Effective or purposeful leadership is generally accepted as being a central component in securing and sustaining organisational change. A preliminary glance at the vast leadership literature however reveals that it is largely premised upon individual endeavour rather than collective action and a singular view of leadership continues to dominate equating leadership with headship. Despite a groundswell towards leadership as empowerment, transformation and community building, a hierarchical view of leadership prevails. Others query the idea that leadership is a useful construct (e.g. Lakomski 2004) and some opt for terms such as democratic schooling (Moos and MacBeath, 2004) to describe situations in which those designated as being in charge of schools share decision making, opportunities to take initiative and make change. This paper seeks to move away from what is now becoming relatively well trodden ground, and looks instead at the various empirical traditions which underpin research into schools and their leadership, management and everyday operations and mores. We explore the current state of leadership research through the lens of schools in difficulty and present a three fold model that categorizes leadership research by type and methodological stance adopted. The critique of leadership research in this paper is both a challenge to the field but also a serious reflection on 'what we know' about school leadership and most importantly ' how we know it'?