Beyond Instructional Leadership: Considering Ethical Judgment, Relationships, and Organizational Support

By Dr. Héctor Navedo

January 11, 2026

Updated October 27, 2026.

Scope: The planning sequence is an author-proposed framework, not an established intervention dosage. Associations and modeled mediation do not by themselves establish causation.

Abstract

This essay considers instructional leadership together with ethical judgment, professional relationships, and organizational support. It draws on empirical studies and conceptual scholarship, with attention to their different evidentiary limits. The framework and implementation sequence below are professional proposals to adapt and evaluate locally.

Keywords: instructional leadership, ethical leadership, relational trust, principal induction, teacher self-efficacy, school improvement

Introduction

One familiar account of school leadership centers on a decisive principal who knows instruction and drives improvement. I question whether this account gives adequate attention to the relationships and working conditions within which principals act.

Instructional leadership operates within organizational conditions. A study of two newly appointed secondary-school principals in Guyana identified challenges involving school culture and change (Medford & Brown, 2022). It does not establish how frequently these challenges exceed instructional challenges across schools.

This professional essay proposes considering instructional leadership alongside ethical judgment, relationships, and conditions for adult learning. This synthesis is not a validated intervention or a claim that these conditions are necessary and sufficient for durable improvement.

What does research show about instructional leadership?

Instructional leadership matters, but it operates through organizational mechanisms.  A substantial empirical literature confirms that leadership for learning is associated with student outcomes. A recent meta-analytic structural equation modeling (MASEM) study synthesizing 90 studies found that leadership behaviors oriented toward learning—particularly instructional, transformational, and distributed leadership—were consistently associated with student outcomes, both directly and indirectly through teacher self-efficacy (Ozdogru et al., 2025).

The meta-analysis also reported an association between teacher self-efficacy and student outcomes (Ozdogru et al., 2025). This makes teacher efficacy a relevant topic for further inquiry, without showing that a particular leadership intervention will improve it or produce gains in a given school.

Modeled pathways in a meta-analysis should not be read as proof of causal mechanisms. Differences among study designs, settings, and measures also limit what can be inferred for local practice.

He et al. (2024) found associations between instructional leadership and teacher professional development among 304 secondary teachers and 19 principals in Awka South, Nigeria. The correlational design does not establish that a particular coaching or collaborative-learning structure causes improvement.

Ethical leadership is contextual, not merely a personal attribute

Argyropoulou and Lintzerakou (2025) offer a discussion paper, not a systematic review or impact evaluation. They examine the role of context in ethical leadership. I draw on their conceptual argument to consider how organizational circumstances may complicate leaders’ ethical judgments.

For principals and superintendents, ethical leadership becomes operational in routine decisions concerning: equity in discipline and access, transparency in decision-making, allocation of scarce resources, professional accountability and support, responses to conflict among stakeholders.

I propose examining whether everyday decisions are consistent with stated values. For example, when leaders emphasize well-being, staff should have opportunities to question workload expectations and explain their effects. Whether such procedures improve trust requires local assessment.

Principal transitions reveal the limits of technical competence

Medford and Brown (2022) examined the experiences of two newly appointed secondary-school principals in Guyana. Their findings illuminate difficulties in understanding school culture and attempting change. The small qualitative study does not establish the prevalence of these challenges or the effects of induction programs.

For districts, I propose using these accounts to ask how incoming leaders learn about school culture and what support they need. Any claim that a particular induction or mentoring approach improves leadership outcomes would require additional evidence.

Vanlommel et al. (2025) examine school leadership during disruptive change through an emotional and relational lens. I use that perspective to ask how leaders and staff experience uncertainty and what forms of support they find useful. It does not establish that the framework proposed here will produce sustained improvement.

A Synthesis Framework for Leadership at Scale

Drawing on these studies and conceptual arguments, I propose the following framework for discussion and local testing. Its components are not established necessary or sufficient conditions for school improvement.

Proposal 1: Organize opportunities for professional learning

I propose protecting time and defining responsibilities for professional learning. He et al. (2024) provide correlational evidence concerning instructional leadership and professional development, not a test of this proposed arrangement. Schools would need to assess its feasibility, participation, and outcomes.

Proposal 2: Examine consistency between values and decisions

I propose reviewing the consistency of values, resource allocation, and decisions, and making room for people affected to challenge a rationale. This recommendation draws on ethical scholarship; it is not a demonstrated mechanism by which compliance becomes commitment.

Proposal 3: Examine professional relationships and teacher efficacy

Ozdogru et al. (2025) modeled teacher self-efficacy as a mediator. I propose discussing trust, communication, and accountability alongside that evidence, while treating the broader relational framework as a hypothesis rather than a verified pathway of leadership influence.

Proposal 4: Review support for incoming leaders

I propose that districts examine their induction and mentoring arrangements alongside individual preparation. Medford and Brown (2022) motivate attention to newcomers’ experiences but do not demonstrate that a particular support package causes principal success.

For local evaluation, leaders would need clear definitions, suitable measures, and a plan for interpreting evidence without overstating what it establishes.

Indicators of ethical coherence may include: documented rationale for high-stakes decisions aligned to mission and equity commitments, consistency between stated priorities and resource allocation, transparency in disciplinary and staffing decisions, stakeholder perceptions of fairness and voice.

Indicators of relational capacity may include: staff trust and psychological safety survey data, patterns of teacher retention and internal mobility.

Participation in collaborative learning routines and patterns of concerns raised by staff could also be examined. None of these proposed indicators is presented here as a validated diagnostic or predictor of improvement.

Related reading: a proposed decision protocol for school system capacity.

A Proposed 90-Day Leadership Sequence

Days 1–30:

1. Cultural diagnosis and trust building

2. Structured listening with staff and families

3. Mapping informal influence networks

4. Establishing communication norms

Days 31–60: Instructional focus and learning architecture

1. Selecting a limited number of instructional priorities

2. Launching coaching and collaborative inquiry routines

3. Protecting time for adult learning

Days 61–90: Evidence of progress and recalibration

1. Reviewing short-cycle indicators of teacher learning and efficacy

2. Adjusting supports and expectations

3. Making ethical reasoning visible in decisions

This is my proposed planning sequence. The timing is illustrative, not a research-established dosage or evidence that coherence must precede speed.

Implications for Practice

For principals and aspiring principals:

1. Lead with cultural understanding before launching change.

2. Make ethical reasoning explicit and visible.

3. Treat professional learning as the core work of leadership.

4. Invest deliberately in teacher self-efficacy.

5. Develop relational leadership as a professional competency.

For superintendents and central office leaders:

1. Design leadership pipelines that include robust induction and mentoring.

2. Align evaluation with ethical and relational capacities, not only technical metrics.

3. Redesign workloads to protect time for leadership.

4. Monitor teacher self-efficacy as a system-level indicator of improvement.

Conclusion

The studies discussed here support attention to relationships, professional learning, and organizational context. I propose using those insights to design locally appropriate supports for instructional leadership while evaluating results and remaining cautious about causal claims.

My recommendation is to consider ethical judgment, professional relationships, and organizational support alongside instructional knowledge, and to evaluate rather than assume the benefits of that approach.

References

Argyropoulou, E., & Lintzerakou, E. E. (2025). Contextual factors and their impact on ethical leadership in educational settings. Administrative Sciences, 15(1), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci15010023

He, P., Guo, F., & Abazie, G. A. (2024). School principals’ instructional leadership as a predictor of teachers’ professional development. Asian-Pacific Journal of Second and Foreign Language Education, 9, Article 63. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40862-024-00290-0

Medford, J. A., & Brown, T. (2022). Newly appointed principals’ challenges in learning and adjusting to school culture. Heliyon, 8(9), e10542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10542

Ozdogru, M., Tulubas, T., Karakose, T., Kanadlı, S., Kardas, A., & Papadakis, S. (2025). How does teacher self-efficacy mediate the relationship between student outcomes and principal leadership for learning? Results from meta-analytic structural equation modelling (MASEM). Acta Psychologica, 258, 105144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2025.105144

Vanlommel, K., van den Boom-Muilenburg, S. N., & Kikken, E. (2025). School leadership during disruptive change: An emotional and relational practice. School Leadership & Management, 45(1), 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2421526