Leadership in Educational Entrepreneurship: Analysing Distributed Leadership Practice in a Kazakhstani School Network by Ms Adiya Mukhametkan

Degree Programme: MSc in Educational Leadership

Introduction

In the contemporary educational setting, the role of leadership has changed from a directive, command-and-control approach to a more collaborative and empowering management style (Harris, 2013; Spillane 2006; Spillane and Diamond 2007). Educational leaders face a dual challenge: maintaining accountability and performance while creating an inclusive culture where employees feel valued and thrive. This essay will examine and critically analyze the leadership approach of an educational entrepreneur and school principal in Kazakhstan, drawing on direct quotations from a semi-structured interview and contemporary leadership theory. The leader has extensive experience across investment, educational entrepreneurship, school management, and strategic planning, and has successfully established a network of private schools serving diverse student populations.

There is still a relatively short supply of distributed leadership in empirical studies (Harris, 2008). The approach is based on the fundamental idea of distributed cognition (Hutchins, 1995) and modern leadership theory, specifically distributed leadership frameworks (Harris, 2008; Spillane, 2006). The essay goes beyond straightforward alignment-checking to examine the lived reality of putting distributed leadership into practice, including the conflicts, adjustments, and compromises needed when local situations and global theoretical models collide.

This essay argues that this leader’s practice exhibits characteristics of distributed leadership. The leader’s observation points to the crucial understanding that distributed leadership requires constant attention to individual differences, contextual factors, and the actual willingness of team members to exercise the required autonomy and responsibility.

Conceptualising Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership is best understood not as a property of individuals but as a form of practice that is stretched over the interactions of many people within an organisation (Spillane, 2006; Spillane, Halverson and Diamond, 2004). In this approach, the leader is not centralized and does not place leadership in the actions of one official but rather treats it as an emerging property of the relationships, tasks, and situations through which work is performed. These are concepts of concertive action where leadership emerges through the joint agency of people acting interdependently, rather than through the separate contributions of individual role-holders (Gronn, 2002). Therefore, a key analytical step is the distinction between delegation and distribution is delegation transfers tasks downwards while formal authority remains at the top, while distributed leadership suggests that influence, decision-making, and strategic agency are genuinely dispersed throughout the organization (Harris, 2008).

This can be called a decision-making hierarchy and vertical chain, where power is concentrated at the top of the organization and is transmitted downwards in the form of directives, and legitimacy comes from position, command and control (Northouse, 2022). The horizontal approach undermines this structure by shifting decision-making power to the fluid interactions of teams, which is particularly acute in hierarchical cultures with high power distance (Hofstede, Hofstede, and Minkov, 2010). However, it is important to problematize distributed leadership rather than consider it self-evidently progressive: a vast critical literature argues that the language of “distribution” can mask the preservation of managerial control. Hatcher (2005) questions whether distributed leadership equates to devolution, as hierarchical structures and accountability regimes in schools typically remain intact, and Lumby (2013) shows that it often serves as a way to transfer additional managerial burdens rather than genuinely redistribute power. In this light, distributed leadership in a market-oriented school context risks shifting responsibility downwards while maintaining real power at the top (Bolden, 2011), raising the question of whether the practices discussed here represent genuine power sharing or a more limited, albeit sincere, form of delegation.

Context: Kazakhstan as a Post-Socialist Setting

Kazakhstan gained independence in 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union and inherited a highly centralized, command-and-control model of education governance, in which power was concentrated at the top and schools operated within a detailed system of norms and regulations (Yakavets, 2016; OECD, 2018). This legacy continues today where the education system remains highly centralized and bureaucratic, which supports a directive leadership style and top-down decision-making and limits the autonomy of leaders in promoting organizational development (Yakavets, 2017; Durrani et al., 2024). Accordingly, normative expectations about what it means to be a leader are shaped by a culture characterized by high power distance and traditional deference to authority (Hofstede, Hofstede and Minkov, 2010; Yakavets, 2016).

On the one hand, the idea of ​​distributed, collective leadership resonates with the collectivist ideals rhetorically proclaimed during the Soviet period, and in this sense, it is culturally familiar. On the other hand, the actual administrative culture of that period was rigidly hierarchical, and interactions between administrators and teachers are still often marked by deferential subordination, rooted in collectivist attitudes and respect for authority (Durrani et al., 2024). Thus, the horizontal, distributed approach is both recognizable (it responds to the collectivist ideal) and subversive (it challenges the vertical hierarchy on which authority has historically rested). It is in this contradiction between collectivist rhetoric and hierarchical practice that Alex’s leadership should be understood not as a direct application of the Western model, but as a practice that negotiates a difficult institutional legacy.

Methodology:

The aim of the study was to analyse the leader’s approach in the context of contemporary leadership theories using one qualitative case study. Semi-structured questions were asked to understand participant’s background, leadership style, values and challenges. The participant in this study referred as “Alex” (pseudonym), has worked as the director of a specialized educational institution for gifted children in Kazakhstan and later became the chairman of the board of all schools. Today, the Kazakh innovator is the founder and manager of a network of innovative micro-schools, which are among the top private schools in the country. He also leads an accelerator (an educational accelerator for leaders, managers, innovators, and entrepreneurs in the field of education) that helps develop rural schools and implement innovations by bringing together talented specialists and supporting them in creating and managing educational projects in Kazakhstan.

The interview, conducted through Zoom platform, covered topics including the leader’s career trajectory, personal leadership philosophy, communication style, approach to challenges, and views on staff development. During interviews we ensure the leader with anonymity as the interview involves evaluating the leadership style, and therefore respondents may be concerned that their comments or evaluations will be made known to others and be worried (Bryman, 2016).  Hence, the leader will be given a pseudonym to present in the interview transcripts.

I learned about Alex through social media, where he was actively promoting his leadership position and releasing his book. Over three years of observing him, I’ve come to appreciate his leadership skills and have had the opportunity to interact with him. Prior to employing deductive analysis to look at leadership views, an inductive technique was utilized to analyze replies, which was bolstered by preliminary exploratory coding using otter.ai.

Overview of the Leader and Organization

The following section briefly describes Alex’s career and his journey from student to school principal, as well as the environment in which he currently operates as a founding and network manager of an effective micro-school, which serves to analyze its leadership style and philosophy. The leader’s career path began in a small village after he enrolled in a bachelor’s degree in the United States and then completed an MBA from Oxford University. After returning to his homeland with extensive experience, he has served as the principal and CEO of a network of private schools in Kazakhstan for the past six years, expanding operations from one campus to multiple ones. His team consisted of high-experienced teachers and administrators, each with their own specialization. As director, he worked to develop the schools. He quotes:

“In 1.5 months, we enrolled 800 students. This was in 2016. I was working on the school’s development. We created Olympiad movements and a large lyceum for internships, implemented an AP program  (high school students can take college-level courses and tests to receive college credit) and technological solutions thanks to collaboration with Google and other companies, began working with corporations, and leveraged international and local opportunities for children.”

In this paragraph we use the term “directors” to refer to school principals, as this is the common designation in Kazakhstan. As we noticed, in Central Asia school directors contribute to improving the status of teachers and their welfare, based on ethical principles and the result of psychological reports. The director responsible includes organizing and selection of employees, ensuring occupational and health safety, and maintaining buildings in proper conditions. In addition to the traditional duties, a new responsibility known as “state purchases” was added recently (Yessimbekova & Aitbayev, 2010).  Since the director’s task is multifaceted, he prefers to delegate to the team. The team often struggles with the complicated combination of push/pull dynamics and reluctance to change, managing projects by influence rather than authority (Outram and Parkin, 2020).   But despite these difficulties, Alex led the team to numerous significant successes, including the implementation of the AP program. 

This elite educational institution offers in-depth study of the exact sciences and mathematics, including elements from grades 7 to 11, adheres to general educational standards and prepares students for Olympiads, and also offers paid tuition and grants for talented children.

The management and governance of the academic process is carried out within a traditional hierarchical structure, and collaborative decision-making is ensured by an extensive network.  

In this structure, Alex occupied a key position as the head of the school network and significantly influenced the formation of its strategic direction.  His path into education was indirect: first, he worked in startups and investments, tutored, and ran educational centers. Initially, he approached established entrepreneurs in the hope that they would invest in or acquire his educational startup. Through these connections, he was invited to join the board of directors of the National School of Physics and Mathematics, and his work on strategy led to the founders asking him to first serve as the school’s principal in Astana, then become its director, and eventually become CEO of the entire organization. About six years later, in 2022, he left, seeking greater freedom and control, and founded his own network of innovative micro-schools, now considered one of the leading private ones in Kazakhstan, which forms the focus of his current entrepreneurial activity.

Alex’s development and progress in the context of general education provides the basis for exploring and understanding his philosophical perspective and practical approach to managing educational change.

Leadership Philosophy: Theorising Practice

Responsibility Without Over-Responsibility

 According to contemporary theories, leadership involves influencing a group to achieve a common goal, and clearly articulating a leadership philosophy is fundamental to understanding a leader’s practices and values ​​(Northouse, 2022). In this study, Alex offers a nuanced definition of leadership that differs significantly from traditional approaches. When asked, “What does leadership mean to you?” he answers:

“Leadership, I think leadership for me is just like basically taking responsibility, being aware of that responsibility, but not letting it be the primary drive [of] leadership. I think people are not generally that helpless for them to be like… I think a lot of times leaders, they like, overestimate how much responsibilities they have.”

This statement signals a fundamental rethinking of the purpose of leadership. First, the leader completely rejects the idea that leadership is primarily heroic or an individual responsibility.

Second, it suggests that an excessive focus on personal accountability can paradoxically undermine effective leadership. This is consistent with distributed leadership theory, which posits that the concentration of power in one person limits organizational capacity and prevents the development of distributed expertise (Harris, 2008; Spillane, 2005). The leader further elaborates his philosophy:

“Leadership might be about being able to give a group of people, stakeholders in your community or organisation that you’re responsible for, [giving them] shaping a certain meaning for them, perhaps even with them, facilitating, shaping that message, that meaning, and providing this like activation energy necessary [for them] to collectively achieve that.”

Spillane (2006) found four phrases that are commonly used interchangeably to indicate distributed leadership in the literature: shared, collaborative, dispersed, and delegated leadership. He also highlights a “practice-oriented” vision of leadership: leadership arises through the interaction and joint action of many people, not just one. Such phrases as ‘shaping a certain meaning for them, perhaps even with them’ reflect elements of transformational leadership – setting a vision and inspiration – as Bass (1999) suggests; but the emphasis on collaborative action is consistent with the core principles of distributed leadership (Harris, 2003; Harris, 2009). By focusing on interactions rather than the leader’s position, his theory illustrates what Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) describe as the key text on distributed leadership: a critical shift from “power over” to “power with”.

Reflecting on experiences from school principal to Educational Entrepreneurship Alex has always strived to work on the implementation of new technologies and also paid attention to improving the school’s work and student learning environment. This suggests a positive relationship between distributed forms of leadership and various school organizational factors that may influence teachers’ classroom practices, including organizational change, teacher leadership, professional communities, teacher self-efficacy, and school morale (Bolden, 2011; Bellibaş et al., 2020).

Leadership as Collective Meaning-Making and Activation Energy

Leadership is not only an individual role, but also a collective social process (Spillane, 2006). This can be linked to how leaders help members of the organization create a joint project, interpret changes, understand goals and align them with shared values. Instead of imposing solutions, leaders engage in dialogue and help the team express themselves. The leader elaborates his philosophy further:

“I think people are not generally that helpless. Leadership might be about being able to give a group of people, stakeholders in your community or organisation that you’re responsible for, [giving them] shaping a certain meaning for them, perhaps even with them, facilitating, shaping that message, that meaning, and providing this like activation energy necessary [for them] to collectively achieve that.”

This definition highlights the key function of a leader. He does not simply carry out the work himself but instead fosters a shared understanding of change, reflecting the shift from directive to collaborative leadership. Secondly, I’d like to highlight the metaphor of “activation energy.” It describes a leader not as someone who does everything, but as someone who creates the conditions. This is consistent with the concept of distributed leadership, where the leader’s task is to activate the potential of others (Harris, 2005).

Distributed Leadership in Practice: Analysis of key dimensions

Sharing Authority and Decision-Making

Distributed leadership is not static, and theory emphasizes that distributed leadership refers to decision-making procedures carried out by employees at various levels rather than by a single person and power must be genuinely dispersed, not merely delegated (Harris, 2009; Lashway, 2006).

This distinction is critical: delegation involves distributing tasks while maintaining formal authority; distributed leadership involves genuinely sharing decision-making and strategic responsibility. The interviews provide clear evidence of the latter.

“I tend to delegate a lot. Perhaps I over delegate actually… my assumption is that people enjoy autonomy as much as I do, and I kind of want to maybe, like, please them a little bit, give them that sense of enjoying that autonomy… I like giving people a lot of autonomy, and like helping them with some strategic decisions.”

It is important to note the phrase “like helping them with some strategic decisions” here. The term “helping” suggests that the leader retains a supportive presence while strategic influence transcends hierarchical barriers by positioning himself as a facilitator in strategic processes rather than the only decision-maker. Strategic decision making is the definition of a long-term vision where formal power is concentrated and protected. The leader’s involvement in decision-making aligns with Harris’s (2008, p. 26) definition of distributed leadership as the distribution of “influence and agency” within an organization. Dean (2007) also noted that distributed leadership is more focused on empowerment, participation, and cooperation than traditional ideas of leadership, which emphasize command and control. Moreover, when describing how a team responds to challenges, he repeatedly uses collaborative language:

“We just try to… I think my typical line would be something like, don’t worry, we will figure it out… we just work to rectify the situation, to prevent it from happening again, and to find like a way to solve it.”

Repeatedly using “we” instead of “I” signals that problem solving is a collaborative endeavor. The statement “we will figure it out” illustrates how the leader positions himself as a co-participant in the problem-solving process alongside team members by framing issues as group rather than individual duties.

This contrasts sharply with delegating leadership, where a leader might say, “I’ve given the team members the task to solve,” retaining ownership while outsourcing execution (Hersey et al., 2013). In the distributed model, by contrast, ownership is truly shared.

Developing Others’ Leadership Capacity

In organisations that practise distributed leadership, collective knowledge and skill are strengthened, as leaders actively develop the leadership capacity of others(Dean, 2007). The leader articulates this commitment explicitly:

“I enjoy when I see how these people grow as like as leaders themselves. I really enjoy it. And I like how they find some kind of it’s almost like self discovery process for them. So I like sort of accompanying them in that self discovery process.”

In this statement, the leader shows his role as a leader as supportive and facilitating, rather than as a leader. The word “accompanying” is direct evidence that Alex is not teaching them to be leaders, but rather he is walking alongside them in the process of their own discovery. This approach enhances the organization’s ability to adapt and innovate because leadership potential becomes a collective resource rather than tied to an individual (Spillane, 2006). Thus, distributed leadership not only improves management processes by sharing responsibilities, but also creates a culture where everyone can take initiative and develop leadership skills.

Communication, Collaboration, and Emergent Leadership

According to distributed leadership theory, learning occurs through interaction both within and across different teams. Similarly, it is suggested that the practice is shared and realised with among large groups and networks (Harris, 2008). Leadership functions are shared among organizational members and it is viewed in terms of the collective behaviour and usually communication and dialogue are enhanced, and decision making and knowledge is sharing (Spillane, 2006). The leader describes his communication practices:

“We almost don’t have, like round tables, like formal sessions. It all tends to be like, completely chaotic in nature… I avoid formality. And I like, sort of a little bit like adventurous, fun approach to solving problems… as natural as possible, like we’re like walking and discussing something, we’re just like eating and discussing something.”

As we see, Alex often operates through informal channels — walking and talking, and conversing during breaks — where influence plays a central role in his leadership, since such informal interactions help to build trust. Northouse (2022) views leadership as a process of influence that occurs in the interaction between leaders and followers which implies the importance of informal communication. This complements the approaches of Spillane (2006), which emphasize that dialogue and informal communication is important in implementing distributed leadership.

Organisational Situations as Sites of Learning and Development

Organizational situations in the context of distributed leadership act not only as work processes but are also considered a space for learning and professional development.  Shared decision-making, participation in project groups, or problem-solving and other everyday situations may create conditions where employees develop leadership competencies through practice. Specific situations, such as organizational contexts, become a key source of learning for implementing leadership (Spillane, 2006). Alex views organizational problems as opportunities for learning:

“I really welcome problems… because we feel I approach it as like an opportunity to learn… I feel like school is a great place because it’s place where you’re supposed to be learning and where you’re supposed to be solving issues. And I like when our like administration, our teachers, go through this kind of process where they have to learn something new, get out of comfort zone and try to like, experience real difficulties of some sort, but to go through them together.”

Alex emphasizes that he views challenges as learning opportunities, and he views school as a space where learning and problem-solving occur simultaneously, and such challenges can be a tool for development for everyone, both administrators and teachers. He doesn’t try to shield people from difficulties; on the contrary, he encourages them to move beyond their comfort zone by engaging in the process of overcoming real challenges. Importantly, he spoke of a collective approach to challenges, which reflects the idea of ​​distributed leadership and collective learning (Spillane, 2006). This demonstrates an understanding that the development of professional competence and leadership potential comes through real-world experience rather than formal training or practice.

Distributed leadership develops learners’ potential as employees engage in leadership practices outside of formal roles. According to Harris (2012), distributed leadership promotes the development of confidence, professional identity, and the capacity for shared responsibility. Participation in real organizational tasks helps employees not only perform functions but also be leaders through reflection and interaction with others.

Contextual Factors: Complexity and Interaction

Individual Readiness and Preferences

However, it must be admitted the distributed leadership approach may function within cultural and organisational context that shapes both possibilities and constraints. During the interview Alex mentioned this phrase: “But sometimes I realize that they don’t actually like that [autonomy], you know”. Harris (2014) highlights that due to differences in experience, confidence, and professional identity, not all employees are equally prepared for distributed leadership, as everyone can be a leader at the same time. In conditions of organizational complexity, a leader requires adaptation to these differences, since without taking into account individual readiness, it can increase resistance rather than cooperation. Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) warn against “misconceptions” of distributed leadership such as that everyone is constantly in charge. Another is that it eliminates the need for structure or leadership. In the reality distributed leadership allocates different management functions between different people at different times, depending on their experience, readiness and situation. The leader’s reflections during the dialogue indicate a developing awareness: that while he certainly prefers a high degree of autonomy, he notices that some team members perceive it as disorienting rather than empowering.

Formal Structures and Informal Practices

The interaction of formal and informal structures is a prerequisite for distributed leadership, determining its effectiveness. Job roles, hierarchies, and regulated procedures constitute the formal structure that defines the framework for distributing responsibility and authority. Spillane (2006) notes in his work that leadership in reality is carried out not only through formal mechanisms, but also through everyday informal dialogues, which include dialogues during breaks, cooperation and joint problem solving. Informal practices often become a space for the emergence of emergent leadership (a form of leadership that arises naturally in the process of interaction between people). Thus, formal structures and informal practices require alignment for effective distributed leadership.

Harris & DeFlaminis (2016) mention that distributed leadership requires clarity about what authority  is actually being distributed and in what contexts.

Boundaries can become blurred if leadership is highly diffuse and informal. Team members may question whether a different decision truly belongs to them or merely requires managerial approval. External stakeholders may perceive informal decision-making as opaque or lacking rigor. Here we can see that the leader’s approach can create a kind of organizational duality: within his immediate team, leadership is distributed, informal, and emergent; however, the school itself operates within the framework of formal institutional structures and cultural expectations. Managing this duality requires ongoing negotiations and clear communication about where and how different types of decisions are made.

Cultural Context: Kazakhstan’s Organisational Expectations

Organizational expectations and leadership practices can be significantly influenced by the cultural context of Kazakhstan.  Many principals still approach their roles from an administrative and hierarchical perspective, with limited focus on emotional and social leadership (Nurmakhanova, 2020). Leadership is often associated with formal authority, control and key decision making, and in many organizations a hierarchical management culture still persists. Hofstede et al. (2010) note that typically high-power distance cultures are associated with high expectations of clear direction from above, which may hinder the development of distributed leadership. In such environments, employees prefer clear lines of responsibility and may view distributed leadership with caution. Spillane (2006) emphasizes that leadership practices are always shaped by the interaction of cultural norms and organizational structures. Therefore, as ex post-Soviet Union country, Kazakhstan requires taking into account cultural expectations for the gradual expansion of autonomy and the targeted formation of trust and horizontal interaction for the successful implementation of distributed leadership.

As Alex mentioned in his interview, his emphasis on avoiding formalities and creating a “chaotic” approach to problem solving is at odds with these cultural expectations. The leader intentionally creates a countercultural space in his school, which means more than just following cultural norms; it involves working against them. This creates an interesting dynamic. Within his company, team members can balance the cultural expectations of hierarchy with the leader’s explicit invitation to informality and shared leadership. For some, this may be a new level where they can blossom as employees, while for others, it can be confusing or uncomfortable. This variety of reactions reflects differences in personality and varying degrees of preference for leadership style.

Conclusion

Through our interview analysis, we found that the leader’s practice aligned with distributed leadership theories while addressing the challenges inherent in implementing such an approach. Alex leads with a clear, articulated philosophy that shifts responsibility from individual heroism to collective understanding and helps unlock the team’s potential. It shares authority in strategic decisions and also places an emphasis on staff development and views problems as learning opportunities, which reflect the basic principles of distributed leadership.

However, distributed leadership does not mean a direct application of theory. It may require alignment between personal vision and philosophy, as well as individual differences, as well as cultural context and expectations. Alex acknowledges that sometimes team members don’t have the autonomy he assumes they want and points to an important point: that distributed leadership requires attention to ongoing responsiveness to how it is perceived by team members. This case demonstrates both the promise and the complexity of approaches to distributed leadership in educational settings. Development and innovation, the potential for greater involvement and others may be the prospect, but the need to balance multiple factors such as personal philosophy, formal structures, individual differences and cultural expectations may be challenging.

During my analysis, I noted some important points for educational institution leaders. First, a clear statement of a leader’s philosophy is essential for the team to understand the rationale behind specific practices. Secondly, distributed leadership requires attention to individual differences; as I wrote earlier, not everyone is ready for a high degree of autonomy. Third, clarity of attitude is important for both internal and external team members. Finally, understanding the cultural context is crucial for understanding opportunities and limitations. Alex, the leader in this analysis, demonstrates a deep understanding of these factors, and is shown by his reflexivity about his own approach and openness to adjustment based on the team’s response. Such learning and adaptation may be as important as methods for improving the effectiveness of distributed leadership in complex organizational settings.

References

Bass, B. M. (1999) Two decades of research and development in transformational leadership. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 8(1), pp. 9-32.

Bellibaş, M. Ş., Liu, Y. & Gümüş, S. (2020) The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438

Bolden, R. (2011) Distributed leadership in organisations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), pp. 251-269.

Bryman, A. (2016) Social research methods. 5th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dean, D. R. (2007) Thinking globally: The National College of School Leadership: A case study in distributed leadership development. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 2(1), pp. 1-62.

Durrani, N., Makhmetova, Z., Kadyr, Y. & Karimova, N. (2024) Leading schools during a global crisis: Kazakhstani school leaders’ perspectives and practices. SAGE Open, 14(2).

Gronn, P. (2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), pp. 423-451.

Harris, A. (2003) Distributed leadership in schools: leading or misleading? Management in Education, 16(5), pp. 10-13.

Harris, A. (2005) Crossing boundaries and breaking barriers: Distributing leadership in schools. London: Specialist Schools Trust. Available at: www.sst-inet.net

Harris, A. (2008) Distributed leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. London: Routledge.

Harris, A. (Ed.) (2009) Distributed leadership: Different perspectives. Berlin: Springer.

Harris, A. (2013) Distributed leadership matters: Potential, practicalities and possibilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Harris, A. & DeFlaminis, J. (2016) Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), pp. 141-146.

Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J. & Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hatcher, R. (2005) The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), pp. 253-267.

Lashway, L. (2006) Distributed leadership. In Smith, S. C. & Piele, P. K. (Eds.) School leadership: Handbook for excellence in student learning. 4th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, pp. 245-265.

Lumby, J. (2013) Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), pp. 581-597.

Northouse, P. G. (2022) Leadership: Theory and practice. 9th edn. London: Sage Publications.

Nurmakhanova, A. (2020) School leaders in Kazakhstan: Perspectives, roles and challenges. Journal of Education in Black Sea Region, 5(2). Available at: https://doi.org/10.31578/jebs.v5i2.199

OECD (2018) Education Policy Outlook: Kazakhstan. Paris: OECD Publishing.

Outram, S. & Parkin, D. (2020) A tailored undertaking: The challenge of context and culture for developing transformational leadership and change agency. In Delivering educational change in higher education: A transformative approach for leaders and practitioners. pp. 9-19.

Spillane, J. P. (2005) Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), pp. 143-150. Available at:  https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678

Spillane, J. P. (2006) Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P. & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.) (2007) Distributed leadership in practice. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Yakavets, N. (2016) Societal culture and the changing role of school principals in the post-Soviet era: The case of Kazakhstan. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(6), pp. 683-702.

Yakavets, N. (2017) Negotiating the principles and practice of school leadership: The Kazakhstan experience. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(3), pp. 445-465.

Yessimbekova, B. & Aitbayev, K. (2010) Bilim beru uiymyn basqarýdy uiymdastyrý [The organisation of the management in educational establishments]. Almaty: Almaty Oblystyq Mamandar Kásibi Damytý Institýty.