This paper explores the ill-defined area between the theory of educational leadership and elements of practice. The paper is based on the findings of doctoral research undertaken from 1995 to 1999. That research explored the perceptions of a number of New Zealand school principals of their learning of educational leadership. The conclusion was reached that this type of learning exhibited characteristics of life-long learning and consequently a marked degree of uniqueness related to the individual, the educational environment and situational factors. This paper considers these findings as local effects and theories of leadership as a global issue. It will be argued that theories of leadership which appear to be global in their widespread following, may fail to account adequately for certain elements of leadership which can be identified at the local level. Theories of leadership tend to focus on characteristics, roles, preparation and training, and on successful leadership behaviour. In this paper these theories of leadership will be considered in the context of the research findings of principals' perceptions of their learning of educational leadership.

Those who study educational leadership appear to cast global nets. At least this is the case in New Zealand. To well-known New Zealand writers and researchers in the field, such as Cardno (1990), Lovett (1997), Robertson (1999), Stewart and Prebble (1993) and Thrupp (1996) to name just a small number, can be added overseas scholars, particularly those from Britain, North America and Australia who are equally well known in New Zealand. Argyris and Schön (1974), Barnett (1990), Barth (1991), Boud, 1995, Bush and West-Burnham (1994), Caldwell and Spinks (1988), Duignan (1998), Fullan (1997), Grace (1995), Hargreaves (1997), Schön (1987) and Sergiovanni (1991b, 1992a) are among the best known. There are many, many others. The result is that theories of educational leadership are truly global in their readership and influence. Courses, conferences such as this one, journals, libraries and now the internet ensure the global nature of educational management knowledge, knowledge gaps and debate. From a different perspective, methodology and research methods commonly advocated and practised by researchers also contribute to the global nature of knowledge since research leads to substantive and formal theory.

In this paper, some of the salient points from the global literature will be identified and then contrasted with the findings regarding educational leadership which emerged from recent research undertaken by the writer. Finally some tentative suggestions are made to strengthen the bridge between the individual leader at the local level and the theory which exists at global level.

Educational leadership has been defined variously (Barnett, Caffarella, Daresh, King, Nicholson & Whitaker, 1992; Barth, 1993; Begley, 1995; Guthrie, 1991; Heitmuller, Leuzinger, McAfee, Smith & Pajak, 1993; Southworth, 1995; Wolcott, 1973). However six leadership roles keep recurring: (a) a visionary role, the role of developing the school's broad philosophy and mission to meet community goals, (b) an educational leadership role, guiding the achievement of core school objectives, (c) a supervisory role of leading teachers to achieve the objectives, (d) an organisational role of developing a supportive school structure and climate, (e) an administrative role of maintaining the school on a daily basis over time, and (f) a team leadership role of co-operating with and leading teachers and other staff.

These definitions are developed a little further by reference to the work of two leading American exponents of professional leadership, Thomas Sergiovanni and Joseph Murphy. In describing the concept of leadership, they shifted the emphasis from form and role to substance. Sergiovanni (1992a) argued that alternative forms of leadership would be required if we wanted "more committed and self-managing" teachers (p. 41) and schools that were communities of learners who thought of themselves as colleagues and professionals. He considered that leadership needed to be thought about in different terms (1992b). "The more leadership is emphasised, the less professionalism flourishes" (p. 49). Sergiovanni did not abandon leadership. He argued for the morality of leadership on the grounds that of all the sources of authority, "bureaucratic, psychological and technical-rational ... competence and virtue should predominate" (1992a, p. 49).

Reflecting on the world-wide trend for reform in educational administration, Murphy (1995) commented that this trend indicated the existence of "a rather deep leadership void in schools" (p.13). He also explored the need for new thinking, new metaphors of leadership emphasising morality. The metaphors Murphy (1995) used were the "leader as community servant" (p. 13), "the leader as organizational architect" (p. 15), " the leader as social architect" (p. 17) and "the leader as moral educator" (p. 19). Murphy considered that the role of the principal was changing and detailed the changing nature of the role as leading from the centre, through sharing power, becoming more consultative; delegating leadership responsibilities (real responsibilities); developing collaborative decision-making, and "bringing shared authority to life (p. 25); "enabling and supporting teacher success", "helping to formulate a shared vision" (p. 27), "cultivating a network of relationships", "allocating resources consistent with the vision" (p. 28), "providing information" and "promoting teacher development" (p. 29). At the same time, Murphy acknowledged the extra pressures brought about by the reforms. They called for "an enhanced management role", " a diminished instructional role"(p. 30), "extending the school community" (p. 31), "promoting the school" more, "working with the governing board" (p. 32) and "connecting with parents" (p. 33). Such pressures could militate against the kind of moral leadership he advocated.

The characteristics and roles of leadership are related to the concept of leadership style. Leadership style refers to the way an individual generally addresses leadership issues. General leadership style may be charted on a continuum from autocratic to democratic. However Gronn (1986) argued that leaders may adjust their leadership style pragmatically simply to survive. Leadership style is more than the result of whole-of-life learning, personality and experience. It is influenced by situational factors in which the leadership situation is embedded. Sergiovanni (1991b) described leadership settings in schools as being generally "loosely-coupled" (p. 110) in the area of sharing decision making and "tightly coupled" (p. 110) in the area of core values and goals. He advocated a leadership style which was balanced; "resilient for the school's core of values and beliefs and flexible for the day-by-day articulation of those values in teaching and learning" (p. 111). A resilient leadership style, according to Sergiovanni, is characterised by "will power, tough-mindedness, self-confidence and self-discipline" (p. 165) in pursuit of core values and goals.

Cultures also impact on leadership. "Some cultures emphasise transactional control through the distribution of incentives, while others work by transforming the goals and aspirations of organizational members" (Mitchell & Tucker, 1992, p. 31). This is transformational leadership, one of the most important aspects of successful principalship. Southworth (1993) considered that transformational leadership needed to be "mediated" (p. 79) by transactional leadership. One was not better than the other rather the two are "mutually dependent and complementary" (p. 79). The way to establish transformational leadership is through a collaborative style of leadership, the critical element for the development of a community of learners over time and place (Hargreaves, 1993; Ribbins, 1997; Sparks, 1993). Having the knowledge and being able to act with a high degree of skill and confidence are all important attributes of good leaders. However leadership is a complex issue (Bennis, 1991; Brandt, 1992), and as Dussault and Barnett (1996), Glover, Levacic, Bennett and Earley (1996) and Sergiovanni (1991b) found, when they researched school leadership, there is no single style of leadership that can account for excellence.

Global theory of educational leadership is not to be thought of as a unified body of knowledge. Theories are widely contested. For example, global theory encompasses concepts of individual difference and uniqueness. Beare, Caldwell and Milliken (1989) argue that because schools have to do with people, they must be expected to demonstrate difference and uniqueness across the entire range of school activity, including every aspect of leadership "because each is a non-replicable mixture of diverse, interacting elements" (c. p. 176). The concept of uniqueness is one which sits uncomfortably with some scholars. Crawford, Kippax, Onyx, Gault and Benton (1992) provide a counter argument, notably that the sociable nature of humans and the propensity of humans to negotiate meanings undermine theories of uniqueness.

Learning and training in the field of educational leadership is another area which is well researched and for which a substantial body of information exists at the global level. Some identifies learning needs (Wadsworth, 1990). Some proposes methods of training for new educational leaders (Begley, 1995; Leithwood, 1987). Some proposes ways of improving performance generally (Barnett, 1990; Dussault & Barnett, 1996; Robertson, 1995, 1999). This theory and all the theory described above illuminates issues of educational leadership. Just how does it all impact on practice of educational leadership? Having introduced some general theory, it is time to focus on the recent findings into learning of educational leadership arising from the research of the writer.

As the preceding pages indicate, an enormous amount has been written about every aspect of educational leadership. This writing constitutes the global theory. In this part of the paper, the local issue of leadership as practised in schools is discussed from the perspective of learning to be an educational leader; developing the skills of leadership as an on-going task. How do some educational leaders perceive that they developed educational leadership? This was the question underlying the doctoral research into the leadership learning of 19 New Zealand principals undertaken by the writer. The principals' perceptions of their learning of educational leadership were conceptualised as foundational, experiential and intentional, as Figure 1 shows, These are described briefly.

Figure 1. Conceptualisation of educational leadership as a cumulative,

holistic and inter-related process.

Learning to manage interpersonal relations depended on the particular people involved. As one principal noted: "In the end people have to do the things I ask them to do because they want to .... it's got to be by persuasion " (FN 15). However, persuasion appeared in different guises and was described variously as "manipulating" (FN 16), and even being "scheming [and] devious" (FN 17). Several principals admitted that they had to become very good manipulators to achieve what they wanted for their schools. "Sometimes it's true consultation and sometimes it isn't" (FN 18). The research showed that these educational leaders continued to grow in the job as they faced leadership challenges.

These principals identified their learning needs in practice and met learning needs through intentional learning. The third part of Figure 1 is most familiar aspect of principals' formal learning of leadership; that is, learning through courses and conferences, professional reading, networking and gaining professional qualifications. All bar one principal made extensive use of most of these learning modes at certain times. Although some criticisms were made, frequent comment was made to the effect that there was always something of value to be gained from attendance at courses and conferences. On occasions what was learnt was described as "Road to Damascus stuff" (FN 19).

The conclusion drawn from the argument that the principals' learning of educational leadership was perceived to be foundational, experiential and intentional, was that the three parts were inter-related as is shown in Figure 1 and that the learning was cumulative, holistic and contextual. The research principals clearly believed this. As one of the principals noted:

Because the cumulative and holistic learning of the principals appeared to extend over their life-times, it followed that each principal's learning was unique and idiosyncratic. To find a way of describing this sense of individuality and uniqueness, the concept of a configuration was developed. A configuration resembles a dance rather than a template or diagram. A diagrammatic representation of the unique configuration of a principal's learning is shown in Figure 2 on page 10.

The configuration is the result of combining two sets of multiple factors; one set representing the principal and the other set representing the school as context. These sets are representative rather than exhaustive. The list of principal factors includes upbringing, gender, management and principalship experiences, motivation, social life learning, personality, abilities, age, qualifications, training and on-going education, teaching experiences, barriers and limitations. The list of school factors, which constituted the leadership context, includes size, age range of students and staff, gender, ethnic mix, culture, climate factors, and community and staff, each also a unique set of factors. The research findings appeared to show that within these common categories lay the defining dynamics of individual difference among educational leaders. The two circles, or bodies of influence, in the diagram over-lap in a dynamic zone where management and leadership takes place. The zone is dynamic because of the huge variety of human activity which is played out in the zone. No two zones are identical. No two enactments of leadership are identical or even, in common-speak, "pretty similar". The holistic, cumulative and inter-related leadership development of each leader create this situation.

The importance of reflection dominates global discussion on developing leadership and the concepts keep recurring in this research. Reflection is "a generic term for those intellectual and affective activities in which individuals engage, to explore their experiences in order to lead to new understandings and appreciations" (Boud, Keogh & Walker, 1985, p. 19). Stewart and Prebble (1993) described reflection as a learning tool related to action; namely, the process of "thinking about what [principals] do as they do it" (p. 119) with a view to introducing modifications if necessary. Reflection, therefore, has three elements: remembering purposefully and thinking about past experience for some present and future purpose, adopting an analytical and critical stance with regard to what is currently being done, and preparing for future action. Some theorists today contend that reflection is the main tool for handling successfully the fluid, dynamic and unstructured nature of practice (Boud & Walker, 1991; Boud et al., 1993; Schön, 1987; Sergiovanni, 1991b; Stewart & Prebble, 1993). But reflection is a very complex process. Reflection requires planning as it does not happen spontaneously (Brookfield, 1994; Ecclestone, 1996; Sparks, 1993; Stewart, 1997). Nor is reflection beneficial of itself (Bright, 1996). Reflection also needs to be critical. This means looking inward in as objective a fashion as possible since self-deception is always possible (Boud & Walker, 1991). To ensure reflection that would be critical but nurturing and educative, Boud and Walker (1991) and Stewart (1997) stressed the need for training in reflective procedures and, at times, the need for an external facilitator. One aim should be perception transformation through awareness of the cultural origins of our habits of thought (Mezirow, 1981).

All of the principals in the research considered themselves to be reflective practitioners and the research evidence appeared to support this. However, one of the most insightful parts of the research, a self-study, showed that the individual could believe in the importance of reflection and engage in reflection on a regular basis and in a formal setting, without identifying learning needs in the area of leadership and without being able to improve leadership through reflection in the most critical area of leadership; namely, in human resources management.

One of the most complex questions explored in this research was how principals' learning of leadership impacted on their practice through changing their behaviour. A number of studies provided useful global information (Anderson, Reder & Simon, 1996; Kuhn, Gracia-Mila, Zohar, & Anderson, 1995). These studies showed that learning transfer can occur in a variety of degrees from a large amount to a negative amount. Transfer depends on many factors, such as awareness of the need for learning, attitudes to change and the capacity to respond positively to change, the nature of the new learning situation, the comprehensiveness and specificity of the first learning situation, and the skill of the tutor in blending abstract ideas and practical demonstrations. Kuhn et al. (1995) found that people may retain old and new learning and strategies at the same time. The consequence is that the problem solver may choose the "wrong" strategies to solve a problem. Some of the research findings seemed to support this theory.

Argyris and Schön (1974) underscored the difficulty of learning transfer in defining the differences between theories espoused and theories-in-action. However they expressed the belief that the transfer of new learning would be possible if people understood clearly enough the elements of both theories, had adequate skilled assistance, self-motivation and a problem which they could control. Robinson (1993) developed a Problem-Based Methodology aiming at enabling transfer of learning using Argyris and Schön's theory of "double-loop learning" (p. 87). Robinson proposed transfer of learning through a process of problem structuring and critical dialogue which would enable the learner to see how his or her theories-in-action impacted on the problem itself. Success in transferring learning appeared from her research to depend on a number of human issues relating to the complexity of the problem itself and the willingness of those involved to come to grips with it. It appears that only if the problem is relatively simple, the learner highly motivated and the facilitator highly skilled, is transfer of learning through Problem-Based Methodology likely to occur.

Learning and transfer also depended on the feelings of the learner. Most principals believed that they could learn anything that they put their minds to. However they also indicated that on occasions attitudes and feelings limited learning. One principal noted: "I'm quite discerning and I hate people who speak down to me" (FN 21). Furthermore, with regard to criticism from staff, parents or students, a principal noted: "I think that it's really easy to feel defensive in the position of principal and to let that affect your ability to listen to criticism ... and respond to it" (FN 22). Thus the research appeared to indicate that transfer of learning depended on the complexity of the problem and the commitment, value system and sensibilities of the learner. A further hindrance to transfer of learning appeared to be the size of the learning task relative to a given or desirable timeframe. As one principal noted "It's a huge task when you're trying to pull a school back from the brink" (FN 23).

The research appeared to highlight the holistic, cumulative and inter-related nature of each principal's learning of educational leadership and as a consequence the uniqueness of that learning experience. In this paper it is argued that if every principal and school combination is different, it follows that principals need to have a clear understanding of their own unique prior learning, their preferred learning methods, their learning needs related to leadership, and their particular learning context. How might such knowledge be acquired and used to improve practice? Earlier it was noted that "the human relationship side is the hardest" (FN 13) to learn. Consequently, the suggested strategies below are designed with learning related to human resources management in mind.

First, educational leaders need to determine whether they want to improve the way they lead and manage their people. If so, they will have to find out what their people perceive their learning needs are in this area. They should clear their minds of expectations and pre-conceived assumptions and prepare for a few surprises. Five strategies for identifying learning needs and developing educational leadership skills are suggested.

• Autobiographical study for self-evaluation

• Analysis of the particular learning environment

• Analysis of personal impact in the Dynamic Zone of Management (Figure 2)

• Identifying learning needs

• Meeting learning needs and implementing new learning

An autobiographical study will cover three key questions. What do I believe in? What are my values? Where did my beliefs and values come from? Values affect vision and how we treat people. The research appeared to suggest that the strengths and some of the difficulties of practice of an educational leader might be found in foundational learning i.e. pre-principal times. Therefore identification of learning needs must start there and carry on through the experiential and intentional learning parts of practice.

Suggested steps for autobiography

• Reflect

• Research. Ask a few trusted colleagues or ex-colleagues what they perceive your learning needs are in the area of people management. Do NOT debate or justify. Accept for reflection later.

• Write your learning autobiography in two parts; the narrative followed by your analysis of your learning.

Analyse your leadership context i.e. your school and community.

• What do you know of each of these people; their hopes, fears, ambitions?

• Describe the people characteristics of your staff? Who are the allies? the neutrals? the greatest challenges? Why? With what consequences?

Now place your self-analysis in the frame.

• What is your impact in this environment? How do these people perceive your leadership? One way to find out is to conduct a survey for anonymous response. "What do you perceive my learning needs to be?" This is a non-threatening way to tap into the perceptions of others. Alternatively provide a list of skills and ask several staff members to rank them, again anonymously, to indicate what they believe you do well and could do better. Your list might include listening, making decisions, resolving conflict, treating all staff, students and parents fairly, making staff feel valued, delegating or sharing real power, being well organised etc. (all the behaviours which the global theory emphasises as being important educational leadership characteristics).

• Examine your appraisal system. To what extent does it deal with performance in the people management part (i.e. interpersonal relations and leadership)? Design a way of obtaining data related to these issues for future appraisals.

• Using the information gained, identify one or two key learning needs related to your leadership.

• The action part of the learning process includes implementation and evaluation. Continue to monitor the impact of your learning as you seek to improve your human resources management in the area of interpersonal relationships, for example; in working with the management team, motivating staff, creating a community of learners, staff and school appraisal and development, career planning for staff, and interacting with the community.

At a conference in 1998, an experienced ex-secondary principal remarked: "The whole you is the principal. Therefore understand yourself". This insight is at the very heart of local effects of educational leadership issues. The global wisdom of theorists is most valuable when the individual is able to identify how best it might be used to empower, to nourish, and to effect personal growth. In discussing leadership, Duignan (1998) explored the need for general self awareness, including acknowledgement of "the flawed self, the dark self, the mask we sometimes wear to protect our fragile self" (p. 62). To avoid such capture, Duignan stressed (1998), we need to be clear about our values and motivations; what they are, how we developed them and how they impact on practice.

The main implications of the research described in this paper for individuals as they endeavour to learn and practise educational leadership, are as follows.

Professional development needs to assist educational leaders such as principals to understand the nature and functioning of their holistic learning. This means first identifying the nature and origin of their attitudes, values, and motivations, and second, analysing how they impact on practice. This should go beyond the familiar SWOT analysis and attempt to uncover basic questions of identity. "Who am I? What do I believe in? How did I get this way?" and in the context of the learning needs of particular management jobs: "How do I fit this particular job? Where do I need to concentrate my personal professional learning?" Professional development needs to assist principals to understand and analyse the unique configuration represented by themselves and their school/community, to identify unique problems of practice related to their personal styles of leadership, and to find solutions for them. The concept of unique configuration of each principal and school/community for providers of professional development suggests the need for a re-orientation of much professional education. The concept of uniqueness suggests the need for a rethinking of ways of solving complex educational problems by focusing on how more general global issues of educational leadership may best be translated into practice at the local level.

Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1997). Learning to lead: A workbook on becoming a leader (updated ed.). London: Nicholas Brealey.

Boud, D. (1995). Enhancing learning through self-assessment. London: Kogan Page.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. [Mainly focused on teachers but most chapters are relevant for leadership]

English, F. W. (1995). Towards a reconsideration of biography and other forms of life writing as a focus for teaching educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 203-223.

Robbins, S. P. (1997). Managing today! NJ: Prentice Hall.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Barnett, B. G. (1990). Peer-assisted leadership: Expanding principals' knowledge through reflective practice. Journal of Educational Administration, 28 (3), 67-76.

Barnett, B. G., Caffarella, R. S., Daresh, J. C., King, R. A., Nicholson, T. H., & Whitaker, K. S. (1992). A new slant on leadership preparation. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 72-75.

Barth, R. S. (1991). Improving schools from within: Teachers, parents and principals can make the difference. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Barth, R. S. (1993). Coming to a vision. Journal of Staff Development, 14 (1), 6-11.

Beare, H., Caldwell, B. J., & Millikan, R. H. (1989).Creating an excellent school. London: Routledge.

Begley, P. T. (1995). Using profiles of school leadership as supports to cognitive apprenticeship. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 176-202.

Bennis, W. (1991). Some truths about leadership. Dialogue, 94 (4), 13-17.

Boud, D., Cohen, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1993). Using experience for learning. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.

Boud, D. J., Keogh, R., & Walker, D. (Eds.). (1985). Reflection: Turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Page.

Boud, D., & Walker, D. (1991). Experience and learning: Reflection at work. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Brandt, R. (1992). On re-thinking leadership: A conversation with Tom Sergiovanni. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 46-49.

Bright, B. (1996). Reflecting on "reflective practice". Studies in the Education of Adults, 28, 162-184.

Brookfield, S. (1994). Tales from the dark side: A phenomenography of adult critical reflection. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 13, 203-216.

Bush, T., & West-Burnham, J. (Eds.). (1994). The principles of educational management. Essex, UK: Longman.

Cardno, C. (1996). Professional development: An holistic approach. New Zealand Journal of Educational Administration, 11, 25-28.

Crawford, J., Kippax. S., Onyx, J., Gault, U., & Benton, P. (1992). Emotion and gender: Constructing meaning from memory. London: Sage.

Duignan, P. A. (1998). Authenticity in leadership: Rhetoric, reality, ideal. In Ten years on: Reforming New Zealand education. Proceedings of the biennial conference of the New Zealand Educational Administration Society (pp. 50-81). NZEAS Secretary: Christchurch College of Education, New Zealand.

Dussault, M., & Barnett, B. G. (1996). Peer-assisted leadership: Reducing educational managers' professional isolation. Journal of Educational Administration, 34 (3), 5-14.

Ecclestone, K. (1996). The reflective practitioner: Mantra or a model for emancipation? Studies in the Education of Adults, 28, 146-161.

Fullan, M. (1997). Emotion and hope: Constructive concepts for complex times. In A Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. ASCD Yearbook (pp. 216-233). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Glover, D., Levacic, R., Bennett, N., & Earley, P. (1996). Leadership, planning and resource management in four very effective schools. Part 1: Setting the scene. School Organisation, 16, 135-148.

Grace, G. (1995). School leadership: Beyond education management. An essay in policy scholarship. London: Falmer Press.

Gronn, P. (1986). The psycho-social dynamics of leading and following. Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Guthrie, J. (1991). Effective educational executives: An essay on the concept of strategic leadership. In P. Ribbins, R. Glatter, T. Simkins & L. Watson (Eds.), Developing educational leaders (pp. 149-176). Harlow: Longman.

Hargreaves, A. (1993). Collaboration: A key to leadership for quality in education. The Practising Administrator, 15 (3), 16-18.

Hargreaves, A. (1997). Rethinking educational change: Going deeper and wider in the quest for success. In A. Hargreaves (Ed.), Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. ASCD Yearbook. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Heitmuller, P., Leuzinger, M., McAfee, L., Smith, R., & Pajak, E. (1993). Dimensions of professional growth for educational leaders. Journal of Staff Development, 14 (1), 28-31.

Johnson, W. I. (1994). Theory and practice in tertiary administration: Does research teach us anything? Journal of Tertiary Education Administration 16, 161-178.

Kuhn, D., Gracia-Mila, M., Zohar, A., & Anderson, C. (1995). Strategies of knowledge acquisition. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 60 (4, Serial No. 245).

Leithwood, K. A. (1987). Using "The principal profile" to assess performance. Educational Leadership, 45 (1), 63-66.

Lovett, S. (1997). The school principal as the head learner. New Zealand Journal of Educational Administration, 12, 24-29.

Mezirow, J. (1981). A critical theory of adult learning and education. In D. Boud & D. Walker (Eds.), (1991), Experience and learning: Reflection at work (pp. 61-82). Victoria: Deakin University Press.

Ministry of Education. (1997). Performance management systems: PMS 3. Wellington, New Zealand: Author.

Mitchell, D. E., & Tucker, S. (1992). Leadership as a way of thinking. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 30-35.

Murphy, J. (1995, July). Creative leadership. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Australian Council for Educational Administration, Sydney, Australia.

Robertson, J. (1995). Principals' partnerships: An action research study on the professional development of New Zealand school leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Robertson, J. M. (1999). Principals working with principals: Keeping education at the centre of practice. SET: Research Information for Teachers, 1, Item 9, 1-4.

Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Towards a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1991b). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (2nd ed.). MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992a). Moral leadership: Getting at the heart of school improvement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1992b). Why we should seek substitutes for leadership. Educational Leadership, 49 (5), 41-45.

Southworth, G. (1993). School leadership and school development: Reflections from research. School Organisation, 13, 73-87.

Southworth, G. (1995). Looking into primary headship: A research based interpretation. London: Falmer Press.

Sparks, D. (1993). The professional development of principals: A Conversation with Roland S. Barth. Journal of Staff Development, 14 (1), 18-21.

Stewart, D. (1992, April). Principal appraisal: Who benefits? The New Zealand Principal, pp. 20-24.

Stewart, D. (1994, November). More than just talk. The New Zealand Principal, pp. 26-27.

Stewart, D. J. (1997). Changing school practices: The impact of school development on primary and area school organisation and learning management. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Stewart D., & Prebble, T. (1993). The reflective principal: School development within a learning community. Palmerston North, NZ: ERDC Press.

Thrupp, M. (1996, December). The art of the possible: Organising and managing high and low socio-economic schools. Paper presented at the annual conference of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education.

Wolcott, H. F. (1973). The man in the principal's office: An ethnography. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Dr. F. M. Townsend

115 Waitangi Falls Rd

Waiuku RD 1

Auckland, New Zealand

email ftowns@ihug.co.nz COMMENTS WELCOMED