With a few exceptions, evidence is yet scarce regarding the relationship between system variables and school leadership (re)actions. Hence, the systemic context presents a control variable and its sensemaking is always ascertained in different research contexts while it is not always possible to deliver exact, data-based information on effects concerning an individual school, such as changed organizational structures as a result thereof. At the same time, school leadership presents an interface regarding the (sometimes) contradictory demands of participants at the school level. In part, the tension resulting from the dilemma of roles means that practical application of the leadership role follows a school principal’s character, as well as a principal’s functions. Therefore, if school leaders do not have a clear and personal vision and demarcation of their role, then they are susceptible to behave as others expect them to and not as they really should, based on the requirements of their new roles.

Thus, the overarching purpose of this Round Table is to further examine and illuminate this “uncharted” terrain of the relationship between system-level governance demands and leadership responses in an increasingly fluid and situational context. The complex relationship of reality and theory in governance will thus be recognised. Following, some sensemaking will take place in order to identify Europe-wide responses to this coupling system of Situational Governance and Situational Leadership.

The observations outlined above indicate that school leadership actions result from actions of co-operative agents, influenced by an organisation and a given situation. In a sense, what was described above is a reciprocal relationship which seems to operate just like osmosis. Depending on how the leaders perceive their context and environment, they can have an impact and change it and, at the same time, they can change their mix of leadership styles in order to accommodate the specific situation in which they operate. In this regard, an explication of (explicit or implicit) ideas of governance is central and underlines the focused “element of governance”.

 Through further analysis of governance demands on school leadership and the various responses in order to achieve goal/system coherence, participants will try to provide responses to the following concerns (always based on their own country’s perspective):

• Which concrete measures of implementation follow the governance measures newly stipulated by educational policy, targeting a sustainable change in the organisation and function of education systems?
• Which leadership styles, domains, behaviours, and actions seem to be more relevant and more effective in dealing with newly stipulated education policies?
• Under which organizational/ environmental circumstances is there a “best fit” between what is externally (and rationally) required and what is internally (and organically) being offered as a response from a leadership perspective?
• Is there such a “corresponding match” between the two? i.e., is Situational Governance in direct correspondence with Situational Leadership?
• On whose terms does this correspondence take place?
• Is there a magic “threshold” of the “best fit” between the two so that the school organization can function optimally?
• Are the two (governance and leadership) antagonistic or are they viewed in this way or are they regarded as more interpretative, complementary and accommodating with each other?

Thus, based on the above questions/key points, papers and discussions in this Round Table should try to offer:

(1) A theoretical account for the relationship (fit/misfit) of governance and leadership. In other words, they should try to offer a theory fitting their own special context within their own country.

(2) Concrete example(s) illustrating the relationship of governance and leadership; in other words, how does the relationship between Situational Governance and Situational Leadership manifest itself?

(3) A critical self- reflexion on the nature/quality/context and boundaries of this relationship.

Brauckmann, S. and Pashiardis P. (2009). From PISA to LISA: New Educational Governance and school leadership: Exploring the foundations of a new relationship in an international context. Paper presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego, USA. Brauckmann S and Pashiardis P (2011) A validation study of the leadership styles of a holistic leadership theoretical framework. International Journal of Educational Management 25(2): 11-32. Gronn, P. & Ribbins, P. (2003). Evolving Formations: The Making of Secondary School Principals on Selected Small Islands. In P. Pashiardis & P. Ribbins (Ed.). International Studies in Educational Administration. Special Issue on the Making of Secondary School Principals on Selected Small Islands, 31(2), 76-94. Mulford, B. & Silins, H. (2011). Revised models and conceptualization of successful school principalship for improved student outcomes. International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (1), 61-82. Pashiardis, P. (2014) (Ed.). Modeling School Leadership Across Europe: In Search of New Frontiers. Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Pashiardis, P. and Brauckmann, S. (2014). Leadership Styles and School Climate Variables of the Pashiardis-Brauckmann Holistic Leadership Framework: An Intimate Relationship? In Pashiardis, P. (Ed.), Modeling School Leadership Across Europe: In Search of New Frontiers (pp. 89-106). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London: Springer. Schwarz, A. & Brauckmann, S. (2015). Between facts and perceptions: The area close to school as a context factor in school leadership. SCHUMPETER DISCUSSION PAPERS 2015-003. Weindling, D., & Dimmock, C. (2006). Sitting in the “Hot Seat”. New Head teachers in the UK. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(4), 326-340.