Have you encountered the situation that teachers offered innovative teaching and learning initiatives, but the principal rhetoric was so: No, I prefer…, I like…, I want…, or …, my staff, …, my school, will do so, etc.? The principal replied without shift the conversation to problem-solving, evidence-based argumentation.

In another instance, the principal announced a new activity to be implemented by teachers. However, the school head did not organize any recent activities with teachers and the administration for their agreement. These examples illustrate what Linda Lambert calls the school culture of dependency and bottlenecks. Dependency relationships are typical for the Directive or Laisser-Faire principal types used in instructional/vertical leadership (Lambert, 2003).

According to Lambert (2002), “improvements achieved under this model are not easily sustainable; when the principal leaves, promising programs often lose momentum and fade away. As a result of these and other weaknesses, the old model has not met the fundamental challenge of providing quality learning for all students” (p. 37).

But what about those teachers, who have good practices, insights, suggestions, are willing and able to participate in decision-making?

There is possible to enable and adopt alternative shared leadership that opens great opportunities to participate in decision-making and improve the school performance quality. One of the most common forms is a Leadership team. This team may be deciding which advanced or/and innovative initiatives better practice to improve the achievements of all students.

• Shared leadership is recognized globally as beneficial for team effectiveness and innovation (Morrissette and Kisemore, 2020, Schmutz et al., 2019, Wu et al., 2018, Koeslag-Kreunen et al., 2018, Hoch, 2012).
• Shared leadership is the opposite of instructional leadership, classified as modern leadership and defined as “a dynamic, interactive influence process among individuals and groups for which the objective is to lead one another to the achievement of group or organizational goals or both” (Pearce and Conger, 2003, p. 1).

When one high-efficacy or more teachers practice innovative teaching and learning initiatives at school, a positive change is already taking place. So that all students can receive a high-quality education, all teachers need to practice evidence-based advanced or/innovative teaching and learning. Shared leadership can help that do collaborative, coordinated, and meaningful.

In this context, high-quality encompasses the whole child concept and different approaches employed to help students grow comprehensively (e. g., safety, wellness, equity and social justice, humanistic and democratic pedagogic means, etc.). It is not just about achievements measured in the grades system. It is a holistic view of all pupils (various abilities, propensities, health, nationalities, races, genders, socio-economic backgrounds, non-native English speakers, etc.). That is about education quality, can be appropriate for all student’s diversity, knowledge, and competencies that children need now and will need in the real-world future. Such students will know how to deal adequately with social problems and will be able to contribute to the co-creation of the common public good and justice.

Directive and laissez-faire type principals must change their approach and develop modern management and leadership skills. They must become not just formal but true high-quality leaders. It is crucial to shift the Controlling culture. Principals need to break dependency relationships among school staff and abandon behavior, rhetoric, and other symbols that emphasize their authority. Principals must create the right conditions to integrate shared leadership.

Some principals have developed high emotional and contextual intelligence, can respond flexibly to various situations, make effective corrective decisions. If you are one of this type of principal, undeniably, you are a role model. If you work with this principal type, you have an excellent opportunity to grow, skillful participate in decision making and do more.

Hoch, J. E. (2013). Shared leadership and innovation: The role of vertical leadership and employee integrity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(2), 159-174.

Koeslag-Kreunen, M. G. M., Van der Klink, M. R., Van den Bossche, P., & Gijselaers, W. H. (2018). Leadership for team learning: The case of university teacher teams. Higher Education, 75, 191-207

Morrissette, A.M., & Kisamore, J. L. (2020). Trust and performance in business teams: A meta-analysis. Team Performance Management: An International Journal, 26(5/6), 287-300.

Schmutz, J. B., Mier L. L., Manser T. (2019). How effective is teamwork really? The relationship between teamwork and performance in healthcare teams: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Wu, Q., Cormican, K., Chen, G. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of Shared Leadership: Antecedents, Consequences, and Moderators