**5.1 Leading is a mutual responsibility**

The views came from participants with varying ages (26–56 years) and professional experiences (2–27 years). Collectively, the five headteachers and 10 teachers interviewed had almost similar views about leadership to making schools effective. However, further discussions indicate that the leadership practices experienced in the various schools are different from what they understood and defined as good leadership practices. Some of the participants explained leaders as 'having the capability to lead' (Clara, headteacher), 'develop directions for the school' (Amanda, teacher) and 'coordinate the activities of others so that the school can achieve its goals and objectives' (John, headteacher).

Other views claimed that leadership is about 'setting standards' (Kevin, teacher), 'having the ability to engage in difficult conversations even when you are dealing with superiors' (Dorothy, headteacher) and 'taking critical decisions even if this is not possible because everything is decided at the political level and handed to us' (Maxwell, headteacher).

Similarly, participants expressed that 'leadership is not about one person directing others, it is about bringing everybody on board since we all have something to contribute' (Michael, teacher). Others were explicit about what they understood and want from leadership by saying:

*the moment I think about leadership, motivation, collaboration and support is what comes to my mind because no single person can lead the school…it is collective responsibility that can only work with motivation and sharing of knowledge (Jack, teacher).*

Despite having understood leadership as a collective responsibility, another participant was of the view that 'everybody cannot lead at the same time…one person must be in charge and draw others to support…if everybody is leading in their own ways that could bring chaos' (Clara, headteacher).

These views resonate with Bourdieu's ideas which give power to the consideration of viewing leadership as a recursive relationship between agency and habitus and field within the social contexts in which practice takes place [1]. In this way, we cannot focus only on the leader's habitus and capital but also the specific sociocultural constructions from which embodied dispositions are formed [11]. Again, the views espoused by the participants in this study concerning their understanding of leadership brings into consideration how the concept of field enables us to reflect on the social and political contexts in which leaders enact power relations [12].
