Suitability of Delegated and Participatory Leadership Models for Effective Management and Supervision in Public Secondary Schools in Kinondoni Municipality, Tanzania

Prospery M.  Mwila

doi:10.61227/esxn0515

Authors

Prospery M. Mwila Saint Augustine University of Tanzania

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.61227/esxn0515

Keywords:

delegated leadership, participatory leadership, leadership models, school management, supervision, Tanzania

Abstract

Public secondary schools require suitable leadership models, yet authoritarian routines and uneven participation constrain management and supervision. This study examined delegated leadership in Kinondoni Municipality, Tanzania. Its purpose was to generate evidence on leadership arrangements; the main objective was to assess the suitability of leadership models for effective management and supervision. A mixed-methods approach and explanatory sequential design were used. The analysed sample comprised 417 participants: 400 students, eight class teachers, four academic teachers, three head teachers, and two Ward Education Officers from public secondary schools. Questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, observation checklists, and documentary-review guides collected data. Questionnaires were administered first; interviews, observations, and records explained and triangulated patterns. SPSS version 28 produced frequencies, percentages, and means, while qualitative evidence was analysed thematically using Braun and Clarke's six phases. Expert review, construct and face checks, pilot testing, triangulation, and a Cronbach's alpha acceptance criterion of .70 supported validity and reliability. Ethical approval and permission were obtained; adults consented, students assented with parental consent, and confidentiality was protected. Delegated leadership was preferred to authoritarian leadership (55.0%, M = 3.47); 49.0% reported improved management and supervision (M = 3.33), 45.0% reported reduced head-teacher workload (M = 3.27), and 40.8% endorsed participatory models for Tanzania (M = 3.18). Interviews explained that participation strengthened ownership and supportive supervision but could become tokenistic or slow decisions. The study concludes that a context-sensitive hybrid model is most suitable. It recommends structured delegation, consultation, role-linked authority, leadership training, and differentiated decision protocols for routine, consultative, and urgent matters.

References

Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed leadership in organizations: A review of theory and research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13(3), 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x

Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.

Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2014). School leadership models: What do we know? School Leadership & Management, 34(5), 553–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.928680

Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.

Dampson, D. G., Havor, F. M., & Laryea, P. (2018). Distributed leadership an instrument for school improvement: The study of public senior high schools in Ghana. Journal of Education and e-Learning Research, 5(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.509.2018.52.79.85

Galdames-Calderón, M. (2023). Distributed leadership: School principals' practices to promote teachers' professional development for school improvement. Education Sciences, 13(7), Article 715. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13070715

Hatcher, R. (2005). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26(2), 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142569042000294200

Kanshabe, S., Tibanyendera, B., & Tutegyereize, J. (2025). Head teachers' delegation levels and their job effectiveness in Mbarara City South Division government-aided secondary schools. East African Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 8(2), 651–663. https://doi.org/10.37284/eajass.8.2.3303

Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 581–597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213489288

Msigwa, O. F., Amos, O., & Mushi, P. S. D. (2024). Influence of heads of schools' leadership practices on teachers' job performance in public secondary schools in Kigoma District Council, Tanzania. British Journal of Education, 12(9), 25–42. https://doi.org/10.37745/bje.2013/vol12n92542

Msuya, L. C., & Mwila, P. M. (2023). The effect of heads of schools' supervisory practices on learning achievement in public secondary schools in Ubungo Municipality, Tanzania. Journal of Educational and Management Studies, 13(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.54203/jems.2023.1

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

United Republic of Tanzania, Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2023). Education and training policy of 2014, 2023 edition. https://www.moe.go.tz/en/education-policy