From heroic leadership myth to street-level management: School principals’ experiences of sensemaking and creative insubordination under incomplete autonomy

Abstract

The normative ‘heroic leadership’ discourse positions school principals as transformative visionaries, yet in highly centralised systems this narrative breaks down, giving rise to the twin challenges of ‘incomplete autonomy’ and ‘street-level management’. This phenomenological study examines how 15 principals in Türkiye's centralised education system respond to structural disempowerment: how they make sense of authority gaps and develop creative insubordination practices to keep their schools running. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and analysed using reflexive thematic analysis informed by phenomenological reduction. Three themes emerged: (1) Structural Siege and the Experience of Incomplete Autonomy, (2) Sensemaking and Creative Insubordination Under the Grip of Incomplete Autonomy, and (3) Lack of Psychological Safety and the Bureaucratic Vice. Principals are not passive implementers; when rigid regulations clash with urgent educational needs, they act – moving along a continuum from legitimate discretion to creative insubordination – to prevent schools from grinding to a halt. Yet these informal practices come at a cost: persistent investigation threats generate psychological insecurity and emotional exhaustion; a negative case reveals that relational trust with superiors can transform this adverse climate. When principals bear full accountability yet lack the tools to act, an unsustainable autonomy paradox emerges; reforms placing institutional trust and structural flexibility at their core are essential.

Keywords

Incomplete autonomy street-level management sensemaking theory creative insubordination school principals phenomenology

Introduction

School principals in highly centralised education systems occupy a structurally impossible position: they are held fully accountable for school outcomes yet systematically deprived of the authority and tools needed to produce them. Although critical scholarship has challenged the romanticised image of school principals as heroic change agents for over two decades (Collinson et al., 2018; Gronn, 2009), the normative discourse positioning principals as instructional leaders or transformative architects continues to shape policy expectations and mainstream research agendas (Cansoy et al., 2025; Gümüş et al., 2018; Hallinger et al., 2020; Leithwood et al., 2020). Global education policies increasingly place responsibility for improving student outcomes on principals’ shoulders (Keddie, 2015; Pont et al., 2008). Yet this leadership narrative substantially loses its functionality when confronted with structural realities on the ground (Kim and Weiner, 2022): recent longitudinal studies demonstrate that school administrators function as street-level managers operating amid uncertainties, contradictory bureaucratic demands, and insufficient institutional resources (Davidovitz and Schechter, 2024; Sanfuentes et al., 2026). Drawing on Lipsky's (2010) street-level bureaucracy theory, this perspective frames school management not as vision-building but as a mediation practice bridging the gap between policymakers’ rigid regulations and the field's pedagogical and human needs (Hupe and Buffat, 2014; Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2012).

This gap between escalating leadership expectations and structural constraints is conceptualised in the literature as the autonomy paradox (Nordholm et al., 2023; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021): policymakers burden principals with school improvement responsibilities while narrowing their scope of action through bureaucratic constraints, generating an expectation of visionary transformation from administrators deprived of decision-making authority (Gunter and Ribbins, 2002; Wermke et al., 2024). The uncritical transfer of Western-origin leadership models to centralised systems deepens this paradox (Cansoy et al., 2025; Harris et al., 2016; Oplatka, 2004). In Türkiye's Ministry of National Education (MoNE) centralised system, principals lack legal authority over personnel selection, budget management, and curricular flexibility (Cansoy et al., 2025; Gümüş et al., 2021), what Kim and Weiner (2022) term incomplete autonomy: full accountability without managerial tools.

This asymmetry transforms principalship into a survival struggle caught between compliance demands and operational imperatives (Eranıl et al., 2026); yet current scholarship insufficiently examines how schools function under conditions where structural constraints narrow the field of action (Clarke and O’Donoghue, 2017). The psychological costs of navigating this structural contradiction – emotional exhaustion, psychological safety deficiency, and burnout – remain largely invisible in the dominant leadership discourse, which continues to celebrate principals as heroic agents of change rather than examining the conditions under which they actually work (Collinson et al., 2018; Friedman, 2002).

Against this backdrop, Weick's (1995) sensemaking theory suggests that under intense uncertainty and constraint, administrators orient toward pragmatic plausibility rather than full regulatory compliance. When rigid regulations clash with urgent educational needs, principals generate informal pathways and exercise managerial agency to prevent systemic gridlock (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2012; Sanfuentes et al., 2026). Conceptualised as creative insubordination (Brieschke, 1985; Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980), this action constitutes an ethical mechanism serving institutional sustainability rather than personal interest (Haynes and Licata, 1995; Sanfuentes et al., 2026).

This study phenomenologically examines the lived experiences of school principals structurally deprived of managerial tools under incomplete autonomy, revealing their sensemaking processes and creative insubordination strategies, and demonstrating empirically that autonomy is not solely a legal right granted by the state but a dynamic field of agency constructed from below at heavy psychological cost (Ball et al., 2011; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021).

Conceptual framework

Building on this structural diagnosis, the conceptual framework interrogates the normative Western literature idealising school administrators as heroic leaders with unlimited authority and transformative vision (Collinson et al., 2018; Gunter and Ribbins, 2002; Hallinger, 2018). The conceptual architecture rests on four interconnected pillars: (1) the collapse of the heroic leadership myth and street-level management, (2) the autonomy paradox and managerial agency under incomplete autonomy, (3) from leadership illusion to pragmatic improvisation, and (4) creative insubordination as a sensemaking process.

The collapse of the heroic leadership myth and street-level management

Contemporary scholarship rejects the assumption of heroic leaders capable of single-handedly transforming schools, emphasising that leadership is dynamic and context-dependent (Leithwood et al., 2020). As Hallinger (2018) states, it is imperative to bring context out of the shadows since context determines what administrators structurally cannot do before determining what they can. Through Lipsky's (2010) street-level bureaucracy theory, administrators are reframed not as passive mediators but as actors who shape policies on the ground through their discretion (Gassner and Gofen, 2018; Hupe and Buffat, 2014; Sanfuentes et al., 2026).

This study identifies four empirically observable mechanisms through which street-level management operates in educational settings: rule adaptation (modifying central directives to local conditions), resource rationing (reallocating scarce resources under constraints), pragmatic workarounds (developing informal solutions when formal channels are blocked), and client-oriented prioritisation (privileging student and teacher needs over procedural compliance).

The autonomy paradox and managerial agency under incomplete autonomy

Two analytically distinct yet related concepts frame the asymmetric tension between autonomy and accountability (Bush, 2013; Keddie, 2015). The autonomy paradox (Nordholm et al., 2023; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021) is a macro-structural phenomenon: New Public Management policies impose strict performance targets while tightening central oversight, generating a systemic contradiction between expanded responsibility and constrained authority (O’Day, 2002; Verger et al., 2019). Incomplete autonomy (Kim and Weiner, 2022) denotes its most severe manifestation: a condition in which principals possess virtually no discretionary tools (neither staff selection, nor budget management, nor curricular flexibility) yet bear full institutional and legal accountability. In Türkiye's hyper-centralised system, the autonomy paradox does not merely constrain principals; it strips them of the very instruments through which autonomy could be exercised, producing an incomplete autonomy impasse. Principals are not entirely passive; Davidovitz and Schechter (2024) explain how administrators generate agency within constraints through their agentic leaders concept. Understanding these dynamics in Türkiye requires acknowledging a context that fits neither the Anglo-Saxon school-based management tradition nor the Global South periphery: a secular unitary state with a Napoleonic centralised bureaucratic heritage, where hierarchical deference norms coexist with pragmatic problem-solving imperatives, and where creative insubordination carries not merely professional but legal risk under Civil Servants Law No. 657 (Cansoy et al., 2025; Oplatka, 2004).

From leadership illusion to pragmatic improvisation

The distributed leadership concept (Spillane, 2006), frequently invoked as an explanation for coping with structural constraints, creates a conceptual illusion in centralised systems (Bush and Ng, 2019): a principal whose decision-making authority is structurally constrained cannot share leadership they do not possess (Lumby, 2013). Indeed, distributed leadership risks becoming a normative prescription that obscures structural constraints; when imposed rhetorically without accompanying redistribution of formal authority, it transfers operational burden downward while leaving the centralised power structure intact (Bolden, 2011; Tian et al., 2016). This study therefore conceptualises informal task-sharing not as distributed leadership but as a pragmatic coping strategy for maintaining managerial capacity within systemic constraints (Bush and Ng, 2019; Gronn, 2009; MacBeath et al., 2012).

Creative insubordination as a sensemaking process

The mechanism enabling principals to sustain school operations lies in Weick's (1995) sensemaking theory and its practical manifestation as creative insubordination (Brieschke, 1985; Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980). When central regulations clash with urgent needs, principals invoke the plausibility over accuracy principle (Ganon-Shilon and Schechter, 2017; Koyama, 2014), an ethical mechanism preventing systemic collapse rather than arbitrary rule deviation (Haynes and Licata, 1995; O’Laughlin and Lindle, 2015; Sanfuentes et al., 2026). Critically, creative insubordination is not a unitary concept; it operates across three analytically distinguishable dimensions: a moral dimension, in which principals prioritise humanitarian needs over procedural compliance; a strategic dimension, in which long-term pedagogical initiatives are pursued through informal channels; and a routine dimension, in which everyday operational obstacles are resolved through pragmatic shortcuts. This multi-dimensional conceptualisation moves beyond the binary framing of compliance versus deviance prevalent in the existing literature. Yet this process carries a heavy psychological cost: continuously taking risks in regulatory grey areas generates emotional labour intensity, psychological safety deficiency and burnout (Cribb and Gewirtz, 2007; Eranıl et al., 2026; Friedman, 2002).

Together, these four pillars constitute the analytical lens through which this study examines principals’ lived experiences. The first pillar – street-level management – provides the empirical vocabulary for identifying what principals do when formal authority is absent. The second pillar – the autonomy paradox and incomplete autonomy – explains why they find themselves in that position. The third pillar – pragmatic improvisation as a substitute for distributed leadership – reframes the informal task-sharing observed in the findings. The fourth pillar – creative insubordination as sensemaking – supplies the conceptual grammar for interpreting how and why principals deviate from formal rules. Taken together, the framework allows the study to move from individual narratives to structural patterns, reading each participant's account as both a personal experience and a systemic symptom (Moustakas, 1994).

Method

Research design

This study was designed within the phenomenological tradition (Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990; Creswell and Creswell, 2023). Phenomenological inquiry was adopted as a methodological necessity to examine principals’ lived experiences of incomplete autonomy and creative insubordination: standardised quantitative instruments are structurally insufficient for capturing the cognitive tensions administrators experience between top-down policies and urgent operational needs (Denzin and Lincoln, 2018; Patton, 2015). Accordingly, the study operates at the intersection of macro-structural analysis and micro-phenomenological inquiry: the conceptual framework identifies the structural conditions that produce incomplete autonomy, while the phenomenological design examines how these conditions are lived, experienced, and navigated by the actors embedded within them. The analytical movement from individual experience to structural pattern follows phenomenology's commitment to revealing the essential structure of a phenomenon through its varied manifestations (Moustakas, 1994).

Research context

Türkiye has a strictly hierarchical educational management structure centred on MoNE (Eranıl et al., 2026; Gümüş et al., 2021), governing approximately 18 million students and 1.2 million teachers across 81 provinces (MoNE, 2024). School principals are not appointed to a permanent post; following a written examination and training by the National Education Academy, they are designated for 4-year terms. When the designation period expires, the principalship automatically terminates and the administrator reverts to classroom teaching unless reapplication is made (maximum two terms, 8 years, at the same institution; MoNE, 2026). This temporary status structurally weakens principals’ institutional standing and creates a deterrent against initiative. Principals lack legal authority to independently select teaching staff (governed by Civil Servants Law No. 657), manage professional development, flexibilise curricula, or control school budgets (Cansoy et al., 2025; Şahin et al., 2018). This context embodies the autonomy paradox: full institutional accountability is imposed on principals while their tools of action are taken away (Wermke and Salokangas, 2021).

Participants

Participants were selected using purposive sampling with criterion and maximum variation techniques (Creswell and Creswell, 2023; Patton, 2015). Inclusion criteria required: (1) at least 3 years of principalship at the same school, (2) service in districts with varying socioeconomic characteristics, and (3) voluntary consent. Data collection and preliminary analysis proceeded simultaneously, guided by data saturation (Guest et al., 2006); thematic saturation was reached by the twelfth interview, and three additional interviews confirmed no new themes emerged (N = 15). Each principal was assigned codes K1 to K15. Participants served in three districts of Denizli province, classified by the Ministry of Industry and Technology's District Socio-Economic Development Index (SEGE-2022; Acar et al., 2022) as Tier 1 (n = 2) and Tier 2 (n = 13). Although these districts represent the upper development tiers within Denizli, the province itself spans Tier 1 to Tier 5 across its 19 districts. This concentration in relatively developed districts paradoxically strengthens the findings: if incomplete autonomy is experienced with such intensity in well-resourced settings, constraints are likely more severe in less developed contexts. The study group exhibited diversity in school level (pre-school: 2, primary: 4, lower secondary: 7, upper secondary: 2), administrative experience (3–22 years), age (34–57), educational attainment (bachelor's: 9, master's: 6), and gender (male: 13, female: 2). Table 1 presents the demographic profile.

Table 1.

Demographic profile of participants.

Participant	Gender	Age	School level	Admin. exp. (years)	Education	District (SEGE-2022 tier)
K1	Male	45	Lower secondary	8	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K2	Male	43	Primary	13	Master's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K3	Male	42	Primary	5	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K4	Male	44	Lower secondary	12	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (urban)
K5	Male	42	Primary	14	Master's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K6	Male	34	Pre-school	3	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K7	Female	43	Primary	9	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K8	Male	44	Lower secondary	15	Master's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K9	Female	35	Pre-school	5	Master's	Tier 2 (urban)
K10	Male	45	Lower secondary	12	Master's	Tier 1 (urban)
K11	Male	57	Upper secondary	22	Master's	Tier 1 (urban)
K12	Male	49	Upper secondary	7	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K13	Male	48	Lower secondary	6	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)
K14	Male	37	Lower secondary	5	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (rural)
K15	Male	41	Lower secondary	7	Bachelor's	Tier 2 (semi-urban)

Data collection

Data were collected using a semi-structured interview protocol drawing on Lipsky's (2010) and Kim and Weiner's (2022) frameworks. Questions comprised scenario-based and open-ended items designed to elicit principals’ specific crisis moments, initiatives taken when facing legal obstacles, and sensemaking processes through Weick's (1995) plausibility principle (Creswell and Creswell, 2023). Expert review by two educational management academics preceded data collection; pilot interviews were subsequently conducted to validate the protocol.

Given the highly sensitive nature of the research topic, examining principals’ ‘creative insubordination’, ‘bending regulations’ and ‘informal initiative-taking’ that carry legal and administrative risk, audio recording devices were not used. This decision was empirically grounded in pilot study experience: both pilot participants explicitly stated they would not disclose informal practices if recorded, confirming that recording devices suppress candid responses in sensitive research contexts (Corbin and Strauss, 2008; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). To safeguard data quality, four systematic measures were employed: (a) real-time detailed field notes capturing verbatim expressions and contextual observations; (b) field notes expanded within 30 minutes post-interview; (c) expanded summaries sent to participants within 48 hours for respondent validation (all fifteen confirmed accuracy); and (d) analytical decisions documented through a MAXQDA audit trail (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019). Each interview lasted 45 to 60 minutes. Ethical approval was granted by the Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Pamukkale University (decision no. 68282350/2025/03, dated 19 February 2025) and the study adhered to APA (2020) ethical standards.

Data analysis

Analysis employed Braun and Clarke's (2021) reflexive thematic analysis integrated with Moustakas's (1994) phenomenological analysis steps across five stages: (1) bracketing normative leadership assumptions through analytical memos (époché); (2) deep familiarisation treating each participant's statements with equal value (horizontalization); (3) open coding to identify meaning units reflecting lived experiences; (4) filtering codes through the conceptual framework via deductive analytical flexibility, yielding the three main themes detailed in the Findings section; and (5) following Moustakas's (1994) composite descriptions approach, transforming individual experiences into an integrated narrative revealing the structural essence of incomplete autonomy. MAXQDA software managed the analytical process and created an audit trail (Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019).

Table 2 presents an overview of the coding process, illustrating how representative participant quotes were progressively transformed into codes, sub-themes, and main themes.

Table 2.

Overview of phenomenological data analysis and thematic coding process.

Representative quote (raw data)	Code	Sub-theme	Main theme
“Think of a football team; the coach can choose their assistants, players. But we can't form our team” (K5)	Cannot select team, hierarchical obstacle	Human resources and Budgetary Dependency	Theme 1: Structural Siege
“Deviating from laws … constitutes an offence under Civil Servants Law No. 657; taking initiative is impossible” (K1)	Legal constraints, fear of punishment	Regulatory Rigidity and Bureaucratic Paralysis	Theme 1: Structural Siege
“I do not think school principals have an autonomous structure. Our authority is limited in all areas” (K12)	Autonomy rejection, total powerlessness	Regulatory Rigidity and Bureaucratic Paralysis	Theme 1: Structural Siege
“On some matters, we make decisions using our hearts rather than our minds” (K3)	Ethical decision, humane values, rule-bending	Rule-Bending in Humanitarian Crises	Theme 2: Sensemaking and Creative Insubordination
“We plan exam schedules, classroom assignments, trips ourselves” (K4)	Informal initiative, filling operational gaps	Operational Agility through Informal Strategies	Theme 2: Sensemaking and Creative Insubordination
“Because we work with the District Education Directorate based on mutual trust, I think I am autonomous” (K7)	Relational trust, superior support	Operational Agility (negative case)	Theme 2: Sensemaking and Creative Insubordination
“We took our students to a European country for a 15-day internship … this is autonomy” (K11)	Pedagogical initiative, boundary-crossing	Operational Agility through Informal Strategies	Theme 2: Sensemaking and Creative Insubordination
"At the slightest initiative, an investigation can immediately be opened” (K15)	Investigation fear, psychological cost	The Cost of Initiative and Investigation Fear	Theme 3: Lack of Psychological Safety
“The heating broke down in winter, a classroom window was shattered … waiting a week is not possible” (K11)	Emergency crisis, bureaucratic delay, forced initiative	Burnout and Managerial Helplessness	Theme 3: Lack of Psychological Safety

Trustworthiness and researcher role

Methodological quality was ensured through Lincoln and Guba's (1985) criteria of credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability. For credibility, interview summaries and preliminary findings were sent to participants for member checking (Creswell and Creswell, 2023). Expert review was obtained from a qualitative researcher during the code-to-theme transformation stage. A critical distinction must be underscored: Braun and Clarke (2021) epistemologically reject intercoder reliability in reflexive thematic analysis; the external researcher's role was to function as a critical friend, questioning thematic interpretations, suggesting alternative readings, and deepening the reflexive process (Smith and McGannon, 2018). Notably, this study deliberately privileges principals’ first-person lived experience, consistent with phenomenology's epistemological commitment to understanding a phenomenon from the perspective of those who experience it (Moustakas, 1994; van Manen, 1990); incorporating perspectives from other actors would have shifted the design toward case study or grounded theory, fundamentally altering its epistemological purpose. Transferability was ensured through thick description of the research context, participant characteristics and Türkiye's centralist bureaucratic structure (Geertz, 1973; Lincoln and Guba, 1985). For dependability and confirmability, all analytical decisions were documented through MAXQDA analytical memos (Braun and Clarke, 2021).

Regarding reflexivity, the researchers employed Moustakas's (1994) époché to bracket their positionality as academics within the normative leadership literature, preventing these assumptions from filtering principals’ lived experiences. The researchers’ lack of direct administrative experience within MoNE reduced the risk of identification with system insiders while potentially limiting comprehension of tacit practices on the ground (Berger, 2015). These tensions were subject to continuous self-questioning, recorded in the researcher diary (Braun and Clarke, 2021; Patton, 2015).

Findings

The findings are organised under three main themes, each grounded in the conceptual framework and analytical process described above.

Theme 1: Structural siege and the experience of incomplete autonomy

The first theme centres on the ontological conflict between the leadership role formally attributed to principals and their actual legal powerlessness in the field. Participants’ experiences reveal that they are street-level managers (Davidovitz and Schechter, 2024; Lipsky, 2010) compelled to operate within boundaries determined by the central bureaucracy.

Human resources and budgetary dependency. At the core of principals’ incomplete autonomy (Kim and Weiner, 2022) experience lies the inability to form their own teams or manage material resources. K5 articulated this through a striking metaphor:

“Think of a football team; the coach can choose their assistants, players, physiotherapist. But we can’t form our team. Whichever staff the centre assigns to our school, we must carry on with them; we have no initiative to shape our team according to our vision. If we want to improve educational quality, we absolutely must have a say in forming our teams”. (K5)

K4 reinforced that this problem extends beyond team selection: ‘Principals’ responsibilities are great, but their authority is limited. We have no authority to choose the teachers we will work with’. Compounding this, K4 highlighted the absurdity of accountability without competence: ‘We are the school's occupational safety specialist. Yet we bear full responsibility despite having no training in this area’ (K4).

A parallel sense of structural siege was equally evident in budget management. K1 described the deprivation: ‘Having no revenue as a rural school, with very limited allocations, renders us inadequate in many areas’. K2 concurred: ‘We are not sufficiently autonomous in financial matters. Decision-making and withdrawing funds for urgent school repairs takes a long time’ (K2).

Regulatory rigidity and bureaucratic paralysis. K14 captured the constraining effect succinctly: ‘The education system and the style of management tie the principal's hands’ (K14). K1 described the resulting paralysis:

“Deviating from laws, regulations, and the curriculum constitutes an offence under Civil Servants Law No. 657; taking initiative on any matter is simply impossible for us”. (K1)

K2 framed this as ‘Complex bureaucracy constrains my autonomy’, while K6 stated ‘Everything is determined within a legal framework’. K12 offered the sharpest rejection of autonomy in the sample: ‘I do not think school principals have an autonomous structure. I think we must act knowing that our authority is limited in all areas and that we must always be legally accountable’ (K12). These findings indicate that principals experience themselves not as autonomous professionals but as state-agents (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2000) trapped within a heavy regulatory framework as system guards whose room for manoeuvre has been structurally dissolved. The personnel, budgetary and regulatory constraints documented across all 15 participants converge on a single structural essence: principalship is experienced not as a position of professional authority but as a site of imposed responsibility without commensurate agency.

Theme 2: Sensemaking and creative insubordination under the grip of incomplete autonomy

Yet within this structural siege, the second theme reveals that principals are not entirely passive; they use their discretion through informal channels to sustain the school's daily operation. When central rules clash with urgent human or operational needs, principals invoke Weick's (1995) plausibility over accuracy principle, engaging in creative insubordination (Brieschke, 1985).

Rule-bending in humanitarian crises. Creative insubordination manifested most clearly when bureaucratic procedures proved too cumbersome for humanitarian crises. Principals abandoned the system guard identity and acted as citizen-agents (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2000). K10 described:

“I allowed a teacher whose relative had a traffic accident to leave without waiting for formal procedures… Often, doing something takes less time than processing the bureaucracy for it”. (K10)

K3 made the ethical dimension explicit: ‘On some matters, we make decisions using our hearts rather than our minds’ (K3). This statement clearly reveals that creative insubordination is not arbitrary rule-breaking but an ethically grounded necessity oriented toward the welfare of teachers and students. K2 situated this within a broader discourse of courage: ‘If we have the ambition to create change in our institution, we must find the courage to take initiative within ourselves’ (K2), underscoring that initiative-taking is experienced as a personal act of bravery rather than a routine managerial function. These accounts illustrate the moral dimension of creative insubordination identified in the conceptual framework.

Operational agility through informal strategies. A critical analytical distinction must be drawn here: principals’ field initiatives are positioned along a continuum from legitimate discretionary space to creative insubordination where rules are consciously bent. K4 described the legitimate discretionary end:

“We can plan exam schedules within the school ourselves… Language classroom arrangements, teacher-class assignments, sports activities, trips, parent meetings, I can take initiative on these”. (K4)

K4's examples fall within the discretionary space that regulations do not explicitly prohibit. Moving along the continuum, K8 noted operating through ‘our own internal jurisprudence and opinion requests’ in areas not explicitly regulated; K9 described taking initiative in ‘selecting personnel employed through service procurement’ when formal appointment channels were blocked, a pragmatic workaround that stretches beyond mere discretion.

K13 summarised the macro–micro duality: ‘Directives from higher authorities are carried out, but when it's a school-internal matter, we can make decisions on our own initiative’ (K13). At the furthest end of the continuum, K11 demonstrated creative insubordination extending to long-term pedagogical initiatives: ‘At our vocational training centre, we took our students to a European country for a 15-day internship… this is autonomy’ (K11), autonomy constructed from below when not granted from above. The progression from K4's exam planning to K11's international programme corresponds to the routine and strategic dimensions of creative insubordination, respectively, confirming that the concept operates across analytically distinguishable registers of agency.

K4 further noted that initiative boundaries are shaped by superiors’ attitudes as well as the legal framework: ‘Whether one takes initiative depends on risk perception and the extent to which superiors support that initiative’, indicating that autonomy requires attending to organisational climate and relational trust, not only formal regulations.

A noteworthy finding concerns informal task-sharing with teachers. K9 stated: ‘Although the principal chairs the committee, all decisions are made jointly with the committee’ (K9), while K4 emphasised: ‘Success is teamwork. Strong leadership alone is not enough’ (K4). However – and consistent with the third pillar of the conceptual framework – this sharing represents not the democratic delegation envisaged by normative distributed leadership models (Spillane, 2006) but a pragmatic coping strategy to lighten an operational burden the principal cannot bear alone (MacBeath et al., 2012). Taken together, the practices documented across Theme 2 map directly onto the street-level management mechanisms identified in the conceptual framework: K10's emergency leave decision exemplifies rule adaptation; K1's resource deprivation (documented in Theme 1) and K9's informal personnel procurement reflect resource rationing and pragmatic workarounds, respectively; and K3's ‘decisions using our hearts’ and K11's pedagogical initiatives illustrate client-oriented prioritisation at its most expansive.

Theme 3: Lack of psychological safety and the bureaucratic vise

The third theme reveals the heavy psychological costs of principals’ creative insubordination efforts and initiative-taking, costs that remain structurally invisible yet operate as a powerful deterrent within the system.

The cost of initiative and investigation fear. Participants’ experiences reveal a deep deficit of psychological safety (Edmondson, 1999). The fear of being reported functions as an invisible barrier preventing many principals from utilising even the limited scope of action legally available to them. K15 articulated this bureaucratic vice:

“In Türkiye, being autonomous is very difficult because laws are very restrictive, granting principals no room for manoeuvre. Everything is planned centrally and we are merely expected to implement. At the slightest initiative, at the slightest complaint, an investigation can immediately be opened. This inevitably pushes administrators away from taking risks”. (K15)

K3 made the fear concrete: ‘My scope of authority is limited regarding student behaviour, parent problems, and unfair citizen complaint line [CİMER] complaints’ (K3). K14 concurred: ‘The education system and management style tie the principal's hands’ (K14). These findings explain why taking initiative is experienced not as a developmental opportunity but as a punishment risk (Wermke and Salokangas, 2021).

Burnout and managerial helplessness. Bureaucratic pressure depletes schools’ problem-solving capacity, as principals’ energy is spent completing procedures rather than exercising educational leadership. K6 expressed this exhaustion:

“Reducing bureaucratic processes would speed things up and increase the school's productivity. I wish I could make decisions about professional development without getting caught up in procedures, and plan and implement the training that is needed”. (K6)

K13 conveyed the passivity created by central decisions: ‘We are obliged to implement the decisions taken by the central administration’ (K13). K11 described how even emergency physical crises are caught in bureaucratic processes: ‘The heating broke down in winter, a classroom window was shattered… Normally you need to write to the provincial directorate. But if a classroom window is missing, waiting a week is simply not possible’ (K11), concretising how principals remain at legal risk even at crisis moments when they cannot afford not to act.

However, a notable exception to this general pattern emerged. K7, who established a trust-based relationship with superiors, expressed feeling autonomous unlike the vast majority of other participants: ‘Because we work with the District Education Directorate based on mutual trust, I think I am autonomous. Our director provides support rather than pressure in our working sphere, which enables me to use initiative’ (K7). This negative case suggests that autonomy is not solely a matter of legal authority; relational trust can transform even structural constraints (Edmondson, 1999). Yet K7's experience is contingent on an individual relationship, not a systemic guarantee; unless this trust becomes institutionally embedded, it is unlikely to create a sustainable autonomy climate.

In this prevailing climate of low psychological safety, autonomy is experienced not as empowerment but as heavy emotional labour (Hochschild, 2012) and managerial helplessness arising from trying to protect students and teachers under the constant threat of accountability. Creative insubordination keeps the school alive but depletes the administrator's psychological capital and lays the ground for burnout (Eranıl et al., 2026).

Discussion and conclusion

This phenomenological study critically intervenes in educational management literature dominated by normative heroic leadership myths (Collinson et al., 2018) by presenting the lived experiences of school principals under incomplete autonomy (Kim and Weiner, 2022) within a strictly centralised system. The discussion proceeds through three analytical lenses that directly correspond to the study's conceptual pillars and empirical themes: the structural roots of incomplete autonomy and agentic management (Themes 1–2; Pillars 1–2), the mechanics of creative insubordination as sensemaking (Theme 2; Pillar 4), and the psychological costs of navigating the bureaucratic vice (Theme 3; Pillar 4), before turning to the broader implications of the autonomy paradox for centralised systems globally.

Incomplete autonomy, agency and street-level management

Theme 1's central finding is that the football coach metaphor represents a vivid manifestation of incomplete autonomy. While traditional leadership models rest on Anglo-Saxon school-based management assumptions where principals can select staff and allocate budgets (Caldwell and Spinks, 1992; Leithwood et al., 2020; Nordholm et al., 2025), this study indicates that principals in this context are reduced to bureaucratic implementers whose scope of action has been structurally narrowed (Cansoy et al., 2025; Eranıl et al., 2026; Hammersley-Fletcher et al., 2021; Toprak et al., 2023). K4's occupational safety specialist example encapsulates the paradox in microcosm: responsibility without competence, accountability without authority.

However, principals are not entirely passive; they exhibit agentic management (Davidovitz and Schechter, 2024) by constructing de facto autonomy spaces through the system's interstices (Cribb and Gewirtz, 2007; Salokangas and Wermke, 2020; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021). This study extends Lipsky's (2010) street-level bureaucracy theory to hyper-centralised systems, suggesting that educational administrators rewrite policy on the ground amid structural impossibilities (Hupe and Buffat, 2014; Sanfuentes et al., 2026).

Beyond rules: The search for plausibility and creative insubordination

When a principal allows a teacher to leave for a family emergency without formal authorisation, this enacts Weick's (1995) plausibility over accuracy principle: full regulatory compliance would cause the system to seize up, so principals choose the pragmatic and morally defensible option, an ethical lubrication mechanism that prevents systemic collapse (Maynard-Moody and Musheno, 2012) rather than arbitrary rule deviation (Brieschke, 1985; Crowson and Porter-Gehrie, 1980; O’Laughlin and Lindle, 2015).

Critically, the findings introduce an important analytical nuance: principals’ field initiatives are positioned along a continuum from legitimate discretionary space (exam planning, trip organisation) to creative insubordination where regulations are consciously bent (unauthorised international internship programmes, emergency fund use without central approval). This continuum perspective enriches the binary framing prevalent in the existing literature by revealing the graduated and contextually negotiated nature of principals’ sensemaking. The three dimensions of creative insubordination are empirically confirmed: humanitarian crises triggered the moral dimension (K3, K10), long-term pedagogical projects reflected the strategic dimension (K8, K11), and everyday operational problem-solving constituted the routine dimension (K4, K13), each entailing different degrees of rule deviation and psychological costs.

Beyond the continuum of initiative, the findings also speak to the structural pervasiveness of incomplete autonomy across institutional levels: a pre-school principal (K6) and an upper secondary principal (K12) articulated virtually identical constraints, suggesting the autonomy deficit operates as a system-level phenomenon. The variation in creative insubordination behaviours (e.g. K11's proactive initiatives) appeared to relate more to individual seniority and professional disposition than to school level per se.

A notable negative case merits theoretical attention: a participant who established trust-based relations with superiors experienced herself as autonomous, unlike the vast majority of the sample. This finding suggests that relational trust (Edmondson, 1999) can transform structural constraints into enabling conditions. However, this trust bond remains contingent on an individual relationship; unless systemically embedded through organisational design, it is unlikely to create a sustainable autonomy climate, resonating with Nordholm et al.'s (2022) observation that the relationship between centralisation and principal autonomy is more complex than formal governance structures suggest.

This study's most original contribution is the empirical evidence that in this strictly centralised system, creative insubordination is not an exceptional aberration but a daily survival strategy keeping schools operationally functional (Cansoy et al., 2025; Sanfuentes et al., 2026). This extends Sanfuentes et al.'s (2026) Chilean longitudinal work in three respects: by examining permanent structural disempowerment rather than a temporary reform process; by revealing the lived experience dimension through a phenomenological lens; and by rendering visible the psychological costs – safety deficiency, emotional labour and burnout – that a behavioural focus did not capture.

Theme 3 extends this contribution by rendering visible a dimension that behavioural accounts of street-level management have consistently overlooked: the psychological cost structure of creative insubordination. The findings reveal that investigation fear (K15), CİMER-driven self-restriction (K3) and burnout-driven managerial helplessness (K6, K11) are not individual pathologies but predictable systemic outcomes of the incomplete autonomy impasse – precisely what the fourth pillar of the conceptual framework anticipated. K7's negative case is analytically instructive here: it demonstrates that the psychological safety deficit is not inevitable but contingent on relational and organisational conditions. That a single trust-based supervisory relationship was sufficient to transform the autonomy experience underscores the structural fragility of the system: wellbeing in this context depends not on systemic design but on the contingencies of individual relationships.

Global implications: The autonomy paradox and beyond

This cross-national resonance extends further: similar structural constraints have been documented in Malaysia (Bush and Ng, 2019) and Pakistan (Javed et al., 2026), suggesting that the autonomy paradox may represent a structural pathology common to centralised systems (Oplatka, 2004).

Türkiye, however, reveals a structurally more constrained variant of this paradox. Whereas principals in Anglo-Saxon systems possess at least some decision-making tools (Keddie, 2015; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021), principals here have been deprived of both tools and goals. Several context-specific features intensify this: the temporary designation system denying principals permanent administrative status; the CİMER citizen complaint mechanism enabling any parent to trigger a formal investigation with a single online submission; and a deeply embedded inspection culture discouraging initiative. All authority is concentrated at the centre, yet accountability falls on the individual principal (Cansoy et al., 2025; Kılınç et al., 2024; Toprak et al., 2023). Among the principals interviewed in this study, participants’ accounts suggest that where decision-making capacity is withheld yet accountability is maximised, the rhetoric of educational leadership may be experienced as an additional source of institutional pressure rather than empowerment (Eranıl et al., 2026; Friedman, 2002), fostering not innovation but fear and unconditional compliance (Ege et al., 2024; Levatino et al., 2024), and what Ball (2003) terms performative fabrication.

Conclusion

Viewed from the outside, principalship appears as a position of hierarchical authority; experienced from within, it constitutes an erosive buffering function (DiPaola and Tschannen-Moran, 2005; LeChasseur et al., 2018) caught between rigid bureaucratic demands and the field's pedagogical and human needs. The findings of this study suggest that principals in this context are not the boundary-transcending heroic leaders that normative literature claims (Collinson et al., 2018) but street-level managers who frequently risk their professional security to reach into the lives of students and teachers under severe incomplete autonomy (Davidovitz and Schechter, 2024; Lipsky, 2010). Their creative insubordination (Brieschke, 1985) is a struggle to make the voice of morality and plausibility heard when the centre loses touch with context (Weick, 1995). As Hallinger (2018) emphasises, leadership capacity cannot be built without bringing context out of the shadows. Accordingly, expecting visionary transformation from administrators deprived of decision-making tools while maximising their accountability is a romantic bureaucratic illusion (Keddie, 2015; Wermke and Salokangas, 2021).

While these findings emerge from a single national context and cannot be directly generalised to all centralised systems, the structural patterns identified in this study, including the asymmetry between accountability and authority, the reliance on informal strategies, and the psychological costs of creative insubordination, provide analytically transferable insights (Lincoln and Guba, 1985) for examining similar dynamics in other hyper-centralised educational contexts.

Limitations and future research

The interpretive epistemological foundations of this study should be considered; phenomenological findings do not claim to represent entire education systems (Cansoy et al., 2025). The male-dominant gender distribution (13 male, 2 female) largely reflects Türkiye's demographic structure, where female principals constitute only 7% of the total, compared to the OECD average of 47% (Beytekin and Yuce, 2023). The two female participants reported markedly different autonomy experiences, one describing trust-based autonomy through a supportive district director, the other experiencing the same structural constraints as the male majority, suggesting the gender–autonomy intersection in hyper-centralised systems warrants dedicated investigation. Future research employing purposive sampling across school levels could illuminate whether autonomy negotiation differs by institutional context. Furthermore, all participants served in Tier 1 to 2 districts (SEGE-2022; Acar et al., 2022); principals in less-developed rural districts (Tiers 3–5) may experience incomplete autonomy differently, and future research should explore these contexts. Audio recording could not be obtained due to the administrative risks inherent in examining creative insubordination; pilot participants confirmed they would not disclose informal practices if recorded. Although this limits the capture of some extended narratives (Patton, 2015), it was mitigated through real-time field notes, immediate post-interview expansion, respondent validation within 48 hours, and a complete MAXQDA audit trail (Creswell and Poth, 2018; Kuckartz and Rädiker, 2019). Future research should employ large-scale quantitative or mixed-methods designs, as well as multi-perspectival ethnographic studies examining how principals’ grey-area actions are interpreted by other system actors (Kim and Weiner, 2022; Sanfuentes et al., 2026).

Policy and practice implications

The findings necessitate restructuring educational policies in systems with similar structural characteristics, with reforms addressing field-level realities rather than normative rhetoric. First, legal protection mechanisms or a Good Faith Protocol should be developed to prevent principals’ plausibility-seeking initiatives from triggering administrative investigations, transforming control-based bureaucracy into a trust-based structure (Ansell et al., 2010). As expressed through the concept of controlled autonomy (Weiner and Woulfin, 2017), local initiative spaces can be integrated within central governance: creating flexible school budget expenditure items or allocating a proportion of teacher appointments to school-level selection could alleviate the coach-without-a-team impasse (Cansoy et al., 2025). Current accountability regimes should evolve from punitive compliance-checking toward intelligent accountability (O’Neill, 2013) that supports administrators’ risk-taking for student benefit.

Second, formal administrator-to-administrator mentoring networks should be established to prevent principals from becoming isolated in their street-level management crisis and experiencing deep emotional exhaustion (Eranıl et al., 2026). Such networks would facilitate information-sharing about navigating bureaucratic obstacles and strengthen the psychological safety administrators most urgently need (Browne-Ferrigno and Muth, 2004; Edmondson, 1999). The negative case identified in this study, where relational trust with superiors transformed the autonomy experience, underscores that institutional trust-building, rather than merely regulatory reform, may be the most powerful lever for sustainable leadership capacity.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

An earlier version of this study was presented as an oral presentation at the EJER Congress 2024.

ORCID iDs

Elif Simge Guzelergene

Kazim Celik

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval for this study was granted by the Social and Human Sciences Research and Publication Ethics Committee of Pamukkale University (decision no. 68282350/2025/03, dated 19 February 2025). Informed consent was obtained from all participants prior to data collection.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study prior to data collection.

Funding

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

Declaration of conflicting interests

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

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Author identifying information

All identifying information related to the authors and their institutions has been included only in this title page to ensure anonymized peer review.

Author biographies

Elif Simge Guzelergene is a research assistant in the Department of Educational Sciences (Educational Administration) at Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Türkiye, where she is also completing her doctoral studies. She holds a master's degree in Educational Administration, Supervision, Planning and Economics from Pamukkale University and a bachelor's degree in English Language and Literature from Hacettepe University. Her research interests encompass school leadership, centralised governance, culturally responsive practices, educational equity and qualitative research methodologies. She has contributed to an EU-funded international project (ICCEP) and has published in peer-reviewed journals on topics including multicultural classroom management and educational supervision. She has also co-authored and co-translated several academic volumes in educational research methods and artificial intelligence in education. Her conference contributions span international platforms including the European Conference on Educational Research and the International Eurasian Educational Research Congress. She currently serves as a language editor for the Journal of Qualitative Research in Education.

Kazim Celik is a professor of Educational Administration in the Department of Educational Sciences at Pamukkale University, Faculty of Education, Türkiye where he serves as Head of the Division of Lifelong Learning and Adult Education and as a member of the Institute Board of Directors. He received his PhD in Educational Administration and Supervision from Ankara University (2004), his master's degree from Hacettepe University, and his undergraduate degree from Gazi University. His research interests encompass school leadership and management, organisational behaviour, fear culture in schools, role conflict among administrators, and emergency management in educational organisations. He has led and contributed to numerous national and international research projects funded by the European Union, TÜBİTAK, and the World Bank. He has published extensively in peer-reviewed journals including Education and Science and the Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, accumulating over 577 citations. He serves as editor of Education and Science (SSCI-indexed) and as an Editorial Board Member of the Pamukkale University Journal of Education. He is the author of Emergency Management in Schools (Anı Publishing, 2007) and has supervised numerous doctoral and master's theses in educational administration. Prior to his academic career, he served as a primary school teacher and principal in Ankara and Niğde.

References

Acar

Şahin Cinoğlu

Karagöz

(2022) İlçelerin Sosyo-Ekonomik Gelişmişlik Sıralaması Araştırması SEGE-2022 [Socio-Economic Development Ranking Research of Districts SEGE-2022]. Ankara: Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Industry and Technology, General Directorate of Development Agencies. Available at: https://www.sanayi.gov.tr/merkez-birimi/b94224510b7b/sege

American Psychological Association (2020) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 7th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000165-000.

Ansell

Boin

Keller

(2010) Managing transboundary crises: Identifying the building blocks of an effective response system. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management 18(4): 195–207.

Ball

(2003) The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy 18(2): 215–228.

Ball

Maguire

Braun

, et al. (2011) Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 32(4): 625–639.

Berger

(2015) Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research 15(2): 219–234.

Beytekin

Yuce

(2023) Analysis of the data on school principals in the TALIS 2018 country note reports. The Eurasia Proceedings of Educational and Social Sciences 31: 202–215.

Bolden

(2011) Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews 13(3): 251–269.

Braun

Clarke

(2021) Thematic Analysis: A Practical Guide. London: Sage.

10.

Brieschke

(1985) Principals in schools: Insubordination in discretionary decision making. The Educational Forum 49(2): 157–169.

11.

Browne-Ferrigno

Muth

(2004) Leadership mentoring in clinical practice: Role socialization, professional development, and capacity building. Educational Administration Quarterly 40(4): 468–494.

12.

Bush

(2013) Autonomy and accountability: Twin dimensions of the reform agenda. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(6): 697–700.

13.

Bush

AYM

(2019) Distributed leadership and the Malaysia education blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralised context. Journal of Educational Administration 57(3): 279–295.

14.

Caldwell

Spinks

(1992) Leading the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.

15.

Cansoy

Gümüş

Walker

(2025) Challenges in implementing instructional leadership: Insights from Turkish school principals. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 53(5): 991–1015.

16.

Clarke

O’Donoghue

(2017) Educational leadership and context: A rendering of an inseparable relationship. British Journal of Educational Studies 65(2): 167–182.

17.

Collinson

Smolović Jones

Grint

(2018) ‘No more heroes': Critical perspectives on leadership romanticism. Organization Studies 39(11): 1625–1647.

18.

Corbin

Strauss

(2008) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452230153.

19.

Creswell

(2023) Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Creswell

Poth

(2018) Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21.

Cribb

Gewirtz

(2007) Unpacking autonomy and control in education: Some conceptual and normative groundwork for a comparative analysis. European Educational Research Journal 6(3): 203–213.

22.

Crowson

Porter-Gehrie

(1980) The discretionary behavior of principals in large-city schools. Educational Administration Quarterly 16(1): 45–69.

23.

Davidovitz

Schechter

(2024) Agentic leaders: School principals as street-level managers. Management in Education Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/08920206241269428.

24.

Denzin

Lincoln

(2018) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 5th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

25.

DiPaola

Tschannen-Moran

(2005) Bridging or buffering? The impact of schools' adaptive strategies on student achievement. Journal of Educational Administration 43(1): 60–71.

26.

Edmondson

(1999) Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly 44(2): 350–383.

27.

Ege

Gofen

Hadorn

(2024) Understanding street-level managers’ compliance: A comparative study of policy implementation in Switzerland, Italy, Germany, and Israel. Policy and Society 43(3): 317–333.

28.

Eranıl

Gürbüz

Gül

(2026) From leadership to teaching: Exploring the personal, organizational, and emotional dimensions of school leadership attrition in Türkiye. International Journal of Educational Research 135: 102868.

29.

Friedman

(2002) Burnout in school principals: Role related antecedents. Social Psychology of Education 5(3): 229–251.

30.

Ganon-Shilon

Schechter

(2017) Making sense of school leaders’ sense-making. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 45(4): 682–698.

31.

Gassner

Gofen

(2018) Street-level management: A clientele-agent perspective on implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(4): 551–568.

32.

Geertz

(1973) The Interpretation of Cultures: The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books.

33.

Gronn

(2009) Leadership configurations. Leadership 5(3): 381–394.

34.

Guest

Bunce

Johnson

(2006) How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods 18(1): 59–82.

35.

Gümüş

Bellibaş

MŞ

Esen

, et al. (2018) A systematic review of studies on leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 25–48.

36.

Gümüş

Hallinger

Cansoy

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

37.

Gunter

Ribbins

(2002) Leadership studies in education: Towards a map of the field. Educational Management & Administration 30(4): 387–416.

38.

Hallinger

(2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.

39.

Hallinger

Gümüş

Bellibaş

MŞ

(2020) Are principals instructional leaders yet? A science map of the knowledge base on instructional leadership, 1940–2018. Scientometrics 122(3): 1629–1650.

40.

Hammersley-Fletcher

Kılıçoğlu

(2021) Does autonomy exist? Comparing the autonomy of teachers and senior leaders in England and Turkey. Oxford Review of Education 47(2): 189–206.

41.

Harris

Jones

Adams

(2016) Qualified to lead? A comparative, contextual and cultural view of educational policy borrowing. Educational Research 58(2): 166–178.

42.

Haynes

Licata

(1995) Creative insubordination of school principals and the legitimacy of the justifiable. Journal of Educational Administration 33(4): 21–35.

43.

Hochschild

(2012) The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feeling. 3rd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

44.

Hupe

Buffat

(2014) A public service gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy. Public Management Review 16(4): 548–569.

45.

Javed

MAF

Reba

Saleem

(2026) Reimagining school leadership: A qualitative study on how distributed leadership models influence innovation culture in semi-government schools in Pakistan. British Educational Research Journal 52(2): 930–951.

46.

Keddie

(2015) School autonomy, accountability and collaboration A critical review. Journal of Educational Administration and History 47(1): 1–17.

47.

Kim

Weiner

(2022) Negotiating incomplete autonomy: Portraits from three school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly 58(3): 487–521.

48.

Kılınç

AÇ

Polatcan

Turan

, et al. (2024) Principal job satisfaction, distributed leadership, teacher-student relationships, and student achievement in Turkey: A multilevel mediated-effect model. Irish Educational Studies 43(2): 281–299.

49.

Koyama

(2014) Principals as bricoleurs: Making sense and making do in an era of accountability. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(2): 279–304.

50.

Kuckartz

Rädiker

(2019) Analyzing Qualitative Data with MAXQDA: Text, Audio, and Video. Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15671-8.

51.

LeChasseur

Donaldson

Fernandez

, et al. (2018) Brokering, buffering, and the rationalities of principal work. Journal of Educational Administration 56(3): 262–276.

52.

Leithwood

Harris

Hopkins

(2020) Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management 40(1): 5–22.

53.

Levatino

Parcerisa

Verger

(2024) Understanding the stakes: The influence of accountability policy options on teachers’ responses. Educational Policy 38(1): 31–60.

54.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985) Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

55.

Lipsky

(2010) Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services (30th anniversary expanded ed.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

56.

Lumby

(2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5): 581–597.

57.

MacBeath

O’Brien

Gronn

(2012) Drowning or waving? Coping strategies among Scottish head teachers School Leadership & Management 32(5): 421–437.

58.

Maynard-Moody

Musheno

(2000) State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 10(2): 329–358.

59.

Maynard-Moody

Musheno

(2012) Social equities and inequities in practice: Street-Level Workers as Agents and Pragmatists. Public Administration Review 72(s1): S16–S23.

60.

MoNE (2024) Formal Education Statistics. Ankara: Ministry of National Education. Available at: https://istatistik.meb.gov.tr

61.

MoNE (2026) Millî Eğitim Bakanlığı Eğitim Kurumları Yönetici Görevlendirme Yönetmeliği [Regulation on the Appointment of Administrators to Educational Institutions of the Ministry of National Education]. Resmî Gazete [Official Gazette of Türkiye], 30 January 2026, No. 33153. Available at: https://www.resmigazete.gov.tr/eskiler/2026/01/20260130-1.htm

62.

Moustakas

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

63.

Nordholm

Jarl

Wermke

(2025) School leader autonomy: A systematic review. Educational Administration Quarterly Epub ahead of print. DOI: 10.1177/0013161X251349562.

64.

Nordholm

Wermke

Jarl

(2023) In the eye of the storm? Mapping out a story of principals’ decision-making in an era of decentralisation and re-centralisation. Journal of Educational Administration and History 55(4): 420–440.

65.

O’Day

(2002) Complexity, accountability, and school improvement. Harvard Educational Review 72(3): 293–329.

66.

O’Laughlin

Lindle

(2015) Principals as political agents in the implementation of IDEA's least restrictive environment mandate. Educational Policy 29(1): 140–161.

67.

O’Neill

(2013) Intelligent accountability in education. Oxford Review of Education 39(1): 4–16.

68.

Oplatka

(2004) The principalship in developing countries: Context, characteristics and reality. Comparative Education 40(3): 427–448.

69.

Patton

(2015) Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods:Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

70.

Pont

Nusche

Moorman

(2008) Improving School Leadership: Vol. 1: Policy and Practice. Paris: OECD. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en.

71.

Şahin

Akkaş

Yeşil

M, et al.

(2018) Okul müdürlerinin okul yönetimine ilişkin özerklik algısı [School principals' perceptions of autonomy in school management]. In: Uğurlu

CT, Beycioğlu K, Koşar S, et al.

(eds) Eğitim Yönetimi Araştırmaları [Research in Educational Administration]. Sivas: Cumhuriyet Üniversitesi [Cumhuriyet University], 312–325.

72.

Salokangas

Wermke

(2020) Unpacking autonomy for empirical comparative investigation. Oxford Review of Education 46(5): 563–581.

73.

Sanfuentes

Núñez

Montoya

(2026) A longitudinal study on school principals’ autonomy as street-level managers during unprecedented educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly 62(1): 57–99.

74.

Smith

McGannon

(2018) Developing rigor in qualitative research: Problems and opportunities within sport and exercise psychology. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology 11(1): 101–121.

75.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

76.

Tian

Risku

Collin

(2016) A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(1): 146–164.

77.

Toprak

Karakus

Chen

(2023) Transformational school leadership: A systematic review of research in a centralized education system. Journal of Educational Administration 61(5): 514–530.

78.

van Manen

(1990) Researching Lived Experience: Human Science for an Action Sensitive Pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

79.

Verger

Fontdevila

Parcerisa

(2019) Reforming governance through policy instruments: How and to what extent standards, tests and accountability in education spread worldwide. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education 40(2): 248–270.

80.

Weick

(1995) Sensemaking in Organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

81.

Weiner

Woulfin

(2017) Controlled autonomy: Novice principals’ schema for district control and school autonomy. Journal of Educational Administration 55(3): 334–350.

82.

Wermke

Nordholm

Anderson

, et al. (2024) Deconstructing autonomy: The case of principals in the North of Europe. European Educational Research Journal 23(3): 347–365.

83.

Wermke

Salokangas

(2021) The Autonomy Paradox: Teachers' Perceptions of Self-Governance Across Europe. Cham: Springer.