Leading educational institutions is a complex task that requires a balance between responsibility (control) and trust (Simsa, 2022). Leaders must take responsibility, make decisions, and provide direction, while simultaneously allowing freedom, supporting educational processes, and trusting the abilities of their staff (Schreier & Ammann, 2023). Against this background, this article explores how leaders in the education sector understand and experience trust and responsibility by. This topic is important because it helps to better understand the tension between responsibility and trust. It may also offer impulses for the further development of relationship-oriented leadership. The aim of the article is to conceptually develop practice-relevant knowledge for relationship-based and cooperative leadership in educational institutions.

First, existing research on leadership tasks, effective leadership, and trust and responsibility in leadership practice was reviewed (e.g., Fichtner et al., 2023; König, 2023; Ellwart et al., 2023; Kamm et al., 2023). In addition, a model of cooperative leadership (Huber, 2005) was used as the theoretical framework for the empirical study (Schreier et al., 2023). Based on this framework, empirical data were collected at a conference for educational leaders entitled „Perspectives between Trust and Responsibility“, which took place in February 2024 at the University of Teacher Education Tyrol. The sample consisted of N=159 leaders from the education sector (116 women and 43 men): 79 from early childhood education, 45 from primary education, and 35 from secondary education. Participants were randomly assigned to 17 discussion groups using room numbers distributed at registration (Vogl, 2019).

After a short introduction, participants discussed the guiding question of how trust and responsibility appear from their own perspectives. They documented the results of their discussions in writing. The data were analysed using the Grounded Theory research approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1996; Strübing, 2019). First, the written notes were digitised, divided into smaller units, and openly coded to identify central ideas. In a second step, the codes were axially coded, meaning that relationships between them were identified and grouped into categories. Finally, the categories were selectively coded to develop core categories that capture the main findings. These core categories are presented in the results section as complete sentences, such as: „In leadership practice, trust is shown through the ability to let go.“ Each core category is supported by concrete examples from the discussion notes.

The results show that, regardless of the type of educational institution, trust is expressed in several ways. These include confidence in staff, a positive approach to mistakes, the ability to let go, recognition of diversity, appreciation of individual strengths, and communication on an equal level. Leaders see their responsibility mainly in administrative tasks, but also in the ongoing development of their educational institutions. The discussion of the findings based on the cooperative leadership model (Huber, 2005) shows that the model can be expanded through this research. In particular, the results highlight additional dimensions that focus on the responsibility of leaders within a cooperative leadership culture, such as measures to systematically ensure and improve teaching quality (Miedlich, 2022).

The article concludes by discussing the limitations of the empirical study. Finally, the key findings are conceptually summarised as dimensions of cooperative leadership and critically discussed in the context of educational research. Special attention is given to the question of how knowledge gained from educational research can be transferred back into educational practice in order to strengthen its practical relevance.

Based on this framework, empirical data were collected at a conference for educational leaders entitled „Perspectives between Trust and Responsibility“, which took place in February 2024 at the University of Teacher Education Tyrol. The sample consisted of N=159 leaders from the education sector (116 women and 43 men): 79 from early childhood education, 45 from primary education, and 35 from secondary education. Participants were randomly assigned to 17 discussion groups using room numbers distributed at registration (Vogl, 2019). After a short introduction, participants discussed the guiding question of how trust and responsibility appear from their own perspectives. They documented the results of their discussions in writing. The data were analysed using the Grounded Theory research approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1996; Strübing, 2019). First, the written notes were digitised, divided into smaller units, and openly coded to identify central ideas. In a second step, the codes were axially coded, meaning that relationships between them were identified and grouped into categories. Finally, the categories were selectively coded to develop core categories that capture the main findings. These core categories are presented in the results section as complete sentences, such as: „In leadership practice, trust is shown through the ability to let go.“ Each core category is supported by concrete examples from the discussion notes.

The results show that, regardless of the type of educational institution, trust is expressed in several ways. These include confidence in staff, a positive approach to mistakes, the ability to let go, recognition of diversity, appreciation of individual strengths, and communication on an equal level. Leaders see their responsibility mainly in administrative tasks, but also in the ongoing development of their educational institutions. The discussion of the findings based on the cooperative leadership model (Huber, 2005) shows that the model can be expanded through this research. In particular, the results highlight additional dimensions that focus on the responsibility of leaders within a cooperative leadership culture, such as measures to systematically ensure and improve teaching quality (Miedlich, 2022). The article concludes by discussing the limitations of the empirical study. Finally, the key findings are conceptually summarised as dimensions of cooperative leadership and critically discussed in the context of educational research. Special attention is given to the question of how knowledge gained from educational research can be transferred back into educational practice in order to strengthen its practical relevance.

Ellwart, T., Russell, Y. & Blanke, K. (2023). Führung in reduzierter Arbeitszeit (FIRA) – Co-Leitung, Teilzeitmodelle und Delegation von Führungsaufgaben. In J. Felfe & R. van Dick (Hrsg.), Handbuch Mitarbeiterführung. Wirtschaftspsychologisches Praxiswissen für Fach- und Führungskräfte (2., überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 385–401). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-68185-5 Fichtner, S., Bacia, E., Sandau, M., Hurrelmann K. & Dohmen, D. (2023). „Schule stärken – Digitalisierung gestalten“ – Cornelsen Schulleitungsstudie 2023. FiBS Forschungsinstitut für Bildungs- und Sozialökonomie. https://www.cornelsen.de/schulleitungsstudie/vorjahre Heiser, P. (2024). Meilensteine der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Eine Einführung entlang klassischer Studien (2., überarb. u. aktual. Aufl.). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-44128-9 Huber, S.G. (2005). Kooperative Führung in der Schule: Entlastung oder Entmachtung von Schulleitung? In A. Bartz, J. Fabian, S.G. Huber, C. Kloft, H.S. Rosenbusch & H. Sassenscheid (Hrsg.), PraxisWissen SchulLeitung. Basiswissen und Arbeitshilfen zu den zentralen Handlungsfeldern der Schulleitung (10.42). C.H. Beck Kamm, I., Kamm, F. & Anderegg, N. (2023). Raum für Demokratie und die Rolle der Führung. In O. Bokelmann (Hrsg.), Demokratiepädagogik. Theorie und Praxis der Demokratiebildung in Jugendhilfe und Schule (Soziale Arbeit als Wohlfahrtsproduktion, Bd. 29) (S. 327–340). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-42649-1_24 König, A. (2023). Sinnorientierte Führung. Leadership für die Gen Y und Z neu denken. Schäffer-Poeschel. https://doi.org/10.34156/978-3-7910-5942-6 Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2024). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Methoden, Praxis, Umsetzung mit Software und künstlicher Intelligenz (6., überarb. & erw. Aufl.). Beltz Juventa. Miedlich, H. (2022). Erfolgreich Führen in Transformationsprozessen. Kompetenzen einer entwicklungsbereiten Führungskraft. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66317-2 Schreier, A. & Ammann, M. (2023). Der Beitrag der Schulleitung in Schulentwicklungsprozessen für das Schaffen einer handlungsleitenden und werte-basierten Schulkultur. heiEDUCATION Journal, 12, 105–124. https://doi.org/10.17885/heiup.heied.2023.12 Schreier, M., Echterhoff, G., Bauer, J.F., Weydmann, N. & Hussy, W. (2023). Forschungsmethoden in Psychologie und Sozialwissenschaften für Bachelor (3., überarb. u. erg. Aufl.). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-66673-9 Simsa, R. (2022). Leadership und Veränderung – Veränderung von Leadership. In O. Koenig (Hrsg.), Inklusion und Transformation in Organisationen (S. 133–147). Klinkhardt. https://doi.org/10.35468/5978-08 Strauss, A.L. & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded Theory: Grundlagen der Qualitativen Sozialforschung. Beltz Strübing, J. (2019). Grounded Theory und Theoretical Sampling. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 525–544). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-21308-4_36 Vogl, S. (2019). Gruppendiskussion. In N. Baur & J. Blasius (Hrsg.), Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung (2., vollst. überarb. u. erw. Aufl.) (S. 695–700). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-2130 8-4_46