Researchers have long been interested in possible reasons and differences that make some leaders more effective and which profit their community. For instance, Leithwood and Jantzi’s impact model (2006) is one amongst many models that explore positive effects of school leadership. This model depicts how school leaders predict student outcomes through leadership motivation, commitment, and capacity, as well as school leader’s working conditions and teaching behavior. Research supports these predictions and points to certain common characteristics as predictors of student achievement, such as the leaders ability to manage the school and their time, to create a healthy learning climate and culture, to positively invest in internal and external school relations, to have vision and direction, and to communicate effectively (Barkman, 2015; Daniëls et al., 2019; Osborne-Lampkin et al., 2015; Quadach et al., 2020). Arguably, the positive effects of leadership are vital in ages of uncertainty: the school is dependent on a leader who shares their responsibility effectively with the teachers.

Research on characteristics of effective school management has relationship to the concept of Leadership for Learning and thus shows practical application. This concept describes learning-centered leadership actions and focuses on student outcomes and their knowledge acquisition in the context of school as a learning organization. Moreover, it describes student outcomes not only as a result of classroom teaching, but also from other factors. To give an example, trust and cooperation (i.e., characteristic of effective school management), is linked to learning communities and team orientation (i.e., Leadership for Learning action) which can influence student achievement (Tulowitzki & Pietsch, 2020). Thus, further research on characteristics of effective school management could be beneficial to study one important aspect of the conditions for success of this leadership model in detail.

We argue that many of the investigated school leaders’ characteristics are occupational in nature due to their specific work features and the institutional context of school. On that note, many of the beforementioned characteristics arguably concern leadership strategies and approaches. Those variables distinguish themselves from individual differences in a narrower sense, such as personality traits and motivational characteristics, that also play an important role for attributes of school leaders’ and which is needed to create a more complete picture.

In sum, relatively few findings exist of individual differences in school leaders. Taking up this desideratum, this presentation addresses the research questions of what personal characteristics school leaders possess. In addition, it investigates what potential effects such characteristics have on criteria variables, and aims to systemize the empirical research on individual characteristics. For example, Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claimed that a few personality traits can explain a high share of the variation in leadership effectiveness. On that note, the Big 5 personality traits have been investigated amongst school leaders. In this regard results are diverse: school leaders have been found related to high levels of extraversion and openness to experience by some studies (Colbert et al., 2012), others highlight high levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness (Deinert et al., 2015; Benoliel, 2021).Whilst Leithwood, Harris and Hopkins (2019) claim was aimed at traits as “typically defined”, Leithwood (2012) in cooperation with the Ontario Leadership Framework have specified some personal leadership resources that extends beyond the Big Five personality traits. These personal leadership resources are categorized as cognitive (e.g., problem-solving expertise), social (e.g., perceiving and managing emotions), or psychological (e.g., self-efficacy and resilience). 

We use the framework given by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2012; 2019) as a first heuristic and starting point to investigate our research questions. In a scoping review (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005) of empirical articles, we investigate (1) with which individual differences the research on the field is concerned, (2) with which variables it deals with, and (3) what individual differences predict which aspects of school leadership. Scoping reviews synthesize knowledge on a topic and aims to organize evidence and identify gaps in knowledge (Tricco et al., 2018). Essentially, the process consists of gathering evidence and mapping it according to research questions (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2015). A scoping review on individual differences of school leaders is an important starting point for assessing what is known on the field, how their significance for school leadership research as a whole can be viewed, and what open research questions arise in this regard. To illustrate the possible benefit of such a scoping review: one study found that middle school principals commonly were resilient (Bauck, 1987). Another paper reviews evidence of emotional aspects related to educational leaders and found that they usually possess high emotional intelligence and empathetic abilities (Berkovich & Eval, 2015).

The review aims to systemize the current knowledge on the field, and explores the knowledge as possible cognitive, social, or psychological personal leadership resources according to the classification of the framework model given by Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2012; 2019) within a larger framework of effective school leadership. It will begin by locating the literature on the field to provide an overview of individual differences of school leaders used in research to date. After this, we explore the evidence and map the results as related to possible personal leadership resources, and we expect in the end to have a list of resources that are relevant for school leaders based on the gathered literature. To give one practical illustration, we would identify studies on "resilience" in school leaders and categorize it as a psychological personal leadership resource. Understanding individual differences offers information to assess the relevance of such personal characteristics in the overall structure of the determinants of successful school leadership more precisely and could contribute to the field by exploring underlying motivation in leadership.

Arksey, H., & O’Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616 Barkman, C. (2015). The characteristics of an effective school leaders. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 7(1), 14–18. Bauck, J. M. (1987). Characteristics of the effective middle school principal. NASSP Bulletin, 71(500), 90–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263658707150013 Benoliel, P. (2021). Is it your personality, your boundary leadership or both? An integrative approach for the improvement of school management team effectiveness. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(6), 669–687. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-08-2020-0171 Berkovich, I., & Eyal, O. (2015). Educational leaders and emotions: an international review of empirical evidence 1992-2012. Review of Educational Research, 85(1), 3–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314550046 Colbert, A. E., Judge, T. A., Choi, D., & Wang, G. (2012). Assessing the trait theory of leadership using self and observer ratings of personality: the mediating role of contributions to group success. The Leadership Quarterly, 23(4), 670–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/leaqua.2012.03.004 Daniëls, E., Hondeghem, A., & Dochy, D. (2019). A review on leadership and leadership development in educational settings. Educational Research Review, 27, 110–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.02.003 Deinert, A., Homan, A. C., Boer, D., Voelpel, S. C., & Gutermann, F. (2015). Transformational leadership sub-dimensions and their link to leaders’ personality and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 26(6), 1095–1120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.08.001 Leithwood, K. (2012). Strong Districts and Their Leadership. Council of Ontario Directors of Education. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2006). Transformational school leadership for large-scale reform: effects on students, teachers, and their classroom practices. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 17(2), 201–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243450600565829 Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077 Osborne-Lampkin, L., Folsom, J. S., & Herrington, C. D. (2015). A systematic review of the relationships between principal characteristics and student achievement. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Florida State University. Tricco, A., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O’Brien, KK., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., & Hempel, S. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of International Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 Tulowitzski, P., & Pietsch, M. (2020). Stichwort: Lernzentriertes Leitungshandeln and Schulen – Leadership for Learning. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenshaft, 23, 873–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-020-00964-8 Quadach, M. Q., Schecter, C., & Da’as, R. (2020). From principals to teachers to students: exploring an integrative model for predicting students’ achievements. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 736–778. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907133