Succeeding Leaders: Supply and Demand

Part of the Studies in Educational Leadership book series (SIEL, volume 13)


This chapter examines the crisis of leadership success, succession and capacity development by viewing it as a question of supply and demand. Drawing on our research in the United States , Canada , England , and high-performing Finland , as well as on other literature in the field, this chapter identifies challenges of leadership success and succession as issues that increasingly involve the supply of capable leaders. In tandem with this, unnecessary demands deter them from seeking or staying in leadership roles. This chapter looks at the trajectory of leadership success and succession over three ages of educational change culminating in an age of post-standardization. It then describes an alternative path to success and succession in high-performing Finland that differs starkly from dominant Anglo-Saxon models of leadership and change. Conclusions are drawn about how to reconfigure supply and demand aspects of highly capable leadership, and how to redesign educational change and reform processes in order to make this possible.


Educational Change Leadership Development Professional Learning Community Leadership Success Leadership Capacity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aho, E., Pitkanen, K., & Sahlberg, P. (2006). Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington: World Bank.Google Scholar
  2. BBC News. (2008a). Police report targets red tape., 2008. Accessed 4 April 2008.
  3. BBC News. (2008b). Youth crime drive has no impact. 21, 2008. Accessed 4 April 2008.
  4. Blackmore, J. (1996). Doing ‘emotional labour’ in the education marketplace: Stories from the field of women in management. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 17(3), 337–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coalition for Evidence Based Policy. (2002). Bringing evidence-driven progress to education: A recommended strategy for the US Department of Education.
  6. Council of Ministers of Canada. (2008). Pan-Canadian Assessment Program-13, 2007. Accessed 2 May 2008.
  7. Cusick, P. (2003). Fewer candidates seek to become principals in Michigan. Newsroom MSU.EDU. East Lansing. Accessed 15 May 2008.
  8. Department for Children, Schools & Families. (2007). Guidance for local authorities on setting education performance targets, part 1: LA statutory targets for key stages, 2,3,4, early years outcomes. Children in care, Blacks, minorities, ethnic groups, attendance. London: DCSF.Google Scholar
  9. Duke, D. L. (2007). Education empire: The evolution of an excellent suburban school system. New York: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  10. Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington: Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, M., & Stone-Johnson, C. (2010). Internal leadership challenges of network participation: The experiences of school leaders in the Raising Achievement/Transforming Learning Network. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 13(2), 203–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fink, D. (2005). Leadership for mortals. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  13. Fink, D., & Brayman, C. (2006). School leadership succession and the challenges of change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 62–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fullan, M. (2007). Turnaround leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  15. Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era of school reform. London: Chapman.Google Scholar
  16. Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Accessed 11 May 2005.Google Scholar
  17. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. New York: Teachers’College Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hargreaves, D. (2004). Education epidemic: Transforming secondary schools through innovation networks. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  19. Hargreaves, A. (2007). The long and short of educational change. Education Canada, 47(3), 16.Google Scholar
  20. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2003). Change over time study. Spencer Foundation, Major Grant Number: 199800214.Google Scholar
  22. Hargreaves, A., & Goodson, I. (2006). Educational change over time? The sustainability and nonsustainability of three decades of secondary school change and continuity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 3–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2008a). The coming of post-standardization. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(2), 135–143.Google Scholar
  24. Hargreaves, A., & Shirley, D. (2008b). The fourth way: Post-standardization and the future of educational change. Washington: ASCD.Google Scholar
  25. Hargreaves, A., Shirley, D., Evans, M., Johnson, C., & Riseman, D. (2006). The long and short of raising achievement: Final report of the evaluation of the “Raising Achievement Transformation Learning”. Project of the UK Specialist Schools and Academies Trust. Chestnut Hill: Boston College.Google Scholar
  26. Hargreaves, A., Halász, G., & Pont, B. (2007). Finland a systemic approach to school leadership. A case study report for the OECD Activity Improving School Leadership.Google Scholar
  27. Harris, A., & Townsend, A. (2007). Developing leaders for tomorrow: Releasing system potential. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 169–179.Google Scholar
  28. Harris, A., Muijs, D., Chapman, C., Russ, J., & Stoll L. (2006). Improving schools in challenging contexts: Exploring the possible. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(4), 409–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hartley, D. (2007). ‘The emergence of distributed leadership in education; Why now?’ British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(2), 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hatch, T. (2002). When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(8), 626–634.Google Scholar
  31. Hattie, J. (2005). What is the nature of evidence that makes a difference to learning? Paper presented at the 2005 ACER Research Conference, August 7–9, Melbourne, Australia. Accessed 7 March 2006.
  32. Hepburn, H. (2008). We place trust in teachers. Times Educational Supplement, March 21. Accessed 3 April 2008.
  33. Hopkins, D. (2007). Every school a great school: Realizing the potential of system leadership. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Howe, N., & Straus, W. (2000). Millennials rising: The next great generation. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
  35. James, C., Connolly, M., Dunning, G., & Elliott, T. (2006). How very effective primary schools work. London: Chapman.Google Scholar
  36. Lambert, L. (1998). Building capacity in schools. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  37. Lancaster, L., & Stilman, D. (2002). When generations collide: Who they are. Why they clash. New York: Collins Business.Google Scholar
  38. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. New York: Teachers’ College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Martin, C., & Tulgan, B. (2001). Managing generation Y; global citizens born in the late seventies and early eighties. Amherst: HRD Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mullis, I., Martin, M., Kennedy, A., & Foy, P. (2007). Pirls 2006 International Reading Report: IEA’s progress in international reading literacy study in primary schools in 40 countries. Boston: International Study Center, Boston College.Google Scholar
  41. Nichols, S., & Berliner, D. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts American school. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow’s world—first results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
  43. OECD. (2008). Improving school leadership project. Accessed 3 April 2008.
  44. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2008). Reach every student: Energizing Ontario education. Toronto: Ontario Ministry of Education (Winter 2008).Google Scholar
  45. Porter, M., Schwab, K., Sala-i-Martin, X., & Lopez-Claros, A. (Eds.). (2004). The global competitiveness report. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. (2007). Independent study into school leadership. Nottingham: Department for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  47. Robertson, J. (2007). Coaching educational leadership: Building leadership capacity through partnerships. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  48. Shirley, D., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). Data-driven to distraction. Education Week, 26(6), 32–33.Google Scholar
  49. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Tymms, P. (2004). Are standards rising in English primary schools? British Educational Research Journal, 30(4), 477–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2007). Standards and quality in English primary schools over time: The national evidence. Primary Review Research Survey 4/1. Cambridge: University of Cambridge Faculty of Education.Google Scholar
  52. US Congress. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act [HR 1 Public Law of 2001 107–110]. Washington: GPO.Google Scholar
  53. Veuglers, W., & O’Hair, J. M. (Eds.). (2005). School-university networks and educational change. Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Lynch School of EducationBoston CollegeBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations