How to help groups of people work well towards a shared goal — not as a personality type or a position of authority, but as a set of learnable practices. Leadership is about enabling others, building shared purpose, navigating disagreement, and taking responsibility for outcomes. Everyone leads sometimes.
Leadership at Early Years level is about building the foundational understanding that leadership is a role and a set of behaviours — not a personality type or a permanent status. Young children often conflate leadership with dominance: the biggest, the loudest, or the most assertive child is assumed to be the leader. Disrupting this equation — showing that listening carefully, thinking about others, taking responsibility, and helping the group function well are also forms of leadership — is one of the most important things early childhood education can do. In communities where leadership roles are structured by age, gender, or social position, children may have received very clear messages about who gets to lead and who does not. The goal is not to disrespect these community structures but to expand children's understanding of what leadership involves — so that those who will lead in traditional roles do so more thoughtfully, and those who are not expected to lead develop the confidence to take initiative when it matters. Leadership at this level should be practised through genuine classroom roles that rotate — so every child experiences the responsibility of being in charge of something, and no child permanently occupies a leadership role or permanently lacks one. All activities below require no materials.
A drawing showing a specific, identifiable person doing a specific leadership action — not just standing, but doing something. The completion names the person, a specific reason they are a good leader (connected to a behaviour rather than a status), and a specific way they help others.
Ask: what would be different if this person were not there? This question builds awareness of the specific contribution the leader makes — replacing vague admiration with concrete understanding of leadership function.
A time I led something was when I was in charge of making sure everyone had water during the school sports day. I helped the group by keeping track of who had not yet had water and reminding them before they got too thirsty. Something that was hard was when two children wanted more water and there was not enough left and they both got upset with me. Next time I would count how much water we had at the beginning and plan how to share it so we did not run out.
Award marks for a genuine experience, a specific helping behaviour, an honest acknowledgement of something that was hard, and a specific next-time improvement. The hardest moment is the most valuable part — children who can identify what was genuinely difficult are building the self-awareness that makes leadership learning possible.
Leaders are born, not made — some people just naturally have what it takes.
Research on leadership development consistently shows that leadership capacity is more the product of experience, learning, and deliberate practice than of innate personality. Many effective leaders were not natural leaders as children — they developed leadership capacity through responsibility, feedback, and reflection over time. This does not mean that personality plays no role — some dispositions (openness, conscientiousness, emotional stability) are associated with leadership effectiveness — but these dispositions are themselves partially developed through experience. The belief that leaders are born disadvantages those who have not had leadership experience and advantage from an early age.
Leaders always know what to do — they should never show uncertainty or ask for help.
The most effective leaders are often those most willing to acknowledge what they do not know and to seek input from others who have more relevant knowledge or experience. Research by Amy Edmondson on psychological safety in teams shows that teams led by leaders who create space for questions and admit uncertainty consistently perform better than those led by leaders who project certainty they do not have. Pretending to know what to do when you do not leads to poor decisions, reduces the quality of information available to the group, and damages trust when the pretence is exposed.
The best leader is always the one who makes the most decisions.
Making many decisions is not a measure of leadership quality — it may in fact be a sign of poor leadership, if the leader is making decisions that should be made by others or is failing to build the capacity of the group to make decisions for themselves. The most effective leaders know which decisions are theirs to make, which should be made collaboratively, and which should be delegated to others with the relevant knowledge or stake in the outcome. Leaders who make all the decisions reduce the group's capacity, engagement, and sense of ownership.
Leadership at primary level introduces students to the conceptual landscape of leadership — the different styles and approaches, the core functions of leadership in a group, and the ethical dimensions of leading others.
The most widely taught leadership style framework distinguishes between autocratic (leader decides alone, tells others what to do), democratic (leader involves the group in decisions), laissez-faire (leader delegates decisions to the group with minimal direction), and transformational (leader inspires and motivates through shared vision and values). Each style has genuine strengths and genuine limitations: autocratic works well in emergencies or when the leader has overwhelming expertise; democratic works well when group members have relevant knowledge and when their commitment to the decision matters; laissez-faire works well with highly competent, self-directed groups but produces poor outcomes with inexperienced or disengaged groups; transformational works well for motivating change but requires genuine shared values and can become manipulative if the vision is not genuinely shared. The situational leadership model — adapting style to the readiness and competence of the group — is one of the most practically useful frameworks for students learning to lead.
One of the most important leadership functions is helping a group understand where it is going and why — building a shared picture of the goal that motivates effort and provides direction for decision making. Research on organisational effectiveness consistently shows that groups with clear, compelling shared vision significantly outperform those without one. The practical skill of building shared vision — through genuine consultation, honest communication, and connecting the goal to things group members genuinely care about — is distinct from simply announcing a goal or issuing instructions.
Leaders are accountable to their group for their performance and their decisions. This accountability is not the same as blame — it is the responsibility to explain decisions, to acknowledge mistakes, and to work to repair damage when things go wrong. Leaders who deflect accountability — blaming external factors or subordinates for failures while claiming credit for successes — consistently damage trust and group performance.
The leader I observed was the chair of our community water committee, who runs the monthly meetings where members discuss maintenance, contributions, and disputes about the water point. She primarily uses a democratic style — she actively solicits opinions from everyone present, including those who are usually quiet, and she summarises and builds on what different people say before helping the group reach a decision. She does this very well — people leave the meetings feeling heard even when they did not get exactly what they wanted. However, I noticed that when the meeting runs over time and decisions need to be made quickly, she struggles to shift to a more decisive approach and the meetings sometimes end without clear decisions. If I were in a similar role, I would learn from her genuinely inclusive approach while also practising the ability to shift to a cleaner decision-making process when time is short — recognising that the right style depends on the situation.
Award marks for: a specific and real leader in an identified context; accurate style classification with a genuine assessment of whether it was appropriate; a specific and concrete strength; a constructive and specific improvement that engages with the situation rather than imposing an ideal; and a personal learning that connects the observed leader to the student's own leadership development. Strong answers will show that leadership analysis does not mean simply judging — it means understanding the leadership in context.
I have been asked to lead a group of eight students from different classes to organise the end-of-year school ceremony. The group includes people who do not know each other well and who have different ideas about what the ceremony should look like. My approach would be primarily democratic in the planning stage — I would use a shared vision exercise to find out what everyone most cares about before any decisions are made — and more directive in the execution stage when tasks need to be assigned and deadlines met. The most likely difficulty is that some group members will have strong opinions about specific decisions and will feel disappointed if their idea is not chosen. I would handle this by separating the vision-building stage (where every contribution shapes the shared goal) from the specific decision stage (where the group chooses within the shared vision), so people feel heard even when their specific preference was not selected. I would hold myself accountable to the group by giving a brief update at each meeting on what I did since the last meeting, what I did not manage to do and why, and what I plan to do before the next — making my own performance visible to the group rather than only managing theirs.
Award marks for: a specific and real context; a justified leadership approach that matches the situation; a realistic and specific anticipated difficulty rather than a generic one; a handling strategy that addresses the specific difficulty identified; and an accountability mechanism that is concrete and self-exposing rather than vague. Strong answers will show awareness that leadership involves managing one's own limitations as much as directing others.
Strong leaders never show vulnerability or admit they do not know something.
Research by Brené Brown on vulnerability and leadership shows that leaders who admit uncertainty, acknowledge mistakes, and show genuine humanity build significantly more trust and psychological safety than those who project infallible competence. Amy Edmondson's research on team performance shows that psychological safety — the experience that it is safe to speak up, disagree, and admit mistakes — is one of the strongest predictors of team effectiveness, and that leaders who model vulnerability are the primary creators of psychological safety. The pretence of certainty and infallibility is not strength — it is a defensive strategy that reduces the quality of information available to the leader and erodes the trust of those who know the pretence for what it is.
Good leadership means everyone likes the leader.
Effective leadership sometimes requires making decisions that are genuinely unpopular — prioritising long-term benefit over short-term comfort, holding people to standards they find demanding, or naming difficult truths. Leaders who are primarily motivated by being liked make worse decisions than those who are motivated by effectiveness and integrity. The goal is not universal popularity but genuine respect — which is built through consistency, fairness, competence, and accountability over time, not through telling people what they want to hear.
Leadership is about individual talent — great groups need a great leader.
Research on high-performing groups shows that leadership in the best-functioning groups is often distributed — different people lead at different moments depending on whose expertise and judgment is most relevant. The leader's most important function may be to create the conditions for distributed leadership — building a culture of psychological safety, clear shared purpose, and mutual accountability — rather than to be the primary source of direction and decision making. Groups that depend entirely on a single exceptional individual leader are more fragile and less adaptive than those where leadership capacity is shared across members.
Transformational leadership is always the best approach — inspiring people through vision is always superior to directive management.
Transformational leadership is highly effective for motivating change and building long-term commitment — but it is inappropriate for many real leadership situations. Emergency management, technical execution, new team member orientation, and situations requiring rapid precise action all benefit from clearer direction than transformational leadership typically provides. The situational leadership model is more practically useful than any single-style prescription: the most effective leaders adapt their approach to the readiness, competence, and motivation of the group in the specific situation, rather than applying a preferred style regardless of context.
Leadership at secondary level engages students with the more complex, contested, and politically significant dimensions of leadership — distributed leadership, ethical leadership, adaptive challenges, the relationship between leadership and power, and leadership for social change.
The field of distributed leadership (Gronn, Spillane, and others) challenges the assumption that leadership resides in individual leaders and argues instead that it is distributed across organisational and community members — that effective groups typically have multiple people exercising leadership in different domains and at different moments. This does not mean leaderless — it means that leadership is understood as a practice rather than a position, and that developing leadership capacity broadly across a group produces better outcomes than concentrating it in a single person.
Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky's adaptive leadership framework distinguishes between technical problems (those that can be addressed by applying existing knowledge and expertise) and adaptive challenges (those that require changes in values, beliefs, roles, and relationships — changes that the people themselves must make). Technical problems can be solved by experts. Adaptive challenges require leadership that helps groups confront difficult realities, experiment with new approaches, and tolerate the uncertainty of genuine change. Most significant community and social challenges are adaptive — and the leadership they require is fundamentally different from expert direction.
Leadership is always exercised in a context of power — and understanding whose power is reinforced or challenged by different leadership styles is essential for both ethical leadership and social change. Post-colonial and feminist critiques of leadership theory point out that dominant models of leadership have typically been based on the experience of male, Western, formal organisational leaders — and that the leadership practices of women, indigenous communities, and social movements may look quite different from those models while being equally or more effective.
The history of social movements — civil rights, independence movements, feminist movements, environmental movements — provides some of the most instructive examples of leadership available. What distinguishes effective movement leaders from those who failed is a rich area of study that connects leadership directly to the Citizenship, Conflict Resolution, and Empathy skills topics already built.
Leadership is about having a vision and persuading others to follow it.
Imposing a personal vision on others — however persuasively — is not the same as building genuine shared purpose. Research on organisational effectiveness and social movements shows that groups with genuine shared vision — built through consultation, honest dialogue, and connection to what members actually care about — significantly outperform groups that are executing a leader's imposed vision. The difference is not semantic: imposed visions collapse when the leader leaves; genuine shared vision is owned by the group and survives leadership transitions. This does not mean leaders cannot have strong views or propose ambitious directions — but those views must be tested against and integrated with what the group genuinely believes and cares about.
Charisma is the most important leadership quality.
Research on leadership effectiveness consistently shows that charisma is less important — and more potentially dangerous — than popular discourse suggests. Charismatic leaders are more effective at mobilising initial enthusiasm but more likely to create dependency, centralise power, suppress dissent, and produce organisations that collapse when the leader departs. The most effective long-term leaders tend to be those who build institutional capacity, develop other leaders, and create systems that work without requiring their personal charisma. Jim Collins's research on what he called Level 5 leaders shows that the most successful organisational leaders over time tend to be characterised by humility and fierce professional will — not charisma.
Leaders should put the group's interests entirely above their own.
The sustainable version of service leadership requires that leaders also attend to their own wellbeing, capacity, and development. Leaders who entirely neglect their own needs in service of the group produce burnout, resentment, and ultimately reduced effectiveness. Modelling healthy self-care, setting sustainable boundaries, and maintaining personal wellbeing are not selfish departures from service leadership but preconditions for sustained effective service. The research on compassion fatigue in caring professionals applies equally to leadership: those who give without also receiving and restoring deplete their capacity to give effectively over time.
Leadership in formal institutions (government, corporations, schools) is more important than leadership in informal community settings.
Some of the most consequential leadership in human history has been exercised outside formal institutions — in social movements, religious communities, family networks, and informal community organising. Nelson Mandela led from a prison cell. Wangari Maathai built the Green Belt Movement through community women outside any formal institutional structure. bell hooks shaped educational discourse from a position of academic marginality. Leadership capacity in informal community settings — the ability to build shared purpose, navigate disagreement, and mobilise collective action without institutional authority — is not less important than formal institutional leadership. It is often harder and arguably more valuable because it depends entirely on genuine voluntary followership.
Key texts and resources: Ronald Heifetz and Marty Linsky's Leadership on the Line (2002, Harvard Business School Press) is the most practically useful secondary-level treatment of adaptive leadership — readable, concrete, and full of real examples. Their earlier Leadership Without Easy Answers (1994) provides the theoretical foundation. Amy Edmondson's The Fearless Organization (2018, Wiley) is the most accessible treatment of psychological safety and its relationship to leadership. For servant leadership: Robert Greenleaf's The Servant as Leader (1970, essay, freely available) is the foundational text. For transformational leadership: James MacGregor Burns's Leadership (1978, Harper Row) is the original and still the most ambitious theoretical treatment. For distributed leadership: Peter Spillane's Distributed Leadership (2006, Jossey-Bass) is the most accessible research-based treatment. For leadership and power: Stacey Young's work on leadership and intersectionality and Robin DiAngelo's work on whiteness and leadership in institutions provide important critical perspectives. For movement leadership: Marshall Ganz's Why David Sometimes Wins (2009, Oxford) is the most rigorous analysis of social movement leadership effectiveness. His Public Narrative framework (Story of Self, Story of Us, Story of Now) is freely available through Harvard Kennedy School and widely used in community organising. For African leadership perspectives: Reuel Khoza's Attuned Leadership (2011, Penguin) and the Ubuntu philosophy of leadership provide important counterweights to Western leadership models. For Jim Collins's Level 5 research: his Harvard Business Review article Good to Great is freely available and the most accessible entry point. Brené Brown's Dare to Lead (2018, Random House) addresses vulnerability, trust, and accountability in leadership in the most accessible terms currently available.
Your feedback helps other teachers and helps us improve TeachAnyClass.