Tan 2022 Influence of Cultural Values On Singapore School Leadership

Article
Educational Management
Administration & Leadership
Influence of Cultural Values on 2024, Vol. 52(2) 280–303
© The Author(s) 2022
Singapore School Leadership Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17411432211073414
journals.sagepub.com/home/ema
Cheng Yong Tan
Abstract
The present study examines how Singapore school leadership is influenced by different cultural
values. It employed a systematic review of 72 studies on Singapore school leadership published
2000–2021. Results showed that collectivistic values engendered moral leadership responsibilities
while power distance and other Asian values eventuated in the nuanced implementation of distrib-
uted leadership. Four values characterizing Singapore society also shaped school leadership. First,
meritocratic principles informed how school leaders allocated educational resources and oppor-
tunities in schools. Second, future-oriented school leaders focused on preparing students for 21st-
century work. Third, the emphasis on achieving systems-level coherence culminated in ecological
leadership across the Singapore education system. Fourth, strategically pragmatic Singapore school
leaders implemented various leadership models to address complex educational expectations
and needs. The confluence of different cultural values resulted in school leaders adopting a
meta-strategic leadership perspective in Singapore. The study contributes to scholarship by pro-
viding an up-to-date, comprehensive review of Singapore school leadership, encompassing differ-
ent forms of leadership enacted by all levels of school leaders, that is influenced by different
cultural values. It also shows that different values influencing school leadership are not necessarily
congruent, thereby pointing the way forward for researchers to examine sources of tension within
school leadership.
Keywords
Asian, cultural values, school leadership, Singapore, systematic review
Students in many Asian education systems demonstrate high levels of academic performance
in international assessments of student achievement such as the Programme for International
Student Assessment and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study.
Unsurprisingly, many researchers have sought to unravel critical success factors underpin-
ning these education systems (Dimmock, 2011; Dimmock and Tan, 2013; Hugues et al.,
2020; Hargreaves, 2012). In particular, scholars have focused on studying how school
Corresponding author:
Cheng Yong Tan, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR.
Email: tancy@hku.hk
Tan: Influence of Cultural Values on Singapore School Leadership 281
leadership contributes to school processes and student achievement (Dimmock, 2011;

Raveendaran et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2016). Results from this line of inquiry highlight
the importance of contexts in which schools are operating (Hallinger, 2018).
The present study focuses on cultural values that influence school leadership in Singapore. In the
educational leadership context (Haydon, 2007), cultural values refer to values, assumptions, and
norms that (a) are consensual in the wider society; (b) shape school leadership practices; and (c)
either are grounded in moral principles and/or have utilitarian value (Hodgkinson, 1991).
Indeed, education policies need to be mediated by school leaders for sense-making and implemen-
tation, and leadership practices are driven by school leaders’ values (Normand et al., 2021). For
example, Brooks and Mutohar (2018) argued how Quranic values influenced Islamic school
leaders’ values on Islam, education, culture, and leadership. In turn, the leaders’ values shaped
their practices. McNae and Barnard (2021) demonstrated that their sample of New Zealand
school leaders was driven by social, moral, cultural, and personal values to pursue equitable
student outcomes.
In the case of Singapore, these cultural values are not limited to Asian values but include values
that serve specific nation-building purposes. Indeed, scholars have described Singapore as a
‘neo-liberal-developmental’ state (Liow, 2011, p. 241), where the citizenry has grown to depend
on the state and to be self-responsibilizing (e.g. families being self-reliant and not depending on
welfarism), with free free-market characteristics favouring innovation and entrepreneurship. It
can be argued that that the strong, interventionist Singapore state exerts a large influence on
values permeating different aspects of Singapore society, including the education system
(Dimmock, Tan, and Chiong, 2021).
Accordingly, it is important to examine Singapore school leadership from a cultural perspec-
tive for three reasons. First, all levels of leaders from the Ministry of Education (MOE) to
schools are heavily influenced by cultural values in the compact Singapore education system
comprising some 360 primary and secondary schools (Dimmock, 2011; Goh, 2009; Ho and
Koh, 2018; Sharpe and Gopinathan, 2000; Stott and Low, 2000). Second, different cultural
values characterize Singapore society, and they collectively serve to shape Singapore school
leadership to give its unique characteristics (Dimmock and Tan, 2013; Gopinathan et al.,
2008; Ho and Koh, 2018; Ng et al., 2015a; Sharpe and Gopinathan, 2000; Stott and Low,
2000). Third, a comprehensive understanding of the myriad cultural values that inform
school leadership practices enables us to better appreciate relationships between specific lead-
ership practices and school outcomes.
Although the present study uses the term ‘Asian values’, it by no means implies cultural homo-
geneity among Asian countries. Indeed, values characterizing Singapore society may differ from
those of other Asian countries because of Singapore’s heterogeneous ethnic-religious composition,
assimilation of Asian and Anglo-American values, adaptation of values over time for economic
development, and the national drive first established by the country’s founding fathers and that
has continued to define the country today.
In the sections that follow, the Singapore education context and results from existing reviews
of Singapore school leadership will first be discussed. This is followed by an elaboration of the
systematic review process identifying and analysing relevant studies on Singapore school lead-
ership. After that, findings on how different cultural values shape Singapore school leadership
will be discussed. The last section concludes with key contributions from the study and sugges-
tions for future research.
282 Educational Management Administration & Leadership 52(2)
Singapore education context

Formal education in Singapore, comprising three stages (primary, secondary, and post-secondary),
aims to achieve four desired outcomes of education, namely nurturing students who are confident
and self-directed in their learning, who contribute actively to teams and society, and who are con-
cerned about Singapore (MOE, 2018a, 2018b). Students attend six years of primary education in
primary or special education schools before taking the nationwide primary school leaving examin-
ation for placement in secondary schools. At the secondary stage (4–5 years), less academically
inclined students join the Normal (Academic) or Normal (Technical) stream in mainstream
schools or attend specialized schools using experiential pedagogies and curricula. Students take
the General Certificate of Education (GCE) Normal (Technical) or Normal (Academic) examination
at the end of their secondary education. Academically-oriented students join the express stream in
mainstream schools, specialized independent schools, or privately funded schools. These students,
together with outstanding students from Normal (Academic), Normal (Technical) stream students,
and specialized schools, take the GCE ‘Ordinary’ Level examination.1 Students with severe special
educational needs may join special education secondary schools and work towards obtaining post-
secondary alternative qualifications at the end of their formal education. At the post-secondary
stage, students may pursue different educational pathways, including vocational education at the
Institute of Technical Education and polytechnics or academically-oriented education at junior col-
leges and universities. Finally, they graduate from the education system with qualifications as
diverse as technical/vocational certifications, GCE ‘Advanced’ Levels, diplomas, or university
degrees.
School leaders generally adopt MOE-sanctioned values as their own, thereby ensuring coher-
ence and efficient policy implementation (Dimmock and Tan, 2013). Various processes eventuate
in the alignment between MOE and school leaders’ values. For example, senior leaders use specific
criteria to identify teachers with leadership potential, endorse the latter for leadership development,
and appraise school leaders’ performance. The provision of leadership development by a monop-
olist institution (National Institute of Education (NIE)) ensures alignment between policy intent and
implementation. Different professional development opportunities for school leaders, including
rotation among different schools, posting to leadership positions at MOE headquarters, or second-
ment to NIE, reinforce MOE-sanctioned values across institutions. There are also cluster superin-
tendents mediating between principals and MOE to foster effective policy communication and
implementation. Lastly, MOE corporate and leaders’ professional values are clearly articulated
and continuously reinforced for school leaders.
Given the constant change in Singapore’s education system, it is not surprising that some scho-
lars have used a historical perspective to analyse salient educational issues in the country (Deng and
Gopinathan, 2016; Gopinathan et al., 2008; Lee, Hung, and Teh, 2016; Toh et al., 2014). For
example, Gopinathan and colleagues (2008) conceptualized the evolution of Singapore school lead-
ership policy and practice as contingent responses to socio-political developments in three phases
(colonial, post-independence, and contemporary) of the nation’s educational development. Deng
and Gopinathan (2016) explained Singapore’s stellar performance in international assessments
by identifying critical success factors in the earlier (post-colonial 1956–1987) and latter (globaliza-
tion and educational reform; 1987–) phases of educational development. Toh and colleagues (2014)
emphasized synergistic structural and socio-cultural connections contextualizing the Singapore
education system that helped to diffuse school-based innovations among Singapore schools. Lee
and colleagues (2016) conceptualized change, framed in complex historical, contextual, and
cultural dimensions, in Singapore’s education system through different developmental phases (sur-
vival (1959–1978), efficiency (1979–1996), ability (1997–2011), and student-centric, values-
driven (2012–present)).
Previous reviews
There are reviews of Singapore school leadership, but they do not comprehensively examine dif-
ferent cultural values underpinning this leadership. For example, Ng and colleagues reviewed
only principals’ instructional leadership (Ng, 2019; Ng et al., 2015b) from 27 studies dated
1984–2014. Notwithstanding the salience of instructional leadership, school leaders can be
argued to also enact other leadership practices, premised on a broader range of values, to
address complex school needs but these other leadership practices were not examined. Ng and col-
leagues’ (2015a) review of 36 studies dated 1984–2013 examined different school leadership beha-
viours (consultative, transformational, distributive, empowering, and hierarchical) during periods
of school reform (e.g. implementation of the leadership mentoring programme and information
communication technology (ICT) master-plans) but did not identify cultural values informing lead-
ership behaviours. They also reported that principals adopted a pragmatic approach to their leader-
ship (initiating structure for effective leadership and demonstrating consideration for teachers) but
failed to provide a comprehensive account of other values influencing school leadership. Ho et al.’s
(2019) synthesis of results from 31 research projects (2010–2018) funded by the Education
Research Funding Programme at the NIE identified critical roles of Singapore school leaders but
failed to investigate what cultural values underpinned these leadership roles. In summary, existing
reviews of Singapore school leadership fail to systematically examine different leadership practices
(Ng, 2019; Ng et al., 2015b) and the plethora of cultural values shaping these practices (Ho et al.,
2019; Ng et al., 2015a). The present study addresses this knowledge gap by examining different
values influencing Singapore school leadership in the last two decades.
Method
A systematic review of the literature on Singapore school leadership was performed. The review
was informed by Hallinger’s (2014) review framework addressing five key areas:
• identifying central topics of interest, guiding questions, and goals;

• elucidating conceptual perspective informing the review’s selection, evaluation, and inter-
pretation of studies;
• reporting sources and data types used in the review;
• reporting data evaluation and analysis used in the review; and
• discussing major results of the review.
Identifying topics, guiding questions, and goals

The present study investigated how Singapore school leadership is influenced by cultural values.
The specific research questions are:
• What characterizes Singapore school leadership?

• What cultural values influence Singapore school leadership?
Elucidating conceptual perspective

The study recognizes school leadership as contingent responses to the context where it is
enacted. Specifically, it focuses on how different cultural values influence Singapore school
leadership.
Reporting sources and data types used

Identification of studies. A search of studies examining Singapore school leadership in G1–12
schools dated 2000–2021 was performed using seven computer databases (Academic Search
Complete, British Education Index, ERIC, APA PsycArticles, Australian Education Index,
Education Database, and Teacher Reference Center). Search terms in abstracts included combina-
tions of keywords pertaining to
• school leadership (namely, ‘educational leadership’ OR ‘school leader’ OR ‘principal’ OR

‘vice-principal’ OR ‘department head’ OR ‘teacher leader’ OR ‘collaborative leadership’
OR ‘instructional leadership’ OR ‘distributed leadership’ OR ‘transformational leadership’
OR ‘leadership practice’) AND
• Singapore (namely, ‘Singapore’ OR ‘Singaporean’).
This search returned 527 studies.

These studies were complemented by manual searches as per current best practices (Alexander,
2020). These manual searches included scouring of eight core school leadership journals
(Educational Administration Quarterly, Educational Management Administration and
Leadership, International Journal of Educational Management, International Journal of
Leadership in Education, Journal of Educational Administration, Leadership and Policy in
Schools, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, and School Leadership and
Management), three Asia-Pacific-related education journals (Asia Pacific Education Researcher,
Asia-Pacific Education Review, and Asia Pacific Journal of Education), and three comparative edu-
cation journals (Compare, Comparative Education, and Comparative Education Review); referen-
tial backtracking via identification of relevant studies from review articles on Singapore school
leadership; and references to recent publications (including journal articles in-press) from consulta-
tions with scholars specializing in Singapore school leadership research. Twenty-five studies were
identified from the manual searches. Therefore, the database and manual searches returned 552
studies altogether for further screening.
Selection of studies
The author then reviewed abstracts of the 552 studies to decide if they should be included in the
systematic review based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if
they (a) examined Singapore school leadership; (b) pertained to G1–12 schools; (c) were dated
2000–2021; and (d) were written in English. Studies were excluded if they (a) examined aspects
of school other than its leadership; (b) were international studies not reporting on Singapore
school leadership; (c) examined early childhood school contexts; and (d) were journal editorials.
These criteria resulted in 475 studies being excluded.
After excluding one more study without full text, the full text of the remaining 76 studies was
reviewed to decide if the studies were to be included based on the same set of inclusion and
exclusion criteria listed above. This process excluded four studies. Therefore, a final pool of 72
studies was included in the present study (Figure 1; Supplementary Material 1).
Reporting data evaluation and analysis used

A coding scheme was developed to summarize these studies:
Figure 1. PRISMA diagram.

• Study identification details: author(s), publication year, and title of study.

• Study type: journal article, book chapter, doctoral dissertation, working paper, and
report.
• School leadership levels: principal, vice-principal, head of department, subject head, teacher
leader, and general.
• Research design: argumentative, case study, descriptive, ethnographic, grounded theory,
hermeneutic phenomenological, historical, longitudinal, qualitative, quantitative, mixed
methods, narrative inquiry, naturalistic inquiry, phenomenological, and systematic
review.
• Research method (school levels/types, sample, data collection and analysis)
• Key findings with regard to cultural values and/or school leadership types.
The six-phase thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2020) was used to analyse the studies. In the
first phase, the studies were read, and initial ideas were noted. Second, they were analysed to gen-
erate initial codes. Third, potential themes were identified from the codes. After that, the themes
were further developed and reviewed to ensure that they elucidated how cultural values influenced
Singapore school leadership. In the fifth phase, the themes were refined, defined, and named
(Figure 2 and Table 1). Lastly, the themes were reported in this article (studies summarized in
Supplementary Material 2).
Limitations
The present study must be read with two limitations in mind. First, the studies included in the sys-
tematic review were dated 2000 or later, so it is not possible to chart the developmental trajectories
of Singapore school leadership from earlier years of nation-building. Second, the studies included
were restricted to those examining G1–12 schools, so there were no data on leadership enactment in
other educational levels.
Figure 2. Influence of cultural values on school leadership.

Table 1. Themes from studies.
Cultural values: school leadership Description
Collectivism: moral responsibilities of school School leadership is premised on values of collectivism

leadership and solidarity characterizing Singapore society, so
school leaders feel morally responsible for student
learning, staff well-being, and nation-building.
Power distance and other Asian values: nuanced Implementation of distributed leadership in Singapore
implementation of distributed leadership schools is nuanced to incorporate Asian values such
as high power distance, collectivism, high uncertainty
avoidance, and long-term orientation.
Meritocracy: allocating educational resources by School leaders adopt Singapore policymakers’
academic merit meritocratic belief that talented individuals are most
likely to productively use scarce resources and
contribute to the country, so they primarily use
academic merit to allocate educational resources.
Future-orientation: preparing students for the 21st The population constitutes the primary resource that
century Singapore has for economic development, so
Singapore school leadership is informed by the
imperative to equip students with the competencies,
knowledge, and skills that future knowledge-based
economies need.
Emphasis on systems-level coherence: ecological The emphasis on a tightly coupled school system,
leadership mutually reinforcing human resource policies, and a
distinctive leader–teacher compact eventuates in the
enactment of ecological leadership in Singapore
schools.
Strategic pragmatism: combining different Singapore school leaders operate in a complex
leadership models to address myriad needs environment, so they use different leadership models
(instructional, distributed, vice-principalship, teacher,
and transformational leadership) premised on
strategic pragmatism, which eschews ideological
affinity in lieu of effective solutions that achieve
strategic goals, to address myriad needs.
Influence of Asian values and national values The influence of Asian values and national values
characterising Singapore society on school characterizing Singapore society results in Singapore
leadership school leaders enacting meta-strategic leadership,
balancing hierarchy and heterarchy in their leadership,
and distributing instructional leadership.
Results
The major results (the last step in Hallinger’s (2014) framework) of the systematic review are pre-
sented in this section. The studies reviewed comprised 62 journal articles, seven book chapters, one
doctoral dissertation, one report, and one working paper.
School leadership and socioeconomic instrumentalism

Given the perennial concerns with national survival and viability since independence, policy-
making in Singapore has been inexorably related to the wider socioeconomic and cultural contexts
in which the nation-state is operating. Unsurprising then, Singapore school leadership, mediating
between the MOE and schools, is not insulated from contextual influences. Specifically,
Singapore school leadership can be characterized as contingent responses to prevailing socio-
economic, political, and cultural environments to achieve the policy aims of developing the
economy and cultivating a harmonious society.
Nguyen et al.’s (2017) study of Singapore school principals epitomizes this assertion.
Specifically, they found that vision development of Singapore school principals was influ-
enced by different contextual factors. These factors included economic needs for 21st-century
competencies and skills, national culture emphasizing long-term orientation and pragmatism,
key national education policies and initiatives, and the school improvement journey. In
another study, Gopinathan and colleagues (2008) conceptualized Singapore school leadership
as responses to different socioeconomic and political contexts in the nation’s history. First,
these contexts included the colonial phase (1819–1965) in which educational policy was
decentralized and influenced by independent Chinese-medium schools whose leaders were
characterized as ‘insurgent’. Next, the post-independence phase saw a highly centralized edu-
cation system being implemented to ensure economic survival (1965–1978) and achieve effi-
ciency (1978–1997), so school leaders had a largely ‘implementer’ role. Lastly, the more
contemporary phase (post-1997) was characterized by greater decentralization and autonomy
to achieve flexibility and creativity, so principals were expected to be ‘innovators’. Adopting a
more economic perspective, Dimmock and colleagues argued for Singapore school leadership
to be responsive to job requirements in knowledge-based economies (KBEs) using the experi-
ences of two schools (Dimmock and Goh, 2011; OECD, 2020). They reasoned that
Singapore’s education had always been designed according to the country’s economic
needs, so it was imperative to identify competencies and skills that KBEs required and then
transform school leadership to support teaching-and-learning innovations cultivating these
attributes. Relatedly, Ng and colleagues’ (2015a) review of research on Singapore principal
leadership found that studies were often aligned to the implementation of state education pol-
icies designed to develop ‘thinking schools’ for preparing students for KBEs. Sharpe and
Gopinathan’s (2000) study provided anecdotal evidence on how principals of two high-
achieving Singapore secondary school principals appropriated societal culture and socio-
economic developments in their leadership to transform their schools. These principals oper-
ationalized Confucian and national values in different aspects of their schools. They also took
advantage of the move by MOE to decentralize school management, encourage greater con-
sultation, and streamline the government (Ho and Gopinathan, 1999) by experimenting
with different leadership approaches to address their students’ learning needs.
In the sections that follow, seven themes elucidating how different cultural values inform
Singapore school leadership (Table 1) are discussed.
Collectivism: moral responsibilities of school leadership

Singapore school leadership is influenced by Asian values of collectivism and solidarity with regard
to moral responsibilities for student learning, staff well-being, and nation-building. For example,
Ng’s (2016) research asked aspiring principals their perceptions of a good principal. Results
showed that participants perceived a good principal as one who had a moral purpose; who had rela-
tional skills and concern for people development; and who developed a positive school
teaching-and-learning culture, engaged stakeholders, and effectively managed complex issues.
Ng’s (2013a) qualitative study found that vice-principals felt accountable to different stakeholders
(students, parents, country, and citizens) for students’ holistic development; site, funding and staff
management; national survival; and humanity and the future.
Teng (2018) investigated how primary school principals enacted educational leadership for
social justice. Results showed that principals perceived educational leadership as promoting stu-
dents’ holistic development, including socio-emotional development and character formation.
Principals changed existing structures to provide equal opportunities for all students, respected tea-
chers as individuals with personal and professional needs and nurtured collegial relationships with
teachers to create a caring culture. Zhang et al.’s (2012) study involving school leaders and teachers
found that participants preferred principals to exhibit servant (vis-à-vis authoritative) leadership.
Specifically, servant leadership included understanding teachers’ needs, demonstrating empathy,
recognizing teachers’ circumstances, and building a school community. However, participants
demonstrated pragmatism in acknowledging the importance of principals exhibiting authoritative
leadership in crisis management.
Power distance and other Asian values: nuanced implementation of distributed

leadership
Scholars have argued that Asian values (high power distance, collectivism, uncertainty avoid-
ance, long-term orientation; Hofstede, 1991) influence the implementation of distributed lead-
ership in Singapore schools (Hairon and Dimmock, 2012; Hofstede, 1991; Nguyen et al., 2017;
Stott and Low, 2000). Individuals in high power distance cultures accept that power is distrib-
uted unequally, so they avoid disagreeing with super-ordinates or making decisions without
their superiors’ approval. Individuals in high uncertainty avoidance cultures experience
anxiety if their behaviours violate prescribed norms, so they welcome clear rules.
Individuals in cultures with a long-term orientation are willing to forego current gratification
for future rewards.
These Asian values eventuate in a nuanced form of distributed leadership in Singapore schools
(Goh et al., 2019; Hairon and Goh, 2015; Hairon et al., 2014; Hugues et al., 2020; Lim, 2006; Stott
and Low, 2000). For example, Stott and Low’s (2000) study involving four secondary school prin-
cipals found that (a) principals were too deferential and compliant towards MOE (high power dis-
tance) to take initiative and make decisions; (b) teachers rallied around school visions set by
principals instead of contributing to the development of the visions (rhetoric of collectivism);
and (c) principals waited for instructions from MOE instead of making their own decisions in non-
routine situations (uncertainty avoidance).
Goh (2009) highlighted cultural constraints in the transferability of Western educational
leadership theories to other contexts. He argued that empowered teachers in Singapore
were not exercising influence in the way their peers did in Western contexts. Lim’s (2006)
study of secondary school principals supported Goh’s contention. Her study found that
although principals believed that teachers should be highly involved in administration,
human relations, teacher support, and classroom matters, they were hesitant to involve
their teachers.
In another study using data from a large sample of primary, secondary, and junior colleges (high
schools), Hairon and Goh (2015) identified four dimensions of distributed leadership involving
principals, vice-principals, and teacher leaders, namely bounded empowerment (where teachers
enjoyed greater autonomy in professional aspects of teaching-and-learning compared to school

governance), developing leadership, shared decision-making, and collective engagement. In a
follow-up study, Goh and colleagues (2019) examined relationships between the four dimensions
of distributed leadership and Hofstede’s (2011) six work values (individualism vs. collectivism,
high vs. low power distance, high vs. low uncertainty avoidance, assertiveness vs. consideration,
long- vs. short-term orientation, indulgence vs. restraint) using data from primary school teachers.
Results showed that three sets of work values were correlated with the four distributed leadership
dimensions. Specifically, high power distance was strongly correlated with the four dimensions of
distributed leadership suggesting a paternalistic form of school leadership. Long-term orientation
was weakly correlated with bounded empowerment and collective engagement. Indulgence was
negatively correlated with bounded empowerment, collective engagement, and shared decisions,
indicating that teachers prioritized group interests above their own. Relatedly, Hairon and collea-
gues (2014) asserted that distributed leadership (comprising empowerment, interactive relations
for shared decisions, developing leadership) was needed to develop professional learning commu-
nities in Singapore schools. However, they qualified that the form of distributed leadership imple-
mented had to incorporate values of hierarchy and pragmatism. For example, empowerment might
be bounded in that while teachers welcomed the autonomy to contribute ideas, they desired the
assurance of their principals who made the final decision. In fact, some teachers expected
top-down decisions to be made due to their respect for hierarchy and preference for efficiency.
As for interactive relations for shared decisions, school principals should clarify roles and expecta-
tions for collaborative work involving teachers to achieve task efficiency and effectiveness. Finally,
in developing teacher leadership, principals needed to develop relevant knowledge and adopt prag-
matic decision-making that considered teachers’ age and formal positions.
Hugues and colleagues’ (2020) international study of Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia edu-
cation systems reported findings corroborating the nuanced pattern of empowerment for Singapore
school leaders. They found that Singapore principals had overall less autonomy than their
Indonesian and Malaysian counterparts. However, Singapore school teachers were empowered
to make key staff development decisions and skills transfer through professional learning commu-
nities whereas teacher training in Indonesia and Malaysia was mandated by government
administrators.
Meritocracy: allocating educational resources by academic merit

The discussion has hitherto focused on how Asian values influence Singapore school leadership.
Apart from these values, there are other values influencing Singapore school leadership. One
such value is related to the belief that resources are best allocated to individuals by merit
because capable and talented individuals are most likely to productively use these resources and
contribute to the country (Gopinathan and Mardiana, 2013). It deserves mentioning that the
Singapore government’s ability to efficiently implement policies (Dimmock and Tan, 2013; Tan
and Dimmock, 2014) is made possible by the careful selection and appointment of competent indi-
viduals to government leadership positions in a meritocratic system (Tan, 2008).
Following meritocratic principles, educational resources are allocated to students largely based
on academic merit in Singapore. These resources include admission to secondary schools, junior
colleges, and universities; student promotion within schools; student assignment to different
ability groups within schools; curricular offerings; and disbursement of academic awards (Heng
and Lim, 2021; Lim and Tan, 2020). At the school level, principals and middle leaders adopt
policymakers’ meritocratic and other values as their own and use these values to inform the allo-
cation of learning resources within schools (Dimmock, Tan, and Chiong, 2021). Relatedly,
Stewart (2013) discussed how competent principals were deployed to lead lower-performing
schools to improve student achievement in Singapore.
Future-orientation: preparing students for the 21st century

There is evidence that Singapore school leaders assume responsibility for preparing students for the
21st century (Chua et al., 2018; Harris et al., 2014; Hargreaves, 2012; Ho and Chua, 2019; Ng DFS,
2013; Ng PT, 2013b; Ng and Wong, 2020; Retna, 2015; Retna and Ng, 2016; Wong and Ng, 2020).
The argument is that the citizenry constitutes Singapore’s primary resource for economic develop-
ment, so it is imperative to equip students with competencies, knowledge, and skills that KBEs
need. Indeed, Hargreaves (2012) affirmed Singapore’s educational development as heralding the
so-called ‘Fourth Way’ that has culminated in impressive student achievement. Hargreaves refer-
enced the many forward-looking policies implemented by Singapore educational leaders to
achieve sustainability in desired student learning outcomes.
Ng and Wong (2020) elucidated the need for Singapore school leadership to respond to context-
ual requirements to prepare students to be future-ready. For example, Singapore’s economy needed
to invest in high-value manufacturing and novel services, commercialize innovative solutions, and
reap competitive advantage through technology and digitalization. Environmentally, Singapore had
to contend with urbanization, consumption, and carbon reduction; use renewable energy and
achieve energy efficiency; meet increasing water needs; and increase food yields. To confront
these economic and environmental contingencies, students needed to embrace life-long, life-wide,
and life-deep learning; an innovative mindset and value creation; technology and digitalization; and
a sustainable lifestyle.
Ng and Wong (2020) argued that school leaders needed to eschew more traditional forms of
leadership to effectively support necessary teaching-and-learning changes. They proposed con-
structivist leadership that challenged assumptions and beliefs, critically evaluated practice, inte-
grated new discoveries, and improved existing practice (Lambert, 2009). In addition to
equipping students with 21st-century attributes, school leaders need to create conducive environ-
ments and develop future-oriented habits of practices in students (Wong and Ng, 2020). These
habits of practices are namely inquisitiveness, ideation, prototyping, entrepreneurship, intercultural
acumen, and passion.
Aspiring principals in Singapore are imbued with this imperative of preparing students for the
21st century when they undergo the Leaders in Education Programme (LEP) designed by the
NIE and MOE to prepare them for leadership in complex environments (Ng, 2013). In the pro-
gramme, participants learn about complex processes including nonlinearity, self-organization,
autopoiesis, and emergence. An example of how school principals are prepared for this responsi-
bility of leading future-oriented schools is their capstone project (Creative Action Project) in the
LEP (Ng, 2013b). Ng (2013b) documented participants conducting ‘futuring’ (scanning environ-
ments, harnessing trends, and managing shock waves), contextualizing theories to fit local situa-
tions, adapting in unfamiliar situations and being flexible, and collaborating with others. Retna’s
(2015) study found that participants perceived the programme as enabling them to acquire new
knowledge and keep abreast with changes in school leadership. It deserves mentioning that
Singapore implements a rigorous selection process that identifies prospective leaders before
sending them to the LEP, thereby ensuring that schools are in the hands of capable leaders
(Jayapragas, 2016).
There is evidence that Singapore school leaders embrace this imperative of preparing students
for the 21st century. For example, Retna (2011) found that school principals identified personal
mastery (having a personal vision, able to assess current realities, seeking the truth, and being self-
reflexive) as critical for leading schools as learning organizations. Ng and colleagues’ (2015a)
review found that Singapore principals assumed different roles as leaders of school vision and
change. They were consultative in their leadership, assumed transformational roles and provided
directions, distributed leadership roles to middle leaders and empowered teachers with expertise,
and were hierarchical during the initiating phase and facilitative during advanced phases of
school reforms. Retna and Ng (2016) examined perceptions of Singapore school principals
towards the ‘Teach Less, Learn More’ (TLLM) policy designed to develop forward-looking
schools. Their participants concurred that TLLM would prepare students for the future although
they were less confident about students and teachers’ readiness for accompanying changes in teach-
ing and learning.
School leadership preparing students for the 21st century is not always successful. This is
evident in Reyes’ (2020) research where he identified a typology of four leadership identities devel-
oped by school leaders in ICT reforms. One principal assumed a steward role responsible for inte-
grating ICT in the school culture. A second principal struggled with leadership demands and
exercised collaborative leadership recognizing teachers as key resources. A third principal was
thrust into ongoing educational reforms and hence embraced interim leadership to secure teacher
buy-in. The fourth leader was in a conflicted leadership position having to promote student-centred
learning with technology and prepare students for high-stakes assessment.
Emphasis on systems-level coherence: ecological leadership

A third value that underpins Singapore school leadership is the emphasis on systems-level coher-
ence (Dimmock and Tan, 2013; Harris et al., 2014; Raveendaran et al., 2018; Toh, 2016; Toh et al.,
2016; Toh et al., 2014). Some scholars credit Singapore’s educational effectiveness to the tightly-
coupled school system, mutually reinforcing human resource policies, and a distinctive leader–
teacher compact premised on paternalistic leadership. Harris and colleagues (2014) attributed
Singapore’s high educational performance to an ‘implementation science’ employing evidence-
based interventions, ensuring ‘co-ordination, communication, and consistency across multiple
levels and stakeholders within the system to secure change and innovation that is deeply and prop-
erly embedded’ (p. 866), and eschewing multiple policies that competed for resources.
More recently, scholars have promulgated the concept of ecological leadership premised on the
inherent tight coupling in the Singapore education system to reap synergistic benefits for knowledge
diffusion and school improvement. Toh and colleagues (2014) demonstrated the workings of eco-
logical leadership through the analysis of two exemplar schools that effectively scaled up their
school-based innovation. Ecological leadership required school leaders to think and act holistically.
Specifically, an ecological school leader mediated the interpretation of macro policies, contextua-
lized the policies against school capacity, selected innovations to be adopted, unpacked innovations
for step-by-step implementation, consolidated learning from the adoption process, and
re-strategized to diffuse innovations across schools. In the process, he or she addressed multiple
sources of tensions and paradoxes via reconciling centralization–decentralization, competition–
collaboration, and conformity-collectivism; managing expectations of top-down initiatives versus
bottom-up interpretations through aligning teachers’ perspectives, school mission, and central
policy; communicating ground issues from schools to the policy centre; and promoting leader–
teacher partnerships. In another study, Toh and colleagues (2016) demonstrated how middle
leaders from two schools autonomously brokered pedagogical, socio-technological, and financial
roles outside the formal collaborative structures established by MOE to diffuse educational innova-
tions for the 21st century learning across schools. Lastly, Toh (2016) provided a rich account of
how school leaders and other autonomous actors developed favourable conditions for integrating,
developing, and sustaining ICT-mediated pedagogical innovations in a primary school. These con-
ditions included developing ecological awareness and collective reflexivity on practices and imple-
mentations in the school; ensuring alignment; and achieving ecological coherence.
Strategic pragmatism: combining different leadership models to address myriad needs

The fourth value underpinning Singapore school leadership is strategic pragmatism to meet com-
peting expectations in a complex environment (Hairon et al., 2014; Ng et al., 2015a; Nguyen
et al., 2017). Pragmatism eschews ideological affinity in lieu of effective solutions that achieve stra-
tegic goals. For example, Ng and colleagues’ (2015a) review found that Singapore principals
adopted a pragmatic leadership approach: initiating structure for effective leadership and demon-
strating consideration for teachers. Reyes (2015) unravelled how two school principals demon-
strated pragmatism through their shifting identities in making sense of ICT reforms. First, they
used transactional leadership to remind teachers to move from didactic to student-centred teaching
using technology. They also struggled to balance students’ authentic learning in technology-
mediated environments with the need to prepare students for high-stakes tests. Second, they had
to embrace emerging roles. For example, they had to monitor student learning and cyber-wellness
issues. They also had to exhibit path-breaking leadership in driving changes in teaching and learn-
ing using technology in professional learning communities. Third, they had to cope with ambivalent
capacities such as implementing ICT policy innovations in an uncertain environment. They also
grappled with leadership redundancy where technology supplanted their role and where they
were overly reliant on technology. One development emanating from this pragmatism in school
leadership is the proliferation of different leadership sources (e.g. teachers and vice-principals in
addition to principals) and models (distributed and transformational alongside instructional leader-
ship) in Singapore schools to address complex school needs.
Instructional leadership
This section discusses instructional leadership in Singapore schools. Nguyen and colleagues’
(2017) study using interviews and observations identified instructional leadership roles of
Singapore school principals. These roles were developing and implementing the school vision,
developing the school’s physical and organizational structure, promoting teachers’ professional
development, and leading and managing instruction. Given the large size of Singapore schools
and complex demands from ongoing educational reforms, principals pragmatically focused on
some instructional leadership functions and delegated the rest to other school leaders. This
pattern of leadership is evident in Nguyen and Ng’s (2014) nationwide study, involving primary
and secondary school leaders, which reported that principals were perceived by middle leaders
and teachers as being overall strong instructional leaders. Instructional leadership activities com-
prised aligning teaching practices to the school vision, leading in teaching-and-learning, developing
conducive school environments for teaching-and-learning, and promoting professional develop-

ment. In particular, principals were perceived to be more involved in aligning school activities
with the school vision and in creating a culture of teacher collaboration than in other instructional
leadership activities.
Soh’s (2014) comparative study of principal leadership found that compared to their Finnish
counterparts, Singapore principals exhibited higher levels of instructional leadership as evidenced
in the latter enjoying autonomy in assessment policies, course content, and course offering.
Singapore principals were also more involved in lesson observations, setting of school academic
goals, and teachers’ professional development. Kim and Lee’s (2020) analysis of Teaching and
Learning International Survey (TALIS) 2013 data for Singapore, Japan, and South Korea found
that principals’ instructional leadership influenced teachers’ participation in mentoring, peer
lesson observation, and coaching as compared to other professional development activities in all
the countries examined.
Distributed leadership
Some studies analyse how leadership is distributed in Singapore schools during the implementation
of ICT reforms (Chen, 2013; Divaharan and Ping, 2010; Ho and Ng, 2012; Ho et al., 2016; Ng and
Ho, 2012a, 2012b). Chen (2013) found that transformational and instructional leadership was dis-
tributed among different school leaders (e.g. principal, heads-of-technology, and subject heads). In
particular, heads-of-technology performed transformational and instructional leadership activities
more frequently than did the principal or subject heads. The study also found that transformational
and instructional leadership significantly influenced the amount of extra effort teachers invested in
their ICT use. Ng and Ho’s (2012a, 2012b) analysis of leadership distribution for an ICT reform in a
government school identified roles played by different school leadership levels. Specifically, senior
leaders performed transformational leadership, middle leaders’ instructional leadership, and both
senior and middle leaders emotional leadership. Divaharan and Ping (2010) concluded from
their study of three secondary schools the importance of distributed leadership in ICT integration.
Specifically, the principal should provide overall direction via modelling curriculum-focused inte-
gration, encouraging teachers, and providing support for departmental plans while the head-of-ICT
should focus on ensuring that ICT infrastructure and implementation procedures were established.
Ho and Ng (2012) found that formal leadership positions and access to expertise, supported by
senior management, facilitated leadership distribution whereas perceived limited formal authority
and a lack of expertise impeded leadership distribution for ICT reform in a school.
Vice-principalship
Two specific groups of leaders involved in distributed leadership comprise vice-principals and
teacher leaders. Ho et al. (2021) found from their interviews of principals and vice-principals
that vice-principals performed boundary-spanning roles of connecting middle managers together,
bridging organizational levels, mediating the implementation of school vision, and brokering and
translating between MOE and schools. Additionally, the vice-principal worked closely with the
principal as a ‘leadership couple’ and exercised agency in setting school directions, motivating
staff, leading instruction, and promoting a desired school culture (Ho et al., 2021a). However,
Ho et al. (2021b) highlighted that vice-principals struggled with competing sources of authority
from principals and the professional community. Consequently, they suffered from role ambiguity,
role conflicts, and disempowerment.
Teacher leadership
Hairon (2017) attributed the rapid development of teacher leadership in Singapore to the need for
schools to maintain academic rigour and imbue 21st-century competencies in students and to the
growing complexity of educational contexts. Chew and Andrews (2010) reported the importance
of teacher leadership for changes in school-wide pedagogy and culture. They underscored the
need for principals to support teacher leaders by affording the latter space, time, and responsibility
to make curricular decisions; and aligning these decisions with new organizational structures and
processes.
Koh and colleagues (2011) derived four roles of middle school leaders from an analysis of data
from principals and vice-principals. First, middle leaders advised and guided teachers on education
policies, curriculum delivery, and teaching strategies, and promoted effective teaching-and-learning
strategies. Second, they contributed to the school vision by providing their perspectives, aligning
their department vision to the school vision, and ensuring priority of the school vision over depart-
mental needs. Third, they led teachers by working with the latter to achieve department and school
goals, building up teacher capacity, and developing future leaders among teachers. Lastly, they
served as a communication conduit by cascading information from principals to teachers and chan-
nelling teachers’ feedback to principals and other middle leaders. Not surprisingly, these myriad
leadership roles entailed challenges for middle leaders. These challenges included having multiple
roles (being members of another department in addition to leading their own departments), having
to address stakeholders’ expectations, having to lead teachers with different capacities, and experi-
encing time pressures to complete multitudinous tasks. Another challenge with teacher empower-
ment is related to the way professional learning communities are implemented in Singapore
schools. Hairon and Dimmock (2012) argued that teachers’ initiative and engagement contributed
to the success of professional learning communities in Anglo-American systems but the MOE
encouraged Singapore schools to implement a preferred model of professional learning communi-
ties; expectations included school leaders building strong relationships with teachers to improve
teachers’ commitment to a collective vision; mentoring, coaching, and providing curricular guid-
ance to teachers in teaching-and-learning; and empowering teachers in pedagogical
decision-making.
Transformational leadership
Research examining transformational leadership in Singapore schools shows that transformational
leadership is associated with positive teacher outcomes, thereby complementing instructional and
distributed leadership to improve teaching and learning. To reiterate, the implementation of differ-
ent leadership models exemplifies school leaders’ pragmatism to address complex educational
demands. For example, Lee, Nie, and Bai (2020) provided empirical evidence that perceived prin-
cipals’ learning support addressed teachers’ psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness. Teachers whose psychological needs were met demonstrated change-oriented behav-
iour and organizational commitment. Wong and colleagues’ (2008) study of eight schools in
Singapore and Hong Kong found that schools that successfully changed classroom practice
using ICT were led by transformational leaders who developed shared visions, trusted, and
empowered teachers, and supported innovations and professional development. These schools were
also characterized by a climate for collaboration and experimentation. Consequently, teachers in
these schools were able to shift from a teacher- to student-centred approach in their teaching.
Influence of different cultural values

The previous sections have discussed how different cultural values influence Singapore school
leadership. In addition to studies illustrating how these values have individually influenced specific
aspects of school leadership, there is evidence that Singapore school leadership demonstrates dif-
ferent combinations of these values. For example, Ng and colleagues’ (2015a) review found that
principals had a ‘meta-strategic’ role in developing teachers as pedagogical leaders. Principals
balanced the need to empower teachers in making teaching-and-learning decisions (a pragmatic
consideration given that teachers are best informed in instructional matters) with the need to
align teachers’ professional decisions with the school vision and goals (systems-level coherence
to achieve future-oriented goals).
In another study, Nguyen and colleagues’ (2017) elucidated how principals managed the distri-
bution of schools’ instructional responsibilities. They identified aspects of hierarchy (premised on
formal authority reflecting high power distance) and heterarchy (driven by collaborative relation-
ships and promoting collectivism) in instructional leadership. The hierarchy comprised top leader-
ship (principals and vice-principals), middle leadership, and teachers. There was evidence of
heterarchy within each layer of this structure, especially among middle leadership and teachers
via professional learning communities. Heterarchy also characterized instructional leadership activ-
ities. For example, school leaders set the school vision and ensured the alignment of instructional
activities to this vision. However, teachers participated in the envisioning process. The juxtapos-
ition of hierarchy and heterarchy led Nguyen and colleagues (2017) to characterize instructional
leadership as being distributed in Singapore schools.
Ho and Ng (2017) debunked any myth that distributed leadership was implemented effortlessly
in Singapore schools, documenting that the boundary-spanning nature of work engendered tension
in leadership distribution. Therefore, school leaders (principals, vice-principals, and teacher
leaders) had to pragmatically resolve this tension by allowing each other space to exercise influence
interchangeably in their interactions.
Influence of school leadership on school outcomes

In addition to unravelling cultural values that underpin Singapore school leadership, the review of
studies shows that Singapore school leadership contributes to teacher and student outcomes. For
example, school principals employ instructional leadership to improve the quality of teaching
and learning but also realize that complex educational demands necessitate a more systematic dis-
tribution of school leadership capacity. Indeed, Nguyen and colleagues’ (2020) study of instruc-
tional leadership in primary schools found that middle leaders and teachers perceived their
principals to be more involved in some activities (aligning teaching practices to school vision,
developing a positive school climate for teaching-and-learning, and promoting professional devel-
opment) than in others (leading curriculum and teaching). Importantly, two instructional leadership
activities, namely promoting professional development and developing a positive school climate,
were predictive of teacher competencies in curriculum content, pedagogy, assessment, and knowl-
edge on student learning.
In another study, Torres’ (2018) analysis of TALIS 2013 Singapore data found that principals
and teachers’ perceptions of distributed leadership were positively related to teachers’ work and
professional satisfaction. Relatedly, Lee and Nie (2016, 2017) showed that teachers’ perceptions
of principals’ and immediate supervisors’ empowerment predicted their sense of meaning, compe-
tence, and autonomy. Furthermore, Luo and colleagues’ (2020) study showed that principals’ trans-
formational leadership influenced teachers’ mastery goals and self-efficacy, and these teacher
variables, in turn, impacted teachers’ work engagement, engagement in professional learning,
job satisfaction, and intention to quit.
Among the studies reviewed were a small number that showed Singapore school leaders influ-
encing student outcomes in various ways, according to their concern for particular student needs.
For example, Ong and Dimmock (2013) studied how a small minority of secondary principals (who
they differentially labelled ‘realists/pragmatists’, ‘innovators/improvers’, and ‘nurturers’) showed a
strong sense of social justice in their schools by supporting the lowest-track students in their
respective schools.
While principal leadership premised on meritocratic values can contribute to student learning,
the obsession with academic merit can eventuate in inequalities in students’ learning experiences.
For example, Anderson (2015) argued that Normal Technical students suffered from school
leaders’ conceptions of deficit and risk related to their ascribed ability. These conceptions eventu-
ated in differentiated instruction and compromised learning opportunities for these students. In
another study, Tan and Dimmock (2015) cautioned that low-socioeconomic status students
might be disadvantaged and urged Singapore school leaders to act as agents of social change, recali-
brate their leadership to emphasize educational quality and equity, re-examine the definition of edu-
cational success, and transform schools into future-oriented learning organizations.
Chua and colleagues’ case study exemplified how a successful principal leveraged on different
strategies and resources to prepare students for the 21st century (Chua et al., 2018; Ho and Chua,
2019). Their study showed that the principal developed student agency (by fostering students’ self-
regulation, enabling students to discover their potential, and encouraging students to propose and
trial initiatives) to change the school culture and catalyse teachers’ pedagogic changes.
Lastly, Raveendaran and colleagues (2018) argued that ecological leadership was facilitated by
the mobilization of social capital. For example, actors could transfer knowledge and ideas between
schools and MOE using their network ties, leaders could negotiate cooperative norms premised on
mutual trust and bargaining power, and schools could use the common language of national policies
as cognitive capital for communication among different members in the school. The authors rea-
soned that ecological leadership contributed towards life-long, life-wide, life-deep, and life-wise
learning in schools.
Challenges
There are, however, challenges when school leadership is influenced by myriad cultural values.
First, with regard to meritocratic values, detractors argue that students who are adjudged to have
lower levels of academic abilities have fewer learning opportunities (Anderson, 2015; Lim and
Tan, 2020), that talented students from disadvantaged families may not have family capital to
support their academic learning (Dimmock et al., 2021) and that a meritocratic discourse precludes
diversity and engenders stratification (Heng and Lim, 2021). Paradoxically, these equity concerns
challenge the very policy intent that meritocracy is supposed to achieve (i.e. fair allocation of
resources based on academic merit). The second challenge is related to Singapore school leaders
cascading MOE’s vision of preparing students for the 21st century in a tightly coupled system. The
problem arises when MOE fails to envisage future needs accurately, thereby depriving students of
the opportunity to learn essential competencies and skills. The third challenge lies with the obses-
sion with systems-level coherence which brings efficiency but discourages creativity. Schools may
also find it difficult to address their students’ needs as they try to align with broader MOE’s devel-
opmental trajectories. The last issue pertains to the compatibility of Asian values with more
Western-based contemporary notions of distributed leadership and empowerment. For example,
principals have professional autonomy to make curricular decisions but are expected to align
with MOE in decision-making, so they may not be able to try out alternative educational visions
that benefit their own students. Likewise, teacher leaders may not be able to contribute effectively
in bounded empowerment premised on deference to principals. This challenge is evident in Heng
and Marsh’s (2009) study, which found that middle leaders from Singapore primary schools
embraced learning by developing their personal capacity in knowledge, skills, and values and by
understanding people, context, and change but not by making shared decisions.
Conclusion
The present study provides evidence from a systematic review of 72 studies dated 2000–2021 that
Singapore school leadership is influenced by different cultural values. The influence of Asian
values is unsurprising considering Singapore’s geographical location. What is perhaps intriguing
is the set of national values characterising Singapore society that influences Singapore school lead-
ership. These values characterize Singapore policymakers’ conceptions of the country’s perennial
vulnerability since independence and survival instincts to ensure the viability of the city-state.
Significance of study
The study makes three contributions to scholarship. First, it provides evidence that Singapore
school leadership is influenced by different cultural values. Second, the study provides an
up-to-date comprehensive review of Singapore school leadership encompassing different forms
of leadership, enacted by various levels of school leaders that are influenced by these cultural
values. The knowledge generated is a useful resource for scholars analysing cultural values under-
pinning school leadership in high-performance education systems. Third, the study demonstrates
that different values influencing school leadership are not necessarily congruent, thereby pointing
the way forward for researchers to examine sources of tension within Singapore school leadership.
Suggestions for future research

There are three suggestions for future research. First, future research can examine factors other than
cultural values shaping school leadership. These factors can relate to students’ learning, family and
community contexts, and teachers’ professional needs. Researchers can also investigate how these
factors interact with different cultural values to collectively influence school leadership. Second,
given that school leadership may be conceptualized as contingent responses to their environments,
researchers can unravel what influences school leadership in other education systems operating in
contexts different from that for Singapore. They can then compare these diverse sources of influ-
ence to gain an international perspective of school leadership. Third, researchers can examine
how school contexts mediate the influence of different cultural values on school leadership. This
line of inquiry challenges the deterministic influence of cultural values on school leadership and
questions how school leaders can adapt cultural values to meet their school needs.
Declaration of conflicting interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Cheng Yong Tan https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6918-8425
Supplemental material
Supplemental material for this article is available online.
Note
1. MOE announced in 2019 that tracking in secondary schools (Express, Normal (Academic), and Normal
(Technical)) will be replaced by subject-based banding from 2024. In the new system, students can take
a combination of subjects at one of three levels and sit for a common examination at the end of their sec-
ondary education (Davie, 2019).
References
Alexander PA (2020) Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality. Systematic reviews.
Review of Educational Research 90(1): 6–23.
Anderson KT (2015) The discursive construction of lower-tracked students: Ideologies of meritocracy and the
politics of education. Education Policy Analysis Archives 23(110): 1–30.
Braun V and Clarke V (2020) One size fits all? What counts as quality practice in (reflexive). thematic ana-
lysis? Qualitative Research in Psychology 18: 328–352.
Brooks MC and Mutohar A (2018) Islamic school leadership: A conceptual framework. Journal of
Educational Administration and History 50(2): 54–68.
Chen W (2013) School leadership in ICT implementation: Perspectives from Singapore. Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher 22(3): 301–311. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-012-0055-8.
Chew JOA and Andrews D (2010) Enabling teachers to become pedagogical leaders: Case studies of two
IDEAS schools in Singapore and Australia. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 9: 59–74.
DOI: 10.1007/s10671-010-9079-0.
Chua P, Toh Y, Tan WK, et al. (2018) Inductive leadership: Activating community-oriented student agency
towards school improvement. In: Koh TS and Hung D (eds) Leadership for change: The Singapore
schools’ experience. Singapore and Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 203–229.
Davie S (6 March 2019) Subject-based banding to replace streaming in schools. The Straits Times. Available at
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/education/subject-based-banding-to-replace-streaming-in-schools
Deng Z and Gopinathan S (2016) PISA And high-performing education systems: Explaining Singapore’s edu-
cation success. Comparative Education 52(4): 449–472.
Dimmock C (2011) Formulating a research agenda in school leadership and organisational change for school
improvement in Singapore. School Leadership and Management 31(4): 321–338. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.
2011.606271.
Dimmock C and Goh JWP (2011) Transformative pedagogy, leadership and school organisation for the
twenty-first-century knowledge-based economy: The case of Singapore. School Leadership and
Management 31(3): 215–234. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2010.546106.
Dimmock C and Tan CY (2013) Educational leadership in Singapore: Tight coupling, sustainability, scalability,
and succession. Journal of Educational Administration 51(3): 320–340. DOI: 10.1108/09578231311311492.
Dimmock C, Tan CY, Chiong C (2021) Social, political and cultural foundations of educational leadership in
Singapore. In: Normand R, Moos L, Liu M, et al. (eds) The cultural and social foundations of educational
leadership: An international comparison. Cham: Springer, 215–233.
Divaharan S and Ping LC (2010) Secondary school socio-cultural context influencing ICT integration: A case
study approach. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 26(6): 741–763.
Goh JWP (2009) Parallel leadership in an “unparallel” world’-cultural constraints on the transferability of
Western educational leadership theories across cultures. International Journal of Leadership in
Education 12(4): 319–345. DOI: 10.1080/13603120902980796.
Goh JWP, Hairon S and Lim SQW (2019) Understanding distributed leadership practices in the cultural
context of Singapore schools. In: Hairon S and Goh JWP (eds) Perspectives on school leadership in
Asia Pacific. Singapore: Springer, 11–29.
Gopinathan S and Mardiana AB (2013) Globalization, the state and curriculum reform. In: Deng ZY,
Gopinathan S and Lee CK-E (eds) Globalization and the Singapore Curriculum. Singapore: Springer,
pp. 15–32.
Gopinathan S, Wong B and Tang N (2008) The evolution of school leadership policy and practice in
Singapore: Responses to changing socio-economic and political contexts (insurgents, implementers, inno-
vators). Journal of Educational Administration and History 40(3): 235–249. DOI: 10.1080/
00220620802507250.
Hairon S (2017) Teacher leadership in Singapore: The next wave of effective leadership. Research in
Educational Administration and Leadership 2(2): 170–194.
Hairon S and Dimmock C (2012) Singapore schools and professional learning communities:Teacher profes-
sional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review 64(4):
405–424. DOI: 10.1080/00131911.2011.625111.
Hairon S and Goh JWP (2014) Distributed leadership to support PLCs in Asian pragmatic Singapore
schools. International Journal of Leadership in Education 17(3): 370–386. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.
2013.829586.
Hairon S and Goh JWP (2015) Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership: Is the search over?.
Educational Management Administration and Leadership 43(5): 693–718. DOI: 10.1177/1741143214535745.
Hallinger P (2014) Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment.
Educational Administration Quarterly 50(4): 539–576.
Hallinger P (2018) Bringing context out of the shadows of leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 46(1): 5–24.
Hargreaves A (2012) Singapore: The fourth way in action?. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 11:
7–17. DOI: 10.1007/s10671-011-9125-6.
Harris A, Jones MS, Adams D, et al. (2014) High-performing education systems in Asia: Leadership art meets
implementation science. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher 23(4): 861–869. DOI: 10.1007/s40299-014-
0209-y.
Haydon G (2007) Values for Educational Leadership. London: Sage.
Heng MA and Marsh CJ (2009) Understanding middle leaders: A closer look at middle leadership in primary
schools in Singapore. Educational Studies 35(5): 525–536. DOI: 10.1080/03055690902883863.
Heng TT and Lim L (2021) Diversity, difference, equity: How student differences are socially constructed
in Singapore. Cambridge Journal of Education 51(6): 693–712. DOI: 10.1080/0305764X.2021.1910204.
Ho J-M and Koh T-S (2018) Historical development of educational leadership in Singapore. In: Koh TS and
Hung D (eds) Leadership for change: The Singapore schools’ experience. Singapore and Hackensack, NJ:
World Scientific, 29–83.
Ho J, Hairon S and Chua PH (2019) Local evidence synthesis on school leadership. Singapore: National
Institute of Education.
Ho J, Kang T and Shaari I (2021) Leading from the middle: Vice-principals in Singapore as boundary span-
ners. Journal of Educational Administration 59(2): 145–161. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-05-2020-0123.
Ho J and Ng D (2017) Tensions in distributed leadership. Educational AdministrationQuarterly 53(2): 223–
254. DOI: 10.1177/001316X16681630.
Ho J and Chua PM-H (2019) Successful principalship: beyond leadership practice and teacher agency.
International Studies in Educational Administration 47(1): 20–37.
Ho J, Shaari I and Kang T (2021a) The distribution of leadership between vice-principals and
principals in Singapore. International Journal of Leadership in Education. DOI: 10.1080/13603124.
2020.1849811.
Ho J, Shaari I and Kang T (2021b) Vice-principals as leaders: Role ambiguity and role conflicts faced by vice-
principals in Singapore.. Educational Management Administration & Leadership. DOI: 10.1177/
17411432211002527.
Ho JM and Ng D (2012) Factors which impact the distribution of leadership for an ICT reform: Expertise vis-à-
vis formal role?School Leadership and Management 32(4): 321–339. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2012.
688740.
Ho JPY, Chen D-TV and Ng D (2016) Distributed leadership through the lens of activity theory. Educational
Management Administration and leadership 44(5): 814–836. DOI: 10.1177/1741143215570302.
Ho WK and Gopinathan S (1999) Recent developments in education in Singapore. School Effectiveness and
School Improvement 10(1): 3–9.
Hodgkinson C (1991) Educational Leadership: The Moral Art. New York: State University of New York
Press.
Hofstede G (1991) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. London: McGraw Hill.
Hofstede G (2011) Dimensionalizing cultures: The Hofstede model in context. Online Readings in Psychology
and Culture 2(1). Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss1/8/
Hugues C M, Gill H D and Berezina E (2020) School performance in three South East Asian countries:
Lessons in leadership, decision-making and training. European Journal of Training and Development
45(2-3): 136–148. DOI: 10.1108/EJTD-01-2020-0014.
Jayapragas P (2016) Leaders in Education Program: The Singapore model for developing effective principal-
ship capability. Current Issues in Comparative Education 19(1): 92–108.
Koh HH, Gurr D, Drysdale L, et al. (2011) How school leaders perceive the leadership role of middle leaders in
Singapore primary schools?. Asia Pacific Education Review 12: 609–620. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-011-
9161-1.
Lambert L (2009) Constructivist leadership. In: Davis B (ed) The Essentials of School Leadership, 2nd ed.
London, UK: Sage, pp. 112–132.
Lee AN and Nie Y (2016) Teachers’ perceptions of school leader empowering behaviors on psychological
empowerment: A moderated path analysis. New Waves Educational Research and Development 19(2):
36–58.
Lee AN and Nie Y (2017) Teachers’ perceptions of school leaders’ empowering behaviours and psychological
empowerment: Evidence from a Singapore sample. Educational Management Administration and
Leadership 45(2): 260–283. DOI: 10.1177/1741143215578448.
Lee AN, Nie Y and Bai B (2020) Perceived principal’s learning support and its relationships with psycho-
logical needs satisfaction, organisational commitment and change-oriented work behaviour: A Self-
Determination Theory’s perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education 93: 103076.
Lee S-S, Hung D and Teh LW (2016) An ecological view of conceptualising change in the Singapore educa-
tion system. Educational Research for Policy and Practice 15: 55–70.
Lim L and Tan M (2020) Meritocracy, policy and pedagogy: Culture and the politics of recognition and redis-
tribution in Singapore. Critical Studies in Education 61(3): 279–295.
Lim LH (2006) Teacher involvement in school change: Perceptions of Singapore principals. New Horizons in
Education 54: 1–7.
Liow ED (2011) The neoliberal-developmental state: Singapore as case study. Critical Sociology 38(2):
241–264.
McNae R and Barnard S (2021) Educational leadership for social justice: Bringing connection, collaboration
and care from margins to centre. In: Normand R, Moos L, Liu M and Tulowitzki P (eds) The Cultural and
Social Foundations of Educational Leadership: An International Comparison. Cham: Springer,
pp. 193–212.
MOE (2018a) Desired Outcomes of Education. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-
system/desired-outcomes-of-education
MOE (2018b) Education System. Available at: https://www.moe.gov.sg/education/education-system
Ng D and Ho J (2012a) Distributed leadership for ICT reform in Singapore. Peabody Journal of Education
87(2): 235–252. DOI: 10.1080/0161956X.2012.664478.
Ng DFS (2013) Assessing leadership knowledge in a principalship preparation programme. International
Journal of Educational Management 27(4): 425–445. DOI: 10.1108/09513541311316340.
Ng DFS (2019) Instructional leadership. In: Wong B, Hairon S and Ng PT (eds) School leadership and edu-
cational change in Singapore. Cham: Springer, 7–30.
Ng DFS and Ho JM (2012b) How leadership for an ICT reform is distributed within a school. International
Journal of Educational Management 26(6): 529–549. DOI: 10.1108/09513541211251370.
Ng DFS, Nguyen DT, Wong BKS, et al. (2015) A review of Singapore principals’ leadership qualities,
styles, and roles. Journal of Educational Administration 53(4): 512–533. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-08-2013-0085.
Ng DFS and Wong CP (2020) The role of school leadership in Singapore’s future-ready school reform.
European Journal of Education 55(2): 183–199. DOI: 10.1111/ejed.12392.
Ng FSD, Nguyen TD, Wong KSB, et al. (2015) Instructional leadership practices in Singapore. School
Leadership & Management 35(4): 388–407. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2015.1010501.
Ng PT (2013a) An examination of school accountability from the perspective of Singapore school leaders.
Educational Research for Policy and Practice 12(2): 121–131.
Ng PT (2013b) Developing Singapore school leaders to handle complexity in times of uncertainty. Asia Pacific
Education Review 14: 67–73. DOI: 10.1007/s12564-013-9253-1.
Ng PT (2016) What is a ‘good’ principal? Perspectives of aspiring principals in Singapore. Educational
Research for Policy and Practice 15: 99–113. DOI: 10.1007/s10671-015-9183-2.
Nguyen DT, Ng D and Yap PS (2017) Instructional leadership structure in Singapore: A co-existence of hier-
archy and heterarchy. Journal of Educational Administration 55(2): 147–167. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-05-2016-
0060.
Normand R, Moos L, Liu M, et al. (2021) An international comparison of cultural and social foundations of
educational leadership. In: Normand R, Moos L, Liu M and Tulowitzki P (eds) The Cultural and Social
Foundations of Educational Leadership: An International Comparison. Cham: Springer, pp. 3–21.
OECD (2020) Leadership for 21st century learning in Singapore’s high-performing schools. In: Leadership
for 21st century learning. OECD Publishing, 107–134.
Ong CH and Dimmock C (2013) Principals’ engagement of low ability students in Singapore secondary
schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 41(2): 214–232. DOI: 10.1177/
1741143212468345.
Raveendaran S, Toh Y, Chua P, et al. (2018) Significance of educational leadership: Case for Singapore
schools today. In: Koh TS and Hung DW-L (eds) Leadership for change: The Singapore schools’ experi-
ence. Singapore and Hackensack, NJ: World Scientific, 85–101.
Retna KS (2011) The relevance of ‘personal mastery’ to leadership: The case of school principals in Singapore.
School Leadership and Management 31(5): 451–470. DOI: 10.1080/13632434.2011.587403.
Retna KS (2015) Different approaches to the professional development of principals: A comparative study of
New Zealand and Singapore. School Leadership and Management 35(5): 524–543. DOI: 10.1080/
13632434.2015.1107038.
Retna LS and Ng PT (2016) Singapore principals’ understanding and perceptions of the challenges of “Teach
Less, Less More” policy. International Journal of Educational Reform 25(4): 426–442.
Reyes Jr VC (2020) Clipped wings: School leaders’ identities in ICT-enriched education landscapes - A nar-
rative inquiry. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 49(5): 807–823.
Sharpe L and Gopinathan S (2000) Leadership in high achieving schools in Singapore: The influence of soci-
etal culture. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 20(2): 87–98.
Soh K (2014) Finland and Singapore in PISA 2009: Similarities and differences in achievements and school
management. Compare 44(3): 455–471. DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2013.787286.
Stewart V (2013) School leadership around the world. Educational Leadership April: 48–54.
Stott K and Low GT (2000) Leadership in Singapore schools: The impact of national culture. Asia Pacific
Journal of Education 20(2): 99–109.
Tan CY and Dimmock C (2014) Examining how a “top-performing” Asian school system formulates and
implements policy: The case of Singapore. Educational Management Administration and Leadership
42(5): 743–763.
Tan CY and Dimmock C (2015) Tensions between Meritocracy and Equity in Singapore: Educational issues
in preparing a workforce for the knowledge-based economy. Singapore: The Head Foundation.
Tan KP (2008) Meritocracy and elitism in a global city: Ideological shifts in Singapore. International Political
Science Review 29(1): 7–27.
Teng KWA (2018) Perceptions of primary school principals in Singapore about their role as justice
agents. PhD Thesis, University of San Francisco, US.
Toh Y (2016) Leading sustainable pedagogical reform with technology for student-centred learning: A com-
plexity perspective. Journal of Educational Change 17: 145–169. DOI: 10.1007/s10833-016-9273-9.
Toh Y, Hung Wld, Chua PM-H, et al. (2016) Pedagogical reforms within a centralised-decentralised system: A
Singapore’s perspective to diffuse 21st century learning innovations. International Journal of Educational
Management 30(7): 1247–1267.
Toh Y, Jamaludin A, Wld Hung, et al. (2014) Ecological leadership: Going beyond system leadership for dif-
fusing school-based innovations in the crucible of change for 21st century learning. The Asia-Pacific
Education Researcher 23(4): 835–850.
Torres DG (2018) Distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction in Singapore. Journal of Educational
Administration 56(1): 127–142. DOI: 10.1108/JEA-12-2016-0140.
Wang LH, Gurr D and Drysdale L (2016) Successful school leadership: Case studies of four Singapore primary
schools. Journal of Educational Administration 54(3): 270–287.
Wong CP and Ng D (2020) The roles of school leaders in developing future-ready learners:The case of
Singapore. International Journal of Educational Management 35(1): 249–269. DOI: 10.1108/IJEM-06-
2020-0283.
Wong EML, Li SSC, Choi T-H, et al. (2008) Insights into innovative classroom practices with ICT: Identifying
the impetus for change. Educational Technology and Society 11(1): 248–265.
Zhang Y, Lin T-B and Foo SF (2012) Servant leadership: A preferred style of school leadership in Singapore.
Chinese Management Studies 6(2): 369–383. DOI: 10.1108/17506141211236794.
Author biography
Cheng Yong Tan, PhD, is Associate Professor in the Academic Unit of Social Contexts and
Policies of Education, Faculty of Education at The University of Hong Kong. His research
program critically examines how different sources of influence give rise to educational equity
and other complex educational issues that require comprehensive educational solutions in the
form of educational policy, leadership and practice. It adopts an ecological perspective encompass-
ing sociocultural, home, and school factors to unravel this complexity.

Tan 2022 Influence of Cultural Values On Singapore School Leadership

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tan 2022 Influence of Cultural Values On Singapore School Leadership

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Article

Singapore School Leadership Article reuse guidelines:

Cheng Yong Tan

leadership contributes to school processes and student achievement (Dimmock, 2011;

Singapore education context

• identifying central topics of interest, guiding questions, and goals;

Identifying topics, guiding questions, and goals

• What characterizes Singapore school leadership?

Elucidating conceptual perspective

Reporting sources and data types used

• school leadership (namely, ‘educational leadership’ OR ‘school leader’ OR ‘principal’ OR

This search returned 527 studies.

Reporting data evaluation and analysis used

Figure 1. PRISMA diagram.

• Study identiﬁcation details: author(s), publication year, and title of study.

Figure 2. Inﬂuence of cultural values on school leadership.

Table 1. Themes from studies.

Cultural values: school leadership Description

Collectivism: moral responsibilities of school School leadership is premised on values of collectivism

School leadership and socioeconomic instrumentalism

Collectivism: moral responsibilities of school leadership

Power distance and other Asian values: nuanced implementation of distributed

enjoyed greater autonomy in professional aspects of teaching-and-learning compared to school

Meritocracy: allocating educational resources by academic merit

Future-orientation: preparing students for the 21st century

Emphasis on systems-level coherence: ecological leadership

Strategic pragmatism: combining different leadership models to address myriad needs

conducive school environments for teaching-and-learning, and promoting professional develop-

Inﬂuence of different cultural values

Inﬂuence of school leadership on school outcomes

Suggestions for future research

Declaration of conﬂicting interests

You might also like