The Role and Impact of AI on School Leaders' Agency in Austria : A Qualitative Study
Roč.30,č.3(2025)
School Leader(ship) in Focus: Understanding Current Challenges and Shaping Future Perspectives
Katarzyna Ammann-Kapa
Markus Ammann
This article examines how Austrian school leaders enact professional agency in the context of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) into their daily leadership practices. Recent educational discourse has increasingly called for a new type of leadership: "edupreneurial leaders" (Pashiardis & Brauckmann, 2018), capable of transforming schools into adaptive, innovative, and learner-centered organizations. This shift places leaders in multidimensional roles as change agents, knowledge brokers, and process facilitators (Brauckmann & Eder, 2019). These evolving responsibilities raise critical questions about the extent to which AI supports or undermines school leaders' professional agency. Drawing on a qualitative content analysis by Mayring (2022), and based on 10 in-depth interviews with school leaders from various school types, the findings reveal that AI is predominantly used to augment, rather than automate, tasks related to communication, documentation, and instructional support. While AI enables efficiency and cognitive relief, leaders deliberately retain decision-making authority, revealing a reflective and cautious approach. The study contributes to the growing discourse on educational leadership in the digital age by offering a nuanced understanding of how AI reshapes, but does not replace, school leadership agency. It concludes that the future of school leadership depends not only on technological innovation, but also on ethical, strategic, and reflective navigation of AI tools.
human-ai-agency; school leader; qualitative study; artificial intelligence
Altrichter, H., Brauckmann, S., Lassnigg, L., Moosbrugger, R., & Gartmann, G. B. (2016). Schulautonomie oder die Verteilung von Entscheidungsrechten und Verantwortung im Schulsystem. In M. Bruneforth, F. Eder, K. Krainer, C. Schreiner, A. Seel, & C. Spiel, Fokussierte Analysen und Zukunftsperspektiven für das Bildungswesen. Nationaler Bildungsbericht Österreich 2015 Part 2 (pp. 263–304). Leykam. https://doi.org/10.17888/nbb2015-2-7
Ammann-Kapa, K., & Ammann, M. (2024). Das Neuland Künstliche Intelligenz erkunden – Markierungsversuche aus der Perspektive der Schul- und Unterrichtsentwicklung. SchulVerwaltung aktuell, 2, 60–62.
Arnold, J., & Clarke, D. J. (2014). What is ‘agency’? Perspectives in science education research. International Journal of Science Education, 36(5), 735–754. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2013.825066 | DOI 10.1080/09500693.2013.825066
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 | DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1
Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x | DOI 10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00011.x
Bazzani, G. (2023). Agency as conversion process. Theory and Society, 52(3), 487–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-022-09487-z | DOI 10.1007/s11186-022-09487-z
Beckerle, P., Castellini, C., & Lenggenhager, B. (2019). Robotic interfaces for cognitive psychology and embodiment research: A research roadmap. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 10(2), e1486. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1486
Brauckmann, S., & Eder, F. (2019). Führungsforschung im Bildungsbereich: Schulleitung im Spannungsfeld erweiterter Rechte und Pflichten. Zeitschrift für Bildungsforschung, 5(1), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s35834-019-00242-6 | DOI 10.1007/s35834-019-00242-6
Brüsemeister, T. (2019). Vergleichende Analyse mittels Governance-Regler. In R. Langer & T. Brüsemeister (Eds.), Handbuch Educational Governance Theorien (pp. 35–49). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22237-6_3 | DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-22237-6_3
Clark, A. (2004). Natural-born cyborgs: Minds, technologies, and the future of human intelligence. Oxford University Press.
Cramer, C., Groß Ophoff, J., Pietsch, M., & Tulowitzki, P. (2021). Schulleitung in Deutschland. Repräsentative Befunde zur Attraktivität, zu Karrieremotiven und zu Arbeitsplatzwechselabsichten. Die Deutsche Schule, 113(2), 132–148. https://doi.org/10.25656/01:22234 | DOI 10.31244/dds.2021.02.02
Dadaczynski, K., & Paulus, P. (2016). Wohlbefinden von Schulleitungen in Deutschland. Prävention Gesundheitsförderung, 11, 171–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11553-016-0544-3 | DOI 10.1007/s11553-016-0544-3
Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 318–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008 | DOI 10.2307/249008
Emirbayer, M., & Mische, A. (1998). What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294 | DOI 10.1086/231294
European Union. (2024). Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European parliament and of the council of 13 june 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689
Falandays, J. B., Spevack, S., Pärnamets, P., & Spivey, M. (2021). Decision-making in the humanmachine interface. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 624111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.624111
Ganuthula, V. R. R. (2024). The paradox of augmentation: A theoretical model of AI-induced skill atrophy. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4974044 | DOI 10.2139/ssrn.4974044
Groß Ophoff, J., Brauchle, G., & Pfurtscheller, J. (2023). Schulleitungsmonitor Österreich 2022 – Kurzbericht zur Studie. Pädagogische Hochschule Vorarlberg. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/Z8DR6
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2008). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 229–240. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9_10 | DOI 10.1108/09578230810863280
Harvie, J., Robertson, Z., & Brack, K. (2024). Enhancing the agency of senior school leaders through professional learning: A qualitative study of Into Headship, the national headteacher preparation programme in Scotland. Professional Development in Education, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2024.2366336 | DOI 10.1080/19415257.2024.2366336
He, Y., Chen, Q., & Kitkuakul, S. (2018). Regulatory focus and technology acceptance: Perceived ease of use and usefulness as efficacy. Cogent Business & Management, 5(1), 1459006. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2018.1459006
Hejres, S. (2022). The impact of artificial intelligence on instructional leadership. In A. Hamdan, A. E. Hassanien, T. Mescon, & B. Alareeni (Eds.), Technologies, artificial intelligence and the future of learning post-COVID-19: The crucial role of international accreditation (pp. 697–711). Springer International Publishing. | DOI 10.1007/978-3-030-93921-2_36
Helm, C. & Große, C. S. (2024). Einsatz künstlicher Intelligenz im Schulalltag – eine empirische Bestandsaufnahme. Erziehung und Unterricht, (3/4), 370–381.
Hsieh, C. C., Tai, S. E., & Li, H. C. (2024). Impact of school leadership on teacher innovativeness: Evidence from multilevel analysis of Taiwan TALIS 2018. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2024.2397040 | DOI 10.1080/02188791.2024.2397040
Kang, H., & Lou, C. (2022). AI agency vs. human agency: Understanding human-AI interactions on TikTok and their implications for user engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(5). https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac014 | DOI 10.1093/jcmc/zmac014
Karakose, T. (2024). Will artificial intelligence (AI) make the school principal redundant? A preliminary discussion and future prospects. Educational Process: International Journal, 13(2), 7–14. https://doi.org/10.22521/edupij.2024.132.1 | DOI 10.22521/edupij.2024.132.1
Kemethofer, D. (2022). Der Alltag von Schulleitungen: Empirische Befunde zu Tätigkeitsprofilen und Führungsansätzen. Gruppe. Interaktion. Organisation, 53, 427–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11612-022-00647-4 | DOI 10.1007/s11612-022-00647-4
Lamnek, S. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung: Mit Online-Material. Beltz.
Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2021). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management, Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438 | DOI 10.1177/1741143220910438
Louws, M., Zwart, R., Zuiker, I., Meijer, P., Oolbekkink-Marchand, H., Schaap, H., & van der Want, A. (2020). Exploring school leaders’ dilemmas in response to tensions related to teacher professional agency. Professional Development in Education, 46(4), 691–710. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1787203 | DOI 10.1080/19415257.2020.1787203
Mayring, P. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse: Grundlagen und Techniken. Beltz.
Mick, C. (2011). Learner agency. European Educational Research Journal, 10(4), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2011.10.4.559 | DOI 10.2304/eerj.2011.10.4.559
Mick, C. (2012). Das Agency-Paradigma. In U. Bauer, U. H. Bittlingmayer, & A. Scherr, Handbuch Bildungs- und Erziehungssoziologie (pp. 527–544). Springer VS. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-18944-4_32 | DOI 10.1007/978-3-531-18944-4_32
Pashiardis, P., & Brauckmann, S. (2018). New public management in education: A call for the edupreneurial leader? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 18(3), 485–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1475575 | DOI 10.1080/15700763.2018.1475575
Pärnamets, P., Johansson, P., Hall, L., Balkenius, C., Spivey, M. J., & Richardson, D. C. (2015). Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 112(13), 4170–4175. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1415250112
Priestley, M., Biesta, G., & Robinson, S. (2015a). Teacher agency: What is it and why does it matter? In R. Kneyber & J. Evers (Eds.), Flip the system: Changing education from the bottom up (pp. 134–148). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315678573-15 | DOI 10.4324/9781315678573-15
Priestley, M., Biesta, G. J. J., & Robinson, S. (2015b). Teacher agency: An ecological approach. Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781474219426
Raisch, S., & Krakowski, S. (2021). Artificial intelligence and management: The automationaugmentation paradox. Academy of Management Review, 46(1), 192–210. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2018.0072 | DOI 10.5465/amr.2018.0072
Reinders, H. (2012). Qualitative Interviews mit Jugendlichen führen: Ein Leitfaden. Oldenbourg.
Sewell, W. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation. American Journal of Sociology, 98(1), 1–29. | DOI 10.1086/229967
Schön, D. A. (1999). The reflective practitioner : How professionals think in action. Basic Books.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Unterrainer, C., Jeppesen, H.-J., & Jønsson, T. (2017). Distributed leadership agency and its relationship to individual autonomy and occupational self-efficacy: A two-wave-mediation study in Denmark. Humanistic Management Journal, 2(1), 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41463-017-0023-9 | DOI 10.1007/s41463-017-0023-9
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540 | DOI 10.2307/30036540
VERBI Software. (2021). MAXQDA 2022 [Computer software]. https://www.maxqda.com
Wang, P., & Ransbotham, S. (2023). Human agency in the age of artificial intelligence. MIS Quarterly, 47(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2023/16208
Wertsch, J. V. (1993). Voices of the mind. Harvard University Press.
Copyright © 2026 Studia paedagogica