The literature of the effective schools movement argues for three very different images of what constitutes leadership, which are regarded in this paper as confused images of leadership. The first image is of a supremely pragmatic but rational actor, the second is of a leader who adheres to the norms typical of the local community culture, and the third is of a leader dependent on group consensus. The research supporting the first image appears based on unchallenged preconceptions and misinterpretations. The case studies used as evidence for the second image fail to reveal universal leadership qualities underlying local standards of leadership. The third image places great significance on the teacher's role, and thus runs counter to prevailing effective schools theory and is therefore generally dismissed. In addition to overemphasizing the principal's leadership role, many of the research reviews pertaining to effective schools are plagued by two other serious errors: generalizing too hastily from too few cases, and ignoring the contexts in which the research projects occurred. The inadequacy of effective schools research allows universal models of leadership to be prescribed that cannot be followed by principals in individual, context-bound practice. (PGD)