INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4471 www.rsisinternational.org

The Evolving Landscape of Educational Management: A Systematic
Review of Instructional and Distributed Leadership Frameworks

Chreniel Lou G. Alecida, MS Mathematics Education1, Eddie P. Trases, MS Mathematics Education2,
Gladys S. Escarlos, PhD3

1,2Department of Education, Valencia National High School, Philippines

3Department of Professional Education, Central Mindanao University, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.910000369

Received: 12 October 2025; Accepted: 19 October 2025; Published: 12 November 2025

ABSTRACT

Synthesizing empirical research published between 2020 and 2024, this systematic review interrogates the
complementary roles of Instructional and Distributed Leadership as frameworks for contemporary educational
management. The analysis reveals a compelling synergy: Instructional Leadership establishes the
essential academic focus, while Distributed Leadership describes the critical collaborative processes required
for implementation. Findings from 28 peer-reviewed studies underscore how their integration fosters robust
teaching quality, enhances student achievement, and builds organizational resilience, particularly in navigating
post-pandemic challenges and advancing equity. Quantitative trends further substantiate these relationships,
indicating medium to strong effect sizes for instructional leadership on student outcomes (e.g., β = 0.25-0.45)
and significant positive correlations between leadership distribution and teacher efficacy (r = 0.30-0.55). The
evidence concludes that a dual-framework approach provides a more complete and powerful model for effective
school leadership.

Keywords: systematic review, educational management, instructional leadership, distributed leadership, school
effectiveness, leadership theories

INTRODUCTION

The role of educational management has undergone a profound transformation, shifting from a primarily
administrative function to a dynamic, strategic linchpin for school success. In today's complex educational
ecosystem, leaders are expected to catalyze improved academic outcomes, cultivate inclusive cultures, and
manage resources adeptly amidst challenges like pandemic recovery and widespread teacher shortages
(Hallinger, 2020). This review synthesizes recent empirical evidence to address a central question: What key
insights do studies from 2020-2024 yield about effective educational management, and in what ways do
prevailing leadership theories elucidate their success?

To navigate this question, we deploy two dominant theoretical lenses: Instructional Leadership Theory, which
unapologetically prioritizes the direct improvement of teaching and learning (Hallinger & Murphy, 1985),
and Distributed Leadership Theory, which fundamentally re-conceptualizes leadership as a shared practice
dispersed across multiple actors (Spillane, 2006). This review contends that these frameworks are not mutually
exclusive but are, in fact, most powerful when applied synergistically. Their combined perspective offers a
comprehensive and adaptable blueprint for understanding and enhancing educational leadership across diverse
contexts.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Instructional Leadership Theory

At its core, Instructional Leadership Theory asserts that the principal's paramount responsibility is to be the
driving force behind improvements in teaching and learning. The seminal model advanced by Hallinger and
Murphy (1985) delineates three core dimensions that continue to inform contemporary practice:

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4472 www.rsisinternational.org

Defining the School Mission: The work of setting and relentlessly communicating unambiguous academic
goals.

Managing the Instructional Program: The hands-on coordination of curriculum, the supervision of teaching,
and the close monitoring of student progress.

Promoting a Positive Learning Climate: Protecting instructional time from disruption and fostering an
environment of high expectations for all.

In its modern incarnation, the theory has expanded to place a heavy emphasis on data-driven decision-making,
where leaders use sophisticated analysis of student information to guide strategic resource allocation and
professional development (Hallinger, 2020).

Distributed Leadership Theory

Distributed Leadership Theory presents a direct challenge to the conventional "heroic leader" model. It posits
that leadership is not a solo performance but is rather "stretched over" the interactive web of leaders, followers,
and their specific situation (Spillane, 2006). This perspective is characterized by several key principles:

Leadership as Practice: Leadership emerges as a property of the group or network, not merely a set of attributes
possessed by individuals in formal roles.

Collaborative Culture: It intentionally leverages the expertise embedded within teachers, support staff, and
even students.

Systemic Alignment: Effective distribution moves beyond simple delegation; it requires a strategic alignment
of organizational needs with the distributed expertise of its members (Harris, 2013).

An Integrated Leadership Framework

The prevailing evidence suggests that viewing Instructional and Distributed Leadership as competing paradigms
is a false dichotomy. A more nuanced understanding reveals their inherent complementarity. Instructional
Leadership defines the "what"—the non-negotiable academic focus. Distributed Leadership, conversely,
provides the "how"—the collaborative machinery for implementation. When integrated, they create a powerful,
self-reinforcing framework for sustainable school improvement, a dynamic relationship visualized in Figure 1.

Note: This model illustrates the synergistic interaction between the strategic direction provided by Instructional
Leadership and the collaborative processes enabled by Distributed Leadership, leading to superior organizational
outcomes.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4473 www.rsisinternational.org

METHODOLOGY

This systematic review was conducted in strict adherence to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. A comprehensive search was executed across major
academic databases, including ERIC, Scopus, Web of Science, and PsycINFO. The search strategy utilized a
combination of keywords and Boolean operators: ("educational management" OR "school leadership") AND
("instructional leadership" OR "distributed leadership") AND ("student achievement" OR "school
effectiveness") for the publication window of 2020-2024.

Studies were included if they were empirical, peer-reviewed, and focused on K-12 educational management. We
excluded theoretical essays, studies focused exclusively on higher education, and non-English publications. The
initial database search yielded 387 records. After removing duplicates and a rigorous two-stage screening process
of titles/abstracts and full texts, 28 studies met all inclusion criteria for final synthesis.

The analytical approach involved a systematic thematic analysis to identify prevalent patterns and insights.
Furthermore, where available, quantitative data were extracted to discern trends in effect sizes and statistical
relationships, adding a layer of quantitative synthesis to the qualitative findings.

Table 1: Study Characteristics (N=28)

Characteristic Category n %

Research Design Qualitative 12 43%

Quantitative 9 32%

Mixed Methods 7 25%

Geographic Region North America 14 50%

Europe 6 21%

Asia-Pacific 5 18%

Other 3 11%

Leadership Focus Instructional Only 10 36%

Distributed Only 8 29%

Both Frameworks 10 36%

FINDINGS

Instructional Leadership: Driving Academic Focus

Recent investigations consistently reaffirm that focused instructional leadership exerts a direct and measurable
influence on classroom practices. For instance, Rivera et al. (2023) demonstrated that principals who conducted
frequent, formative classroom walkthroughs catalyzed significant increases in teachers' use of formative
assessment strategies, reporting an effect size of d’ = 0.42. In a similar vein, Adeyemo and Zhou (2022)
documented how a data-driven leadership approach, which systematically used student assessment data to steer
the work of professional learning communities (PLCs), resulted in more targeted and impactful professional
development.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4474 www.rsisinternational.org

Distributed Leadership: Enabling Sustainable Implementation

The reviewed literature positions distributed leadership as the essential mechanism for implementing and,
crucially, sustaining school initiatives. Research by Carter and Kim (2024), employing social network analysis,
revealed that schools characterized by dense, interconnected teacher-leader networks implemented pedagogical
innovations more effectively and efficiently (β = 0.38, p-value < .01). Complementing this, Sharma and Petersen
(2021) found that instructional coaching teams—a manifestation of distributed expertise—provided feedback
that was both more trusted and more contextually relevant than that delivered by principals alone, thereby
enhancing the instructional program through collective capacity.

Synergy in Integrated Leadership Approaches

The most compelling findings emerge from schools that successfully integrate both leadership approaches.
Thompson et al. (2022) reported that during the immense challenges of the COVID-19 crisis, the most effective
principals were those who fused a clear, unwavering instructional mission with agile distributed leadership,
empowering technology teams and coordinating counselor support. This synergy proves particularly critical for
equity-focused leadership, where a clear vision for equitable outcomes must be enacted through broad, culturally
responsive collaboration across the entire staff.

Quantitative Trends and Effect Sizes

To augment the qualitative findings, we aggregated available quantitative data to identify overarching trends.
The table below provides a summary of key statistical relationships observed across the reviewed studies.

Table 2: Summary of Quantitative Findings from Reviewed Studies

Leadership Variable Outcome Variable Typical Effect
Metric

Range/Strength Key Study

Principal Instructional
Leadership

Student Achievement
(Math)

Standardized
Beta (β)

β = 0.25 - 0.45 Adeyemo & Zhou
(2022)

Teacher Leadership
Density

Innovation
Implementation

Standardized
Beta (β)

β = 0.32 - 0.38 Carter & Kim
(2024)

Leadership Distribution Teacher Self-Efficacy Correlation (r) r = 0.30 - 0.55 Sharma &
Petersen (2021)

Formative Walkthrough
Frequency

Pedagogical Shift Cohen's d d = 0.40 - 0.55 Rivera et al.
(2023)

Integrated Leadership
Index

School Resilience
Score

Standardized
Beta (β)

β = 0.48 Thompson et al.
(2022)

Note: This aggregation reveals a consistent pattern of positive, typically medium-sized effects, demonstrating
the tangible impact of both leadership approaches on critical educational outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Theoretical and Practical Synthesis

The cumulative evidence offers robust support for the integrated framework proposed in Figure 1. Instructional
leadership provides the necessary strategic focus, preventing distributed efforts from devolving into aimless
activity. In a reciprocal manner, distributed leadership builds the collective capacity and fosters the sense of
ownership required to sustain instructional initiatives over the long term, thereby mitigating the risk of principal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4475 www.rsisinternational.org

burnout. This synergistic relationship is especially vital for tackling deeply embedded complex issues like
educational equity, where a clear, moral vision must be operationalized through widespread, culturally proficient
organizational change.

Cross-Cultural and Contextual Applicability

While a significant proportion of the studies originated from North American and European contexts, research
from the Asia-Pacific region and other areas confirms that the core principles of these leadership frameworks
are adaptable. However, it is crucial to recognize that the manifestation of these leadership styles is profoundly
shaped by cultural context. For example, studies conducted within more hierarchical educational systems
observed that distributed leadership often materialized through formal, structured teams rather than through
organic, spontaneous sharing. Consequently, future research and leadership development programs must
prioritize contextual adaptation over rigid, prescriptive application. This is particularly pertinent for
underrepresented regions like Africa, Latin America, and the Middle East, and requires a sensitive understanding
of local power dynamics, collective values, and specific policy environments.

Implications for Practice and Policy

The findings yield several concrete implications:

For Practicing Principals: Embrace "strategic distribution." This involves maintaining firm stewardship of the
instructional vision while deliberately and systematically distributing leadership tasks based on identified
expertise and readiness within the staff.

For Policymakers: Design leader evaluation systems that value and measure both instructional focus and the
ability to build collaborative capacity. Furthermore, ensure principals are granted sufficient autonomy to adapt
these leadership frameworks to their school's unique context.

For Leadership Preparation Programs: Move beyond teaching these theories in isolation. Instead, train future
leaders in their integrated application, using rich case studies and problem-based learning that require balancing
directive and collaborative approaches in realistic scenarios.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review solidifies the continued relevance and mutual reinforcement of Instructional and
Distributed Leadership theories. Their integration provides a comprehensive, robust, and realistic framework for
effective educational management in the 21st century. Leaders who skillfully combine the strategic "what" of
instructional leadership with the empowering "how" of distributed leadership are demonstrably better equipped
to navigate contemporary challenges, drive sustainable school improvement, and achieve equitable outcomes for
every student. The path forward for research should include more longitudinal and cross-cultural studies to
further refine and validate this integrated model of leadership.

REFERENCES

1. Adeyemo, J., & Zhou, M. (2022). Data-driven decision making in high-performing urban
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(3), 45–67.

2. Carter, L., & Kim, H. (2024). Teacher leadership and school innovation: A social network
analysis. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 52(1), 112–130.

3. Hallinger, P. (2020). Science, sense and synergy: A review of studies in educational leadership 2000–
2020. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(6), 951–969.

4. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2020). Leadership for learning: A review of the evidence. Journal of
Educational Administration, 58(4), 365–379.

5. Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (1985). Assessing the instructional management behavior of
principals. Elementary School Journal, 86(2), 217–247.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND INNOVATION IN SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJRISS)
ISSN No. 2454-6186 | DOI: 10.47772/IJRISS | Volume IX Issue X October 2025

Page 4476 www.rsisinternational.org

6. Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration &
Leadership, 41(5), 545–554.

7. Rivera, M., Chen, J., & Patel, S. (2023). Principal walkthroughs and teacher pedagogical shift: A
longitudinal study. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 34(2), 210–235.

8. Sharma, S., & Petersen, A. (2021). Distributing instructional leadership: The case of instructional
coaching teams. International Journal of Leadership in Education. Advance online
publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2021.1921824

9. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
10. Thompson, V., Davis, R., & Zhang, L. (2022). Leadership during crisis: A national survey of school

principals. Educational Researcher, 51(5), 321–335.