Revisiting School Leadership: Indigenous Challenges to Global North Models

Abstract

There is great interest in school leadership models, with their potential to explain and interpret leadership structures and processes. Models developed in the Global North, notably in the UK and USA, are now widely cited by scholars, policy-makers, and practitioners in many countries, including in the Global South. This article reviews the origins and development of these models, and their application in African and Asian contexts. It also examines the emergence of indigenous models, notably Ubuntu, Confucianism, and Islamic theory. The problem under scrutiny is why indigenous models appear to be neglected in the Global South, in favour of international models. These specific approaches are chosen because they have wide applicability, beyond nation-states. The paper stresses the importance of context and offers links between global and indigenous models. The topic is important and relevant given the growing concern about post-colonial influences in many Global South countries.

1. Introduction

There is great interest, from policy-makers, practitioners, and researchers, in school leadership models and their potential to explain and interpret leadership structures, processes, and behaviours (Bush & Ng, 2019; Bush et al., 2023; Gumus et al., 2018). Engagement with these models has gone far beyond their Global North roots to be significant contributors to knowledge production in Africa, Asia, and South America. Bush et al.’s (2022) desk study of published school leadership research in Africa found more outputs focused on school leadership models than on any other topic, with leadership preparation and gendered leadership the next most popular themes.

The purpose of this article is to examine the origins and development of these school leadership models, and to show how they have been applied in different Global South contexts. This leads to consideration of policy borrowing, with notions of ‘adopt and adapt’ at the forefront. The challenges of applying Western models in Global South contexts are explored, as are the opportunities to explore and develop indigenous leadership more attuned to local and national cultures. Indigenous leadership may be defined as a value-driven, community-focused approach prioritizing collective well-being. The problem to be examined is why indigenous models appear to be neglected in the Global South, in favour of international approaches.

Literature Review

This paper arises from a desk study, through a synthesis, designed to assess the origins of global school leadership models and how they have been adopted or adapted for use in Global South contexts, an example of policy borrowing. It also examines the nature and impact of three prominent indigenous models, leading to comparisons between international and global approaches to understanding leadership.

2. Origins of Global North School Leadership Models

Weber’s (1947) foundational theories of bureaucracy and authority profoundly shaped how educational organizations were structured and led during the 20th century, particularly in industrialized societies. The main features of bureaucratic leadership models are as follows:

They give prominence to the official structure of the organization, which shows the authorized pattern of relationships between members of the institution. These official structures tend to be hierarchical, based on vertical relationships.

Schools are typified as goal-seeking organizations. ‘Goal setting is seen as one of the most influential roles that principals can undertake to promote organizational effectiveness’ (Murphy & Torre, 2015, p. 181).

Managerial decisions are made through a rational process. All options are considered and evaluated in terms of the goals of the organization. The most suitable alternative is then selected to enable those goals to be pursued.

The authority of leaders is positional, not based on personal qualities.

Accountability is to the formal hierarchy, typically national, regional, or local government.

(Bush, 2026)

The leadership model most closely linked to bureaucracy is managerial leadership.

3. Managerial Leadership

In the 21st century, managerial leadership emerged as the most frequently cited model, linked to bureaucracy. Bush (2019) argues that this model focuses on processes and procedures with limited emphasis on the purpose of education. Gumus et al. (2018) add that it may be more visible in centralized systems. A strong focus on procedures may lead to managerialism, a focus on management processes at the expense of educational purposes and values. This may mean a focus on efficiency for its own sake—what Hoyle and Wallace (2005, p. 68) describe as ‘management to excess’. Managerialism is reported in schools and universities in many countries (Bush, 2026). This is ideologically grounded in Global North managerial logic, emphasizing control, efficiency, and performance metrics. The limitations of bureaucracy and managerialism have been widely discussed, leading to the development and advocacy of several other leadership approaches. The most important of these alternative models are discussed below.

4. Instructional Leadership

The emphasis on managing teaching and learning as a core activity for schools has led to ‘instructional leadership’ being emphasized and endorsed. Hallinger and Lee (2014, p. 6) show that ‘a growing body of international research suggests that instructional leadership from the principal is essential for the improvement of teaching and learning in schools’. Hallinger and Murphy (1985) stress three main aspects of this model: defining the school mission, managing the instructional program, and developing the school learning climate. Jenssen and Paulsen (2024) report that, in Norway, school leaders identified three distinctive instructional leadership ‘core practices’: observation and supervision, collaborative learning engagement, and time allocation for data use. Observation and supervision, in particular, align with Global North accountability frameworks.

Despite its prominence and longevity, instructional leadership has been criticized on two grounds. First, it is perceived to be primarily concerned with teaching rather than learning (Bush, 2013). Second, it is ‘focused too much on the principal as the centre of expertise, power and authority’ (Hallinger, 2003, p. 330), underplaying the role of other leaders such as deputy principals, middle managers, leadership teams, and classroom teachers. Lambert (2002, p. 37) claims that ‘the days of the lone instructional leader are over’.

The recent emphasis on instructional leadership is based largely on practice in partly decentralized contexts, where principals have substantial scope to decide how to lead and manage their schools. However, there is emerging evidence (e.g., Bush et al., 2023, in Malaysia; Hallinger & Lee, 2014, in Thailand) that governments of centralized systems, which encourage or prescribe instructional leadership, may be disappointed, as principals are reluctant to move away from their traditional managerial approaches.

5. Distributed Leadership

Dissatisfaction with solo and heroic models of leadership led to a search for shared models, involving several leaders. Distributed leadership is the most popular of these approaches in the 21st century, with implications for policy and practice (Gronn, 2010). An important starting point for understanding this phenomenon is to uncouple it from positional authority. Harris (2004, p. 13) indicates that ‘distributed leadership concentrates on engaging expertise wherever it exists within the organization rather than seeking this only through formal position or role’. Spillane (2005, p. 144) defines distributed leadership practice ‘as a product of the interactions of school leaders, followers, and their situation. Leadership is about learning together and constructing meaning and knowledge collectively’. Lumby (2019, p. 10) argues that its ‘unique selling point’ is the potential for ‘emergent spontaneous leadership’. Referring to the South African context, Du Plessis and Heystek (2020, p. 3) ask whether there is sufficient ‘space for principals to practice distributed leadership in a traditional hierarchical system?’. This highlights the dilemma about how to accommodate distribution alongside bureaucracy.

Distributed leadership was theorised by scholars in the Global North, notably Gronn (2000), Harris (2004), and Spillane (2005), but subsequently adopted in very different settings. However, the support for this model in centralized contexts has led to a different mode of distribution, with principals allocating tasks in a manner often indistinguishable from the management concept of delegation.

Distributed Leadership in Malaysia

Malaysia provides one prominent example of drawing on Global North models to underpin educational policy reform. Its main reform document, the Malaysia Education Blueprint, stresses the need for principals to shift from administrative to distributed leadership. However, it links distribution to the hierarchy in two ways. First, the focus is firmly on positional leaders, with limited scope for emergent leadership. Second, the scope of distribution is limited, as leaders can only utilize the decision-making flexibilities granted to them by the government. The Blueprint’s cautious approach to distribution is consistent with the notion of allocative distributed leadership (Bolden et al., 2009).

Bush and Ng (2019) examine the extent and nature of distribution in 14 schools in two Malaysian states, Selangor and Sarawak. Distributed leadership is almost indistinguishable from delegation in these schools, because principals remain in control and have firm reporting requirements (Bush & Ng, 2019). Hairon and Goh’s (2015) research on distributed leadership in Singapore leads them to discuss the related notion of ‘bounded empowerment’. These studies indicate that the language of distribution has been captured to legitimize practices previously described as delegation. Although there is considerable interest in, and support for, distributed leadership, there is also extensive criticism of this model. One aspect of this critique relates to micropolitics, with Lumby (2013) arguing that distributed leadership is a political phenomenon ‘replete with the uses and abuses of power’ (see below).

6. Teacher Leadership

It is difficult to imagine distributed leadership being implemented without teacher participation. This leads to the related notion of teacher leadership, defined by Frost (2008) as involving shared leadership, teachers’ leadership of development work, teachers’ knowledge building, and teachers’ voice. Grant (2006) extends this argument to identify a four-part framework for teacher leadership, based on research in South African schools:

• Leadership within the classroom;
• Leadership beyond the classroom, with other teachers;
• Leadership for whole-school development;
• Leadership beyond the school and in the community.

A further distinction can be made between those who hold formal roles, such as master teacher or subject leader, and those whose influence is informal, exerted on a collegial basis with peers. However, Stevenson (2012) argues that the interpretation of teacher leadership is managerialist in nature and inherently conservative.

Developing teacher leadership may be particularly challenging in centralized contexts, for example, in Egypt (Emira, 2010), where the Ministry of Education restricts teacher leadership to the classroom. However, Bush et al.’s (2015) research on master teachers as teacher leaders in Malaysia and the Philippines shows that master teachers were able to operate at all four levels of the Grant (2006) model.

Bush et al. (under review) argue that, in the high-power distance and hierarchical Chinese context, principals have great authority through sociocultural norms, and teacher leadership is constrained by hierarchy. Bryant and Rao (2019) show that teacher leaders serve as connecting links between the principal and teachers, understanding the principal’s goals and plans and implementing them.

7. Political Leadership

The political model focuses on interests and interest groups, leading to conflict, which is resolved by the exercise of power. Those participants with greater resources of power are likely to prevail when conflict arises. Principals are participants in the process of bargaining and negotiation, with their own values, interests, and goals, which they seek to advance in formal and informal settings. Leaders also have a significant impact on the nature of the internal decision-making process and can exercise a controlling influence on the proceedings of decision-making groups (Bush, 2026).

The second facet of leadership concerns heads’ responsibility to sustain the viability of the organization and to develop the framework within which policies can be tested and, ultimately, receive the endorsement of the various interest groups. To achieve acceptable outcomes, leaders become mediators who attempt to build coalitions in support of policies. There is a recurring pattern of discussion with representatives of power blocks to secure a measure of agreement (Bush, 2026). Bolman and Deal (1991) add that political leaders learn to ‘map the political terrain’. They persuade first, negotiate second, and use coercion only if necessary. Sasere and Mathashu (2024) offer a more nuanced view that micropolitics should be juxtaposed with distributed leadership.

8. Transactional Leadership

Transactional leadership is closely aligned with the political model. The former involves relationships based upon an exchange for a valued resource. Anderson and Chang (2019, p. 87) say that transactional leadership is ‘sometimes called leader–member exchange theory’. Miller and Miller’s (2001) definition refers to transactional leadership as an exchange process. Principals possess authority arising from their positions as the formal leaders of their institutions. They also hold power in the form of key rewards such as promotions and references. However, the head requires the co-operation of staff to secure the effective management of the school. An exchange may secure benefits for both parties to the arrangement (Bush, 2026).

The major limitation of transactional leadership is that it does not engage staff beyond the immediate gains arising from the transaction and does not produce long-term commitment to the values and vision being promoted by school leaders. Oterkiil and Ertesvåg (2014) add that the best leaders are both transactional and transformational. The next section discusses transformational leadership.

9. Transformational Leadership

Transformational leadership relates to the influence of leaders on the commitment and capacity of organizational members. Higher levels of personal commitment to organizational goals and greater capacities for accomplishing those goals are assumed to result in extra effort and greater productivity. Sasan et al. (2023) claim that transformational leadership practices, such as setting high expectations and building a sense of community, can result in a positive school culture that empowers staff and students.

Berkovich (2018) notes that transformational leadership was mainly a Western concept until the mid-2000s, when it became global. Particularly significant is the raft of research on this model in Gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates (Litz & Scott, 2017) and Jordan (Khasawneh et al., 2012). Berkovich (2018) argues that the growth of interest in this model relates to global pressures to restructure education, linked to policy borrowing. However, Litz and Scott (2017) stress the need to adapt the model to make it suitable for Arab contexts, notably the expectations around hierarchy and collectivism. This view speaks to a wider concern that leadership models developed in the Global North are often applied in other settings with very different cultural norms. I return to this issue later in the article.

The contemporary policy climate within which schools have to operate also raises questions about the validity of the transformational model. Transformational language is used by governments to encourage practitioners to adopt and implement centrally determined policies. The English system, for example, increasingly requires school leaders to adhere to government prescriptions that affect aims, curriculum content, and pedagogy as well as values. In this respect, transformation is a unilateral process of implementation, scrutinized by Ofsted, not a context-specific assessment of the needs of individual schools and their communities (Hoyle & Wallace, 2005).

Transformational leadership is consistent with the political model in that it is based on personal power, often expressed through charisma. When it works well, it has the potential to engage all stakeholders in the achievement of educational objectives. However, when ‘transformation’ is rhetoric for implementing the prescriptions of the government, then the process is clearly political rather than collegial (Bush, 2026).

10. Postmodern Leadership

Postmodern leadership focuses on individual meanings, not the formal organizational structure. Keough and Tobin (2001, p. 2) say that ‘current postmodern culture celebrates the multiplicity of subjective truths as defined by experience and revels in the loss of absolute authority’. They argue that there are multiple realities and that any situation is open to multiple interpretations. Similarly, Sackney and Mitchell (2002) refer to ‘widely divergent meanings’ (p. 6) and to ‘alternative truth claims’ (p. 9). Grogan and Simmons (2012) stress that postmodern leadership developed as a reaction to theories presented as having universal application, such as bureaucracy.

The postmodern model offers few clues to how leaders are expected to operate. The most useful point to emerge is that leaders should respect, and give attention to, the diverse and individual perspectives of stakeholders. Instead of a compelling vision articulated by leaders, there are multiple visions and diverse cultural meanings.

11. Emotional Leadership

Crawford (2009) demonstrates the links between subjective and emotional leadership. She stresses that emotion is concerned with individual motivation and interpretation of events, rather than emphasizing the fixed and the predictable. She adds that emotion is socially constructed and stresses the importance of individual interpretation of events and situations: ‘perception is reality’. Wang (2021) extends this argument to note that decisions are the product of interactions between emotions and cognition.

Beatty (2005) also notes the importance of emotional leadership and contrasts it with bureaucratic approaches. ‘When I look at Weber’s iron cage of bureaucracy … I see rungs of emotional silence. Emotional silence may be the most powerful self-replicating mechanism of bureaucratic hierarchy—in schools and elsewhere.’ ‘To overcome the anachronistic view of leadership as located exclusively at the top is itself an emotional challenge’ (Beatty, 2005, p. 125).

12. Moral and Ethical Leadership

These twin models are based on leaders’ values and beliefs. Sergiovanni (1991, p. 322) stresses that ‘administering’ is a ‘moral craft’. Gumus et al. (2018) say that moral leadership requires several qualities, including holding to values, following ethical decision rules, and becoming a role model through visible moral actions. This links to the notion of ‘moral purpose’, illustrated in Rintoul and Goulais’s (2010) study of vice-principals in Ontario (Canada). Işik (2020) and Özgenel and Aksu (2020) show positive links between ethical leadership and both teacher and student outcomes.

Faith schools provide a distinctive context for the enactment of moral and ethical leadership. Hammad and Shah (2019) report on the challenges of leading faith schools in a secular society. The challenges facing such heads include issues in developing Muslim identity in a secular society, recruitment of qualified Muslim teachers, and the expectations of their local communities.

Moral leadership may be seen as incompatible with traditional bureaucratic approaches, but Sergiovanni (1991) disagrees, arguing for both moral and managerial leadership. His conception points to the vital role of management but also shows that moral leadership is required to develop a learning community. ‘The challenge of leadership is to make peace with two competing imperatives, the managerial and the moral’ (Sergiovanni, 1991, p. 329).

13. Contingent Leadership

The models of leadership examined in the previous sections of this article are all partial. They provide valid and helpful insights into one particular aspect of leadership. None of these models provide a complete picture of school leadership, and no single approach is sufficient to address all situations and problems (Bush, 2026).

The contingent model provides an alternative approach, recognizing the diverse nature of school contexts and the advantages of adapting leadership styles to the particular situation, rather than adopting a ‘one size fits all’ stance. Leaders need a deep understanding of their specific contexts and to respond sensitively to their schools’ unique organizational circumstances or problems. Effective leaders master and utilize a large repertoire of leadership practices (Hallinger, 2018; Hoyle & Wallace, 2005; Leithwood et al., 1999).

Notman (2017) drawing on his study of two urban school principals in New Zealand, concludes by stressing the need for contingent or ‘adaptive’ leadership, sensitive to the school context, rather than a single inflexible model. Similarly, Caldwell (2023), in Australia, and Muñoz et al. (2023), in Chile, argue that contingent leadership is required to reimagine schools and school systems, and to build sound relationships with families, students, and school staff.

14. Challenges and Opportunities: Global North Meets Global South

The review of models above shows a wide range of approaches to understanding and portraying school leadership. The models differ in three main respects. First, they may focus on solo or shared leadership. Second, the unit of analysis may be individual, sub-unit, or whole-school. Third, they may relate to positional or informal leadership. What they have in common is their origins in the Global North. Ideas developed in Australia, the UK, or the USA, for example, are now prevalent in the Global South, influencing research, policy, and practice in many countries. This is a powerful example of globalization with overtones of colonialism, sometimes reinforced by NGO activity.

Bush et al.’s (2022) systematic literature review of school leadership in Africa found 78 papers focused on one or more of these Global North models and only two linked to indigenous theory. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. First, African scholars may have been exposed to these ideas as doctoral students in the West. Second, African universities may be teaching about these models on the basis that they have universal applicability, an assumption that should be challenged, given the growing recognition of the importance of context for school leadership (Hallinger, 2018). Third, academics in many countries are under pressure to publish in highly ranked journals, which are mostly located in the UK or US, perhaps leading them to adopt Global North models.

The emphasis on these models in the Global South is also sometimes driven by policy-makers. In Malaysia, for example, the Malaysia Education Blueprint (Ministry of Education Malaysia, 2013) strongly advocates instructional and distributed leadership because they are perceived to lead to enhanced student outcomes. However, there is only limited evidence of these ideas being adopted in schools (Bush et al., 2023; Bush & Ng, 2019). Hallinger and Lee (2014) report similar policies in Thailand, with little ‘on-the-ground’ applicability.

The challenge and the opportunity here is to research and document indigenous models prominent in the Global South. Indigenous leadership may be defined as a dynamic, culturally rooted system focused on collective well-being, characterized by relational accountability, and respecting traditional knowledge. Three important examples of this are evident in the Global South: Ubuntu, Confucianism, and Islamic theory.

14.1. Ubuntu

Ubuntu is an important notion, prevalent in much of sub-Saharan Africa. Kalabo (2017, p. 306) confirms that most theories of educational leadership emanate from Western countries, adding that ‘African ideas also have much to offer in these discourses’. He attributes the dominance of Western perspectives to the power asymmetry between the coloniser and colonised. He defines Ubuntu as being based on humanism and relationships. Similarly, Elonga Mboyo (2019) explains it as communalism, in the context of genuine dialogue, capable of transforming behaviours and lives and restoring the continent’s cultural identity. This process can successfully take place in the context of genuine dialogue, a compromise that serves the interests of both individuals and schools. Sasere and Mathashu (2024) identify four components of Ubuntu theory. These are interconnectedness, collective responsibility, respect and dignity, and conflict resolution and reconciliation. They link these ideas to Global North theory through the notion of an Ubuntu-informed Distributed Leadership Framework.

Despite its potential in understanding and interpreting school leadership in Africa, Kalabo (2017) warns against homogenising leadership in Africa, with its diverse cultures and traditions. Elonga Mboyo (2019) contributes to this fine-grained approach through his small-scale study of headship in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). However, more research is required on the nature of Ubuntu, how it relates to Western models such as distributed leadership, how it is interpreted in different contexts, and whether and how it influences school leadership in Africa.

14.2. Confucianism

Confucianism is a dominant influence on policy and practice in China and elsewhere in East China. Guo (2026) identifies three key dimensions of this model: harmony, collectivistic culture, and power distance. She notes the close relationship between culture and leadership (Liu & Hallinger, 2021), adding that Chinese culture comprises traditional Chinese elements such as Confucianism, communist ideology, and Western values (Fan, 2000). Confucianism has been defined as a worldview, an ethical system, a political ideology, and a scholarly tradition developed from the teachings of the Chinese philosopher Confucius (Goldin, 2014).

14.2.1. Harmony

Guo (2026) argues that Confucianism places a high value on harmony. This is both a metaphysical and an ethical concept, describing how the world operates and prescribing how human beings should act within it (Chu, 2023; Li, 2006). Her research in four primary schools in one major Chinese city shows that more than 80% of her participants (senior and middle leaders, and teachers) agreed that Confucianism does have an impact on school leadership. The pursuit of harmony was attributed to Confucianism.

Harmony was defined by Guo’s participants as comprising benevolence, righteousness, courtesy, wisdom, and fidelity. Jia (2008) categories the achievement of harmony into four domains, namely, intrapersonal harmony (within the self), interpersonal harmony (between two individuals), social harmony (between a person and a group of people, which is an extension of interpersonal harmony), and harmony between humanity and the cosmos (the alignment between human conduct and the natural or universal order).

In Guo’s (2026) research, middle leaders and teachers mainly described it as fostering harmonious relationships with their peers. They spoke less about how the idea of pursuing harmony shaped their relationship with the school as an organization. Similarly, vice principals in two schools stated that the impact of harmony on school culture was to enhance interpersonal relations and connections. The concern for achieving harmony appears to be of even higher value than other important outcomes, perhaps at the expense of task completion or performance (Chen & Chung, 1994). Sacrificing personal interests for the interests of the group is one of the characteristics of a collectivist culture (Hofstede, 2001).

14.2.2. Collectivistic Culture

Collectivism refers to societies in which individuals are integrated into cohesive in-groups that protect them for the duration of their lives in exchange for their unquestioning loyalty (Hofstede, 2001). Key collectivist values include loyalty, harmony, cooperation, unity, and conformity (Hofstede, 2001). Confucian collectivism was built on the clan system that constitutes a relatively stable traditional society (Li, 2013).

Confucian harmony has been widely misunderstood as conformity, submission, and conflict avoidance (Li, 2013). Guo’s (2026) research confirms that overt conflicts among people in all her case study schools were infrequent. For example, teachers avoided giving negative comments after observing the lessons of other teachers. However, Huang (1999) stated that, sometimes, conflicts remain under the radar despite surface relationships that may appear smooth, indicating superficial rather than genuine harmony. This perspective connects to the Western notion of collegiality, where harmony and consensus are assumed but may be challenged by sectional interests, a feature of the political model.

14.2.3. Power Distance

Confucianism emphasises hierarchical roles in relationships, and Hofstede (1991) identifies China as a high power distance society. In such contexts, younger people tend to show greater respect to their elders, and those of lower ranks tend to show more respect and compliance to those with higher rank and authority (Hofstede, 2011). This is consistent with Truong et al. (2017), who state that older people are respected in Vietnamese schools for their experience, knowledge, and wisdom, also influenced by Confucian values. Guo’s (in preparation) research shows age-based differences in attitudes towards school hierarchies, with younger teachers likely to show less deference to authority. This finding resonates with the literature, which suggests that power distance in today’s China is likely to be moderate rather than high (Liu & Hallinger, 2021).

14.3. Islamic Theory

Islamic theory, prominent in the Gulf and elsewhere in majority-Muslim countries, offers another distinctive approach to leadership theory. Alazmi and Bush (2024) developed a school leadership model grounded in Islamic values and beliefs, based on interviews with 24 international experts on Islamic theory. They highlight the flaws in applying Western-centric models to dissimilar contexts without careful adaptation. They join with Shah (2010) to argue that religious teaching and Islamic values inform educational leadership practices in Islamic societies.

There are several frameworks for Islamic educational leadership. Brooks and Mutohar (2018) based their framework for school principals upon Qur’anic tenets requiring Muslim administrators to provide effective advice, act with sincerity and in consultation with subordinates, tolerate dissent and debate, seek consensus, and work ethically with mutual benefit and accountability in mind. Padela (2015) advanced a model for school principals which reflects the Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) leadership style, modelling behaviour and encouraging followers to embrace a theocentric perspective.

Hammad and Shah (2019) investigated the perception of teachers regarding leadership experiences and challenges within Muslim schools in the UK. They stressed the powerful effects which societal culture and belief systems have upon school leadership practices. Muslim students and teachers considered their role as a moral obligation. Moreover, Arar et al. (2022) discussed three building blocks for educational leadership styles in Muslim schools: faith-based, community-engaged, and strategic leadership. This clearly links to the Western model of moral leadership.

Alazmi and Bush (2024) argue that the Islamic educational leadership model differs from Western leadership theory in several ways, with the primary distinction being the close connection between leadership and religion in Muslim societies. Oplatka and Arar (2016) add that leadership in traditional Muslim societies includes promoting universal values of justice, respecting cultural and social norms, valuing the family structure, recognising authentic student leadership, and involving teachers and students in decision making while respecting diverse cultural heritages. Karami-Akkary and Hammad (2019) state that school principals in Islamic societies frequently prepare educational programmes based too heavily upon Western culture, and that this should change to meet the values, aims, and needs of Islamic culture.

15. Discussion and Analysis

The Western models featured in this article are widely used to explain and understand school leadership practice in many contexts (Gumus et al., 2018). Instructional and distributed leadership, in particular, are advocated by policymakers in some settings for their potential to support school improvement and enhance student outcomes. Even governments in Global South countries are turning to these models when developing their educational reform agendas. There is only limited evidence that such ‘policy borrowing’ leads to favourable outcomes.

The emergence of indigenous models provides alternative perspectives, but they appear to have less influence on policy and practice than their Western equivalents. This may be because there is only limited research and literature about their effects on schools and students. Such models are well aligned with societal culture but not necessarily with educational policy.

Although the Global North and Global South models have very different origins, they have certain similarities. Three points of overlap can be identified. First, Ubuntu, with its focus on collective responsibility, dialogue, and relationships, connects to distributed leadership, as noted by Sasere and Mathashu (2024). The interactive aspects of distributed leadership, for example, connect to Ubuntu’s emphasis on relationships. Second, Confucianism’s emphasis on harmony links to the assumptions of the shared models, including distributed and teacher leadership. In contrast, the power distance aspects of Confucianism are redolent of solo models such as managerial and transformational leadership. Third, the ethical and faith-based aspects of Islamic leadership have obvious links with moral leadership. The connections between Western and Global South models should not be overstated, because they have different cultural underpinnings, but the similarities may provide starting points for the development of integrated approaches drawing on both international and culturally embedded models.

The emergence of indigenous models in the international literature provides a welcome reminder that leadership understanding is not confined to notions developed in the Global North. It also serves to challenge the ‘universalist’ assumptions that often underpin discourse on these Western models. The growing awareness of the importance of context (Hallinger, 2018) leads to greater caution in the application of international models in Global South contexts. As noted earlier, policy imperatives based on such ideas have largely failed because they do not fit the cultural norms where they are being applied (Bush & Ng, 2019; Hallinger & Lee, 2014).

The mixed views about the utility of Western models in Global South contexts prompt a rethink about the purpose of such conceptualizations. First, they often provide a helpful way to understand and interpret leadership, including structure, culture, and agency. Second, they may offer a guide to policy and practice. I have argued elsewhere (e.g., Bush, 2026) that awareness of leadership models is helpful for school principals and others because it enables them to understand and explain what is happening in their schools. A ‘tool kit’ of leadership models also enables leaders to decide how to respond to events and problems. The tool kit should expand to include indigenous models, such as Ubuntu, Confucianism, and Islamic theory, as appropriate, to provide a stronger cultural underpinning for understanding leadership practice.

Moving beyond understanding, towards prescriptions for policy and practice, is more problematic. In Africa, for example, several countries advocate instructional leadership but there is limited evidence that this leads to changes in school-level practice (Bush et al., 2022). Connecting this Western model to indigenous ideas is likely to lead to culturally attuned leadership practice. Similarly, Malaysian and Thai education systems may be more effective if they are customized to national and regional cultural imperatives (Bush & Ng, 2019; Hallinger & Lee, 2014).

16. Conclusions

Leadership models developed, tested, and grounded in English-speaking Western countries are attracting attention from academics, policy-makers, and practitioners in the Global South. Several of these approaches, notably instructional and distributed leadership, are valued for their perceived potential to contribute to school improvement, but with mixed evidence of their efficacy. The more recent interest in indigenous models is a valuable post-colonial development, but they should not be seen as a panacea. More research is required to establish their value in informing policy and improving leadership practice. Combining Western and indigenous models may provide a more complete understanding of school leadership in the Global South.