop different strategies for leadership development and school effectiveness [66,67].

9. Concluding Remarks

The above typology and related models of school leadership are associated with different knowledge trends and disciplinary traditions in technology, economics, business and industry management, sociology, political science, cultural studies and learning psychology. For research, they provide a wide spectrum of multiple conceptualizations of school leadership for diverse expectations in various situations and conditions [68,69].

Different stakeholders may have different expectations of leadership performance and outcomes. For example, some may be more concerned with leaders’ technological effectiveness or economic returns while others may prefer social relationships or cultural inspiration. How to achieve consensus among various stakeholders on choices of leadership models for leading school development and effectiveness is always a dilemma troubling leaders in practice, particularly when the available resources and capacity for implementation are quite limited.

It is important to point out that relationships among the various models of school leadership may be complicated and not necessarily positive. For example (as shown in Figure 1), leaders who perform very strongly in economic leadership and social leadership do not necessarily do as well in political leadership, although people often assume the existence of such a positive relationship.

The six models of school leadership in the typology are based on different sets of rationales, ideologies and functional characteristics. In general, the enhancement of performance under one model of leadership (e.g., the political leadership model) may not necessarily result in an increase under other models. More research based on the leadership typology may be needed if we want to understand the complicated relationships among various models of school leadership.