Even though organisational characteristics can sometimes vary strongly even within one school type (i.e., primary, secondary), in contrast to system characteristics they seem to be perceived as changeable via school leader actions. Then, the question arises: could this be the result that school leaders are more influenced and affected by their immediate environment (Area Close To a School-ACTS) as opposed to the "system environment"? (Schwarz & Brauckmann, 2015). The discussion about how much autonomy is good enough, coupled with how much quality assurance and accountability measures are needed is an interesting one: in essence, education systems are trying to find out the “magic balance” between the two so that when they are trying to inform the societies which provide their budgets (i.e., being accountable), they don’t jeopardize the art and craft of teaching and learning along the way, thus, rendering it into a mere technocratic and transactional activity. In fact, the debate is about how much is enough and what is the threshold so that we do not overburden the teachers and students along the way, with the excuse that society at-large needs to be informed and accounted for the money they spend on educating their youth.

Without doubt the significance of school leaders and their actions has been emphasised but, at the same time, competencies have remained undefined with respect to serving the objectives beyond expanded legal decision-making competencies. The assumption that the introduction of new school legislation will automatically bring along a new school practice seems plausible to a small extent in this context. School principals are requested to make decisions owing to their newly acquired decision-making power but they are also expected to seek a balance of interests, within their schools and the communities within which they exist. In essence, it is a balancing act between what is demanded by the system “out there” and the immediate reality “down here” right around a principal’s school.

In this context, the role of school leaders as central actors has increasingly been the focus of empirical school leadership research. Thereby, researchers aim to gain insights into the practical proof of new governance approaches that target an increase and assurance of school quality. Acting in ever more complex school environments therefore always relates to acting in the context of orders of interaction, mediated via external and self-reference, interests articulated by others and oneself, and externally as well as internally provided support.

School leadership has been identified by a number of researchers as a key element in the effectiveness of school organizations (Brauckmann & Pashiardis, 2009; Jacobson, 2011; Kythreotis, Pashiardis and Kyriakides, 2010; Mulford & Silins, 2011; Sammons, Day & Ko, 2011). As a result, the various stakeholders have widened their expectations from school leaders demanding higher academic results and performance standards. However, leading the process towards increased effectiveness is not an easy task for any principal. It is a balancing act between what society at large requires and what school leaders can deliver within the school premises. In any case, it is an undisputed fact that school leadership has come to the core centre of schools and their main operation which is teaching and learning. Thus, overall, this study seeks to answer the following main questions (amongst others):

1. Is it easier for school leaders to make sense out of their immediate space, which is more visible and more immediate to them?
2. Which leadership styles, domains, and actions seem to be more relevant and more effective towards producing the right responses to environmental influences?
3. Specifically, what is the role of the Entrepreneurial leadership style and Parental involvement?

The aforementioned questions enable researchers to assess the organizational and contextual factors which might impact school leadership responses.

• 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. • Epstein, J. L. (1995). School/ family/ community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76 (9), 701-712. • Fan, X., & Chen, M. (2001). Parental Involvement and Students Academic Achievement. A Meta-Analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 13(1), 1-22. • Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1996). The Principal’s Role in School Effectiveness: An Assessment of Methodological Progress, 1980-1995. In K. Leithwood, J. Chapman, D. Corson, P. Hallinger, & A. Hart (Ed.) International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration, Part 2. Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. • Hallinger, P. & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the Principals’ Contribution to School Effectiveness: 1980 – 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191. • Hoy, W.K., & Miskel, C.G. (2013). Educational Administration: Theory, Research, and Practice (9th Ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. • Jacobson, S. (2011). Leadership Effects on Student Achievement and Sustained School Success. International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (1), 33-44. • Jeynes, W.H. (2007). The Relationship Between Parental Involvement and Urban Secondary School Student Academic Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. Urban Education, 42(1), 82-110. • Kythreotis, A., Pashiardis, P. and Kyriakides, L. (2010). The influence of school leadership styles and school culture on students' achievement in Cyprus primary schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 48 (2), 218-240. • 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. • Sammons, P., Day, C. & Ko, J. (2011). Exploring the Impact of School Leadership on Pupil Outcomes: Results from a study of academically improved and effective schools in England. International Journal of Educational Management, 25 (1), 83-101. • 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.