Balancing Tradition, Reform, and Constraints: A Study of Principal Leadership Practices in Chinese Primary Schools

Abstract

It is well-established that principal leadership significantly influences student learning in developed countries, yet much less is known about how leadership practices manifest in complex systems like China’s, where rapid modernization intersects with deep-rooted educational traditions. In particular, Chinese principals face multiple challenges in balancing the implementation of educational reform policies, high parental expectations, and their own educational ideology, all within limited resources. The current study examines these challenges in Shenzhen, a city which typically manifests them through its rapid development. Specifically, we took a phenomenographic approach and interviewed the principals and staff from five prestigious primary schools to extract the key components behind the diverse school leaders’ styles and practices. Results showed that, the Chinese leadership practice model consists of five key components: mission setting, infrastructure reconstruction, teacher development, learning improvement, and educators’ networking. Although the first four components in this model align with established theories in developed countries, networking was identified as a distinctive and critical element for securing resources and fostering collaboration. These findings may broaden the scope of leadership theories and underscore the need to contextualize leadership practices based on local challenges and dynamics. It also offers practical insights for school leaders on navigating challenges to improve teacher and student outcomes.

1. Introduction

The Principal’s leadership has long been recognized as one of the key determinants of a school’s success, playing a pivotal role in fostering teacher motivation, shaping instructional practices, enhancing student learning, and spearheading school reforms (Bush & Glover, 2014; Y. Liu et al., 2021; Ng et al., 2015; Shepherd-Jones & Salisbury-Glennon, 2018). Over the past several decades, extensive research conducted primarily in developed countries (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 2008, 2020; Sun et al., 2024) has contributed substantially to our understanding of how school leaders influence a broad range of outcomes by balancing top-down directives with collaborative, teacher-centered strategies. The studies resulted in a series of pioneering theoretical models, such as the Instructional Leadership Model, the Transformational Leadership Model, and the Distributed Leadership Model.

Despite the conceptual and empirical advances, there is a lack of research on leadership practices in China, where principals must navigate different cultural, political, and resource landscapes. In particular, the Chinese education system, as one of the largest and most dynamic in the world, offers a unique setting in which to explore how leadership practices have adapted to address complex socio-cultural imperatives (Walker et al., 2012; Walker & Qian, 2015). With over 291 million students spread across millions of educational institutions (Yan, 2024), Chinese principals are at the forefront of implementing national education reforms while simultaneously contending with limited resources, high parental expectations, and deep-seated cultural traditions, especially in the new digital age. Thus, studying Chinese principals’ leadership practices may bring insights to advance the leadership theories and contribute to the diversity and innovations of the global leadership practices.

The Evolution of Principal Leadership Models

In historically centralized educational systems, principals were traditionally seen as top–down administrators who enforced policies and maintained order. The Instructional Leadership Model, which emerged in the mid-1980s, typified the principal as an authoritative figure directly managing teaching and learning processes (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985). However, subsequent decades witnessed a paradigmatic shift toward approaches that emphasize inspiration, motivation, and shared responsibility. Transformational Leadership, for example, has been credited with empowering teachers to embrace change and pursue innovative practices (Bass, 1985; Abuhassira et al., 2024). The evolution continued with the development of Distributed Leadership, wherein leadership responsibilities are decentralized, thereby promoting collective decision-making and teacher collaboration (Spillane et al., 2001; Bellibaş et al., 2024). More recently, Learning-Centered Leadership has emerged, emphasizing continuous learning, evidence-based instructional improvement, and fostering a school-wide culture dedicated to professional development (Murphy et al., 2006; Alanoglu, 2023; Hammad et al., 2024). This progression demonstrates a shift from rigid, directive leadership towards more adaptive, collaborative models. It is important to note that leadership models such as Transformational and Distributed leadership are not necessarily incompatible with centralized systems. Rather, in such contexts, they are often adapted or hybridized. For example, what may appear as Distributed Leadership may, in practice, be a form of “delegated authority” within strict policy boundaries. Similarly, Instructional Leadership in China often blends autonomy with accountability, allowing principals to exercise pedagogical influence while remaining aligned with top-down directives (Guo & Lu, 2018).

These adaptations are partly a response to structural reforms initiated in the early 2000s, when the Ministry of Education called for a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction and allowed approximately 10% of the curriculum to be locally designed (Zhong, 2006). As principals were tasked with mediating this shift under tight policy constraints, the need for culturally responsive and locally grounded leadership models became increasingly evident.

Moreover, Qian et al. (2017) have argued that Western-derived models such as Transformational and Distributed Leadership may not fully account for the structural and cultural conditions of Chinese schools. They caution against assuming a universal applicability of these frameworks, particularly in hierarchical, exam-oriented systems where principal authority remains strong and external accountability pressures are high. Their critique reinforces the importance of exploring how leadership practices in China are pragmatically adapted—rather than merely adopted—from global theories.

This suggests that leadership practice under centralization is not a contradiction, but a negotiation between compliance and contextual adaptation.

Studies conducted in diverse cultural backgrounds have further illuminated the contextual nature of leadership practices. In Western contexts, the focus has often been on fostering instructional clarity, teacher autonomy, and student-centered learning (Quinn, 2002). In contrast, research from non-Western environments, particularly in China, reveals that principals must simultaneously respect traditional norms and manage the pressures of sweeping reforms (Qian et al., 2017). Recent literature emphasizes the importance of adaptive leadership in such context, where principals must balance the pressures of centralized directives with the needs for localized implementation, leading to adaptability and innovation in educational practices, which also fostered Learning-Centered Leadership (S. Liu et al., 2016).

Despite their influence, these leadership models, particularly Transformational and Distributed Leadership, inevitably have some limitations. One key critique is their strong anchoring in decentralized, Western education systems, where school leaders typically enjoy substantial autonomy (Qian et al., 2017; Walker & Qian, 2015). When applied to centralized contexts like China, these models risk underestimating structural constraints, such as top-down policy mandates and rigid accountability mechanisms, that limit the scope for local innovation and shared leadership. Additionally, these models often assume a flattened organizational culture, which may not align with the hierarchical norms present in Confucian-heritage systems.

Challenges of Principal Leadership in the Chinese Context

Chinese schools were operated within a framework that was shaped by decades of centralized planning, strong national educational policies, and ingrained cultural values. With curriculum reforms in the early 21st century, the traditional centralized approaches were demanded to shift into student-centered approaches (Ministry of Education, China, 2001). For example, the reforms allocated approximately 10% of curriculum time to school-based programs, which were better tailored to individual student needs (Zhong, 2006). This shift had thus posed big challenges to principals operating within a historically centralized system (Qian et al., 2017).

A critical challenge in Chinese principals’ leadership practices is the integration of long-standing educational traditions with the imperatives of modern reforms. Traditional Chinese educational philosophies, deeply rooted in Confucian ideals, emphasize respect for authority, rote learning, and hierarchical relationships (Lu & Jover, 2019). At the same time, rapid economic development and globalization have generated mounting pressure to modernize educational practices and foster creativity, critical thinking, and digital literacy. As a result, such tension often leaves principals struggling to mediate between established practices that valorize discipline and conformity and the emerging need for a more innovative, learner-centered approach.

Moreover, resource constraints further complicate the duties of school leaders in China. Many primary schools in urban villages and suburbs face challenges related to limited funding, inadequate facilities, teacher shortages, and insufficient technological infrastructure. In response, successful principals may have to develop innovative strategies that leverage available resources, create partnerships with local communities, and even build social capital through networking. This networking dimension is particularly noteworthy because it reflects an adaptive response to the complex and multifaceted challenges that confront Chinese school leaders.

Another challenge faced by Chinese principals is the need to balance exam-driven traditions with broader educational goals. The high parental expectation on students’ standardized test scores creates a performance-oriented environment that often prioritizes short-term academic metrics over long-term educational development. In such an environment, principals must carefully calibrate their leadership practices to ensure that the demands for high test scores do not eclipse comprehensive educational growth. Therefore, initiatives aimed at curriculum innovation and the integration of digital tools—such as AI-enhanced learning platforms introduced following the new national guidance (Ministry of Education, China, 2024)—must be strategically used.

Furthermore, the socio-political landscape in China adds another layer of complexity to principal leadership. The interplay between state directives, local community values, and individual school cultures demands a nuanced understanding of both local norms and international best practices (Qian et al., 2017). Against this backdrop, the current study focuses on understanding how Chinese principals navigate these challenges.

Rationale and Objectives of the Current Study

The current study is designed to examine Chinese principals’ leadership practices from five prestigious primary schools in Shenzhen—the pioneer city of China’s reform and opening-up policy since the 1980s, which underwent rapid urbanization from a fishing village to the third most populous city in China since 2020. Shenzhen was selected for this study due to its rapid urbanization, which has led to a unique blend of traditional practices, ongoing reforms, and resource constraints within its education system, such as overcrowded classrooms. Primary schools were chosen because, unlike secondary schools, they are less influenced by the intense pressures of high-stakes examinations, allowing for a more unbiased practice of principals’ leadership. By adopting a phenomenographic approach and conducting in-depth interviews with school leaders and staff, this study seeks to extract the key components from the diverse leadership styles and practices of the principals in unique contexts.

In particular, we mainly aimed to address the following questions:

• How do Chinese principals adapt established leadership models—such as instructional, transformational, and distributed leadership—within a highly centralized education system?
• What specific leadership practices do Chinese principals employ to balance exam-driven policies with the needs for school-based innovation and teacher development?
• How do the cultural and political contexts, alongside resource constraints, shape and constrain principal leadership strategies in Chinese primary schools?

By addressing these questions, this study may contribute to the global knowledge on educational leadership while offering practical implications for schools in other countries facing similar challenges or engaging in cross-cultural collaboration with Chinese institutions.

2. Materials and Methods

The Research Design and Data Collection

Previous studies have emphasized the need for richer empirical data to strengthen the knowledge base on principal leadership, particularly in non-Western contexts where cultural, political, and institutional conditions differ significantly (Guo & Lu, 2018; Qian et al., 2017; Walker & Qian, 2015). Given that leadership is not a standalone construct but is enacted within specific organizational, cultural, and policy environments, qualitative approaches that explore principals’ lived experiences and meaning-making processes are essential. In this study, the phenomenon under investigation is the way in which Chinese primary school principals understand, adapt, and enact leadership practices in response to educational reform, resource constraints, and cultural expectations. We approach this through a phenomenographic lens, which seeks to capture the variation in how these principals experience and conceptualize their leadership roles. After evaluating the effectiveness of the “time use” approach—a method that involves systematically recording how individuals allocate their time across various activities throughout the day—we determined that interview is a more suitable method to acquire indepth information regarding our research questions (Grissom et al., 2013). Time-use methods are better suited for quantifying how much time principals spend on various tasks, but they do not capture the subjective experiences and reasoning that underlie leadership practices. Since the aim of this study was to explore how principals perceive, interpret, and adapt leadership models within a unique cultural and institutional context, open-ended interviews were deemed more appropriate.

To acquire unbiased data, we avoided semi-structured interview questions based on existing leadership models (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood et al., 2008; Grissom & Loeb, 2011), as their phrasing could bias principals’ responses toward researchers’ assumptions (Qian et al., 2017). In our interviews, we employed a phenomenographic approach (Marton, 2004), initiating with broad, open-ended questions to explore principals’ perceptions of their roles. Follow-up questions were designed to elicit detailed narratives and the reasoning behind their decisions. Our approach recognizes that leadership practices are influenced by contextual factors and may vary across different settings. If principals’ leadership practices are consistent across cultures, a general framework of leadership practices would suffice for analysis.

Here are some examples of the guiding interview questions used during the conversations:

“Can you describe what you see as your main responsibilities as a school principal?”

“What challenges have you faced in leading your school, and how have you responded to them?”

“How do you set goals and guide your staff toward achieving them?”

“What strategies have you found effective in supporting teacher development or improving student learning?”

Samples

This study employed purposive sampling to select five principals from prestigious primary schools in Shenzhen. Purposive sampling was chosen because it allows researchers to deliberately select information-rich cases that can illuminate the central phenomenon under study—in this case, leadership practices in the context of educational reform in China.

In China, primary schools span 6 years, while junior and senior high schools each span 3 years. The allocation of students to junior and senior high schools is usually through very competitive entrance examinations if the students want to be admitted to the top-tier schools. Therefore, the principal leadership practices of junior and senior high schools are largely influenced by the demands for good examination results (Qian et al., 2017; Zhong, 2006). To rule out the bias, only principals of primary schools were selected in our study. The primary school principals are more likely to adopt “autonomy” strategies in instructional activities related to the contexts and needs of the schools (Grissom et al., 2013; Romain, 2018). All five principals were selected for their strong public reputations from prestigious primary schools.

In the Chinese education system, “prestigious schools” (known as mingxiao in Chinese) refer to schools that are widely recognized by parents, local communities, and education authorities for their strong academic performance, distinctive educational features, and social influence. These schools often rank among the top in their districts in terms of student achievement and are frequently designated by government education departments as “model schools,” “base schools,” or “characteristic schools.” Such designations reflect a school’s exemplary status in areas such as innovation, curriculum design, or teacher development. Prestigious schools were purposefully selected for this study because they are often the first to be tasked with implementing new educational reforms and are under particularly high pressure from both government and parental expectations. As such, their principals tend to demonstrate highly adaptive and visible leadership practices that reflect the broader systemic tensions between policy mandates, school-based innovation, and cultural values. This makes them especially suitable for a phenomenographic study aimed at exploring the range and depth of leadership conceptions and practices. While we acknowledge that such schools may not represent the full diversity of Chinese schools, they serve as critical cases (Flyvbjerg, 2006) that illuminate leadership responses under conditions of reform intensity and public scrutiny.

Specifically, the study involved five public primary schools in Shenzhen: YG Primary School, LQ Primary School, FN Primary School, JKY Primary School, and HQC Primary School.

Table 1. Anonymized profiles of participating schools.

School (Code)	Type	Approx. Number of Students	Location	Principal Tenure	Notable Features
YG Primary School	Public, Guangdong Provincial Key School	1496	Yantian District	4–12 years (based on Shenzhen appointment policy)	36 teaching classes; well-equipped; district-level flagship school
LQ Primary School	Public, District-Level Experimental School	1688	Yantian District	4–12 years (based on Shenzhen appointment policy)	36 teaching classes; curriculum reform pilot school
FN Primary School	Public, Guangdong Provincial Key School	2437	Futian District	4–12 years (based on Shenzhen appointment policy)	50 teaching classes; 154 staff; known for aerobics curriculum focus
JKY Primary School	Public, Affiliated with Education Research Institute	1346	Futian District	4–12 years (based on Shenzhen appointment policy)	Strong research-practice integration; emphasis on curricular innovation
HQC Primary School	Public, Member of Nanshan Foreign Language Group	2030	Nanshan District	4–12 years (based on Shenzhen appointment policy)	Group-based school; known for foreign language and international focus

presents anonymized profiles of the participating schools, including school type, student population, geographic location, estimated principal tenure, and key institutional characteristics. While no personally identifying information is disclosed, this background enables readers to better situate the findings within the diverse urban education landscape of Shenzhen. Regarding the principal’s tenure, according to the Shenzhen Guidelines for the Appointment and Evaluation of School Leadership Teams, primary school principals are typically appointed for an initial term of 4 years, with the possibility of renewal up to a total of 12 years. In the absence of individual-level disclosure, principal tenure across the five cases is thus conservatively estimated within this policy-defined range.

The principals selected from these schools were recognized for their strong public reputation. This was assessed through multiple indicators, including designation by local education bureaus as exemplary leaders, recognition in city- or district-level education forums, and media or public acknowledgment for successful school initiatives. All five principals were also referred by a senior university professor with deep expertise in school leadership research and long-standing connections in Shenzhen’s educational community. These referrals were further verified through school websites and local education reports to ensure participant credibility.

Framework of Analysis

Leadership is not a standalone discipline but a field of professional practice enacted within specific school contexts, shaped by political, social, and cultural forces (Walker & Hallinger, 2015). While there is a general belief that leadership practices are consistent across societies, the ways in which principals enact these practices often differ due to contextual factors (Walker & Qian, 2015). Notably, models of principal leadership practices proposed by Leithwood and Seashore-Louis (2011) and Walker and Hallinger (2015) share commonalities, each outlining four dimensions of leadership, though their terminologies may vary (Robinson et al., 2008). For the differences, Zheng et al. (2017) conducted a comprehensive study involving 9165 teachers across 613 secondary schools in China, utilizing Grissom and Loeb’s (2011) measurement framework originally developed for American principals. Their findings introduced an additional leadership dimension—external relations—which encompasses principals’ engagement with stakeholders beyond the school, such as parents, community organizations, and government agencies. This highlights the importance of context-specific factors in shaping leadership practices.

Table 2. Models of principal leadership practices.

Leithwood and Seashore-Louis (2011)	Walker and Hallinger (2015)	Zheng et al. (2017)
Setting direction	Vision	Planning and personnel
Redesigning organization	Shared decision making	Internal environment organization
Developing people	Leadership competences, styles	Visibility and direct participation
Improving student program	Influences on student learning	Instruction organization
Educators’ networking		External relations

outlines the leadership dimensions identified in different analytical frameworks.

The first two frameworks were primarily developed based on Western data and situated within Western contextual frameworks. While there are similarities, the wording differs slightly. For example, “setting direction” and “vision” denote the role of principals in shaping consensus-driven discussions among staff regarding schools’ collective missions and visions. “Improving student program” and “influences on student learning” are closely related. “Redesigning organization” refers to modifying the school’s internal decision-making processes and structures, while “shared decision making” emphasizes collaborative decision-making involving various stakeholders within the school community. “Developing people” refers specifically to the principal’s role in enhancing teachers’ professional capacities through mentoring and job-embedded learning opportunities. In contrast, “leadership competencies and styles” is a broader term encompassing various leadership approaches and traits, which may not directly focus on teacher professional development. In the Instructional Leadership Model proposed by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), the dimension of “promoting a positive school learning climate” encompasses leadership activities such as planning professional learning for teachers and providing incentives to motivate them. Zheng et al. (2017) introduced an additional leadership dimension—external relations, which reflects the importance of principals’ sensitivity to external relationships and their ability to leverage these connections to advance school development. Zheng et al.’s (2017) framework was used as a foundational reference due to its empirical grounding in the Chinese context and its incorporation of both instructional and managerial leadership dimensions. However, we simplified this framework for two key reasons. First, our phenomenographic approach did not aim to test predefined dimensions, but to inductively surface principals’ conceptions and strategies from open-ended interviews. Second, several overlapping dimensions (e.g., “planning and personnel” vs. “internal environment organization”) were collapsed to avoid redundancy and better reflect the holistic, practice-based nature of the responses. The simplification allowed us to capture core leadership dimensions while maintaining analytic clarity.

Drawing on established leadership theories (e.g., Hallinger & Murphy, 1985; Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Zheng et al., 2017), we developed this conceptual framework that served as a theoretical lens through which to explore and interpret Chinese principals’ leadership practices. Rather than proposing a prescriptive model, we view these five dimensions as interrelated domains of practice that help describe how leadership is exercised and experienced in everyday school life, shaped by shifting institutional, policy, and cultural conditions. This framework informed both the design of the interview guide and the thematic organization of the findings, while remaining flexible enough to accommodate emergent themes. This approach acknowledges that principals’ leadership practices may vary according to the specific political and developmental contexts of their schools (Romain, 2018). Such contextual differences are anticipated to be reflected in the interview data.

The hypothetical model was explained in

Table 3. Dimensions of leadership practices.

Dimension	Description
Mission setting	Principals understand the specific contexts of the school and the members within the community. Then, they identify the visions and missions that guide school reforms.
Infrastructure reconstruction	Principals strategically reorganize a school’s physical and organizational structures to better support educational goals and adapt to evolving needs.
Teacher development	Principals purposely provide professional development opportunities for teachers. And some infrastructure may be introduced to strengthen the professional capacity of the teachers.
Learning improvement	Principals make specific efforts in upgrading the quality of student programs and the instructional qualities of teaching and learning
Educators’ networking	Principals spend time on establishing professional relationship with the local education bureau, the international community, and parents to seek supportive resources to improve education quality.

and illustrated in Figure 1.

In Figure 1, “mission setting” was positioned at the center to reflect its theoretical salience in both Western and Chinese leadership literature, as well as its prominence in existing models (e.g., “vision,” “setting direction,” or “planning and personnel” in Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Walker & Hallinger, 2015; and Zheng et al., 2017). This central placement also served as a conceptual anchor for analyzing how principals align leadership activities—such as teacher development or instructional reform—with a shared school mission. While this model was developed prior to data collection, its relevance was later supported by the interview findings, in which all five principals independently emphasized mission-driven leadership as a foundation for school improvement.

To clarify the framework’s role in the analysis, it was applied during axial coding to guide the categorization of inductively generated codes. It helped organize emerging concepts into broader domains while remaining open to refinement based on the data. During selective coding, the framework was further adapted—most notably in the “educators’ networking” dimension—to better reflect the leadership practices observed.

Data Coding and Analysis Procedures

Data were analyzed using a three-stage coding process, following grounded theory principles. In the first stage, open coding was conducted to break down interview transcripts into discrete concepts and identify initial themes based on participants’ language and perspectives. In the second stage, axial coding was used to organize these codes into broader categories by examining relationships among concepts. At this stage, we referenced the conceptual framework to guide the categorization while remaining open to emergent structures. In the third stage, selective coding was applied to integrate and refine the core themes, resulting in the development of five interrelated domains of leadership practice. These domains were grounded in the data but abstracted to a level that could support theoretical insight and broader interpretation. To enhance validity, we employed investigator triangulation: two researchers independently coded all transcripts and then compared interpretations. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Member checking was also conducted with two participants to confirm the resonance of the findings with their perspectives.

To protect participants’ confidentiality, only the first letters of principals’ and schools’ names are used (e.g., Principal Y), rather than full pseudonyms. Additional identifying details have been omitted or altered where necessary to prevent recognition, in accordance with standard ethical practices in qualitative research.

3. Results

The findings support a hybrid leadership model consisting of five dimensions: mission setting, infrastructure reconstruction, teacher development, learning improvement, and educators’ networking. While the model draws conceptually from existing frameworks (Leithwood, Walker, and Zheng), the interview data revealed nuanced variations in how principals prioritized and enacted each dimension. These variations reflect adaptation to the schools’ differing institutional mandates, community expectations, and stages of development. Notably, the dimension of “educators’ networking” emerged inductively as a culturally embedded leadership strategy in response to external resource constraints and reform demands.

Mission Setting

The interview employed open-ended questions without specific directions to guide the five principals toward particular leadership practices. Nevertheless, all five principals independently began by emphasizing the importance of establishing and sharing the school’s mission or vision among all teachers. Principal S said that the principal should “lead” the school in establishing shared goals that guide its development plans. Principal W emphasized that a school’s mission must be shared among all members, as it unites the staff and enhances teachers’ commitment. Principal Y took the leadership role when the school was in difficulties of attracting students from the local community. She believed that the school’s mission should be rooted in the educational philosophies of early Chinese educators, particularly Tao Xingzhi. Specifically, she emphasized the importance of a shared mission among teachers:

I told the reporters that the success depends on the “heart” of the teachers in the school… not money or resources. How can we achieve this? We have a shared mission for the school…What do we want the school to become? Our mission must be shared among all members of the school…

Principal C elaborated on the school mission with three key components. First, the school mission must align with the mission of the Communist Party of China. Second, the school mission should be based on the traditional values in the Chinese culture such as Confucius and Taoist educational philosophies. Last but not least, the principal advocated for learning from contemporary Western educators such as Montessori and Dewey. She believed that these three components collectively form the “spirit” of the school. She emphasized the importance of blending traditional and international cultures to foster a holistic educational environment.

All the principals emphasized the importance of aligning the school’s mission with student learning, demonstrating an acute awareness of the diverse social and family backgrounds of their students. This approach reflects a commitment to culturally responsive leadership, where educational goals are tailored to meet the varied needs of the student population. By integrating these considerations into their leadership practices, the principals aim to foster an inclusive and supportive learning environment for all the students. For example, Principal Q from FN Primary school said,

…our mission is like a compass for each child’s personal growth. Recognizing that children come from diverse backgrounds and return to their hometowns upon completing their education, we aim to equip them with the values and skills necessary to succeed wherever they go. By fostering a shared mission within our school community, we ensure that every child is prepared to thrive in any direction they choose to pursue.

While all five principals emphasized the importance of having a clear mission, their approaches varied. For instance, Principal Y saw the mission as a strategic lever for school repositioning, whereas Principal W viewed it as a moral compass for teacher development. This reflects variation in how mission setting is linked to school priorities and leadership philosophy.

Moreover, the process of establishing that mission varied. In most cases, principals led the mission-setting process based on district policy directions and their personal educational philosophy. However, several principals described seeking input from senior teachers or school leadership teams, especially when repositioning their schools during reform. This reflects a partially collective approach, where the principal maintains strategic direction but incorporates feedback from internal stakeholders to enhance buy-in and contextual relevance.

Infrastructure Reconstruction

Although discussed less frequently than other dimensions, infrastructure reconstruction emerged as a strategic leadership practice in moments of institutional transition or reform-driven restructuring. In these cases, principals used physical renovation not only to improve facilities but also to reshape school identity, boost morale, and signal a shift in values to internal and external stakeholders.

First, Principal Y, who worked during a challenging period at her school, implemented extensive infrastructure improvements. She upgraded the school canteen to improve food quality, replaced the teachers’ chairs, and provided gifts for the children of teachers who volunteered for additional activities. Moreover, she established several new organizational units—such as a quality control center, a student growth center, a teacher development center, an international information center, and a service center—each with clearly defined responsibilities. Furthermore, new collaboration platforms were established to foster partnerships with schools in Finland, the University of Wisconsin, Stanford University, and Beijing Normal University. These platforms enabled teachers to collaborate with experts in designing and implementing project-based learning in classrooms that typically accommodate 50 students in China, integrating project learning with the national curriculum.

On the institutional management level, two principals emphasized the decision-making process known as “democratic centralism.” It allows all staff members to voice their opinions, but the principal retains the authority to make final decisions. For example, Principal S has referred this decision-making process as “minzhu-jizhong” (in Chinese pinyin), beneficial for gathering diverse perspectives and wisdom of the teachers to support the principal’s final decisions.

Regarding management styles, the principals exhibited differing approaches. Principal Q described his approach as “flattened management”, focusing on building trust-based relationships with teachers. In contrast, Principal C adopted “bottom-up” approaches, encouraging teachers to participate in development activities and propose innovative changes to instructional practices in her school.

Among the principals, only a few discussed infrastructure reconstruction in depth, often in response to structural reforms or school mergers. Principal Y highlighted it as a transformational tool to redefine school identity, while Principal C viewed it more pragmatically as a means of optimizing existing space. The difference underscores how infrastructure is seen either as symbolic leadership or operational necessity, depending on school context.

Teacher Development

All the principals interviewed emphasized their leadership role in providing professional development opportunities for teachers. Four of them employed similar strategies to foster professional communities that connected experienced and novice teachers. Principal S, in particular, adopted an integrative approach by engaging the most experienced teachers as mentors for younger and newly recruited staff, especially in the years close to the senior teachers’ retirement. She described this approach as creating a “big family” environment within the school:

Young teachers felt that senior teachers cared about both their work and personal lives, creating a family-like atmosphere. In turn, senior teachers found meaning in their school roles before retirement through mentoring…

Principal W often reminded young teachers that teaching is not a repetitive or boring job: “Teaching is innovative and creative; it is a task of wisdom.” She launched programs such as reading groups to enhance new teachers’ cultural literacy and established various platforms to support their professional growth. These actions reflected her strong commitment to teacher development. As principal, she took on leadership responsibilities across all subject areas. She explained:

My role in guiding teachers was essential. No teacher would be left behind. A principal must lead teachers in their thinking, help them develop intrinsic motivation, explain why certain practices are necessary, and provide detailed analysis. I joined each subject team, offered specific suggestions, and created platforms to help them become experts in their fields.

She regularly conducted training sessions on pedagogical approaches such as problem-based learning, project-based learning, and integrated learning, illustrating their application through real examples from her own teaching. For instance, she utilized school resources to support six teachers in receiving professional training in Australia and Singapore.

Moreover, the principal implemented several strategies to strengthen faculty cohesion, which contributed to the school’s rising rankings and an increase in student enrollment each semester. First, she was mindful of teachers who struggled with low self-esteem when assigning tasks. She encouraged them to earn respect through their work, reminding them to proudly demonstrate their identity as members of the school community. Meanwhile, she advised senior staff—some of whom lacked modern educational training or future prospects in education—to maintain a positive and respectful attitude toward their work. She also invited retired teachers to school reunions, where they were encouraged to share stories of their achievements and positive experiences, reinforcing a sense of legacy and pride. Second, the principal actively motivated her staff by providing them with opportunities to present their work to colleagues. When teachers shared their experiences, she would visit their children’s school to present a small gift and tell the children that their parents were outstanding teachers. If the teachers were away on a trip, she would send movie or concert tickets to their children, accompanied by the same message of appreciation. Through these thoughtful actions, Principal W fostered a culture of recognition, sharing, and care within the school community.

Principal C had another strategy. She observed that teachers were often subject-focused, with their primary interest centered on teaching their own disciplines. However, she believed that effective professional development must be rooted in high-quality pedagogical training. To this end, she invited experts from other schools, universities, and even international institutions to conduct teaching and learning activities—such as lesson demonstrations and collaborative study sessions. These opportunities allowed teachers to receive constructive feedback from professionals outside the school and encouraged them to critically reflect on their teaching practices. She explained:

…we are engineering an “action” culture, which means doing and creating—with impact. Why do we do it? How do we do it? The process of thinking through these questions is the process through which teachers upgrade and enhance their conceptual understanding of teaching.

All principals considered teacher development a core leadership function, but their methods differed. Principal S emphasized emotional support and peer mentoring for less experienced staff, whereas Principal W focused on structured training and aligning teacher goals with policy mandates. This variation reflects differing views on how best to motivate and upskill teachers within existing institutional constraints.

Learning Improvement

Different principals shared distinct approaches to innovating and enhancing the quality of student learning.

Principal S, in particular, was aware of the socioeconomic challenges faced by her students: many of them came from underprivileged families. In response, she implemented several inclusive strategies. First, she offered art sessions to all students, recognizing that many families could not afford private art lessons. Second, she addressed individual differences in academic performance by introducing differentiated instruction in the classroom. Additionally, she emphasized the use of multiple assessment methods—including performance-based, process-oriented, and formative assessments—to support and encourage diverse learning outcomes.

Integrating traditional Chinese teaching methods with modern technologies—such as artificial intelligence—has become a central focus in classroom teaching and learning, aiming to enhance educational effectiveness. As for this, Principal S from YG Primary School has elaborated on this perspective:

…on one hand, we have traditional Chinese teaching and learning methods; on the other hand, we must keep pace with modern developments—artificial intelligence, the information society, the internet—all of these are bringing new innovations to education. We must integrate them. For example, teachers now use apps in classroom instruction, and students use smartphones as part of their learning... I believe we need to be more open-minded and adopt these new technologies more extensively.

To ensure that all students could participate equally in technology-supported learning, Principal S mobilized school resources and community donations to provide smartphones and tablets to students who lacked personal devices. Those devices were only used for teaching and learning. This initiative reflects a strong equity-oriented approach, ensuring that digital integration did not exacerbate existing socioeconomic disparities.

Principal Q implemented a distinct strategy to organize learning activities more effectively. He believed that Chinese language education in primary school should be activity-based from the very beginning. In Grade One, learning was centered around interactive activities. In Grade Two, students focused on reading books, complemented by drama and drawing exercises. By Grade Three, the emphasis shifted to ancient Chinese poetry, paired with public speaking activities. In Grade Four, students were encouraged to engage in project-based learning by independently pursuing topics of personal interest. Building on the success of activity-based learning, Principal Q came to recognize the importance of giving students greater freedom in both learning and thinking. He identified five essential qualities that should be nurtured through education: humanity, internationalism, aestheticism, innovation, and athleticism.

While many experienced teachers were hesitant about using “exemplar lessons” or following standardized teaching procedures, Principal W advocated for promoting such lessons among less experienced—especially younger—teachers as a foundation for learning and growth. In her school, where the average teacher age was only 32, she believed that exemplar lessons could serve as valuable models to help novice teachers develop effective practices in lesson planning and classroom instruction. At the same time, she acknowledged that experienced teachers had established their own teaching styles and required more professional autonomy. Principal W outlined four stages of an exemplar lesson: preparation and guided thinking, discussion and demonstration, collaborative inquiry, and transfer and application. She particularly emphasized that students should be active participants in the classroom, with teachers serving as facilitators who support each student’s learning process. She also stressed the importance of designing lessons corresponding to the diverse abilities and characteristics of students. Additionally, she described the key qualities she aimed to nurture in students: aesthetic appreciation, high aspirations, deep reading, critical thinking, a healthy lifestyle, diligence, and environmental responsibility.

Principal W was critical of the limited implementation of inquiry-based learning approaches introduced during the 2001 curriculum reform. She believed that schools had not provided sufficient “spaces for expression” for students. To address this, she emphasized the importance of fostering a professional community among her senior subject teachers—one that welcomed constructive critique and open dialog. She explained:

…We held a shared belief. I brought together the heads of each subject area so they could communicate and collaborate. Our classrooms are places of learning…Our classrooms are learning spaces, and our teachers are here to support the children. As a German educator once said, the art of education is to inspire, to enlighten, and to motivate…

She continued to illustrate how her educational philosophy was put into practice:

…Our classrooms are spaces for natural growth—places where children and teachers interact organically, much like an ecosystem in a forest. Every child is different, but each one grows and progresses from their own starting point. I require every student to participate in classroom and group activities, and I emphasize the importance of respecting individual differences. Through carefully designed instructional strategies, even shy students begin to speak up and express themselves in group settings…

Principal Y of JK Primary School demonstrated a strong sensitivity to students’ needs and took advantage of everyday situations as learning opportunities. Once a school cleaner rushed into her office to report that toilet paper in the student washrooms was being misused. Rather than judging it as a disciplinary issue, Principal Y saw it as a valuable opportunity and designed a series of learning activities focused on hygiene and civility. She recalled:

…After the school renovation, we placed toilet paper and hand soap in every bathroom. One day, a cleaner came to my office, visibly upset, and asked me to check the washroom. I saw toilet paper stuck to the mirrors and soaked on the floor. The cleaner suggested we stop providing toilet paper to the students. But I told her—this is a learning opportunity. So, we introduced a weekly session for Grade 5 students called “Using the Toilet in a Civilized Way”. Parents participated with their children. We organized dramas, brainstorming activities, and speech contests. The students found it hilarious watching performances of inappropriate toilet behavior—and it made a lasting impression.

Apart from this, the school adopted flexible scheduling practices by reorganizing class timetables across all grade levels to better support learning effectiveness and accommodate students’ diverse needs. For example, standard lessons were extended to around 70 min to allow sufficient time for activities such as experiments, while shorter sessions of 30 to 40 min were designated for other subjects.

In addition, the school environment was intentionally redesigned to promote students’ interest in reading. Each floor was assigned a distinct educational theme: ancient poetry collections were placed on the second floor, leisure reading materials on the third, and art-related books on the fifth. In this way, all floors across the school building were utilized to emphasize key reading genres and create a literacy-rich atmosphere.

Regarding the goals of school education, Principal Y said:

…First, one must be a person of integrity. This is the top priority of our educational mission. Following that, we aim to cultivate metacognitive abilities, physical vitality, overall health, and perseverance. These four pillars form the core of our educational goals.

Principal C described her innovative strategies for implementing China’s national curriculum. Although the national curriculum accounts for nearly 85% of instructional time, she noticed that schools are granted a certain degree of autonomy—particularly in how the curriculum is localized and enacted at the school level. She viewed this as an experimental field for school leadership and teaching staff. In addition to the national curriculum, she emphasized the importance of allocating time for extracurricular courses and programs designed to foster students’ multiple intelligences. She also highlighted reforms in the school’s assessment system, including the integration of formative assessment and evaluations of “integrated qualities” such as communication, problem-solving, and analytical thinking. To enhance classroom teaching, Principal C introduced collaborative teaching practices by inviting English-speaking teachers to co-teach. Her school implemented various models of project-based learning within the framework of the national curriculum, which typically comprises more than 80% of total instructional time. As she explained:

…How can we motivate foreign teachers to work effectively? Some are overpaid and unfamiliar with the large class sizes typical in China. We explored the possibility of implementing weekly co-teaching sessions, pairing one foreign teacher with one local teacher. In these sessions, we adopted a storytelling approach—using 16 storybooks per semester. As a result, students were exposed to a wide range of narratives, vivid imagery, and diverse scenarios. This greatly enriched their verbal expression, making their language more fluent and imaginative…

Across cases, principals adopted a range of strategies to improve learning outcomes, often tailored to their school’s developmental stages and student needs. These included integrating technology into classrooms to foster interactive learning; introducing interdisciplinary or project-based curricula to promote critical thinking and creativity; and encouraging peer mentoring and reflective teaching practices among staff to enhance instructional quality. While their methods differed, all principals prioritized active student engagement, teaching innovation, and alignment with broader curricular reforms, demonstrating a shared commitment to improving learning through adaptive and context-sensitive leadership.

Educators’ Networking

Three out of five principals shared their experiences of networking, including collaboration with the local education bureau, partnerships with students’ families, and consultation with external experts. Two principals emphasized the role of networking in securing external funding to support student learning, while another highlighted its significance in fostering professional learning communities. It is important to note that the interview questions were open-ended and did not prompt principals to focus on any specific aspects of their leadership practices.

During the process of establishing a school orchestra for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, Principal Wang initially faced challenges in securing sufficient financial support. She recognized the underlying reasons: due to socioeconomic constraints—95% of the students came from low-income migrant families with limited educational backgrounds—many parents did not fully appreciate the value of aesthetic education in their children’s development. Nevertheless, Principal Wang persisted, actively seeking funding from the local government and support from students’ families.

First, Principal W wrote a proposal to the local government requesting one to two million yuan to support the project, emphasizing the disadvantaged financial backgrounds of her students. She explained:

…our students came from rural areas… they had no money to buy musical instruments… we set up a team to study how an orchestra could be established and to highlight the value of aesthetic education. We wrote a report to the local government… we requested funding of about one or two million yuan…

Meanwhile, she actively worked to persuade students’ parents to give their children the opportunity to learn a musical instrument. Believing that music is a life necessity and a source of personal growth, she emphasized, “…this would raise the self-esteem of the children.” To better persuade the parents, Principal W organized at least ten meetings over a two-month period. At each meeting, she encouraged parents to support their children’s participation in the orchestra by inviting top musicians to share their experiences and deliver inspirational speeches.

Apart from her success in the orchestra project, Principal W also connected her talented students with external experts, using school funds to sponsor specialized training for them.

Principal W also focused on teacher development through strategic networking. She recruited foreign educators and nationally recognized expert teachers, who then provided instructional leadership for early-career faculty. Notably, her school employed five nationally awarded expert teachers—a rare privilege among Chinese public schools. These accomplished educators created a self-sustaining professional environment where intensive supervision was unnecessary, as their expertise naturally elevated teaching standards across the school.

Additionally, Principal W also tapped into her professional networks to recruit skilled personnel through unconventional channels. For example, she hired a student’s parent—a former school volunteer with strong teaching abilities—as the school librarian.

Principal Y demonstrated resilience in leading a school that faced significant challenges within the local community. She recounted her first day: unable to find the entrance due to the disorganized and unclean surroundings: the gate area was cluttered with large trolleys parked haphazardly by community members, obstructing access. Inside the school, she saw dilapidated furniture in the teachers’ offices and poorly maintained facilities. The physical neglect mirrored the school’s reputation: many parents openly regarded it as substandard—a perception that Principal Y would need to urgently address.

Paradoxically, the school was located in one of the most expensive districts in Shenzhen. Capitalizing on this geographic advantage, Principal Y negotiated with the district officials to advocate for resource allocation toward the school renovation. Her efforts proved remarkably successful: she secured substantial funding across multiple local government departments. Notably, she obtained 500 million yuan from the Urban-Rural Development Bureau for campus redevelopment, including expansive greenfield spaces, alongside an additional 1 billion yuan for the high-tech infrastructure in the school.

Furthermore, Principal Y successfully implemented strategies to recruit highly skilled teachers from neighboring regions, including Hong Kong and Taiwan. This was essential to maintaining high-quality teaching and learning.

Principal C, however, has another purpose in building professional connections. She has initiated a networking platform that brought together educators from Finland, the United States, and China. On the platform activities were focused on designing and implementing project-based learning in the classroom. Notably, classrooms within the platform could accommodate up to 50 students in China. Educators collaboratively developed and carried out project-based learning aligned with the national curriculum. Principal C emphasized the importance of networking and its contribution in recruiting teachers for new initiatives in her school. Her leadership contributed significantly to fostering instructional innovation in her school.

Moreover, she emphasized that the model of change was a “bottom-up approach,” empowering teachers to actively participate in professional development and propose innovative changes to instructional practices. In sum, her approach to networking can be described as “integrated,” combining collaboration, teacher agency, and innovation.

Networking practices were widely used across cases, though for different strategic purposes. Principal Y built ties with government officials to secure funding for school development, while Principal W partnered with parents and community organizations to expand extracurricular offerings. The nature and scope of these networks reflect varying interpretations of external engagement—either as resource brokerage, reputation building, or collaborative reform.

The networking activities described by the principals were not merely administrative or procedural. Rather, they often reflected the cultivation and strategic use of guanxi—personal relationships built on trust, mutual obligation, and long-term reciprocity. For instance, Principal Y’s success in securing multi-level government funding was enabled not only by formal proposals but also by her ability to negotiate across departments through personal rapport and shared goals. Similarly, Principal W’s collaboration with parents and local musicians relied heavily on relational credibility. These findings suggest that effective networking in the Chinese school leadership context is deeply intertwined with guanxi, which serves as both a resource and a leadership strategy.

4. Discussion

The study found a unique principal leadership practice model in China, which blends its tradition, reform policies, and culturally adaptive educational ideologies into the common elements in the well-established western principal leadership models. The model included mission setting, infrastructure reconstruction, teacher development, learning improvement, and educators’ networking. Notably, although the first four dimensions were consistent with previous models (Leithwood & Seashore-Louis, 2011; Walker & Hallinger, 2015; Zheng et al., 2017), the “networking” dimension was a culturally embedded strategy critical for resource acquisition and operational effectiveness in Chinese schools. Unlike many Western models that assume a degree of school-level autonomy, the model derived in this study reflects a pragmatic hybridization: principals retain centralized authority while selectively decentralizing through guanxi-driven collaboration and teacher consultation. This “delegated adaptivity” challenges binary notions of hierarchical vs. distributed leadership, thereby enriching the global discourse on educational leadership practices.

Models of Leadership Practices

This study identifies five key domains of principal leadership practice—mission setting, infrastructure reconstruction, teacher development, learning improvement, and educators’ networking—that together reflect how principals enact leadership in response to their specific school contexts.

From the results, our model largely aligns with the traditional leadership theories by Hallinger and Murphy (1985), and other following researchers (Day & Leithwood, 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008). Building on this theoretical alignment, the model proposed in this study makes two notable contributions to the literature on educational leadership in centralized systems. First, it reinterprets core leadership dimensions through the lens of Confucian-heritage culture and hierarchical policy environments, where school leadership is shaped by a blend of top-down authority and moral stewardship (Ng et al., 2015; Qian et al., 2017). For example, teacher development is often embedded in intergenerational mentoring structures that emphasize ethical responsibility and collective identity, contrasting with Western models that prioritize individual autonomy and peer collaboration. Second, the identification of “educators’ networking” as a distinct and strategic leadership dimension expands the notion of principal agency (Leithwood et al., 2020; Zheng et al., 2017). Rather than broadly engaging stakeholders, principals in this study mobilized guanxi-based social capital to secure resources, gain legitimacy, and foster instructional innovation. These findings not only enrich leadership theory by showing how adaptive agency is exercised in constrained environments but also carry policy relevance for leadership development in similarly centralized educational systems.

First, mission setting was a top priority for all principals in China. While mission setting has been emphasized in previous leadership models (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2008), our findings show that Chinese principals use mission setting not only as a strategic tool but also as a symbolic act to reframe school identity during reform. This echoes work by Ng et al. (2015), who argue that vision in Asian leadership is often moral and collectivist in orientation, reflecting Confucian values. Second, infrastructure reconstruction was intensified in times of change. For example, one principal has taken drastic reforms in school organizations by renovating old school facilities and establishing new organizational units such as a quality control center. Third, teacher development extended beyond “instructional design” and “effective teaching” to include structured mentorship between senior and junior teachers (Qian et al., 2017). To a certain extent, this concerns also the issue of organization for teachers of different generations in a school. The ultimate goal was to cultivate a collaborative and positive professional community. Fourth, learning improvement. All interviewed principals demonstrated a solid understanding of contemporary instructional design trends worldwide. Their discussions reflected familiarity with curriculum innovations, diverse assessment strategies—particularly the evaluation of non-cognitive skills and project-based learning, all of which were associated with enhanced student autonomy. However, it is still unclear whether these improvements stem from top-down education policies or from the bottom-up professional commitment and initiative of the principals themselves.

Beyond navigating challenges, the principals in this study demonstrated noteworthy achievements in instructional innovation, teacher development, and school transformation. For example, one principal has led a complete institutional turnaround through strategic resource mobilization and campus redevelopment, while another principal has established a school orchestra for underprivileged students by securing external funding and building parent support. Several principals introduced pedagogical reforms such as project-based learning, cross-disciplinary teaching, and differentiated instruction, reflecting their commitment to inclusive, future-oriented education. These examples illustrate how Chinese principals not only respond to systemic constraints, but also exhibit agency, creativity, and resilience in improving school outcomes.

Notably, however, the “educators’ networking” was not only goal-oriented (Lai et al., 2017; Zheng et al., 2017) but also had an impact on the other four dimensions of the model. Successful networking helps the achievement of school missions, the acquisition of funding for infrastructure development, the advancement of teacher professional growth, and the enhancement of student learning. In particular, optimizing the student learning experience was a central objective of the networking efforts led by two principals. Both principals emphasized the value of engaging with local education bureaus to secure financial support for students from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. Moreover, one principal prioritized international collaboration by establishing partnerships with universities and educational organizations abroad to enrich instructional quality and cultivate cross-border professional learning communities. These networking strategies not only enabled access to resource acquisition but also strengthened the overall effectiveness of school leadership. The “Educators’ Networking” dimension resonates with studies on relational leadership and resource brokerage in hierarchical and centralized systems (Hallinger & Bryant, 2013; Walker & Qian, 2015). However, the dimension in this study reflects not just instrumental collaboration but also culturally embedded relational leadership, closely tied to the concept of guanxi—the system of personal networks and reciprocal obligations that influences decision-making in Chinese organizations. Principals in this study cultivated relationships with local government officials, influential parents, and external experts to gain access to resources, legitimacy, and collaborative opportunities. These ties were not merely administrative; they were carefully nurtured and strategically mobilized, revealing the importance of social capital and trust in Chinese educational leadership. As such, guanxi functioned both as a leadership strategy and as a cultural norm that reinforced relational accountability and professional loyalty.

Thus, it is important to distinguish the Educators’ Networking dimension in this study from the “Build Relationships and Develop People” by Leithwood et al. (2020). While both concepts emphasize the significance of relationships in effective school leadership, the networking observed in the Chinese context extends beyond internal professional development and interpersonal relationships. As stated above, in China, networking is usually a strategic and goal-oriented activity aimed at overcoming resource limitations. In contrast, the “Build Relationships and Develop People” by Leithwood et al. (2020) primarily focuses on the leaders’ efforts to cultivate a supportive and collaborative school culture, encourage professional growth among staff, and build trust and mutual respect within the school community. While these actions are critical, they do not encapsulate the broader, more diverse networking activities observed in Chinese school leadership, where external partnerships and resource acquisition are fundamental.

While this study emphasizes the agency and adaptability of individual principals, we recognize that effective school leadership is rarely a solitary endeavor. Rather, it depends on cultivating trust and collaboration within the broader school community. Several principals in our sample, though positioned as central figures, described relying on informal leadership teams, senior teachers, or cross-grade planning groups to implement initiatives and sustain reforms. This underscores the importance of relational trust—not only between principals and teachers, but also among staff members—as a foundation for distributed leadership and collective responsibility.

Integrating Transformational and Instructional Leadership

Principal Y’s leadership aligned with key aspects of successful school leadership as defined by Leithwood et al. (2020). During a period of crisis of her school, she enacted strategies that reflected both transformational and instructional leadership principles.

First, she reoriented the school’s mission and vision, addressing its poor reputation and declining enrollment, which aligned with the claim that effective leadership provides clear direction and prioritizes student learning. Second, her efforts to secure additional funding to renovate the school demonstrated strategic resource management, a critical element in supporting school improvement. Third, by motivating teachers with low self-esteem and establishing a collaborative professional network, Principal Y exemplified the importance of building teacher capacity to enhance instructional quality, a key leadership claim. Finally, her focus on improving the quality of educational programs within two years demonstrated the measurable impact of effective leadership on student outcomes.

Therefore, Principal Y’s leadership approach reflected the inherent link between transformational and instructional leadership practices as outlined in Leithwood et al. (2020)’s seven claims. Principal Y’s ability to navigate a complex organizational crisis, motivate staff, secure resources, and focus on student-centered improvements exemplified the multi-dimensional nature of effective school leadership. These actions reinforced the importance of leadership that was adaptive, resourceful, and committed to supporting both teacher and student success in challenging contexts.

Effects of the Principals’ Characteristics

The study also indicated that principals’ characteristics may influence their leadership practices. First, from the perspective of “character and personality”, Principals S and Q were clearly “humble” to tell the researchers that they were from the grassroots and a non-academic background. This disposition led them to prioritize collective decision-making, often relying on the input and expertise of teachers. Similarly, for the administration style, Principal Q described his administrative style as “flattened,” indicating a leadership model with minimal formal meetings and few public speeches. In contrast, Principals W and Y self-identified as “strong-minded,” a trait reflected in their more hierarchical and top-down leadership styles—an approach commonly observed in the Chinese educational context (Lai et al., 2017). For Principal Y, this authoritative style could be justified by the pressing need for institutional change in her school.

Limitations and Future Directions

This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, the participating principals possessed prior knowledge of Western educational theories and individual differences in leadership styles, which may have influenced their responses and introduced bias into the findings. Second, the limited sample size inevitably restricts the generalizability of the results. Finally, cultural factors unique to the Chinese educational context may limit the applicability of the model to principals operating in different cultural environments.

Future research could first investigate whether the proposed leadership model reflects top-down influences from China’s educational policies or emerges from the professional commitments of individual principals. Moreover, expanding the interview samples and locations to include other major cities and their surrounding rural areas in China would also be beneficial. In particular, incorporating less prestigious or under-resourced schools would help assess whether the leadership practices identified in this study generalize across different school types and socio-economic contexts. Rural areas with more minority populations may also offer unique insights. These align with the international educators’ call for a richer description of leadership practices. Meanwhile, such studies would also contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of principals’ leadership across diverse contexts (Guo & Lu, 2018). Additionally, future studies might further explore how trust-based collaboration and distributed leadership structures support long-term school improvement, particularly in centralized or high-pressure educational systems like China’s.

5. Conclusions

This study set out to explore how Chinese primary school principals understand and enact leadership practices in response to reform and institutional demands. The findings reveal five interrelated domains of practice, shaped by both cultural norms and systemic constraints.

However, the study is limited by its small sample size and focus on prestigious schools in one urban area, which may limit generalizability to other regions or school types. Future research should include a broader range of school contexts, including under-resourced or rural schools, and examine how distributed leadership and trust-based collaboration evolve in such settings.

This study sheds light on the complex and context-specific nature of school leadership practices in China, revealing the unique challenges faced by principals in balancing educational reforms, parental expectations, personal ideologies, and resource constraints. Through the analyses of leadership strategies in five primary schools in Shenzhen, a new leadership model emerged, comprising mission setting, infrastructure reconstruction, teacher development, learning improvement, and educators’ networking. While the first four components align with established leadership theories prevalent in developed countries, the study identified “networking” as a critical and distinctive element within the Chinese educational context.

Academically, the study may contribute to a deeper understanding of school leadership practices in rapidly modernizing countries such as China, where limited resources and the tension between tradition and modernity present unique challenges. By emphasizing “networking” as a critical component of effective school leadership, the study enriches existing leadership theories and underscores the need to contextualize leadership practices based on local challenges.

Practically, the study offers actionable insights for school leaders, particularly in resource-constrained environments. Strategic networking with external stakeholders—such as government agencies, community members, and professional organizations—can be instrumental in securing resources, supporting teacher development, and enhancing student learning outcomes. Furthermore, the findings emphasize the necessity for principals to adopt adaptive leadership strategies that effectively balance reform mandates, parental expectations, and resource limitations. These insights could possibly inform educational policymakers and practitioners in designing leadership training programs that equip school leaders with the skills needed to thrive in complex and dynamic environments.