Towards coherence: Mapping and rethinking post-primary school leadership networks in Ireland

Introduction

Leadership networks have become increasingly prominent, particularly in the context of concerns regarding role sustainability and system reform. The focus of our research is specific to individually governed networks for school leaders in the Irish post-primary sector, by which we mean formal, structured professional forums that bring together school leaders, (principals and/or deputy principals), at a national and regional level to facilitate networking, collaboration, peer learning, professional development, professional support and the sharing of knowledge, experiences and resources related to school leadership practice.

While research in the overlapping area of leading school networks and leaders’ networks has been evidenced in the literature over the past three decades, in Ireland research into established and individually governed networks for principals and deputy principals in the post-primary sector in Ireland remains still relatively new. Despite frequent references to networks in Irish policy documents, there remains nationally lack of discourse as to their distinct nature. This may prevent effective collation of evidence of their efficacy. It may also lead to fragmented understandings of the influence and impact of individual networks for principals and deputy principals, in particular, their contribution to building leadership capacity. Irish policy makers are now seeking more in-depth understanding of the nature of networks across the education system. The National Education Plan (Department of Education and Youth, 2025) has set definitive targets that include ‘mapping and assessing the current leadership, management, and governance structures and landscape, and analysing existing leadership structures, roles and supports’ (42).

Given the growing recognition of networks as part of the school leadership landscape, it is timely to examine how these individual and established networks support school leadership. This article examines the current network landscape available to post-primary principals and deputy principals in Ireland. The authors are offering social capital as a useful perspective for interpreting the relational dynamics within these networks. Putnam (2000: 19) has advocated that a core tenet of social capital theory is that social networks have value, and it is this value that the authors are seeking to ascertain. This study employed a documentary meta-mapping approach to identify and map formal and individual post primary school networks for principals and deputy principals. Documentary sources including policy documents, reports, organisational websites and publicly available materials from the Department of Education and Youth were carefully reviewed to identify and collate formal post-primary school leader networks that support principals and deputy principals. In addition to searches to collate the professional school leader networks, a conceptual synthesis of existing literature was also conducted to support this work. The purpose was to identify structural patterns and potential tensions that might warrant further empirical investigation. It was envisioned that mapping the current state of the art may inform a more coherent framework that reflects the multidimensional and complex nature of school leader networks. Drawing on literature from educational leadership, organisational theory and social capital, this article conceptualises leadership networks as dynamic, relational constructs shaped by context and collective agency. Using the Irish post-primary sector as a case, we also examine the volume, diversity and complexity of available networks, with interest in collaborative advantage that networks offer.

Defining networks for the school leadership context

There is no single agreed definition as to what constitutes a network in the literature, indeed a multitude of definitions can be called upon. Leithwood (2019: 177), suggests that networks are structures ‘which, under the right conditions, [are] capable of stimulating potentially rich interactions among members resulting in new and creative ideas or practices not initially part of the repertoire of any individual network member’. For Leithwood, stimulation of interactions and potential creativity that expands beyond the individual domain brings added value to networks. With differing emphasis, O’Hara et al. (2021: 2) focus on knowledge generation and goal driven engagement. He defines a network as ‘as a mode of organizational and personal development that is goal-driven, relies on good communication, is challenging, and seeks to provide a way for school communities to uncover and transmit the knowledge that helps ensure effective teaching and learning’. McGuire and Silvia (2009: 35) define a network from a structural yet tenuous perspective as ‘an integrated structure that involves multiple actors, nodes, with multiple linkages, working on cross-boundary, collaborative activities’ and they can be formal or informal.

There is evidence of nuanced perspectives on networks purpose and type. Muijs et al. (2010: 6) proposed a broader definition of networks as ‘at least two organisations working together for a common purpose for at least some of the time’. While Muijs et al. focus on the organisations per se, working together for a common purpose for at least some of the time they may also fit an individual perspective of networking whereby two or more people work together in pursuit of a common purpose. Armstrong et al. suggest that ‘the notion of school improvement through partnership and professional dialogue is a powerful and seductive one with which few would argue in principle’ (2020: 320). Harris et al. suggest that ‘networking implies crossing school boundaries and building bridges between different actors who are collectively involved in leadership practices that go beyond the school gates and limits’ (Harris et al., 2023: 921). More broadly, the literature suggests that networks serve as a system of social ties among leaders who are connected through shared interests, commitment, work or experiences, where leaders share information, advice, support and actively learn from each other (Hoppe and Reinelt, 2010). Thus, the literature evidences some nuances in definitions and conceptualisations of networks that range across supportive interactions, development of potential and creativity, shared goal achievement, transcending of boundaries and building of bridges in knowledge generation and knowledge/expertise sharing.

Several authors focus on the social capital dimensions of networks. Kim (2013) identifies the deliberate development and maintenance of relationships with individuals who may support one's work or career. Putnam (2000) places emphasis on the importance of the connections between individuals as forming networks based upon norms of reciprocity, trust and capacity, arguing that while physical capital refers to physical objects, human capital refers to the properties of individuals. Social capital refers to connections among individuals, social networks and the norms of trustworthiness and reciprocity. The importance of collaboration and connection among individuals through social networks, which Putnam (2000) advocates, aligns directly with the espoused objectives of educational networks for principals and deputy principals.

Irish post-primary networks for principals and deputy principals are embedded within historically constituted sectoral fields, where governance structures shape participation and interaction. These dynamics may, at times, reproduce hierarchical arrangements rather than flatten them. Deliberate leadership and skilled facilitation within flat power structures are considered characteristics of an effective network (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016). Through networks, school leaders can offer mutual support through data exchange, strategizing together on school development and may even foster joint accountability (Banoǧlu et al., 2025). Even in the absence of a formal structure, networking can create space for knowledge sharing, advice seeking and can strengthen relationships among school leaders within their districts (Banoǧlu et al., 2025).

We differentiate these networks from other activities such as Professional Learning Communities (Timperley, 2011), Networked Improvement Communities (Bryk, 2015) or Educational Collaboration Networks (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017). Our focus is on established professional networks for principals and deputy principals that are formal and structured that bring together school leaders, at a national and regional level to facilitate networking, collaboration, peer learning, professional development, professional support, and how these professional networks enhance the development of individual and collective capacity. For the purposes of our work, and based upon our interrogation of the literature, we define a professional leadership network as: a relational structure, formal in nature, where school leaders can engage collaboratively with others in a way that potentially increases both their individual and collective leadership capacity.

Networks – the dark side

While networks can facilitate the circulation of social capital, they may also conversely reinforce existing distributions of power and privilege. We acknowledge that there are dark sides to networks also. Hargreaves (2025) advocates the need to consider the actual and potential dark sides of networks, not to discredit networks but rather, to make them strong and defensible. Belonging to a network brings insider privileges often outside of individual awareness (Horak et al., 2020: 515). Hargreaves cautions about the envy that successful networks can engender. He cautions that in new networks things can become move too quickly, become superficial, and hidden agendas can dominate adversely impacting the coherence and transparency connected to the deeper purposes of the network. This may result in members questioning the value of a particular network. If network structures lack transparency, they are vulnerable to the emergence of hidden agendas in uncodified or unarticulated forms (Horak et al., 2020: 516). In keeping with Bourdieu's thinking, Wyman and Armstrong (2025) state that ‘it is widely accepted across the diverse range of traditions within organisational theory that, depending on the context, there are organisations better placed (theory of field and social worlds/arena), holding more resources (social capital), or holding more appraised resources (resources dependence) than others’. Arsmtrong et al. also suggest that ‘organisations are sense making systems with their own distinct perceptions of reality and are at risk of becoming myopic’ (2020: 323). We suggest that this warrants closer examination of power imbalances and inter-organisational relationships and networks in the Irish post-primary context. We suggest that that this may be a contributory factor for school leaders in choosing which formal networks with which to engage. de Lima (2010) explores the genesis of networks and the motivations that drive individuals to participate in them. Drawing on De Lima's work, at the post-primary level, networks can be understood as both emergent social systems and externally sponsored structures. The meta-landscape conceptualisation comprising multiple, independently governed networks serving the same professional groups provides a valuable basis for examining the complexity of post-primary school leader network engagement.

Within this context, this article focuses on established and individually governed networks for post-primary principals and deputy principals in Ireland. It also considers the complexity arising from the volume and diversity of these networks in the post-primary sector and questions whether the volume may mitigate collaborative advantage, ‘achieving something that could not be realized by a single organisation acting alone’ (Huxham, 2003: 338). This discussion of ‘the dark side of networks’ also invites examination of Huxham adn Vangens' notion of collaborative thuggery within networks. Huxham and Vangen (2000) highlight how, within hierarchical structures, power asymmetries may manifest in coercive forms of coordination, whereby dominant actors shape compliance and direction-setting within collaborative arrangements. Putnam (2000) argues that social capital, ‘can be directed toward malevolent, anti-social purposes, just like any other form of capital’ (22). Together, these perspectives suggest that leadership networks are neither inherently collaborative nor inherently benign, thereby warranting deeper theoretical and empirical exploration of how power, capital and influence operate within and across such relational structures.

Mapping process

The authors recognised the need to provide clarity specific to the current landscape of individually governed leader networks for post-primary school leaders. Given that there was previously no single mapping of the range of what was available, it was decided to engage in a meta-mapping approach to identify and map formal post-primary school leadership networks. Our approach blended searching documentary sources that identify school leader networks with meta-mapping that included policy documents, reports, organisational websites and publicly available materials from the Department of Education and Youth. Bowen (2009) advocates that document analysis is often enhanced by drawing on at least two sources of evidence to seek convergence and corroboration. Therefore, in addition to the searches, the results were cross checked with the professional network websites themselves and verified by two directors of a professional school leader network. Mapping relationships between organisations and individuals are a recognised approach within social network analysis and it enhances understanding of how the inter-connections operate (Borgatti et al., 2018). Once all networks were identified and cross checked a meta-mapping diagram was created (see Figure 1). This meta-map can be understood as a visual synthesis of the analysis conducted. In effect it is form of concept mapping that includes a meta-overview of existing structures. Kane and Trochim (2007) define concept mapping as a generic term that describes any process for representing ideas in pictures or maps and they explain that concept maps comprise pattern matches, that can be used in reaching awareness of the issues at hand and insights on how to proceed. By visually collating the principal leadership networks within a single meta-map, the diagram highlights the relationships and structural interconnections between organisations that currently exist for Irish post-primary school leaders.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Visual mapping of author's synthesis of post-primary leadership networks in Ireland.

The post-primary ‘meta-landscape’ in Ireland is complex. We use the term ‘meta-landscape’ to capture the overarching framework that integrates a variety of leadership networks within it. ‘Meta’ signifies ‘a helicopter’ view of the interconnectedness among the range of different networks. In artistic and architectural discourse, the prefix meta often signifies reflexivity and layered structure for example an architectural design that foregrounds the relationship between component parts and the whole. Adopting a meta-perspective in this study shifts attention from individual networks to the patterned relationships between them. This meta-landscape perspective highlights the level of choice and discernment that principals and deputy principals potentially engage with when choosing with which networks to engage. A landscape view enables a systemic vantage point, akin to an architectural site plan rather than a single elevation, though which boundaries and points of intersection become visible. Each individual network carries unique attributes and purposes, have unique goals, yet all share a similar purpose of supporting and enhancing effective school leadership in Ireland.

Social networks affect the flow and quality of information and because often information is subtle, nuanced and difficult to verify, actors rely on people they know (Granovetter, 2005: 33). Taking an aerial view of social networks, Granovetter posits that ‘if cliques are connected to one another, it is mainly by weak ties. This implies that such ties determine the extent of information diffusion in large scale social structures’ (Granovetter, 2005: 34). This meta-level framing therefore warrants systematic exploration of how leaders’ engagement across intersecting networks influences both individual capacity and collective coherence.

The Irish post-primary context

Ireland's post-primary education system comprises multiple overlapping networks for principals and deputy principals, shaped by sectoral divisions, statutory bodies and voluntary initiatives. It is a complex web comprising of networks for principals and/or deputy principals. A cursory glance from somewhat narrowed focus indicates that Irish post-primary school leaders face considerable choice in terms of networks with which to engage. The varied purpose of each network, their potentially overlapping structures and availability to attend, may contribute to difficulties with choice and discernment. Wyman and Armstrong point out that ‘organisational theory also emphasises that not all organisations and their members are equally equipped to engage in network activity’ (Wyman and Armstrong, 2025: 8). This warrants further exploration in the context of Irish post-primary school leadership.

At post-primary level in Ireland, there are three distinct sector specific bodies with responsibility for governance, the Voluntary Secondary (comprising mostly of schools established by religious orders), the Community and Comprehensive (comprising of schools funded directly by the State, often resulting from an amalgamation of two or more schools), and the Education and Training Board (comprising of schools under the governance of an ETB) sectors. This results in networks that are specific to each sector, both at national and regional level, and these in turn overlap with networks that are cross sectoral, both at national and regional level.

Generally, the principal and/or deputy principal within a particular sector do not attend network events within the other two sectors. However, such is the complexity that a principal of a Community and Comprehensive School may attend network events of the patron or trust body that also includes the voluntary secondary sector. This is because historically most Community and Comprehensive schools have two or more patron bodies (a patron has authority over a school and is responsible for upholding school ethos and ensuring governance). Voluntary secondary schools mostly have one patron. There are other complexities and variances of opportunities for deputy principals across sectors to attend network events. In the Voluntary Secondary Sector, for example, Deputy Principals are not invited to attend regional meetings of the Joint Managerial Board but are invited to attend their annual Education Conference. An ETB principal/deputy principal can attend network events nationally across the Education and Training Board of Ireland's own network and within each of the individual 16 Education Training Boards but no other sectoral specific events. Likewise, these ETB networks are not available to principals/deputy principals outside of the ETB, except perhaps if a Community and Comprehensive school have ETB patronage then they may be eligible to attend.

Outside of Management Body sectors there are cross-sectoral professional associations and bodies that have network events open to all principals and deputy principals. For example, the National Association of Principals and Deputy Principals (NAPD) hosts networks events for both principals and deputy principals across all sectors. Membership of NAPD also includes membership of the European School Heads Association (ESHA) and membership of the International Confederation of Principals (ICP). Professional learning groups for newly appointed principals and deputy principals such as Misneach and Tánaiste (facilitated by OIDE) are also cross sectoral. In terms of union membership and activity, generally those principals and deputy principals with membership in Association of Secondary Teachers of Ireland (ASTI) work in voluntary secondary schools but the sectoral split of union membership has changed over the last number of years. There are an increasing number of schools that now identify as ‘dual union schools’ (traditionally associated with Community and Comprehensive schools) with varying membership to either union across sectors. There are other types of networks available to school leaders such as professional associations, regional networks, professional development networks, informal networks, geographical networks and so on. Principals and deputy principals may also access ‘niche’ networks such as those leading Gaelcholáistí (Irish medium schools) and DEIS (designated disadvantaged) schools. This plethora of choice may require school leaders to navigate competing relational spaces, exercising discernment in the allocation of their social and professional capital. Access to networks is unevenly distributed, potentially reflecting differential access to social and symbolic capital (Bourdieu, 1986), for example, rural schools, DEIS schools, smaller schools, may have fewer resources to access networks and their events.

Figure 1 posits a visual representation of networks for principals and deputy principals, situated within a broader ‘meta-landscape’, currently available to post-primary senior school leaders. Each of the governance/ patron bodies as well as professional associations and trade unions operate within their own distinct framework, governance structures, all with potential influence on the perspectives and practices within their respective networks. Recognising ‘the busyness of the school leader role where time is at a premium’ (Mannix McNamara, 2023), it is plausible that the rich landscape of network choice introduces the need for discernment for school leaders when deciding which networks to engage with. In making choice, there is the possibility of gain and loss in that by aligning with one network, a leader might miss out on the professional supports offered by another. Lack of knowledge of purpose could also further exacerbate choice hesitancy as school leaders may wonder about the practical outcomes of their involvement and the expectations placed upon them.

The inter-relationality of the position of school principal and deputy principal, and the obligations attached to those roles, means that at any one time a senior school leader may be engaging with one, more or indeed all stakeholders for a myriad of reasons (see Figure 2). Rahimi and Arnold Ben (2024) identified worrying levels of burnout, stress, and work-life imbalance for school leaders in Ireland. Irish post-primary school leaders face significant challenges related to increasing workload, excessive administrative burden and unreasonable work hours. Their study also found that other leaders from outside of their workplace were of a significant support (Rahimi and Arnold Ben, 2024). This suggests that accessing a leadership network may offer benefits regarding some of the pressures. These benefits may however also be somewhat mitigated by the plethora of available networks and choosing which network may initially require too much of their limited attention time. However, the big picture appears to be that networks are an important source of social solidarity (Putnam, 2000) and so from a social capital perspective it is plausible to suggest that they may offer mitigation to the isolation that is often a reality for school leaders. The volume of established networks for principals and deputy principals could lead to overlap and indeed too many individual networks that are attempting to serve the same or similar purposes. Described as ‘wicked problems’, Greany and Kamp suggest that ‘policy development and implementation require connectedness, the concerted effort of multiple actors that possess some capabilities to act’ (Greany and Kamp, 2024: 1048). Conversely, the fragmentation of competing interests in many networks serving the same population may adversely limit collaborative advantage, particularly if many voices are advocating for different priorities or from differing perspectives. Such fragmentation could dilute school leader's collective voice becoming less influential with state bodies than it otherwise could be in terms of policy decisions, terms and conditions and curriculum change. At best, coherency across the networks can affect system change but at worst, lack of coherency may result in opportunities for divide and conquer and maintenance of status quo. Cross-sectoral complexity and absence of a coherent national approach to network engagement can lead to fragmentation and reduced impact because collaborative advantage is less likely as consensus between networks that are competing for membership is rare as is the capacity to advocate with a single voice (Huxham, 1996).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Visual of stakeholders that a principal/deputy principal interacts with.

Navigating the complexity

It is fair to suggest that a newly appointed post-primary principal in Ireland may first engage with networks that are statutory in nature and provide much needed information on governance, compliance, finance and statutory obligations. Pre-commencement training is provided for by specific sectoral management bodies and also by OIDE (professional development service), Misneach for principals and Tánaiste for deputy principals. Professional interactions play a crucial role in sharing effective management practices and navigating regulatory requirements. These sectoral networks (e.g. training provided by the Management Bodies, JMB, ACCS, ETBI) usually provide detail and direction as currently the role can be described as somewhat opaque in description. Problematically the school principal as a role has no pre-determined contract that prescribes a specific ‘list of duties’. According to Section 23(1)(a) of the Education Act (1998) ‘The principal shall have responsibility, under the direction of the board, for the day-to-day management of the school including guidance and direction of the teachers and other staff of the school and the implementation of the curriculum in accordance with the functions of the Minister’. This is in effect a ‘catch all’.

Navigating the landscape of leadership networks is important for post-primary principals and deputy principals in Ireland. Understanding the variety and structure of available networks may enhance a leader's professional agency. The choices they make regarding network engagement may play a significant role in shaping their experiences and the impact they may have on their schools and communities. From a social capital perspective, engagement in these networks enables leaders to build relationships, access collective expertise and develop trust-based professional communities. There is benefit to both individuals involved and to the respective institutions (Harris et al., 2023). School leaders’ daily interactions occur across a range of actors not least of which are with students, teachers, parents, stakeholders, services and ancillary staff. Figure 2 gives a sense of the complexity and range of pressures on a school leaders time that may influence choice of network engagement influenced by where most support is needed at any time. Highlighting this broad range of interactions demonstrates another factor that may determine network choice based on needs of the school leader at a particular time.

Potential ways forward

Given the complexity of school leader's role, clarity in network purpose and governance structures may influence how social and professional capital is mobilised within and across leadership networks. By clearly articulating the ‘meta-landscape’ of leadership networks, what they offer, and how they intersect with other networks may aid school leaders. People gain momentum by pursuing action with others (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012), thus from a social capital perspective, more strategic engagement with, and across, networks may facilitate greater professional agency for school leaders. Pathways for interactions that facilitate school leaders to connect with peers across different sectors can foster knowledge sharing, and stronger professional relationships. The literature suggests that collaboration is an important factor for network effectiveness (Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016; Leithwood, 2019; Azorin et al., 2020; Harris et al., 2023; Leithwood and Azah, 2016; de Lima, 2010). Providing clarity on the benefits of individual networks may result in school leaders making more strategic choices about their network engagement. Leithwood (2019: 177) citing Gupta et al. (2006) identified that leadership networks ‘build the capacity of individual members by exposing them to the practices, dispositions and ideas of others faced with similar tasks and responsibilities’ and that ‘this knowledge diffusion goal of networks “exploits” existing knowledge in the organisation by ensuring that such knowledge goes to scale’. Therefore, the choices leaders make regarding network participation may influence not only their professional learning and decision-making but also may influence their dispositions and capacity as leaders (Leithwood, 2019). However, there remains little evidence on the impact of networks on school leaders in Ireland, thus we suggest that further research is warranted.

Within individual networks, information, supports and resources are maintained for the benefit of their own members. This may contribute to networks becoming competitive rather than collaborative in nature. Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan (2016) call for clarity about the patterns of interaction that distinguish effective from inconsequential or even harmful networks. The challenge then, is in how to dilute the ‘noise’ of a complex individualised system of networks. As indicated by the National Education Plan 2025, the current network complexity and its impact warrants further exploration.

Conclusion

While the complexity of leadership networks has the potential to provide valuable support for school leaders, there is also a potential ‘dark side’ that warrants further exploration, particularly in relation to how social capital may be unevenly distributed or reinforce existing hierarchies. More research is needed to understand how principals choose with which networks to engage, and the factors shaping those decisions within a complex landscape. We suggest that further exploration into how school leaders experience their network engagement will allow deeper understanding of the development and mobilisation of social capital. There is a need to measure the tangible impacts of networks on leadership practice and capacity. Further research is required to determine the extent to which networks achieve collaborative advantage. Addressing these gaps would not only deepen conceptual clarity but also inform more coherent and sustainable policy and practice advocacy for post-primary principals and deputy principals.