The study is underpinned by a hybrid theoretical framework that combines transformational, distributed and participative leadership theories. This framework explores the interplay between leadership and collaborative support structures in schools. Rooted in the work of Burns (1978) and expanded by Bass and Avolio (1994), transformational leadership focuses on inspiring and motivating employees. In education, transformational leadership boosts teacher morale, fosters trust, supports professional development and enhances learner performance (Bush 2018; Naz, Afzal & Javed 2023). The four core dimensions, idealised influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation and individualised consideration, foster a culture of trust, creativity and reflection that drives innovation and effective problem-solving within SBSTs. Mulford (2003) and Hoque and Raya (2023) postulated that school principals who exhibit transformational leadership foster stronger team cohesion and morale. While this leadership style promotes motivation and trust among teachers, its focus on individual emphasis can create challenges in highly collaborative environments, such as SBSTs, where collective decision-making and shared responsibilities are vital for effective learner support.

Spillane et al. (2004) argue that leadership involves multiple individuals, not only formally appointed leaders. In a similar vein, Leithwood, Jantzi and Steinbach (1999) describe distributed leadership as a sustainable and inclusive approach, especially in contexts where the complexity of challenges exceeds the capacity of any one leader. This decentralised approach aligns with SBSTs’ structure, where teachers and support personnel collaborate to provide learner support. Similarly, as postulated by authors such as Choi and Drago-Severson (2024) and Mondal (2020), participative leadership promotes democratic decision-making and inclusive school practices. Leithwood (2021) and Turner-Cmuchal and Óskarsdóttir (2020) highlight that distributed and participative leadership in SBSTs fosters mutual accountability and shared responsibility. These approaches promote collaborative planning and structured decision-making, enabling teams to align strategies for diverse learner needs. They also empower professionals to exercise their expertise, enhancing SBSTs’ capacity for inclusive and responsive support.

This literature review examines key leadership styles relevant to inclusive education, laying a foundation for understanding the development of a hybrid leadership approach.

This study employed a qualitative narrative case study design to explore how school leadership influences the functioning of SBSTs. A narrative case study was selected for its ability to capture the complexity of leadership practices through an interpretive, participatory lens that situates individual experiences within their broader social and contextual realities (Creswell 2013; Jiang et al. 2023). This design allowed the researcher to explore how leadership support shapes SBSTs through the lived narratives of teachers in different school contexts.

Using narrative case studies enabled a thorough exploration of leadership dynamics and their implications for inclusive education practices. By focusing on the stories and subjective perspectives of participants, this approach is consistent with the interpretivist paradigm, which emphasises the importance of meaning-making through both individual and collective experiences (Alharahsheh & Pius 2020). This design was particularly appropriate given the context-sensitive and relational nature of school leadership and support team functioning.

A methodological triangulation strategy was used to enrich the collected data and enhance credibility. This included semi-structured individual interviews and a focus group discussion to capture both personal and group perspectives on how leadership practices influence SBST operations. Using both methods provided a deeper and more thorough understanding of the research topic (Creswell 2013).

Participants were drawn from two no-fee primary schools in Olievenhoutbosch, a township in the Gauteng Province of SA. These schools, anonymised as School A and School B, were purposively selected based on contextual relevance and prior findings from one of the researchers’ doctoral work, which identified notable challenges in SBST performance linked to leadership support. These challenges included unclear role descriptions, insufficient administrative support, limited professional development opportunities and inconsistent communication between the SMT and SBST members. Both schools are located within the Tshwane South District, sharing similar socio-economic environments, which allowed for a focused, contextually grounded comparison.

A total of 13 participants took part in the study. School A had only two SBST members, who were individually interviewed alongside the deputy principal, who was not actively part of the SBST. Because of the team’s small size, a focus group was not feasible. School B, with a larger and more structured SBST, offered broader participation: the deputy principal (who served as the SBST coordinator) was interviewed individually, and a focus group discussion was conducted with seven SBST members, including learner support educators (LSEs) and members of the SMT actively involved in the SBST.

Both purposive and convenience sampling were used to select participants who had direct experience with SBST functioning and school leadership practices. The schools’ proximity and willingness to participate facilitated access, which was crucial for conducting in-depth, site-specific qualitative research (Etikan, Musa & Alkassim 2016; Salkind 2010).

Data collection methods were tailored to each school’s context to preserve ethical integrity and methodological rigour. At School A, the limited number of SBST members necessitated individual interviews, allowing each participant to reflect deeply on their experiences. The larger team size at School B allowed for individual and focus group interviews, which helped surface shared patterns and contrasting viewpoints within the SBST.

Although there was a methodological variation between the schools, every effort was made to ensure an equitable opportunity for participants to express their views. This flexibility, grounded in ethical research practice, allowed the study to adapt to real-world school dynamics without compromising the richness or credibility of the data.

Data collection occurred over 6 weeks during the academic term, enabling researchers to engage with participants without disrupting school routines. Before data collection, the researchers obtained ethical clearance and permission from the Gauteng Department of Education and school principals.

At School A, due to SBST comprising only two members, data were gathered through individual semi-structured interviews with both SBST members and the deputy principal. These interviews were conducted privately on school premises, each lasting approximately 45–60 min. The small number of team members made it impossible to use focus group methodology in this situation.

A larger and more diverse SBST at School B enabled individual and group data collection strategies. The deputy principal, who also served as the SBST coordinator, participated in an individual interview. A focus group interview was conducted with 10 SBST members, including LSEs and SMT representatives actively involved in the SBST. The focus group was held in a conference room at the school and lasted approximately 90 min.

Participants’ consent was sought to record focus group interviews and discussions, which were later transcribed verbatim for analysis. Field notes were also taken during each session to capture contextual observations, non-verbal cues and emerging reflections relevant to the study. Interview guides were aligned with the study’s research questions and were intentionally open ended to allow participants to express their experiences and perceptions in their own words.

To ensure the trustworthiness of the study, several strategies were employed:

These measures helped to establish the credibility, dependability and confirmability of the study, reinforcing the validity of the findings derived from participant narratives.

Ethical clearance was obtained from the UNISA College of Education Ethics Review Committee (Ref. No. 2022/11/09/90214331/41/AM), and permission to access the research sites was granted by the Gauteng Department of Education. All participants provided informed consent, and participation was voluntary, with the option to withdraw at any time. To maintain confidentiality, schools were anonymised as School A and School B, and participants were assigned pseudonyms. (e.g. A-DP, B-FG-T6, B-T1) corresponding to their roles within the SBST. This coding ensured clarity in data presentation and analysis while upholding ethical standards.

A laissez-faire leadership style emerged as most prominent in both schools, marked by disengagement, lack of support and absence of clear guidance or accountability. This kind of leadership hindered SBSTs from functioning effectively and created an environment of frustration and demoralisation. One participant noted:

Lack of consistent meetings, minimal oversight and lack of recognition led SBST members to feel abandoned:

This hands-off approach led to fragmented support services, ineffective communication among stakeholders and uncertainty regarding team roles:

One SBST member in the focus group said:

‘Sometimes you work hard, but it’s like no one notices. It feels like you’re working in the dark’ (B-FG-T3).

Despite these shortcomings, the few examples of shared responsibility point to distributed leadership’s potential. When SBST members were empowered, even minimally, they demonstrated commitment to collaborative problem-solving:

There was little to no evidence of transformational leadership from either school, particularly in terms of inspirational motivation and individualised support. Participants rarely described leaders who offered encouragement, opportunities for professional growth or an inspirational vision for inclusive education. One participant said:

The absence of morale-boosting leadership negatively impacted staff motivation and engagement. In School B, a participant emphasised the need for recognition:

In both schools, SBST members felt that leadership did not demonstrate transformational leadership values, including inspiring others, fostering trust and encouraging innovation:

Similar patterns were evident in School A, where SBST members expressed frustration over the principal’s lack of support and developmental leadership. One participant noted:

This quote highlights a lack of transformational leadership qualities, such as personalised attention, empowerment and inspiring motivation. Instead, the principal exercised control without vision and discouraged participation, which directly undermined the SBST’s growth and effectiveness.

Although distributed leadership was not widely observed, some participants reported isolated instances of collaboration or delegated authority. These occurrences, however, often reflected individual initiative or contextual necessity, rather than consistent school-wide practice. One participant remarked:

Although this might imply a degree of trust, it also highlights a lack of direct involvement, which, in the absence of strategic guidance or participation, does not align with principles of distributed leadership that focus on purposeful collaboration and collective responsibility. Similarly, instances of distributed leadership and collaboration were reported in school B:

These examples suggest that while certain tasks were delegated, leadership in School B largely withdrew from active engagement, resulting in a form of passive delegation rather than intentional, shared leadership. Genuine distributed leadership cannot be achieved without structured collaboration and a commitment to shared accountability.

The study’s findings revealed that laissez-faire and autocratic leadership styles within the two no-fee primary schools compromised the effectiveness of SBSTs, leading to low morale, unclear role definitions, poor communication and fragmented learner support. Transformational leadership traits, such as inspirational motivation, support for professional development and individualised consideration, were largely absent, while distributed leadership was sporadically applied. There were, however, isolated instances of shared responsibility that suggested potential for more collaborative leadership models.

These findings support prior research indicating that passive and authoritarian leadership undermines team cohesion and inclusive practices (Jaafar et al. 2021; Kumar & Dhiman 2021). However, the significance of these findings lies in their contextual implications: leadership gaps extend beyond internal team dynamics to directly influence the ability of SBSTs to identify and respond to learning barriers. The ability of SBSTs to offer prompt and effective support diminishes when leaders fail to provide guidance, recognition or strategic direction. This suggests that leadership style is not merely a superficial concern but rather a fundamental factor influencing equity in education.

The absence of transformational leadership traits echoes the observations of Naz et al. (2023) and Hoque and Raya (2023), who link such traits to enhanced collaboration and staff motivation. Similarly, while distributed leadership has been widely endorsed as a sustainable model in complex school environments (Leithwood et al. 1999; Spillane et al. 2004), this study found its implementation to be limited. However, where elements of distributed or participative leadership did emerge, they reflected the benefits of collaborative structures for inclusive education, as noted by Choi and Drago-Severson (2024). This gap is significant because distributed leadership relies on collective leadership to address diverse learner needs, and this expectation cannot be met without intentional structures for shared leadership.

This study theoretically enhances the conversation on inclusive education leadership by proposing a hybrid leadership model that integrates transformational, distributed and participative elements. Rather than treating these leadership styles separately, the findings suggest that their combined application is essential for strengthening SBST functionality in under-resourced settings. By framing leadership as an adaptive practice that responds to contextual realities, the study contributes to leadership theory within environments marked by educational inequity.

In practical terms, the results highlight the need for leadership development programmes that cultivate hybrid leadership skills. Leadership training should extend beyond administrative management to encompass strategies for motivating staff, promoting collaboration and integrating shared decision-making into school processes. Policymakers should incorporate such competencies into governance frameworks to strengthen SBST operations, particularly in no-fee schools. At the school level, establishing formal recognition systems for SBST contributions could enhance morale and reinforce a culture of collective responsibility.

Future studies should explore the scalability of hybrid leadership models across diverse educational contexts, including rural and urban schools, and examine their long-term impact on learner outcomes. Quantitative research could complement these findings by measuring the correlation between hybrid leadership practices and specific performance indicators of SBST.

The strength of this study lies in its qualitative narrative case study design, which allowed for in-depth exploration of lived experiences within two distinct school contexts. Methodological triangulation achieved through interviews and focus groups and enhanced the credibility of the findings. However, the use of two schools in one township is a limitation that affects the transferability of the findings to other contexts. Furthermore, relying on self-reported data may introduce bias, and the lack of direct observation of leadership practices may have limited the depth of analysis.

The study highlights the urgent need for leadership development programmes that foster hybrid leadership models in under-resourced schools. Policymakers should consider integrating collaborative leadership strategies into professional development frameworks, while schools should institutionalise structures that support shared decision-making and acknowledge SBST contributions. Furthermore, collaboration between the government and higher education institutions to design context-responsive short learning programmes could enhance leadership capacity and better equip school leaders to implement inclusive education effectively.