When teacher leadership backfires: Exploring the unintended consequences of teacher leadership

Abstract

This study explores the unintended consequences of teacher leadership within the centralised and hierarchical education system of Türkiye. Utilising a phenomenological approach, data were gathered through semi-structured interviews with 15 teachers, and content analysis was employed to analyse the data. Our findings reveal that teacher leadership practices unintentionally lead to stress, burnout, isolation, and role ambiguity at the individual level; peer jealousy and rivalry, along with challenges in promoting collaboration at the group level; create operational fragmentation and hierarchical tensions and power conflicts at the organisational level; and result in reduced time for student support and diminished instructional quality at the student level. This study adds nuance to the global school leadership literature by challenging the prevailing positive narrative surrounding teacher leadership and exposing its often-overlooked unintended consequences. We discuss implications for policy and practice.

Keywords

Teacher leadership phenomenology unintended consequences Türkiye

Introduction

Teacher leadership has long been recognised as a crucial driver of school improvement (Katzenmeyer and Moller, 2001; Muijs and Harris, 2003; Shen et al., 2020). While much of the existing literature has focused on formal teacher leadership roles, emerging evidence highlights the importance of informal teacher leadership because many teachers assume leadership responsibilities informally, significantly influencing school culture and instructional practices (Gordon et al., 2021; Lai and Cheung, 2015; Leithwood and Jantzi, 2000). Therefore, this study focuses on informal teacher leadership, distinguishing it from formal hierarchical roles by emphasising the capacity of all teachers to engage in leadership as an inherent aspect of their teaching practice (Frost, 2011; Harris, 2005).

Despite two decades of progress in understanding teacher leadership, significant caveats persist in the literature, particularly concerning non-Western contexts. First, the Turkish education system yields a centralised and hierarchical fashion, reflecting cultural norms that prioritise top-down decision-making over collaboration and shared leadership (Gümüş et al., 2021; Hofstede, 2001). These systemic and cultural features shape teacher leadership practices in schools where formal opportunities for leadership are limited. Therefore, findings from Anglo-Saxon countries, where schools often enjoy relatively greater autonomy, may not fully apply to Türkiye or other similar non-Western contexts (Nguyen et al., 2020; Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Second, although existing research extensively highlights the benefits of teacher leadership (e.g. Angelle and DeHart, 2011; Sebastian et al., 2017), studies examining its potential negative consequences remain limited. Further scholarly inquiry into this area is needed, as informal teacher leadership may inadvertently lead to challenges such as role ambiguity, peer resistance, and burnout (e.g. LeBlanc and Shelton, 1997; Schott et al., 2020).

To address these gaps, this study adopts a phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of teacher leaders, with a specific focus on the often-overlooked negative consequences of informal teacher leadership. Drawing on evidence from a non-Western, developing context characterised by a centralised and hierarchical education system, this study contributes a nuanced perspective to the global teacher leadership literature by illuminating its unintended outcomes. In addition, it offers valuable insights into analogous contexts worldwide, thereby enriching the discourse on teacher leadership in non-Western education systems. Building on Nguyen et al.'s (2020) review, this study zooms in on these consequences across four distinct levels. The individual level pertains to the effects on teacher leaders themselves, while the group level considers the impact on teachers’ collective feelings and behaviours. The organisational level explores school-wide factors such as structure, culture, and climate, while the student level focuses on student outcomes. The following research question guides our study: What are the unintended consequences of teacher leadership at individual, group, organisational, and student levels in Türkiye's centralised and hierarchical education system?

Literature review

Teacher leadership

Teacher leadership has emerged as a pivotal concept in school leadership literature, expanding beyond traditional formal titles such as principals or department heads to encompass a broader range of leadership responsibilities within schools (Harris and Jones, 2019). At its core, teacher leadership centres on the themes of ‘influence’ and ‘improvement’, which underscore how teacher leaders impact their schools by promoting shared responsibility, collaboration, and accountability (Nguyen et al., 2020). While definitions may vary, the literature consistently emphasises that teacher leadership fundamentally denotes guiding others and shaping instructional practices to foster improvement within the school environment (Muijs and Harris, 2007).

Teacher leaders act as catalysts for change, driving innovation by facilitating collaboration and fostering collective growth among their peers (Chew and Andrews, 2010). Through the cultivation of reciprocal relationships built on trust, respect, and mutual benefit, teacher leaders not only improve instructional practices within their own classrooms but also exert their influence throughout the school (Nolan and Palazzolo, 2011). This influence extends to mentoring colleagues, facilitating professional development, and contributing to decision-making processes, positioning teacher leaders as key figures in shaping school culture and pedagogical direction (Grant, 2006). In this study, therefore, we broadly conceptualise teacher leadership as a dynamic process of influence exercised through reciprocal collaboration and trust, both within and beyond the classroom, to enhance instructional quality, improve overall school effectiveness, and foster student achievement (Harris, 2005; Nguyen et al., 2020).

Contextualising teacher leadership

The nature of teacher leadership is widely debated, with differing views on whether it is primarily a formal role or one that can emerge informally. Some scholars regard it as a formal position embedded within the school hierarchy, while others argue that it can manifest informally, enabling any teacher to assume leadership responsibilities as part of their everyday practice (Whitaker, 2016; Zepeda, 2017). Informal teacher leadership, in particular, is often described as an organic process that evolves naturally through professional interactions and classroom expertise (Danielson, 2007). However, Frost (2011, 2017) contends that informal leadership thrives most effectively when supported by organisational structures. His concept of non-positional teacher leadership underscores the idea that leadership is not confined to formal roles but can be cultivated in all teachers, provided the right supports are in place. Key enablers, such as fostering professional cultures, creating opportunities for reflection and planning, and encouraging experience-sharing, are critical to ensuring that informal teacher leadership is intentionally developed rather than left to chance (Frost, 2010).

Qanay et al. (2019, 2024) further assert that fostering informal teacher leadership within centralised and hierarchical systems necessitates deliberate and strategic efforts to cultivate supportive school environments. Essential measures include the provision of adequate resources, the cultivation of trust, and the establishment of collaborative school cultures. These support mechanisms serve to bridge the divide between formal and informal teacher leadership, thereby enabling teachers to exercise agency and contribute meaningfully to school improvement initiatives. Therefore, informal teacher leadership should not be viewed as an inherently ‘organic’ process but rather as one contingent upon external conditions that empower teachers to innovate, collaborate, and assume leadership roles (Frost, 2011).

The literature suggests that informal teacher leaders guide their peers, act as catalysts for instructional improvement, and contribute directly to decision-making processes based on their classroom expertise (Day and Harris, 2002). By refining teaching methods and fostering a collective sense of responsibility, informal teacher leaders could also create a ripple effect that enhances overall school performance, especially in contexts where formal leadership remains distant from the daily realities of teaching (Lai and Cheung, 2015; Liu, 2021). They lead from within the classroom, where their dual role as both teachers and leaders enables them to model best practices and encourage collaboration. This unique position allows them to influence not only their peers but also the broader dynamics of the school, driving continuous improvement, fostering innovation, and building collegial support systems (Muijs and Harris, 2007; Whitaker, 1995).

In Türkiye, teacher leadership is shaped by a societal culture rooted in centralised governance, hierarchical authority, and competitive norms (Gümüş et al., 2021; Şahin et al., 2017). High power distance fosters acceptance of top-down authority, with rigidly defined roles and decision-making concentrated at the top (Hofstede, 1983). This cultural framework underpins an education system dominated by the Ministry of National Education (MoNE), where key decisions, such as curriculum design and teacher assignments, are centrally controlled, thereby leaving schools minimal autonomy to address local needs (OECD, 2017). As a result, school principals are positioned as primary decision-makers at the school level, while teachers are merely seen as implementers of centrally prescribed policies (Bellibaş and Gümüş, 2023). Additionally, high uncertainty avoidance reinforces a preference for clear structures, predictable processes, and defined roles, making teachers hesitant to adopt leadership practices that may introduce ambiguity (Hofstede, 1983; Özdemir et al., 2023). In this context, informal teacher leadership becomes essential as teachers step in to bridge gaps left by the system. While this empowers them to contribute to school improvement, it also exposes them to challenging roles, often without the formal authority or institutional support required to navigate them effectively. The competitive culture, driven by high-stakes exams and performance evaluations, further complicates collaboration and mutual support, as teacher leadership roles are often seen as a zero-sum game where one teacher's success threatens others (Kılınç et al., 2021). Combined with the centralised and hierarchical system and cultural norms of power distance and uncertainty avoidance, these dynamics might create significant barriers to fostering sustainable and collaborative teacher leadership practices.

Recent policy developments, such as the introduction of the ‘2023 Education Vision’, aim to modernise Türkiye's education system by emphasising teacher professional development and leadership (MoNE, 2018). However, this creates tension between policy aspirations and the traditional structural fashion of the Turkish education system. For instance, while these policies encourage teacher engagement in leadership practices, the lack of school-level autonomy hinders their effective implementation (Gümüş et al., 2021). Local research supports this view, highlighting informal teacher leaders’ critical roles in schools, including mentoring peers, driving innovation, and bridging the gap between classroom practices and broader school improvement efforts (e.g. Balyer, 2016). Overall, these dynamics underscore the need for a comprehensive understanding of the implementation of teacher leadership in Türkiye.

Levelling the impact of teacher leadership

The literature extensively highlights the positive impacts of teacher leadership at various levels. At the individual level, research indicates that teacher leadership fosters professional growth through developing leadership competencies (Poekert, 2012) and enhances self-efficacy (Akman, 2021). Teachers who engage in leadership practices also report greater job satisfaction and improved psychological well-being (Cherkowski, 2018; Liu and Watson, 2023). At the group level, teacher leadership strengthens collaboration by promoting knowledge-sharing and peer mentoring (Collinson, 2012; Fairman and Mackenzie, 2015; Nolan and Palazzolo, 2011). At the organisational level, teacher leadership drives school-wide reforms, enhances systemic improvement, and cultivates a positive school culture rooted in shared responsibility and innovation (Friesen and Brown, 2022; Roby, 2011). At the student level, it indirectly boosts learning outcomes by improving instructional quality and fostering greater student engagement (Li and Liu, 2022; Sebastian et al., 2017; Shen et al., 2020).

While such positive effects are well-documented, the potential negative consequences of teacher leadership have received surprisingly little scholarly attention (Schott et al., 2020). This gap in the literature is significant, as an overly optimistic narrative risks creating unrealistic expectations for teacher leaders while neglecting the systemic and cultural challenges that may impede their effectiveness (Harris, 2005). Therefore, a balanced understanding of both the benefits and drawbacks of teacher leadership is crucial for developing sustainable practices and policies that support teacher leaders and the broader school community.

With this in mind, emerging evidence suggests that teacher leadership can place considerable strain on teacher leaders, increasing stress and burnout as they navigate both teaching and leadership responsibilities, especially when role expectations are unclear or institutional support is lacking (Van Droogenbroeck et al., 2014; Zydziunaite et al., 2020). Additionally, informal teacher leaders may encounter resentment, resistance, or jealousy from colleagues, leading to emotional strain and personal discomfort (Fosco et al., 2023). At the organisational level, evidence suggests that teacher leadership results in role conflict, hinders shared decision-making, and dilutes the strategic impact of leadership on school improvement (Wenner and Campbell, 2017). Furthermore, increased workloads and divided focus from leadership duties may negatively affect instructional quality, disrupt student engagement, and produce inconsistent student outcomes (Baecher, 2012; Smylie and Denny, 1990). These unintended consequences underscore the need for a more nuanced perspective on teacher leadership and a greater focus on addressing such consequences to ensure its sustainability and effectiveness. Therefore, this study seeks to provide a comprehensive understanding of teacher leadership by examining its underexplored drawbacks across various operational levels.

Method

Research design

This qualitative study employs a phenomenological design to explore the lived experiences of teacher leaders and the negative consequences associated with their leadership practices (Creswell, 2007). Phenomenology was chosen for its focus on uncovering and describing the essence of participants’ experiences, particularly in understanding how teacher leaders perceive and navigate their roles. This approach emphasises the meanings they assign to the unintended outcomes they encounter.

The phenomenological framework guided every stage of the research design, ensuring the study remained focused on capturing participants’ subjective realities (van Manen, 2016). For instance, the semi-structured interview format was selected to facilitate open-ended, reflective dialogue, enabling participants to describe their experiences in detail while providing flexibility to explore specific aspects of their narratives (Adams, 2015). The interview questions were specifically designed to encourage participants to reflect on their teacher leadership roles and elaborate on their experiences (see Supplementary Appendix).

Phenomenological principles also informed the data analysis and presentation of results. During data analysis, the process of horizontalisation was applied, where all data were treated with equal importance before being clustered into themes that captured shared meanings (Moustakas, 1994). This ensured that the findings reflected participants’ lived realities, grounded in their narratives. Additionally, the outcomes are presented using direct quotes from participants to convey the richness and depth of their experiences, consistent with the phenomenological emphasis on preserving the authenticity of participants’ voices.

Participants

Participants were selected using a combination of purposive and snowball sampling methods to ensure a systematic and credible selection process (Merriam, 2009). Selection criteria included demonstrated leadership practices contributing to institutional improvement, professional development, and peer collaboration, as evidenced by past achievements and current activities such as mentoring colleagues or leading school-level projects. Additionally, participants were chosen based on their willingness to critically reflect on the negative consequences of their teacher leadership roles.

To further ensure credibility, the selection process involved collaboration with school principals and key figures from the Provincial Directorate of National Education, who had direct knowledge of school environments and informal teacher leadership practices. Their input was instrumental in refining the participant pool by identifying candidates who met the study's criteria. School principals were specifically involved because of their in-depth understanding of teacher practices within their schools. These principals provided detailed recommendations based on their observations of teachers with credible leadership experience and significant contributions to their school communities. However, it is important to note that these consultations did not determine participant eligibility. Instead, stakeholders offered contextual insights to refine the initial candidate pool, while the final selection was researcher-led and guided solely by the study's inclusion criteria. This collaborative approach aimed to minimise bias in the selection process and reinforced the credibility and relevance of the sample (Smith and Noble, 2014). Following this, snowball sampling was employed, where initial participants referred additional colleagues who fit the criteria and had valuable experiences in executing teacher leadership practices. This method further ensured that a broad range of perspectives was captured, minimising the risk of excluding important voices.

Recruitment continued until data saturation was achieved, the point at which additional interviews no longer revealed new themes or insights, ensuring the data fully addressed the research questions (Guetterman, 2015). This approach prioritised both depth and breadth, ensuring the collected data was rich and comprehensive (Fusch and Ness, 2015). Saturation was systematically monitored during data collection and analysis. Researchers reviewed audiotaped and transcribed interviews after each session to identify emerging themes and assess whether additional data provided new insights (Braun and Clarke, 2021). While the interview structure remained consistent, follow-up questions were refined to explore key findings in greater depth. The final sample included 15 teacher leaders working in primary, secondary, and upper secondary public schools located in urban and semi-urban areas. In addition, participants represented a range of disciplines, including math, science, language, and arts, and varied in age, seniority, and educational background (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Participants’ profile.

Participant	Age	Gender	Seniority	Degree status	School type	Teaching subject	School setting
TL1	39	M	13	Master's degree	Primary school	Classroom teacher	Semi-urban
TL2	41	F	16	Bachelor's degree	Primary school	Classroom teacher	Urban
TL3	36	F	12	Bachelor's degree	Secondary school	Turkish language	Urban
TL4	48	F	21	PhD candidate	Upper secondary school	Psychics	Urban
TL5	39	M	14	Bachelor's degree	Primary school	English language	Semi-urban
TL6	43	M	17	Master's degree	Secondary school	Math	Urban
TL7	39	F	6	Master's degree	Upper secondary school	Information technology	Semi-urban
TL8	38	M	14	Bachelor's degree	Upper secondary school	Chemistry	Urban
TL9	35	F	12	Master's degree	Primary school	Classroom teacher	Semi-urban
TL10	33	M	7	Bachelor's degree	Secondary school	Turkish language	Semi-urban
TL11	48	F	23	Bachelor's degree	Secondary school	Science	Urban
TL12	40	M	16	Master's degree	Primary school	Classroom teacher	Semi-urban
TL13	49	M	23	Bachelor's degree	Upper secondary school	Math	Urban
TL14	36	M	10	PhD candidate	Secondary school	English language	Urban
TL15	33	F	9	Bachelor's degree	Secondary school	Arts	Semi-urban

TL: teacher leader; M: male; F: female.

We wish to note that the participants shared key communal characteristics: all were public school teachers working under the MoNE, operating within uniform organisational structures and societal contexts for teacher leadership. These commonalities provided a consistent backdrop for understanding shared experiences, enabling a focused exploration of the phenomenon without variations arising from differing institutional or cultural frameworks (Patton, 2002).

Data collection

Ethical approval was obtained before data collection commenced. Informed consent was secured from all participants, who were assured of the confidentiality of their responses and their right to withdraw from the study at any time. Data were collected solely for research purposes, adhering to ethical considerations of autonomy, confidentiality, and voluntary participation (Creswell, 2018).

Data collection was conducted through semi-structured interviews, a method well-aligned with phenomenology's focus on understanding and interpreting lived experiences through open dialogue. This approach facilitated a natural and fluid exchange, allowing participants to share personal stories, specific incidents, and reflections on their own terms (van Manen, 2016). By staying closely attuned to participants’ realities, the interviews revealed nuanced insights into the unintended consequences of assuming teacher leadership roles.

The interview protocol was developed around four key levels of the negative consequences of teacher leadership: (1) individual, (2) group, (3) organisational, and (4) student. To ensure clarity and alignment with the study's objectives, expert opinions were sought from scholars specialising in teacher leadership and qualitative research. These experts reviewed the questions for clarity, relevance, and their potential to elicit meaningful responses. Based on their feedback, several revisions were implemented, including rewording ambiguous terms and refining broad questions for greater specificity. The protocol was then piloted with two teacher leaders who met the sampling criteria yet were not involved in the final sample. Their feedback led to additional adjustments, such as refining vague questions and ensuring the focus aligned more closely with the study's goals. All revisions were implemented prior to the main data collection (Maxwell, 2009).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted individually with each participant, lasting 30–45 min, allowing for in-depth exploration of their teacher leadership roles. To ensure confidentiality and encourage open communication, interviews took place in quiet and comfortable settings. With participants’ consent, all interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for detailed analysis. Probing questions, which were not part of the original interview form, were introduced dynamically during the interviews when necessary. These questions were used to encourage participants to elaborate on their experiences, clarify their responses, and provide more detailed perspectives on the unintended consequences of their teacher leadership roles (deMarrais, 2004; Gorden, 1987).

Data analysis

Once data was collected, the interviews were transcribed verbatim to ensure a comprehensive written record of participants’ responses. These transcripts were then subjected to systematic content analysis, which was conducted in two phases. In the first phase, a vertical analysis was carried out, where each participant's interview was examined individually to highlight their unique experiences and perspectives. In the second phase, a horizontal analysis was performed, comparing responses across participants to identify common themes and recurring patterns (Cohen et al., 2011).

Throughout the analysis, codes were developed to categorise the negative consequences of teacher leadership. These codes were consistently applied to the transcripts, ensuring a structured and focused analysis aligned with the study's research objectives. In the final stage, the data were synthesised into broader themes, facilitating the identification and presentation of the findings.

Trustworthiness and positionality

To ensure trustworthiness, we employed strategies focusing on credibility, dependability, confirmability, and transferability (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For credibility, member checking allowed participants to review their transcripts, ensuring an accurate representation of their responses. Peer debriefing sessions with uninvolved colleagues critically assessed the findings and interpretations, refining the analysis and grounding it firmly in the data (Creswell, 2007).

Dependability and confirmability were addressed through a detailed audit trail documenting each stage of the research process. Multiple rounds of coding were conducted, with inter-coder reliability enhanced by having an independent researcher code a portion of the data. Discrepancies were resolved through team discussions to ensure consistency and accuracy (Corbin and Strauss, 1990). Transferability was supported by providing rich, descriptive accounts of the research context and participants, enabling readers to assess the applicability of the findings to other settings.

Regarding positionality, we acknowledge that the researchers’ backgrounds in school leadership practice and academic research might have introduced potential bias into the study. While these backgrounds provided valuable insights and contextual understanding, they also required deliberate measures to minimise the risk of personal assumptions influencing the findings. To mitigate this potential bias, we implemented several strategies to ensure that the results accurately reflected participants’ experiences. These strategies included maintaining reflective journals to critically assess and document any potential preconceptions, engaging in peer debriefing sessions to challenge and refine interpretations rigorously, and conducting member checks to validate the authenticity of the findings. By employing such measures, we sought to uphold the credibility and objectivity of the research.

Outcomes

The findings are presented across four levels of negative consequences, focusing on the essence of participants’ subjective experiences (Norlyk and Harder, 2010). Direct quotes are included to highlight participants’ voices and emphasise their insights. The emergent themes reflect shared experiences and commonalities among participants (Patton, 2002).

Individual-level negative consequences

Three negative consequences emerged at the individual level: stress and burnout, isolation, and role ambiguity.

Stress and burnout

The findings revealed that balancing teaching responsibilities with the additional duties of teacher leadership placed significant pressure on teacher leaders, often leading to stress and burnout. Participants frequently reported that their increasing workload, which often extended beyond regular school hours, left them feeling overwhelmed and emotionally exhausted. The additional leadership responsibilities, layered on top of their teaching obligations, created an unsustainable workload for many participants. One teacher leader vividly described this experience:

It's a stressful and exhausting process. I often feel like I’m carrying the weight of several people. My responsibilities as a teacher are already demanding, and adding extra activities on top of that has made it incredibly hard for me to keep up. (TL 1)

The data further highlighted the difficulty teacher leaders faced in disconnecting from work. Leadership duties frequently intruded into their personal time, leaving them unable to mentally disengage from school-related tasks, even outside of work hours. This constant engagement not only prevented them from mentally recovering but also heightened their stress levels, ultimately leading to burnout. One participant explained:

I feel like I’m always thinking about school, even when I’m supposed to be resting. There's no real break, and it's draining. (TL 5)

Isolation

Many teacher leaders experienced a profound sense of isolation as a result of their leadership roles. Participants frequently expressed feelings of being unsupported by colleagues and often shouldered additional responsibilities alone. In the absence of formal leadership structures, teacher leaders took on these extra tasks to support school initiatives, but this increased workload ultimately led to a sense of detachment from their professional community. One teacher leader articulated their frustration with carrying the burden alone:

When working in teams, you often end up being the only one who actually works. You’re left to carry the load alone, which is both isolating and demotivating. (TL 11)

The lack of peer support exacerbated these feelings of isolation, as teacher leaders felt increasingly disconnected from their colleagues and alienated in their leadership roles. This sense of isolation diminished their motivation to continue taking on additional tasks. One teacher leader reflected on the emotional toll of feeling unnoticed:

I’m doing all this extra work for the school, but no one really seems to notice. It feels like my efforts don’t matter, and that can be really discouraging. (TL 9)

Role ambiguity

The data revealed that role ambiguity was a key negative consequence of teacher leadership. Many participants expressed confusion over the boundaries between their teaching duties and leadership responsibilities, often struggling to define their roles within the school clearly. This lack of clarity led to frustration, as teacher leaders were expected to assume additional responsibilities without formal authority or clear guidelines. One teacher leader reflected on the uncertainty surrounding their position:

Am I a leader or just a teacher? I’m expected to handle these extra tasks, but without any formal authority or support, it's hard to know where I stand. (TL 4)

This ambiguity also made it challenging for teacher leaders to prioritise tasks effectively. They frequently found themselves torn between their primary teaching responsibilities and the additional leadership duties expected of them. Many participants described feeling overwhelmed by the competing demands. One teacher leader articulated this dilemma:

There are times when I am left unsure of how to proceed. Am I supposed to prioritise my classroom duties or focus on these extra projects? It often feels like I’m juggling without knowing which responsibility is more important. (TL 7)

To sum up, our study showed that teacher leadership led to stress and burnout, isolation, and role ambiguity at the individual level. The increased workload and inability to disengage from leadership duties resulted in emotional exhaustion and burnout. Many teacher leaders also faced isolation, feeling unsupported by colleagues and detached from their professional community. Additionally, role ambiguity caused frustration, as unclear boundaries between teaching and leadership responsibilities made prioritisation difficult. Teacher leaders struggled to navigate their roles effectively without formal authority or defined guidelines.

Group-level negative consequences

The findings indicated that teacher leadership at the group level often led to peer jealousy, rivalry, and challenges in fostering collaboration.

Peer jealousy and rivalry

Teacher leaders frequently encountered jealousy and rivalry from colleagues. Many participants reported that their leadership roles triggered feelings of envy among peers, as their involvement in school initiatives was often viewed as self-promotional or a threat to their colleagues’ roles. Rather than receiving support, teacher leaders described how their efforts were met with suspicion or hostility. One teacher leader reflected on this underlying tension:

There's definitely some jealousy involved. When I take on a project or initiative, there's always someone who feels threatened or who thinks I’m trying to take over. It creates an uncomfortable atmosphere. (TL 13)

Some participants also reported instances of rivalry, with colleagues actively competing or undermining their efforts. This rivalry often went beyond passive resistance, with peers attempting to downplay the significance of teacher leaders’ contributions. One participant explained:

It's not that they oppose the idea of collaboration directly, but they don’t actively engage either. It's like they’re comfortable with their routines and don’t want to invest the extra effort in working together. (TL 2)

Challenges in fostering collaboration

Despite their best efforts to foster teamwork, teacher leaders frequently encountered resistance from their colleagues. Participants noted that, although their goal was to promote collaboration, their initiatives were often met with disengagement. One teacher leader articulated this difficulty:

I try to involve my colleagues, but they often don’t want to participate. It feels like they don’t see me as one of them anymore, but more like someone who's telling them what to do. (TL 12)

Other participants echoed this sentiment, observing a reluctance from peers to engage actively in collaborative efforts. This lack of engagement further undermined their broader attempts to build a collaborative school culture. One teacher leader remarked:

In summary, our analysis indicated that, at the group level, teacher leadership resulted in peer jealousy, rivalry, and challenges in fostering collaboration. Many teacher leaders faced envy and suspicion from colleagues, who perceived their roles as self-promotional or threats to their positions. This often led to hostility and passive resistance, with some colleagues actively undermining leadership efforts. Additionally, teacher leaders struggled to engage peers in collaborative initiatives, as colleagues often resisted participation or viewed them as authority figures rather than equals.

Organisational-level negative consequences

The analysis revealed two organisational-level negative effects: operational fragmentation, hierarchical tensions and power conflicts.

Operational fragmentation

The findings indicated that teacher leadership often led to operational fragmentation due to the absence of formal structures designed to integrate informal teacher leadership roles. While teacher leaders took the initiative to drive school improvements, a lack of clear processes and defined responsibilities left them navigating a fragmented system that did not fully support their efforts. Participants frequently shared that their leadership initiatives were hindered by miscommunication, unclear roles, and poor coordination with administrators, making it challenging to implement school-wide projects. One teacher leader stated:

We have all these great ideas, but there's no formal process for moving them forward. It's like we’re working in a system that doesn’t know how to handle what we’re doing. (TL 10)

Additionally, the absence of formal support often caused important initiatives to lose momentum. Teacher leaders frequently found themselves uncertain about proceeding without clear approval channels. One participant highlighted:

Without clear channels for approval or communication, things just get stuck, and we lose momentum. (TL 14)

Hierarchical tensions and power conflicts

Our analysis revealed that teacher leadership frequently triggered hierarchical tensions and power conflicts within the organisational structure. As teacher leaders assumed more significant roles in shaping school initiatives, they often found themselves in power conflicts with administrators who perceived their leadership as a challenge to their formal authority. Teacher leaders reported that their initiatives were frequently delayed or blocked as administrators sought to maintain control over decision-making processes. One participant described the resistance they encountered, particularly when proposing new initiatives:

When we propose something new, it feels like the administration hesitates. They delay approvals, and we end up losing the chance to make real improvements because it takes too long. (TL 6)

Rather than openly rejecting teacher-led initiatives, school administrators frequently resorted to delaying tactics, slowing the decision-making process and disrupting the momentum of important projects. This created an environment where the implementation of teacher leadership was viewed with suspicion and seen as a threat to the established hierarchy. Another teacher leader shared their experience:

There's a lot of hesitation. It's not that they won’t approve it, but they keep postponing decisions, and that disrupts any momentum we had for the initiative. (TL 3)

At the organisational level, our outcomes reflected that teacher leadership led to operational fragmentation, hierarchical tensions and power conflicts. The lack of formal structures to integrate teacher leadership roles resulted in miscommunication, unclear responsibilities, and poor coordination with administrators, making it difficult to implement school-wide initiatives. Additionally, hierarchical tensions emerged as administrators perceived teacher leadership as a challenge to their authority, often delaying decision-making and disrupting project momentum.

Student-level negative consequences

The analysis revealed two primary negative effects of teacher leadership at the student level: reduced time for student support and diminished instructional quality.

Reduced time for student support

Teacher leaders frequently found that the additional responsibilities associated with their leadership roles significantly reduced the time they could dedicate to directly supporting students. With more time spent in meetings, coordinating school activities, and managing leadership duties, they had less availability for consistent student support, such as after-school tutoring, one-on-one consultations, or even informal interactions during breaks. Many participants expressed frustration at their inability to give students the needed attention. One teacher leader shared:

There are times when I’m so caught up in meetings or other tasks that I have to tell students to wait. I feel like I’m not able to be there for them as much as I should be. (TL 15)

Furthermore, the analysis indicated that this limited time left students who required additional assistance feeling underserved. One participant noted:

I used to stay after school to help students who were struggling, but now, with all the extra tasks, I just don’t have the time to do that anymore. (TL 7)

Diminished instructional quality

Our findings revealed that the additional leadership duties also affected the quality of instruction in the classroom. As teacher leaders had to divide their focus between teaching and leadership tasks, they reported that their ability to plan and deliver lessons with the same depth and engagement was compromised. Many teacher leaders described feeling mentally divided between their leadership responsibilities and teaching duties, making it challenging to be fully present during lessons. One teacher leader explained this situation:

When I’m preoccupied with upcoming meetings or school responsibilities, it's hard to give my full attention to teaching. I know my students can tell when I’m not completely focused. (TL 9)

At the student level, our study demonstrated that teacher leadership resulted in reduced time for student support and diminished instructional quality. Increased leadership responsibilities limited teachers’ availability for direct student interactions, including after-school tutoring and one-on-one support, leaving some students underserved. Additionally, the divided focus between teaching and leadership tasks makes it difficult for teacher leaders to maintain the same level of engagement and instructional quality in the classroom.

Discussion

Traditional definitions of teacher leadership (e.g. York-Barr and Duke, 2004), which emphasise autonomy and shared responsibility, are often rooted in decentralised systems where these dynamics are more easily realised. However, our findings reveal that a centralised and hierarchical system configuration imposes structural and cultural constraints that limit teacher autonomy. At this juncture, we align with Frost's (2012) perspective, which posits that teacher leadership approaches may be suitable for certain contexts but not universally applicable. This underscores the necessity of avoiding generalised assumptions and instead recognising the pivotal role of contextual factors, such as structural and cultural dynamics. We interpret our outcomes for each level under separate headings below.

Individual level

At the individual level, our findings provide a nuanced understanding of the emotional and professional toll of teacher leadership. Teacher leaders who must balance teaching and leadership duties without formal recognition experience role conflict that leads to burnout, stress, isolation, and role ambiguity, often stemming from unclear or contradictory expectations. Unlike models that present teacher leadership as inherently empowering (Wenner and Campbell, 2017), our study highlights how role ambiguity in centralised systems fosters professional dissatisfaction rather than autonomy. Role Conflict Theory (Kahn et al., 1964) helps explain these challenges, suggesting that when individuals face conflicting or undefined role expectations, they experience heightened stress and reduced effectiveness. In Türkiye's highly centralised education system, where teacher roles are rigidly defined, and decision-making remains hierarchical, instead of viewing formalisation as the only solution, we suggest that addressing role conflict necessitates school administrators clearly defining expectations for teacher leaders and implementing measures to alleviate role overload. This highlights the necessity of clearer frameworks for informal teacher leadership roles, which can provide more precise guidance and institutional support. We believe this finding is significant in advancing theoretical understanding, as it challenges the existing assumption that informal leadership roles automatically lead to positive teacher and student outcomes, suggesting that structural clarity is essential for sustaining effective teacher leadership.

Isolation also emerged as a critical theme, with participants highlighting the lack of peer support as a significant challenge in their roles. This finding echoes Lieberman et al.'s (2000) research, which suggests that egalitarian norms among colleagues can foster isolation for teacher leaders, as their roles often conflict with expectations of professional equality. However, contrasting evidence (Cosenza, 2015; Rasberry and Mahajan, 2008) indicates that in some contexts, teacher leadership can alleviate isolation by fostering collaboration and professional networks.

In the Turkish education system, such dynamics are further exacerbated by cultural norms emphasising authority and power distance, which likely inhibit mutual trust and collegial support. At this point, Social Exchange Theory provides a valuable framework for interpreting our findings. This theory highlights how inequities in teachers’ contributions to school improvement endeavours and their recognition disrupt relationships and create relational tensions (Blau, 1964). In this regard, teacher leaders in our sample often take on significant additional responsibilities without sufficient peer support or recognition, leading to an imbalance in the reciprocity expected between their efforts and the support they receive. Harris (2003) expands on this by emphasising that leadership operates as a reciprocal exchange, where a leader's ability to maintain authority and influence depends on fulfilling group expectations. When teacher leaders are burdened with responsibilities while lacking empowerment or acknowledgement, these imbalances might deepen isolation. Therefore, addressing these challenges requires creating supportive school environments that promote trust and reduce isolation. This can be achieved by ensuring transparent recognition of teacher leaders’ contributions, fostering professional networks that actively encourage peer collaboration, and providing structured opportunities for professional growth.

Role ambiguity was another significant individual consequence, with participants frequently highlighting the challenge of balancing teaching responsibilities with leadership duties. Our study explored that the lack of role clarity led to confusion, inefficiency, and frustration. These findings echo LeBlanc and Shelton's (1997) argument that unclear role expectations frequently result in professional dissatisfaction. Supovitz (2018) takes this further by pointing to the ‘identity crisis’ within the teacher leadership movement, underscoring the deep-rooted challenges of role ambiguity. Rather than focusing solely on structural reforms, administrators can thus mitigate role ambiguity by creating explicit guidelines for informal teacher leadership roles and establishing mentoring programmes to support teacher leaders.

Group level

At the group level, our findings revealed that peer rivalry and jealousy often stem from unclear leadership distribution. This supports existing literature (e.g. Jacobs et al., 2016; Weiner, 2011), which highlights that undefined leadership roles might create conflict and competition. Contingency Theory (Fiedler, 1967) provides a valuable framework for understanding this dynamic, as it posits that leadership effectiveness depends on the fit between leadership practices and the organisational context.

In Türkiye's education system, the misalignment between informal teacher leadership and the existing structural norms creates perceptions of inequity. As such, leadership initiatives are often interpreted as self-promotional or disruptive rather than collaborative, intensifying rivalry among colleagues. Contingency theory suggests that resolving these tensions requires aligning leadership practices with the organisational context by fostering transparent communication, clarifying leadership roles, and engaging teachers in shared decision-making processes (Hallinger, 2011). This alignment can help shift perceptions of leadership from a competitive endeavour to a collective one, reducing peer conflict and enhancing collaboration. Hence, our findings emphasise the critical role of transparency and equitable resource distribution in promoting harmonious relationships and more sustainable teacher leadership practices.

Organisational level

At the organisational level, this study revealed that operational fragmentation and hierarchical tensions hinder the effective integration of teacher leadership into school structures. This finding concurs with Shaked and Schechter's (2017) argument that coherence and integration are critical for effectively implementing school leadership practices. From a theoretical perspective, Contingency Theory (Fiedler, 1967) provides a valuable framework for understanding the findings at this level. This theory suggests that the success of leadership depends on how well leadership roles align with the existing organisational framework. It is, therefore, logical to assert that when leadership responsibilities are ambiguously defined or conflict with established structures, tensions emerge, leading to inefficiencies and resistance. In centralised educational settings, where authority is typically distributed in a top-down manner, informal leadership efforts may be perceived as disruptive rather than complementary. Thus, contingency theory helps explain why, in our study, teacher leadership initiatives encountered resistance from administrators who viewed them as misaligned with established authority structures, leading to a lack of institutional coherence.

Furthermore, in the specific national context of Türkiye, the highly centralised and hierarchical nature of the education system further amplifies the above-mentioned challenges. Decision-making processes are often top-down, limiting the flexibility and autonomy of teacher leaders in shaping school initiatives. Additionally, hierarchical workplace norms in Türkiye may lead administrators to perceive informal teacher leadership as a challenge to their authority rather than a complementary leadership approach. This cultural dynamic can contribute to hesitancy in recognising and integrating informal leadership roles, reinforcing operational fragmentation and bureaucratic inefficiencies.

However, rather than advocating for the immediate formalisation of teacher leadership roles, our findings emphasise the need for supportive structures to sustain informal teacher leadership (Frost, 2011, 2012). Therefore, school administrators can address these barriers by implementing localised support mechanisms, such as more explicit task delegation, leadership-focused professional development, and improved communication channels. These measures can strengthen informal teacher leadership as a context-sensitive and practical approach, while systemic reforms could be considered over the longer term. Thus, we suggest that centralised systems prioritise localised support structures to strengthen informal teacher leadership as an initial, practical step.

Student level

Finally, at the student level, the unintended consequences of teacher leadership, such as reduced time for student support and diminished instructional quality, highlight the trade-offs involved in balancing leadership and teaching responsibilities. This finding suggests that teacher leaders often sacrifice direct student engagement to fulfil their leadership duties, which could negatively affect teaching quality and student outcomes. This trade-off is evident in the findings of Schott et al. (2020), which point to the possibility of such negative consequences when teacher leaders are overburdened. Role Conflict Theory (Kahn et al., 1964) also provides insight into the interpretation of the findings at this level. The theory posits that role conflict arises when an individual faces conflicting demands from multiple roles, making it difficult to perform one or all of them successfully. In this case, teacher leaders are expected to maintain high-quality teaching while managing additional leadership responsibilities, creating tension between their instructional and administrative duties. This conflict can lead to role overload, where teachers struggle to allocate sufficient time to both domains, ultimately impacting their effectiveness in the classroom.

In the Turkish education system, the rigid structure of the education system may further aggravate this challenge. Teacher leaders often lack institutional support, making it difficult to manage both instructional and leadership responsibilities effectively. Additionally, the heavy bureaucratic workload associated with leadership roles in centralised systems may place additional strain on teacher leaders, further reducing the time they can dedicate to student engagement. Addressing such challenges requires administrators to streamline leadership responsibilities, ensuring teacher leaders have sufficient time and resources to maintain their instructional quality. Thus, our outcomes support the idea that teacher leadership should be structured in a way that does not detract from instructional responsibilities but enhances them through effective workload management and prioritisation.

Limitations and further research

This study has several limitations that must be acknowledged. First, our focus on informal teacher leadership reflects the structural realities of the Turkish education system. While the findings provide valuable insights into the unintended consequences of informal teacher leadership, future research should explore whether similar dynamics occur in decentralised educational systems. Additionally, we recommend comparative studies in contexts with similar characteristics, such as other developing countries in Western Asia. Such research could offer valuable insights for policymakers by identifying shared challenges and context-specific solutions, ultimately supporting the development of more effective teacher leadership practices.

Second, while the phenomenological approach employed in this study effectively captures the lived experiences of teacher leaders, it relies heavily on self-reported data, which may introduce subjective biases. Future research could thus enhance these findings by incorporating additional data sources, such as feedback from school administrators or other relevant stakeholders, to provide a more comprehensive and objective understanding of the effects of teacher leadership.

Third, although the sample size was sufficient for phenomenological analysis (Creswell, 2007), it may limit the generalisability of the findings. Future research could improve external validity by expanding the sample size or including participants from multiple regions, thereby capturing a broader spectrum of perspectives on how teacher leadership functions across diverse educational contexts.

Finally, we recommend that future research focus on developing a teacher leadership model tailored to non-Western, developing contexts characterised by centralised and hierarchical education systems. Building such a model, however, requires both additional research evidence and systematic reviews of existing literature from these contexts. This approach would support the creation of a context-specific framework for teacher leadership, addressing the unique challenges and opportunities inherent in such systems.

Implications for policy and practice

The findings of this study underscore an urgent need for educational policymakers in Türkiye and similar school systems to address the negative consequences of teacher leadership. Nearly two decades ago, Harris (2003: 314) cautioned that teacher leadership might be ‘simply rejected because of the complexities of viewing teachers as leaders within a hierarchical school system where leadership responsibilities are very clearly delineated’. This caution remains highly relevant, as our results suggest that while formalising teacher leadership roles may mitigate some challenges, it cannot serve as the sole solution. Instead, immediate efforts should focus on creating supportive structures for informal teacher leadership, which are often more practical within centralised education systems (Frost, 2011; Qanay et al., 2024). Such structures could include enhanced opportunities for collaboration, clearer role definitions, and improved communication channels to reduce relational tensions and address the specific challenges identified in this study.

Our study also implies that policymakers must account for cultural factors, such as high-power distance and reliance on top-down decision-making, which influence how teacher leadership is perceived and practised. Incremental and localised reforms should thus focus on fostering collaboration, trust, and equitable role distribution among teachers. Without such foundational support, formalising teacher leadership roles risks becomes a superficial ‘band-aid solution’, adding bureaucracy without addressing underlying issues, such as role ambiguity, burnout, and other relational tensions.

A multi-level approach is also needed to support informal teacher leadership effectively. At the school level, principals should be empowered with greater authority and discretion to implement tailored support for teacher leaders, including mentoring programmes, task delegation frameworks, and professional development opportunities. At the national level, policymakers should establish clear guidelines for informal teacher leadership, ensuring consistency while allowing flexibility for local adaptations. Regional education authorities can complement these efforts by offering targeted training programmes, fostering communication between schools, and addressing disparities between urban and rural areas.

Finally, empowering school principals to foster collaborative and supportive environments is critical. This includes building trust, facilitating peer mentoring, and providing teacher leaders with clear recognition and targeted support. Such strategies align with structural and cultural realities, reducing the burden on teacher leaders while preserving the principal's central role in the hierarchy. By implementing these measures, schools can prevent teacher leaders from becoming overwhelmed, promoting a culture of collaboration, shared responsibility, and continuous innovation.

Conclusion

This study sets out to answer the question: What are the unintended consequences of teacher leadership at individual, group, organisational, and student levels in Türkiye's centralised and hierarchical education system? Our findings reveal that while teacher leadership is often viewed as a tool for school improvement, its informal and unsupported implementation can lead to significant negative outcomes. At the individual level, teacher leaders experience stress, burnout, isolation, and role ambiguity due to overwhelming workloads and unclear responsibilities. At the group level, teacher leadership fosters peer jealousy, rivalry, and resistance to collaboration, undermining collective engagement. At the organisational level, operational fragmentation, hierarchical tensions and power conflicts prevent teacher leadership from being fully integrated into school structures. Finally, at the student level, teacher leadership reduces time for student support and diminishes instructional quality, as teacher leaders are pulled between teaching and leadership duties. These findings challenge the commonly held positive narrative surrounding teacher leadership, showing that without proper institutional support, informal teacher leadership may intensify existing professional and organisational challenges.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-ema-10.1177_17411432251325356 - Supplemental material for When teacher leadership backfires: Exploring the unintended consequences of teacher leadership

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ema-10.1177_17411432251325356 for When teacher leadership backfires: Exploring the unintended consequences of teacher leadership by Gökhan Savaş, Kürşat Arslan and Ali Çağatay Kılınç in Educational Management Administration & Leadership

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We extend our heartfelt gratitude to teachers who willingly participated in the data collection process.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Ethical approval

All ethical guidelines were followed, and ethical approval for the study was obtained.

Data availability statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available upon request.

ORCID iDs

Gökhan Savaş

Kürşat Arslan

Ali Çağatay Kılınç

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biographies

Gökhan Savaş¸ is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Bartın University, Türkiye. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration, Hacettepe, Ankara, Türkiye in 2021. His research focus is on educational leadership, teacher professional learning and teacher behaviour.

Kürşat Arslan is a PhD lecturer at Karabük University, School of Foreign Languages. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye in 2023. His research focus is on educational leadership, teacher professional learning, school improvement, school culture, internationalisation in higher education, and international students.

Ali Çağatay Kılınç, is a professor in the Department of Educational Sciences at Karabuk University, Türkiye. He received his PhD from the Department of Educational Sciences, Division of Educational Administration, Gazi University, Ankara, Türkiye in 2013. His research focus is on educational leadership, school improvement, teacher learning, and practices.

References

Adams

(2015) Conducting semi-structured interviews. In: Newcomer

Hatry

Wholey

(eds) Handbook of Practical Program Evaluation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 492–505.

Akman

(2021) The relationships among teacher leadership, teacher self-efficacy and teacher performance. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science 14(4): 720–744.

Angelle

DeHart

(2011) Teacher perceptions of teacher leadership: examining differences by experience, degree, and position. NASSP Bulletin 95(2): 141–160.

Baecher

(2012) Pathways to teacher leadership among English-as-a-second-language teachers: professional development by and for emerging teacher leaders. Professional Development in Education 38(2): 317–330.

Balyer

(2016) Teacher leaders: a qualitative research based on teachers’ perceptions. Elementary Education Online 15(2): 391–407.

Bellibaş

Gümüş

(2023) The effect of learning-centered leadership and teacher trust on teacher professional learning: evidence from a centralised education system. Professional Development in Education 49(5): 925–937.

Blau

(1964) Exchange and Power in Social Life. New York: Wiley.

Braun

Clarke

(2021) To saturate or not to saturate? Questioning data saturation as a useful concept for thematic analysis and sample-size rationales. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 13(2): 201–216.

Cherkowski

(2018) Positive teacher leadership: building mindsets and capacities to grow wellbeing. International Journal of Teacher Leadership 9(1): 63–78.

10.

Chew

JOA

Andrews

(2010) Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: case studies of two IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 9(1): 59–74.

11.

Cohen

Manion

Morrison

(2011) Research Methods in Education, 7th ed. London: Routledge.

12.

Collinson

(2012) Leading by earning, learning by leading. Professional Development in Education 38(2): 247–266.

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(1990) Grounded theory research: procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology 13(1): 3–21.

14.

Cosenza

(2015) Defining teacher leadership: affirming the teacher leader model standards. Issues in Teacher Education 24(2): 79–99.

15.

Creswell

(2007) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches, 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

16.

Creswell

(2018) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

17.

Danielson

(2007) The many faces of leadership. Educational Leadership 65(1): 14–19.

18.

Day

Harris

(2002) Teacher leadership, reflective practice, and school improvement. In: Kenneth

Philip

(eds) Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. Springer, pp. 957–977. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-0375-9.

19.

deMarrais

(2004) Qualitative interview studies: learning through experience. In: deMarrais

Lapan

(eds) Foundations for Research: Methods of Inquiry in Education and the Social Sciences. New York: Routledge, pp. 51–68.

20.

Fairman

Mackenzie

(2015) How teacher leaders influence others and understand their leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 18(1): 61–87.

21.

Fiedler

(1967) A Theory of Leadership Effectiveness. New York: McGraw-Hill.

22.

Fosco

SLD

Rutten

Schussler

(2023) Understanding the relationships between teacher leadership and teacher wellbeing: a narrative review of theoretical and empirical literature. International Journal of Teacher Leadership 12(1): 8–30.

23.

Friesen

Brown

(2022) Teacher leaders: developing collective responsibility through design-based professional learning. Teaching Education 33(3): 254–271.

24.

Frost

(2010) Teacher leadership and educational innovation. Zbornik Instituta za Pedagoska Istrazivanja 42(2): 201–216.

25.

Frost

(2011) Supporting teacher leadership in 15 countries. International Teacher Leadership Project, Phase, 1. University of Cambridge Faculty of Education. Available at: https://www.educ.cam.ac.uk/networks/lfl/projects/teacherleadership/ITL%20project_Phase%201_A%20Report_Nov2011.pdf.

26.

Frost

(2012) From professional development to system change: teacher leadership and innovation. Professional Development in Education 38: 205–227.

27.

Frost

(ed) (2017) Empowering Teachers as Agents of Change: Enabling a Non-Positional Approach to Teacher Leadership. Cambridge, UK: Leadership for Learning: The Cambridge Network.

28.

Fusch

Ness

(2015) Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report 20: 1408–1416.

29.

Gorden

(1987) Interviewing: Strategy, Techniques and Tactics. Homewood, IL: The Dorsey.

30.

Gordon

Jacobs

Croteau

, et al. (2021) Informal teacher leaders: who they are, what they do, and how they impact teaching and learning. Journal of School Leadership 31(6): 526–547.

31.

Grant

(2006) Emerging voices on teacher leadership: some South African views. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 34(4): 511–532.

32.

Guetterman

(2015) Descriptions of sampling practices within five approaches to qualitative research in education and the health sciences. Forum: Qualitative Social Research 16(2): Article 25.

33.

Gümüş

Hallinger

Cansoy

(2021) Instructional leadership in a centralised and competitive educational system: a qualitative meta-synthesis of research from Turkey. Journal of Educational Administration 59(6): 702–720.

34.

Hallinger

(2011) Leadership for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal of Educational Administration 49(2): 125–142.

35.

Harris

(2003) Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: heresy, fantasy or possibility? School Leadership & Management 23(3): 313–324.

36.

Harris

(2005) Teacher leadership: more than just a feel-good factor? Leadership and Policy in Schools 4(3): 201–219.

37.

Harris

Jones

(2019) Teacher leadership and educational change. School Leadership & Management 39(2): 123–126.

38.

Hofstede

(1983) National cultures in four dimensions: a research-based theory of cultural differences among nations. International Studies of Management & Organization 13(1-2): 46–74.

39.

Hofstede

(2001) Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Jacobs

Gordon

Solis

(2016) Critical issues in teacher leadership: a national look at teachers’ perception. Journal of School Leadership 26(3): 374–406.

41.

Kahn

Wolfe

Quinn

, et al. (1964) Organizational Stress: Studies in Role Conflict and Ambiguity. New York: Wiley.

42.

Katzenmeyer

Moller

(2001) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as Leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

43.

Kılınç AÇ, Bellibaş MŞ and Bektaş F (2021) Antecedents and outcomes of teacher leadership: The role of teacher trust, teacher self-efficacy and instructional practice. International Journal of Educational Management 35(7): 1556–1571.

44.

Lai

Cheung

(2015) Enacting teacher leadership: the role of teachers in bringing about change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43(5): 673–692.

45.

LeBlanc

Shelton

(1997) Teacher leadership: the needs of teachers. Action in Teacher Education 19(3): 32–48.

46.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(2000) Principal and teacher leadership effects: a replication. School Leadership & Management 20(4): 415–434.

47.

Liu

(2022) An integrated model of principal transformational leadership and teacher leadership that is related to teacher self-efficacy and student academic performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 42(4): 661–678.

48.

Lieberman

Saxl

Miles

(2000) Teacher leadership: ideology and practice. In: Fullan

(ed) The Jossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership. Chicago, IL: Jossey-Bass, pp. 339–345.

49.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

50.

Liu

(2021) Contextual influence on formal and informal teacher leadership. International Journal of Educational Research Open 2: 100028.

51.

Liu

Watson

(2023) Whose leadership role is more substantial for teacher professional collaboration, job satisfaction and organizational commitment: a lens of distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 26(6): 1082–1110.

52.

Maxwell

(2009) Designing a qualitative study. In: Bickman

(eds) The Sage Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 214–253.

53.

Merriam

(2009) Qualitative Research: A Guide to Design and Implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Ministry of National Education [MoNE] (2018) Türkiye’s 2023 education vision. Available at: https://tegm.meb.gov.tr/www/2023-vizyonu/icerik/23.

55.

Moustakas

(1994) Phenomenological Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

56.

Muijs

Harris

(2003) Teacher leadership: improvement through empowerment? An overview of the literature. Educational Management & Administration 31(4): 437–448.

57.

Muijs

Harris

(2007) Teacher leadership in (in)action: three case studies of contrasting schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 35(1): 111–134.

58.

Nguyen

Harris

(2020) A review of the empirical research on teacher leadership (2003–2017): evidence, patterns and implications. Journal of Educational Administration 58(1): 60–80.

59.

Nolan

Palazzolo

(2011) New teacher perceptions of the ‘teacher leader’ movement. NASSP Bulletin 95(4): 302–318.

60.

Norlyk

Harder

(2010) What makes a phenomenological study phenomenological? An analysis of peer-reviewed empirical nursing studies. Qualitative Health Research 20(3): 420–431.

61.

OECD (2017) Education at a Glance 2017: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

62.

Özdemir S, Sezgin F, Kılınç AÇ, et al. (2023) A cultural lens to school leadership effects on teacher instructional practices: The mediation of teacher collective efficacy and the moderation of uncertainty avoidance. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 1–21. DOI: 10.1177/17411432231177536.

63.

Patton

(2002) Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

64.

Poekert

(2012) Teacher leadership and professional development: examining links between two concepts central to school improvement. Professional Development in Education 38(2): 169–188.

65.

Qanay

Anderson-Payne

Ball

, et al. (2019) Developing teacher leadership in Kazakhstan. International Journal of Teacher Leadership 10(1): 53–64.

66.

Qanay

Courtney

Nam

(2024) Building teacher leadership capacity in schools in Kazakhstan: a mixed method study. International Journal of Leadership in Education 27(2): 385–411.

67.

Rasberry

Mahajan

(2008) From Isolation to Collaboration: Promoting Teacher Leadership Through PLCs. Chapel Hill, NC: Center for Teaching Quality.

68.

Roby

(2011) Teacher leaders impacting school culture. Education 131(4): 782–790.

69.

Şahin

Kesik

Beycioğlu

(2017) Chaotic process in the assignment of school administrators and its effects. Elementary Education Online 16: 1007–1021.

70.

Schott

van Roekel

Tummers

(2020) Teacher leadership: a systematic review, methodological quality assessment and conceptual framework. Educational Research Review 31: 100352.

71.

Sebastian

Huang

Allensworth

(2017) Examining integrated leadership systems in high schools: connecting principal and teacher leadership to organizational processes and student outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement 28(3): 463–488.

72.

Shaked

Schechter

(2017) Systems Thinking for School Leaders: Holistic Leadership for Excellence in Education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

73.

Shen

Reeves

, et al. (2020) The association between teacher leadership and student achievement: a meta-analysis. Educational Research Review 31: 100357.

74.

Smith

Noble

(2014) Bias in research. Evidence Based Nursing 17(4): 100–101.

75.

Smylie

Denny

(1990) Teacher leadership: tensions and ambiguities in organizational perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly 26(3): 235–259.

76.

Supovitz

(2018) Teacher leaders’ work with peers in a quasi-formal teacher leadership model. School Leadership & Management 38(1): 53–79.

77.

Van Droogenbroeck

Spruyt

Vanroelen

(2014) Burnout among senior teachers: investigating the role of workload and interpersonal relationships at work. Teaching and Teacher Education 43: 99–109.

78.

Van Manen

(2016) Phenomenology of Practice: Meaning Giving Methods in Phenomenological Research and Writing. New York: Routledge.

79.

Weiner

(2011) Finding common ground: teacher leaders and principals speak out about teacher leadership. Journal of School Leadership 21(1): 7–41.

80.

Wenner

Campbell

(2017) The theoretical and empirical basis of teacher leadership: a review of literature. Review of Educational Research 87(1): 134–171.

81.

Whitaker

(1995) Informal teacher leadership: the key to successful change in the middle level school. Bulletin of the National Association of Secondary School Principals 79(576): 76–81.

82.

Whitaker

(2016) Key change agents: informal teacher leadership. Middle School Journal 47(5): 10–15.

83.

York-Barr

Duke

(2004) What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research 74(3): 255–316.

84.

Zepeda

(2017) Instructional Supervision: Applying Tools and Concepts. New York: Routledge.

85.

Zydziunaite

Kontrimiene

Ponomarenko

, et al. (2020) Challenges in teacher leadership: workload, time allocation, and self-esteem. European Journal of Contemporary Education 9(4): 948–962.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB