Leadership Styles of School Heads: What the Evidence Says

Leadership styles of school heads are the named approaches that teachers meet in graduate school, seminars and reviewers: instructional, transformational, distributed, servant, spiritual, situational and transactional leadership. This guide defines each one in plain language, says how strong the evidence is that it helps learners, and shows where it fits in the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads (PPSSH). Its main finding comes from the research: successful school heads do not pick one style but combine a common set of practices, changing the mix as their school changes.

It is written for teachers preparing for the National Assessment for School Heads (NASH, formerly the National Qualifying Examination for School Heads or NQESH), for newly designated school heads and for teachers-in-charge. The Department of Education (DepEd) adopted the PPSSH through DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. It prescribes no style; at Career Stage 1 it expects aspiring school heads to have “the minimum qualifications to perform their functions as instructional leaders and administrative managers”. This post is the overview of a four-part series; the guides to instructional, transformational and distributed leadership go deeper.

Key points

• Research has moved from leadership styles to leadership practices. A 2004 review for the Wallace Foundation warned that style labels “mask the generic functions of leadership”. Later studies describe what effective school heads do.
• School heads affect learning mostly through teachers. A 2021 synthesis of United States studies estimates that replacing a principal at the 25th percentile of effectiveness with one at the 75th adds roughly 2.9 months of math learning a year in an elementary school, mostly through the teachers principals recruit, develop and keep.
• Instructional leadership shows a stronger link to student achievement than transformational leadership. In a New Zealand government synthesis, its average effect on student outcomes was .42, against .11 for transformational leadership. Most of the transformational studies measured social outcomes, and the authors call their analysis “admittedly limited”.
• Transformational leadership is strongly tied to teachers and weakly to test scores. A meta-analysis of 79 theses found an average correlation of .57 with teacher outcomes such as commitment, and .09 with student achievement.
• Distributed, servant, spiritual and situational leadership have thinner evidence in schools. Results for distributed leadership are mixed, most servant and spiritual leadership studies are one-time surveys, and no openly available study tests situational leadership in schools.
• In one major study, successful school heads layered practices by school phase. In 20 improving schools in England, principals first improved the physical environment, behavior and attendance, and only then widened leadership and deepened the work on teaching.
• DepEd names no leadership style. The PPSSH never uses the word “style”. RA 9155 asks every school head to be “both an instructional leader and administrative manager”.

What is a leadership style in education?

A leadership style is a recognizable pattern in how a leader sets direction, makes decisions and works with people; books also call these models, theories or approaches. The list is long: the authors of Learning from Leadership, a large United States study, note that a review of leadership theory from outside schools identified 21 approaches that have been “objects of considerable theoretical and empirical development” (Louis et al., 2010, p. 10).

Types of educational leadership you will meet

Tony Bush groups the common types into nine leadership models: managerial, participative, transformational, interpersonal, transactional, post-modern, contingency, moral and instructional (Bush, 2007, p. 394). Distributed leadership is not on that 2007 list, though a 2018 review by Gumus and colleagues, as reported by Harris, Jones and Ismail (2022, p. 14), counts it, with instructional and transformational leadership, among the most researched models. Servant and spiritual leadership come mainly from business and management research (Eva et al., 2019, p. 112; Fry et al., 2026, p. 2).

Bush’s verdict is worth remembering: “Each of the leadership models discussed in this chapter is partial.” The models offer “clear normative frameworks” but “relatively weak empirical support”, and most successful leaders “are likely to embody most or all of these approaches in their work” (Bush, 2007, p. 403).

From styles to practices: what the research looks at now

The strongest reviews no longer ask which style is best, but which practices are linked to better learning. The 2004 Wallace review by Kenneth Leithwood and colleagues says that “Many labels used in the literature to signify different forms or styles of leadership mask the generic functions of leadership”, and that readers should “be skeptical about the ‘leadership by adjective’ literature” (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 6). It names a basic core of three practices: setting directions, developing people and redesigning the organization (p. 8). Revisiting the evidence in 2020, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins reaffirmed the four domains of practice they had set out in 2008: setting directions, building relationships and developing people, redesigning the organization, and improving the instructional program (accepted manuscript, pp. 4–5). They also held that “The ways in which leaders apply these basic leadership practices – not the practices themselves – demonstrate responsiveness to, rather than dictation by, the contexts in which they work” (p. 8).

Viviane Robinson, Margie Hohepa and Claire Lloyd’s best evidence synthesis for New Zealand’s Ministry of Education grouped what leaders do into five dimensions and estimated each one’s link to student outcomes: establishing goals and expectations (.42), resourcing strategically (.31), planning, coordinating and evaluating teaching and the curriculum (.42), promoting and participating in teacher learning and development (.84), and ensuring an orderly and supportive environment (.27) (Table 6, p. 95). The authors read .2 as small, .4 as medium and .6 as large (p. 38). The fourth dimension’s effect is “twice that of any of the other dimensions” (p. 38): “Leadership that not only promotes but directly participates with teachers in formal or informal professional learning” (p. 95). Each figure rests on 6 to 9 studies, so read them as a guide to where to look. The instructional leadership guide sets out the five dimensions in a table with their DepEd counterparts.

A 2021 Wallace synthesis by Jason Grissom, Anna Egalite and Constance Lindsay names three skill sets, “instruction, people, and the organization”, and four kinds of behavior: instructionally focused interactions with teachers, a productive school climate, collaboration and professional learning communities, and strategic management of personnel and resources (Grissom et al., 2021, p. xv). None of them is a style.

Philip Hallinger put it plainly: “There is no one best leadership style for fostering learning in schools” (Hallinger, 2011, pre-published version, p. 14). A 2019 report co-written by James Spillane agrees: “The question should not be whether to become an instructional leader or a distributed leader, but what wisdom can be derived from each perspective” (Supovitz, D’Auria and Spillane, 2019, p. 7). The styles are best read as lenses on practices, not as identities.

How school leadership reaches learners

The 2004 Wallace review made a well-known claim: “Leadership is second only to classroom instruction among all school-related factors that contribute to what students learn at school” (Leithwood et al., 2004, p. 5).

The 2021 Grissom synthesis tested it with six United States studies that followed principals and students over several years, covering “more than 22,000 principals in four states and two urban school districts” (p. xiii). Studies find that a principal one standard deviation more effective raises the typical student’s achievement by 0.13 standard deviations in math and 0.09 in reading (p. 36). Replacing a principal at the 25th percentile with one at the 75th would add about 2.9 months of math and 2.7 months of reading learning a year in an elementary school (p. 39). The 2004 claim, the authors conclude, “may not have been stated strongly enough. Principals really matter” (p. 43). But these are “just six studies, conducted in just a few states and districts, which may not be representative” (p. xiv), all from the United States (p. 30), and they show that principals matter, not what effective ones do (p. 36).

The effect runs mostly through teachers. Principals’ effects are “mostly indirect, coming largely through their efforts to recruit, develop, support, and retain a talented teaching staff and create conditions for them to deliver strong instruction” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 40). Two other studies show the same path:

• A 2024 meta-analysis pooled correlations from 60 studies (Papadakis et al., 2024, section 3). Instructional, transformational and distributed leadership were all associated with teacher performance, which was associated with student achievement. Instructional leadership “did not affect SA [student achievement] directly but indirectly over TP [teacher performance]” (Discussion). The estimates were “highly heterogeneous” and should be read “with caution” (Limitations).
• A correlational study in one large United States district found that, over 10 years, teachers in schools at the 75th percentile of a “professional environment” measure, which included principal leadership, improved more than similar teachers at the 25th percentile, “a 38% difference in total improvement” (Kraft and Papay, 2014, Conclusion).

The test of any style, then, is what it does to teachers’ work and to the conditions for learning.

Leadership styles in education in the Philippines: what the local evidence shows

Most of this research comes from the United States, England and New Zealand: 18 of the 27 studies that the New Zealand synthesis found were from the United States (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 84). Treat them as ideas tested elsewhere, not proven facts about Philippine schools.

The OECD’s Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), the largest survey of principals, cannot fill the gap. The Philippines has not taken part in any TALIS cycle, from 2008 to TALIS+ in 2026, so any TALIS figure on principals is another country’s figure. What exists are principal-reported data from student assessments, which describe the conditions Filipino school heads lead in:

Filipino principals hold leadership degrees far more often than the international average, but they less often hold the main responsibility for hiring teachers, and they report serious shortages of classrooms and digital technology. Many schools have none: in October 2026, DepEd told the Senate that about half of public schools (about 23,000 of 45,928) had no principal item (EDCOM II news release, October 18, 2026). The data on principals and head teachers and CRLA results in schools with and without a principal show where these schools are.

Local research on the styles is thin. Sun’s meta-analysis of transformational leadership included theses from the Philippines, but most were from North America (Sun, 2010, p. 45). A review of servant leadership found 2 Philippine studies among 205 empirical ones (Eva et al., 2019, pp. 112, 118); a review of spiritual leadership found none (Piwowar-Sulej and Iqbal, 2024, pp. 22–23). A recent Philippine study shows the limits: a graduate student’s 2025 study in the Schools Division of the City of Batac planned a purposive sample of ten school heads and reports perceptions (Ulit, 2025, p. 2114). It describes practice but cannot show effects on learning.

Context may change which practices matter most: in the New Zealand synthesis, strategic resourcing was linked to achievement far more strongly in the Marshall Islands than in California, which “probably reflects a relative scarcity of teaching resources” (p. 98). That may hold in many Philippine schools, but no Philippine study has tested it.

Instructional leadership

Definition. The school head works directly on teaching and learning. Its “common core is close involvement by leadership in establishing an academic mission, monitoring and providing feedback on teaching and learning, and promoting professional development” (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 88). New Zealand calls it pedagogical leadership.

Where DepEd puts it. RA 9155 makes every school head “both an instructional leader and administrative manager”. PPSSH Domain 3 stresses “the school heads’ commitment in providing instructional leadership towards improving competence among teachers and outcomes among learners”. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 defines instructional leadership as “the deliberate practice of supporting teaching and learning through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching to systematically improve quality of teacher/ALS implementer practice and learner achievement” (Section III).

A DepEd example. After the first reading assessment, a school head and the Grade 3 teachers agree on one reading focus for the quarter. She observes lessons with that focus, gives each teacher feedback within the week, and joins the learning action cell (LAC) session where they try a new strategy.

The evidence. The New Zealand synthesis found a mean effect of .42, from 188 effect sizes in 12 studies, which it reads as “moderate” (p. 90). The same analysis appeared in a 2008 article by Robinson, Lloyd and Rowe. In one study the Grissom synthesis reviews, time spent coaching teachers was associated with higher achievement growth, while informal walk-throughs were “unproductive, especially in high schools”, apparently because they were “seldom part of a broader coaching or feedback strategy” (Grissom et al., 2021, p. 61).

The cautions. The synthesis drew on “only 27 published studies”, most in primary schools and about the principal alone (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 102), and its evidence was cross-sectional (p. 205). Hallinger recalls that scholars “questioned the capacity of principals to fulfill this heroic role” (Hallinger, 2007, p. 3).

PPSSH strands: 3.2, 3.3 and 4.5. See the instructional leadership guide, the instructional supervision guide on observing and coaching, and the PPSSH Domain 3 guide.

Transformational leadership

Definition. Transformational leadership builds the commitment and capacity of the people in a school. It “has its origins in the business literature and emphasises such qualities as vision and the ability to motivate and inspire loyalty, commitment, and effort” (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 37). In the original version by Burns (1978) and Bass (1985), it has four components: idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individual consideration, the last meaning “the degree to which leaders listen to followers’ concerns, attend to their needs, and act as mentors or coaches” (Nohe and Hertel, 2017, p. 2).

A DepEd example. A newly assigned principal builds the school goal with tired teachers from three years of data, coaches two who want to try something new, and gives grade-level teams a shared free period.

The evidence. Jingping Sun’s meta-analysis pooled 79 theses and dissertations completed between 1996 and 2008 (Sun, 2010, abstract; p. 45). Studies find a large average correlation with teacher outcomes such as commitment and job satisfaction (r = .57, p. 77), and with school outcomes such as shared goals and culture (r = .44, p. 73). The correlation with student achievement was small: r = .09 (p. 84). The New Zealand synthesis found a mean effect of .11 on student outcomes, “a very weak relationship” (p. 87). Its authors concluded that the “power of transformational leadership lies more in the creation of a collaborative staff culture than in higher social and academic outcomes for students” (p. 88). Estimates vary with the studies pooled: the 2024 Papadakis meta-analysis reported r = 0.468 with achievement, from studies that were highly heterogeneous (I² = 96%) (section 4.5).

The cautions. Vision without specifics can backfire: in one Sydney study, “the more strongly principals espoused abstract vision statements, the more negatively their teachers reacted” (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 97).

PPSSH strands: 1.1, 4.6 and 5.1. See the transformational leadership guide and the change management guide.

Transactional leadership: the contrast

Definition. Transactional leadership runs on exchange: “relationships with teachers are based upon an exchange for some valued resource” (Bush, 2007, p. 398). In Bass and Avolio’s model it has three parts: contingent reward, active management-by-exception and passive management-by-exception (Batista-Foguet et al., 2021, pp. 3–4). Contingent reward includes “clarifying responsibilities, and rewarding desired outcomes”; management-by-exception watches for “mistakes and deviations from standards”; and “laissez-faire is the avoidance or absence of leadership” (p. 9).

A DepEd example. A school head thanks advisers in writing when learner records arrive complete and on time, and follows up only on missing ones. This keeps the school running but does not by itself improve teaching.

The evidence. In Sun’s meta-analysis, contingent reward had a medium-sized link with school outcomes (r = .34), while management by exception had none (Sun, 2010, p. 76) and was negatively linked with teacher outcomes (r = −.31) (p. 72). Sun summarizes Bass and Avolio’s view that the two are ends of a continuum: “Most leaders do some of both but transformational leadership has augmented effects above transactional leadership” (p. 7). Bush adds that transactional leadership “does not produce long-term commitment” (Bush, 2007, p. 399).

PPSSH strands: 4.8 and the management strands of Domain 2. The guide to leadership vs management explains why a school head needs both systems.

Instructional vs transformational leadership

Readers often meet these two as rivals: instructional leadership focuses on teaching and learning results, transformational leadership on commitment and shared purpose. The research treats them as partners, and the instructional leadership guide compares them in detail.

Do not read the .42 against .11 for achievement as a clean contest. The authors call their meta-analysis “admittedly limited” (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 92). Most outcomes in the transformational studies were social, such as engagement (p. 87), while “all the outcomes included in the pedagogical leadership studies were academic” (p. 89).

The same authors write that “the two theories are perfectly compatible if pedagogical leadership is exercised in a collaborative rather than directive manner” (p. 92), and from Marks and Printy’s study they conclude that “transformational leadership is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for shared instructional leadership” (p. 93). The Learning from Leadership team found that instructional and shared leadership “are complementary approaches, and that both may be necessary” (Louis et al., 2010, p. 52). Hallinger concluded that “the substantive similarities between the models are more significant than the differences” (Hallinger, 2007, p. 4). Transformational practices build the trust that makes feedback welcome; instructional practices make sure the shared purpose reaches teaching.

Distributed leadership

Definition. Distributed leadership treats leadership as something many people do together. Spillane, Halverson and Diamond argue that leadership activity is “constituted – defined or constructed - in the interaction of leaders, followers, and their situation in the execution of particular leadership tasks” (manuscript of the 2004 article, p. 13). It is not delegation: Harris and colleagues write that treating it as delegation, or as the opposite of top-down leadership, “proved to be deeply unhelpful” (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022, p. 4). Nor does it abolish hierarchy (Tian, Risku and Collin, 2016, accepted manuscript, p. 21).

Where DepEd puts it. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 names as instructional leaders “School Heads, Head Teachers, Master Teachers, ALS Focals, Education Program Supervisors for ALS, and other personnel designated to perform instructional leadership functions”, including grade level coordinators, learning area coordinators and department heads (Section III). With about half of public schools lacking a principal item, leadership in many schools already rests with head teachers, teachers-in-charge and their colleagues.

A DepEd example. In a large secondary school, each head teacher leads the agreed reading goal in a department, a master teacher runs the LAC sessions on reading, and the group reviews the same data every two weeks. The principal still sets direction and checks progress.

The evidence is mixed:

• Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins restated their claim that school leadership has a positive influence on school and student outcomes when it is distributed (2020, accepted manuscript, p. 14).
• A four-year study of 197 United States primary schools by Heck and Hallinger found that distributed leadership “indirectly but significantly enhanced” mathematics and reading (as summarized in Tian, Risku and Collin, 2016, pp. 23–24).
• Tian and colleagues’ review concluded that its positive impact on learner outcomes “remains questionable” (as summarized in Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022, p. 10). Harris and colleagues say “the black box of distributed leadership practice remains only partially open” (p. 15).
• Learning from Leadership found that “No single pattern of leadership distribution is consistently linked to student learning”, and that distribution “should not be viewed as a means of reducing principals’ workload” (Louis et al., 2010, pp. 54, 65).
• In TALIS 2013, which did not include the Philippines, “Integrated leadership, combining instructional and distributed leadership” appeared to be “the most favourable approach” to building a professional learning community (OECD, 2016, p. 17).

A caution for DepEd. “In countries where more hierarchical structures are in place and where there are high degrees of accountability, it is unsurprising that levels of distributed leadership practice are reported as low” (Harris, Jones and Ismail, 2022, p. 11). Here, distributed leadership has to be designed, not assumed.

PPSSH strands: 1.2, 4.6 and 5.1. See the distributed leadership guide and the guide to principals, head teachers and teachers-in-charge.

Servant leadership

Definition. Robert Greenleaf coined the term in his 1970 essay The Servant as Leader. In the passage the Greenleaf Center quotes, he wrote: “The servant-leader is servant first… It begins with the natural feeling that one wants to serve, to serve first. Then conscious choice brings one to aspire to lead.” His test: “Do those served grow as persons?” A 2019 systematic review defines it as “an (1) other-oriented approach to leadership (2) manifested through one-on-one prioritizing of follower individual needs and interests, (3) and outward reorienting of their concern for self towards concern for others within the organization and the larger community” (Eva et al., 2019, p. 114). A transformational leader attends to followers’ needs as “a means to an end”; a servant leader develops followers as “an end in itself” (p. 113).

A DepEd example. For a first-year teacher struggling with a large class and a sick parent, the school head lightens extra assignments for a quarter, pairs her with a master teacher and checks in weekly.

The evidence. The review covered 285 articles from 1998 to 2018, 205 of them empirical (pp. 111–112). An overwhelming majority were in business and organizational psychology (n = 203), and only 10 in education (pp. 112–113). Of the field studies, 130 were cross-sectional (p. 118). Servant leadership correlated r = 0.52 with transformational leadership in one meta-analysis the review cites, which “does raise concerns about the empirical distinctiveness of the measures” (p. 114). The authors admit that “the majority of manuscripts we reviewed, both published and unpublished, had every hypothesis supported” (p. 123), and note that bureaucratic organizations “may discourage the display of servant leadership” (p. 125).

PPSSH strands: 4.5 and 5.1.

Spiritual leadership in a public school

Definition. Spiritual leadership is most closely tied to Louis Fry. With Laura Matherly he defines it as “the values, attitudes, and behaviors that are necessary to intrinsically motivate one’s self and others so they have a sense of spiritual survival/well-being through calling and membership” (Fry and Matherly, 2006, p. 4). In their model, a leader’s vision, hope/faith and altruistic love, “care, concern, and appreciation for both self and others”, give staff two things: calling, “a sense that one’s life has meaning and makes a difference”, and membership, “a sense that one is understood and appreciated” (p. 27).

What DepEd and the Constitution say

DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013 adopts four core values for all offices and schools: Maka-Diyos, Maka-tao, Makakalikasan and Makabansa, the national motto under Republic Act No. 8491. It does not define them. It asks “what does it mean to be ‘Maka-Diyos’, ‘Maka-tao’, ‘Makalikasan’, and ‘Makabansa’ in the context of the Department of Education?”

The 1987 Constitution sets the limits:

• “The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable” (Article II, Section 6).
• “No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (Article III, Section 5).
• Educational institutions shall “strengthen ethical and spiritual values” (Article XIV, Section 3(2)).
• Religion may be taught in public elementary and high schools only “At the option expressed in writing by the parents or guardians”, by instructors designated or approved by the religious authorities, “without additional cost to the Government” (Article XIV, Section 3(3)).

Two DepEd orders put these rules into practice in public schools:

• DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2009 sets the rules for optional religious instruction. Parents apply in writing, instructors are designated by the learner’s own religious authority, and classes are held “during regular class hours only”. The school head accommodates each request, and learners who do not take part stay under their class adviser.
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2013 directs schools to protect learners’ freedom of religion and states that “Muslim students shall not be required to participate in non-Muslim religious rites”.

A public school head may build spiritual values, but may not use the school’s authority to promote one religion, require worship, or treat people differently by faith.

Purpose, hope and care at school

Fry’s own team separates the two: “spirituality is necessary for religion, but religion is not necessary for spirituality” (Fry et al., 2026, p. 2). To fit public health practice, they suggest plainer words, such as “altruism” for altruistic love and “unwavering belief in a mission and purpose” for hope and faith (p. 6). The same plain words suit a public school.

How strong is the evidence?

Thin. A 2024 systematic review by Katarzyna Piwowar-Sulej and Qaisar Iqbal mapped 167 articles (p. 20). Educational settings were the most common group (n = 22), but surveys were the usual method and only three studies used a multilevel design (p. 23). The most common countries were Indonesia (27 of 126 empirical studies) and China (20); none came from the Philippines (pp. 22–23). Fry’s own tests used organizations “chosen a priori for their high levels of spiritual leadership”, such as a firm that “has God in its mission statement” (Fry and Matherly, 2006, p. 16). Purpose, hope and care are sound habits that overlap with transformational and servant leadership, but no study has tested whether spiritual leadership, as a distinct style, raises learning in Philippine schools.

PPSSH strands: 1.1 and 5.1.

Situational leadership

Definition. Situational leadership, associated with Hersey and Blanchard, says a leader should adjust direction and support to each follower’s readiness. Day, Gu and Sammons describe its four leadership behavior “types” (telling, selling, participating, delegating), which leaders choose according to followers’ “maturity” (accepted manuscript, pp. 8–9).

A DepEd example. A school head gives a first-year teacher a clear lesson-planning routine, coaches a hesitant mid-career teacher, and agrees only on the goal with a master teacher.

The evidence. The evidence base for situational leadership in schools is limited. Day, Gu and Sammons note that Hersey and Blanchard’s model, like contingency theory, was not “generated from research in school contexts”, that it “seems to ignore participation in leadership by others”, and that it drew criticisms, among them a 2009 test by Thompson and Vecchio (accepted manuscript, pp. 8–9). No openly available study tests the model in schools.

The broader idea that leadership must fit the context has more school evidence. “In some situations, leaders may need to focus on orderliness, safety, and civility before they can give fuller attention to the curriculum and teacher professional learning” (Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd, 2009, p. 205). That is an argument about whole schools, not a test of Hersey and Blanchard’s model.

PPSSH strands: 4.5 and 4.6.

Leadership styles of school heads compared

Moderate means meta-analyses find a link to student or teacher outcomes from a limited base; mixed means studies disagree; thin means few school studies, mostly one-time surveys, or none openly available.

“Thin” means the evidence is missing, not that the practices are harmful: caring for teachers and matching support to experience are sensible, just not proven ways to raise learning.

Combining styles by school phase: what a new school head does first

Christopher Day, Qing Gu and Pam Sammons studied how successful principals in England combined transformational and instructional strategies. They surveyed principals and key staff and studied 20 primary and secondary schools that had improved under the same principal (Day, Gu and Sammons, 2016, accepted manuscript, pp. 10–12). They found four broad phases: foundational, developmental, enrichment and renewal (p. 22).

The authors call this “layering”: principals combined strategies “which were timely and fit for purpose” (p. 9). They built a core team first, and “Only later did they distribute leadership responsibilities to the middle leaders and other staff” (p. 23). Improvement rested on “principals’ understanding and diagnosis of their school’s needs” (p. 2). Hallinger agrees that “The type of leadership that is suitable to a certain stage of the journey may become a limiting or even counter-productive force as the school develops”, and that schools at risk “may initially require a more forceful top-down approach focused on instructional improvement” (Hallinger, 2007, p. 5). One limit: Day’s schools were already improving, and every principal had led the school for more than five years (pp. 10–12), so the phases describe what successful principals did, not a tested recipe.

For a newly designated school head in a struggling Philippine school, the evidence suggests this order:

1. Diagnose before you choose, using attendance, reading results and the School-Based Management self-assessment (school-based management guide).
2. Secure the basics: safety, order, attendance and a few shared routines.
3. Build a small core team chosen for strengths and agree on one learning goal.
4. Start the instructional work small: classroom visits with feedback in one grade, and LAC sessions where you learn alongside teachers.
5. Widen leadership as trust grows, giving coordinators real decisions with support.
6. Write it into the school improvement plan, so the priorities outlast your assignment.

The Five Practices and the LPI

Readers may also meet James Kouzes and Barry Posner’s Five Practices of Exemplary Leadership. They are close to transformational leadership: Sun’s meta-analysis counted their Leadership Practices Inventory (LPI) among six models used to measure it, and six of its theses used the LPI (Sun, 2010, pp. 63, 109). The guide to leadership vs management explains each practice with school examples. For leaders who have taken the licensed LPI, Kouzes and Posner’s LPI: Leadership Practices Inventory, Fifth Edition, Development Planner (The Leadership Challenge, a Wiley brand, 2017; ISBN 978-1-119-43013-1) is “designed for leaders who have received feedback using our LPI®” (p. 4) and guides them in turning that feedback into a development plan. The LPI is licensed through the publisher’s leadership assessments page, and the Planner is a separate licensed workbook from the same publisher; this guide does not reproduce their items, behaviors or worksheets.

What the school head does: a self-check from evidence, not labels

Check which practices you carry out, with evidence another person could see. This applies PPSSH indicator 4.1.1, “Conduct self-assessment of personal and professional development needs using the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads”.

1. Name your school’s phase from data, and fill in the table below for the past month.
2. Look at two weeks of your calendar and mark the hours on teaching and learning and on administration. Protect time for teaching; RA 9155 still requires the administration. The pressure is common: in TALIS 2024 systems, which did not include the Philippines, 68% of principals named excessive administrative work as a source of stress “quite a bit” or “a lot” (OECD, 2026, p. 64).
3. Map who leads what, and whether each teacher leader’s role is planned or only assigned.
4. Set one or two dated goals linked to PPSSH indicators, which is indicator 4.1.2 at Career Stage 2. The OPCRF guide explains how a school head’s goals enter the office performance plan.
5. Review them with a mentor. DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 strongly encourages aspiring school heads to join “coaching and mentoring sessions with experienced and proficient school principals”. The Johari Window self-assessment helps you ask colleagues what they see.

The first five rows are the New Zealand synthesis’s dimensions. The roles of a school head on NASH Reviewer set out the six roles to compare against.

Leadership styles and the PPSSH: strands and Career Stage 1 indicators

The PPSSH does not name a leadership style; the word “style” does not appear in DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020. The table gives the Career Stage 1 indicators this topic serves, in the words of the PPSSH.

The PPSSH guide lists every indicator at all four career stages, the PPSSH Domain 4 guide reads strands 4.5 and 4.6 with DepEd data, and the guide from NCBS-SH to PPSSH traces how the standards developed.

Practice: how the NASH may test this

DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025 says the NASH covers “conceptual and situational critical thinking questions aligned with” the PPSSH, using the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy. The three items below are original practice items, not actual or recalled NASH items. Each option is scored 3-2-1-0, as in the NASH practice questions with answers. Timed sets are on the NASH Reviewer assessment page.

Question 1

Indicator 4.5.1, Professional development of school personnel. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

Reading results in a public elementary school have not improved for two years. A master teacher runs a monthly learning action cell (LAC) session on reading. The newly designated school head wants to use the leadership practice that research links most strongly to student outcomes. What should the school head do?

• A. Join the LAC sessions as a participant, work with the teachers on the reading problems they see in their classes, and use what they learn to plan the next sessions.
• B. Nominate the teachers for division trainings on reading, and ask each one to submit a re-echo report and a copy of the certificate to the school head’s office.
• C. Open each LAC session with a short talk on the school’s vision of every learner reading, then leave the rest of the session to the master teacher.
• D. Stop the monthly LAC sessions for now, so that teachers can spend the time in their own classes giving learners more reading practice.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: A. Points: A = 3, B = 2, C = 1, D = 0.

• A (3 points, Relational). It connects the school head’s own learning, the teachers’ classroom problems and the planning of later sessions.
• B (2 points, Multistructural). Training and re-echo reports are useful, but the school head promotes learning from a distance and ties it to paperwork.
• C (1 point, Unistructural). A shared vision matters, but this applies one transformational element and keeps the school head outside the learning.
• D (0 points, Prestructural). It removes the school’s main structure for teacher learning with no evidence that the time would help learners more.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.5.1 asks for knowledge of professional development that enhances strengths and addresses gaps. In Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd’s synthesis, “Promoting and participating in teacher learning and development” had a mean effect size of .84, “twice that of any of the other dimensions”. DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026 defines instructional leadership as support “through evidence-based feedback and contextualized coaching”. The training option gets professional development right but misses the school head’s participation.

Indicator 4.5.1: Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of professional development in enhancing strengths and in addressing performance gaps among school personnel.

Sources: Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009), Table 6 and p. 38; DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Section III; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 2

Indicator 4.6.1, Leadership development in individuals and teams. Career Stage 1, Situational, Difficult.

You are newly designated as teacher-in-charge of a small public elementary school that has had three school heads in five years. Learner attendance is low, some classrooms are unsafe, and teachers work alone with no shared routines. Which plan for your first months best fits the research on leading a school in this situation?

• A. Hand every school program to teacher committees in the first week, since research links distributed leadership to better outcomes and teachers will feel trusted.
• B. Write a new school vision statement, post it at the entrance and in each classroom, and give motivational talks for several months before changing any routines.
• C. Start with safety, attendance and basic routines with a small team chosen for their strengths, set one learning goal from the data, and widen roles as trust grows.
• D. Observe every class each week and give teachers written feedback on their lessons, while the teachers handle attendance and classroom safety on their own.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: C. Points: A = 1, B = 0, C = 3, D = 2.

• A (1 point, Unistructural). It applies one idea, distributed leadership, too early. Successful principals built a core team first and distributed more as trust grew.
• B (0 points, Prestructural). It relies on an abstract vision while the basics fail. In one study, the more strongly principals espoused abstract vision statements, the more negatively their teachers reacted.
• C (3 points, Relational). It connects the school’s phase, leaders chosen for strength, a data-based goal and a planned widening of leadership.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Observation with feedback is sound practice, but it leaves the basics to chance and builds no one else’s leadership.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 4.6.1 asks the school head to identify the strengths of individuals and teams for leadership roles. In Day, Gu and Sammons’s study, principals first improved the environment, behavior and attendance with a core team, and “Only later did they distribute leadership responsibilities”. Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd add that “In some situations, leaders may need to focus on orderliness, safety, and civility before they can give fuller attention to the curriculum and teacher professional learning”. The observation option gets the instructional focus right but ignores the school’s phase.

Indicator 4.6.1: Identify strengths, capabilities and potentials of individuals and teams in performing leadership roles and responsibilities.

Sources: Day, Gu and Sammons (2016); Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009), pp. 97 and 205; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Question 3

Indicator 1.1.1, Vision, mission and core values. Career Stage 1, Situational, Moderate.

At a planning meeting of a public secondary school, a teacher proposes that the school show its Maka-Diyos core value by requiring all teachers and learners to attend a daily prayer service led by the pastor of the teacher’s own church. Several teachers and many learners belong to other faiths. What is the most appropriate response of the school head?

• A. Approve the daily prayer service for everyone, since Maka-Diyos is one of the DepEd core values and a daily service shows the school’s commitment to it.
• B. Reject the proposal and remove all Maka-Diyos activities from the school plan, since a public school must keep every spiritual matter out of its programs.
• C. Make no religious service compulsory, and lead the team in planning activities that build purpose, care and respect for every faith, as the school’s reading of Maka-Diyos.
• D. Allow the prayer service for learners whose parents agree in writing, and leave the rest of the school’s Maka-Diyos activities to the teacher who proposed it.

Answer and explanation

Best answer: C. Points: A = 0, B = 1, C = 3, D = 2.

• A (0 points, Prestructural). Requiring everyone to attend one church’s service conflicts with the separation of Church and State, the free exercise of religion, and DO 32, s. 2013, which directs schools to protect learners’ freedom of religion.
• B (1 point, Unistructural). It sees the limit on religion but drops a DepEd core value. The Constitution asks all schools to “strengthen ethical and spiritual values”.
• C (3 points, Relational). It connects the core value, the constitutional limits and the whole school community in a shared understanding that every faith can accept.
• D (2 points, Multistructural). Written parental consent echoes the rule for optional religious instruction (Article XIV, Section 3(3); DO 49, s. 2009), but a daily service led by one church is worship, not that instruction, and the core value is left to one teacher’s view.

Why. This aligns with Career Stage 1 expectations because indicator 1.1.1 asks for knowledge of the DepEd core values that fosters shared understanding and alignment of school programs. DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013 adopts Maka-Diyos for all schools and leaves its meaning to be worked out “in the context of the Department of Education”. The 1987 Constitution makes the separation of Church and State “inviolable” and allows religion to be taught in public schools only at the parents’ written option, by instructors approved by the religious authorities. DO 49, s. 2009 limits such teaching to optional religion classes, and DO 32, s. 2013 states that “Muslim students shall not be required to participate in non-Muslim religious rites”. The consent option gets one rule right but treats worship as instruction and leaves the core value to a single teacher.

Indicator 1.1.1: Demonstrate knowledge of the DepEd vision, mission and core values to foster shared understanding and alignment of school policies, programs, projects and activities.

Sources: 1987 Constitution, Article II, Section 6, Article III, Section 5, and Article XIV, Section 3; DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2009; DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2013; DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020.

Frequently asked questions

What is the best leadership style for a principal?

No single style is best. Reviews of the research find that successful principals combine practices: setting direction, developing people, shaping the organization and leading the instructional program. In the New Zealand synthesis, the practice most strongly linked to student outcomes was taking part in teachers’ professional learning (.84, from 17 effect sizes in 6 studies).

What leadership style does DepEd require?

None by name. The PPSSH (DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020) does not use the word “style”; it describes practices in five domains. RA 9155 requires every school head to be “both an instructional leader and administrative manager”.

Is instructional leadership better than transformational leadership?

Instructional leadership has the stronger link to student achievement (.42 against .11 in the New Zealand synthesis), while transformational leadership is more strongly linked to teachers’ commitment. The comparison rests on few studies, and the researchers recommend combining the two.

What are the types of educational leadership?

The types most often taught are instructional, transformational, transactional, distributed, servant, spiritual and situational leadership. Bush’s 2007 typology adds managerial, participative, interpersonal, post-modern, contingency and moral leadership, and calls each model “partial”.

What is spiritual leadership in education?

In Louis Fry’s model, spiritual leadership builds vision, hope and altruistic love so that staff feel called and appreciated. In a Philippine public school it can be practiced as purpose, hope and care that respect every faith, in keeping with the Maka-Diyos core value and without promoting any religion. The evidence that it improves learning is thin.

What is situational leadership in schools?

It is the idea that a leader adjusts direction and support to each person’s readiness, such as directing a new teacher and delegating to an experienced one. Its evidence base in schools is limited: the model was not built from school research, and no openly available study tests it in schools.

More on school leadership

This post is part of a series on what a school head does under the DepEd rules in force today. Related posts:

• Instructional Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• Transformational Leadership for DepEd School Heads
• Distributed Leadership in DepEd: Head and Master Teachers
• From NCBS-SH to PPSSH: DepEd Standards for School Heads
• Principal, Head Teacher or Teacher-in-Charge in DepEd
• OPCRF for DepEd School Heads in 2026: What Applies Now
• Leadership vs Management for School Heads: Five Practices
• RA 9155 Duties of DepEd School Heads: 12 Areas Explained
• Change Management in Schools: A Guide for DepEd School Heads
• DepEd Instructional Supervision: Observing and Coaching
• DepEd Learning Action Cell (LAC) Guidelines: DO 35, s. 2016
• PPSSH Domain 4: Developing Self and Others With DepEd Data
• On the app: The roles of a school head, the six roles in one guide; the PPSSH guide, with every indicator at all four career stages; the Johari Window self-assessment; and the principal shortage in numbers

Sources

DepEd issuances and laws

• DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020, National Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for School Heads.
• DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013, Our Department of Education Vision, Mission and Core Values (DepEd VMV).
• DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2009, Reiterating the Revised Rules and Regulations on the Teaching of Religion in Public Elementary and Secondary Schools.
• DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2013, Reiterating DECS Order No. 53, s. 2001 (Strengthening the Protection of Religious Rights of Students).
• DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026, Guidelines on Lesson Planning and Learning Design, Section III.
• DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025, Administration of the National Assessment for School Heads for Fiscal Year 2025.
• Republic Act No. 9155, Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, Section 7(E).
• The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, Article II, Section 6; Article III, Section 5; Article XIV, Section 3.
• EDCOM II, “EDCOM pushes for 2027 budget to close the gap in school principals nationwide”, news release, October 18, 2026.

Research on leadership and its effects

• Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., and Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How Leadership Influences Student Learning. The Wallace Foundation.
• Leithwood, K., Harris, A., and Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. Accepted manuscript; pages are the manuscript’s.
• Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., and Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to Improved Student Learning. University of Minnesota and University of Toronto, for the Wallace Foundation.
• Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., and Lloyd, C. (2009). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying What Works and Why. Best Evidence Synthesis Iteration. New Zealand Ministry of Education.
• Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., and Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
• Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., and Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research. The Wallace Foundation.
• Papadakis, S., et al. (2024). Investigating the relationship between leadership for learning and student achievement through the mediation of teacher performance. Education Sciences, 14(12), 1320. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14121320
• Kraft, M. A., and Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500. Author manuscript in PubMed Central.
• Day, C., Gu, Q., and Sammons, P. (2016). The impact of leadership on student outcomes. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 221–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616863. Pages are those of the accepted manuscript (University of Nottingham repository).
• Bush, T. (2007). Educational leadership and management: Theory, policy, and practice. South African Journal of Education, 27(3), 391–406.
• Hallinger, P. (2007). Research on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership: Retrospect and prospect. ACER Research Conference 2007. Pages are the PDF’s.
• Hallinger, P. (2011). Leadership for learning: Lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125–142. Pages are those of the pre-published version.
• Supovitz, J. A., D’Auria, J., and Spillane, J. P. (2019). Meaningful & Sustainable School Improvement with Distributed Leadership. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Research on each style

• Sun, J. (2010). A Review of Transformational Leadership Research: A Meta-Analytic Approach [Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto].
• Nohe, C., and Hertel, G. (2017). Transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A meta-analytic test of underlying mechanisms. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01364
• Batista-Foguet, J. M., Esteve, M., and van Witteloostuijn, A. (2021). Measuring leadership: An assessment of the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire. PLOS ONE, 16(7), e0254329. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0254329
• Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., and Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. Pages are those of the authors’ manuscript.
• Harris, A., Jones, M., and Ismail, N. (2022). Distributed leadership: Taking a retrospective and contemporary view of the evidence base. School Leadership & Management, 42(5), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2109620. Pages are the online-first version’s.
• Tian, M., Risku, M., and Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576. Pages are those of the accepted manuscript (University of Jyväskylä repository).
• OECD (2016). School Leadership for Learning: Insights from TALIS 2013. OECD Publishing.
• Robert K. Greenleaf Center for Servant Leadership. What is servant leadership? Quoting Greenleaf’s 1970 essay.
• Eva, N., et al. (2019). Servant leadership: A systematic review and call for future research. The Leadership Quarterly, 30(1), 111–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2018.07.004
• Fry, L. W., and Matherly, L. L. (2006). Spiritual leadership and organizational performance: An exploratory study. Academy of Management meeting paper.
• Fry, L. W., et al. (2026). The relevance of spiritual leadership to public health: Values, meaning and purpose. Frontiers in Public Health, 13, 1632959. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2025.1632959
• Piwowar-Sulej, K., and Iqbal, Q. (2024). A systematic literature review on spiritual leadership: Antecedents, mechanism, moderators and outcomes. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 37(8), 18–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-11-2023-0483
• Thompson, G., and Vecchio, R. P. (2009). Situational leadership theory: A test of three versions. The Leadership Quarterly, 20(5), 837–848.
• Kouzes, J. M., and Posner, B. Z. (2017). LPI: Leadership Practices Inventory, Fifth Edition, Development Planner. The Leadership Challenge, a Wiley brand. ISBN 978-1-119-43013-1. Licensed; described, not reproduced.

Philippine and international data

• OECD. TALIS participants. As of October 30, 2026, the Philippines is not listed.
• OECD (2026). The Value of School Principals in TALIS 2024. OECD Publishing.
• Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Foy, P., Kelly, D. L., and Fishbein, B. (2020). TIMSS 2019 International Results in Mathematics and Science, Exhibits 6.19 and 6.21. TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
• UNICEF and SEAMEO (2025). SEA-PLM 2024 Main Regional Report: Children’s Learning in 6 Southeast Asian Countries, pp. 122–125.
• OECD (2023). PISA 2022 Results: Factsheets – Philippines, pp. 7–8. OECD Publishing.
• Ulit, J. C. (2025). Impact of school heads’ instructional leadership on teaching and learning outcomes: Philippine’s context. Divine Word International Journal of Management and Humanities, 4(3), 2109–2126. https://doi.org/10.62025/dwijmh.v4i3.188

Written by Mark Anthony Llego for NASH Reviewer. Sources: DepEd Order No. 024, s. 2020 and the PPSSH; DepEd Order No. 36, s. 2013; DepEd Order No. 49, s. 2009; DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2013; DepEd Order No. 016, s. 2026; DepEd Memorandum No. 069, s. 2025; Republic Act No. 9155; the 1987 Constitution; Leithwood et al. (2004, 2020); Louis et al. (2010); Robinson, Hohepa and Lloyd (2009); Grissom, Egalite and Lindsay (2021); Day, Gu and Sammons (2016); Sun (2010); Eva et al. (2019); Piwowar-Sulej and Iqbal (2024); Fry and Matherly (2006); Fry et al. (2026).