Leadership Tensions and Dilemmas Leadership Tensions and Dilemmas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Results from the Tasmanian Successful School Principal Project (SSPP) survey concur with the four major leadership tensions and dilemmas identified in a background literature review. These tensions and dilemmas relate to internal/external control, ethic of care/responsibility, and an emphasis on professional/personal as well as leadership/management. The results also offer new insights. These insights include differences in the effects of the tensions and dilemmas based on principal qualifications, experience and gender, school size, socio-economic status (SES) and organisational capacity, and student social and literacy/numeracy success adjusted for school SES. A recent review of research concerning quality teaching and quality leading in Australian schools has highlighted a need to look at ways in which successful school leaders manage dilemmas and tensions that arise in schools (Zammit et al., 2007, p. 27). This article aims to review some representative literature in the area and provide results from the Tasmanian Successful School Principals Project (SSPP) project, which includes a set of survey items relating to leadership tensions and dilemmas. Background Literature Research studies from three countries, UK, Canada and Australia, focussed on dilemmas faced by school principals. In the UK, Day et al. (2001) saw dilemmas for principals choosing between courses of action which are to a greater or lesser extent mutually exclusive. Two of the dilemmas identified were development or dismissal, that is what to do
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".