For years, much of the conversation about efficacy in schools has centered on teachers. Hattie’s Visible Learning reminds us that collective teacher efficacy (CTE) has a strong influence on student achievement. 

Of course, collective teacher efficacy is impacted by many other influences on learning (ie. teacher credibility, instructional strategies, etc.) An important question often goes unasked: What beliefs do our leaders hold about their own capacity to create change?

The topic of CLE is something we are always researching and trying to understand to a deeper level when we work with school leadership teams, district leadership teams, and instructional leadership collectives, which are cross-role teams that go across districts, regions and states. 

That’s where Collective Leader Efficacy (CLE) comes in. Collective Leader Efficacy is the shared belief of a leadership collective in its collective capability to improve adult learning, instructional practice, and student learning by developing shared understanding, engaging in joint work, and using evidence of progress and impact to guide continuous improvement.

However, too many researchers make this topic way too complicated. In our work, the two of us are seeing a pattern that when collectives create a shared understanding, engage in joint work around cycles of inquiry, and focus on evidence of progress and impact, the belief they have as a collective grows deeper and deeper. 

The research is clear:

• Hallinger & Heck (2002) found that school improvement is most likely when leaders collaborate with teachers to shape mission, improve teaching, and build shared responsibility.
• Leithwood & Jantzi (2008) demonstrated that collective leadership directly impacts student achievement by fostering conditions that strengthen teachers’ efficacy.
• Robinson (2008) showed that promoting and participating in teacher learning has the largest leadership effect on student outcomes.
• Bryk & Schneider (2002) revealed that relational trust among leaders, teachers, and parents is the connective tissue of improvement.
• Christenson (2023) added that superintendent behaviors like vision-setting, collaboration, and open communication are strongly correlated with leadership cabinets’ collective efficacy.
• DeWitt & Nelson (2025) suggest that by developing a shared understanding, engaging in joint work, and evaluating impact, school and district leadership can have a positive impact on student and adult learning.
• Guskey (2002) has done significant research on how beliefs often grow through learning and evidence.
  

Together, these studies show that CLE is more than a concept,  it is a driver of systemwide improvement. When leadership teams believe in their shared ability to influence outcomes, they create the very conditions for teacher efficacy to flourish. And when both beliefs align, students benefit most.

In our work with leadership teams, Michael Nelson and I describe fostering the belief of a collective as a 3-legged stool:

1. Shared Understanding – agreeing on the “why” behind the work.
2. Joint Work – taking collective responsibility rather than working in silos?
3. Evidence of Impact – asking, “How do we know this work is making a difference?”

All three are needed to strengthen a team’s belief in their collective capacity and to ground that belief in evidence.

The challenge for today’s leaders isn’t whether CLE matters, a growing body of research already suggests that it does. The challenge is this: What intentional steps will leadership teams take to cultivate collective efficacy, model it with and for teachers, and continue to evaluate their own impact instead of always expecting teachers to do that?