Key Takeaways
-
Leadership Can Feel Harder as You Improve: Greater capability does not always make leadership feel more sustainable.
-
Workload Is Only Part of the Story: Heavy workloads matter, but they do not fully explain leadership fatigue.
-
Professional Judgement Is a Critical Resource: Sustainable leadership depends on the freedom to interpret, prioritise, and adapt.
-
Leadership Is About Interpretation, Not Just Implementation: Effective leaders exercise judgement, not simply follow procedures.
-
Adaptive Challenges Require Professional Judgement: Culture, trust, and school improvement cannot be solved with technical solutions alone.
-
Judgement Pressure Makes Leadership Unsustainable: Leadership becomes harder when accountability remains high but discretion keeps shrinking.
-
The Right Diagnosis Leads to Better Solutions: Misreading judgment pressure as workload pressure leads leaders to solve the wrong problem.
-
Sustainability Requires Trusting Leaders to Lead: Sustainable leadership begins when leaders have the autonomy to exercise their professional judgement.
The better many school leaders become at leadership, the heavier leadership seems to feel.
That should make us pause.
I’ve heard a version of this from school leaders for years. Not usually from leaders at the beginning of their journey. More often, it comes from experienced principals, deputies, and system leaders who have become more capable over time. They understand strategy more deeply. They have stronger systems. They read culture with more precision. They make better decisions than they did five or ten years ago.
And yet many describe the same pattern.
Why does leadership feel harder even when you’re getting better at it?
That is the paradox at the centre of what I call The Sustainability Myth.
The usual explanation is workload, and workload absolutely matters. School leaders are carrying enormous pressure: compliance demands, staffing challenges, student wellbeing needs, community expectations, reporting requirements, and improvement agendas that keep accumulating.
Riley’s work on principal wellbeing has shown, year after year, just how much pressure school leaders are carrying.
Workload explains a significant part of the pressure, but it does not account for the whole pattern.
Many of the leaders asking this question have already developed strong habits, strong teams, and strong systems. Their concern is not simply, “How do I get through more work?” Their concern is closer to this:
Why is the work becoming harder to sustain, even as I become more capable?
That question changes the diagnosis.
Most sustainability conversations focus on visible resources: time, staffing, funding, support, and wellbeing structures. All of those matter.
But there is another leadership resource we rarely name with the same seriousness.
Professional judgement.
Professional judgement is the ability to interpret context, sequence priorities, adapt implementation, and decide what matters most for your community.
It is not an optional extra. It is the work of leadership.
Leadership is not simply implementation.
It is interpretation.
This is especially important because much of school leadership is adaptive work.
Heifetz’s work helps us see that adaptive challenges require judgement, learning, interpretation, and adjustment. They cannot be solved simply by applying a procedure.
Culture is adaptive work. Trust is adaptive work. School improvement is adaptive work.
When adaptive work is treated mainly as implementation work, leadership starts to feel different. Leaders remain accountable for outcomes, but they have less room to decide how those outcomes should be achieved.
That creates a form of pressure we do not always name clearly.
Here’s a more useful way to think about sustainability.
Some pressure is workload pressure: the visible volume of meetings, emails, reports, deadlines, interruptions, and operational demands.
Some pressure is complexity pressure: the number of variables leaders have to hold inside each decision — student needs, staff wellbeing, parent expectations, budgets, culture, strategy, and long-term consequences.
Those two pressures can be significant. Leadership can be demanding, complex, and tiring while still remaining sustainable, especially when leaders retain enough professional judgement to decide what matters, what comes first, and how the work should be adapted to their context.
Judgement pressure changes the equation.
Judgement pressure appears when leaders remain accountable for outcomes while feeling increasingly constrained in how they can respond. It is the pressure of knowing your context but having less room to adapt, sequence, contextualise, or prioritise.
Workload and complexity make leadership demanding.
Judgement pressure is often what makes it unsustainable.
That is why the diagnosis matters.
A leader who misreads judgement pressure as workload pressure may solve the wrong problem. They may try to become more efficient when the deeper need is greater professional discretion. They may refine their calendar when the deeper issue is the shrinking space to determine what deserves attention.
This does not make workload irrelevant. It makes the diagnosis more precise.
The way we name pressure shapes the way we respond to it.
So if leadership feels harder than it did five years ago, the question may not be only how much more leaders are carrying. It may also be how much less room they have to decide what matters.
Sustainable leadership begins when we trust leaders to exercise the judgement we hold them accountable for.
I explore this more deeply in the full Leadership Paper, The Sustainability Myth, including the Judgement–Compliance Gap, Strategic Compliance, and why sustainable leadership depends on protecting professional judgement.
