Validity can be achieved by forming and gathering evidence that distinguishes the theoretical and practical leadership models (HALLINGER, 2003). A lot of literature should be reconciled to gather information about what is entailed in each framework. As a researcher I should be able to use my analytical skills to observe the difference between the two leadership models based on research and what I observe in practical. The issue of validity can be well analyzed as internal or external to boost our understanding on the subject matter. Under internal validity offers sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim at the same time helps us to observe whether the experiment makes a difference on the outcome. On the other hand, in external validity the research builds depends on general theories to generalize a condition in a given setting.
I would embrace instructional leadership model in case I want to boost the performance of the stakeholders of the organization. Instructional leadership to a great extent contributes to the performance of institution and the general outcome of each individual (Denton, 2012). From the idea of the two dimensions of leadership (direct and indirect) we can deduce that direct leadership is meant to improve teaching while indirect leadership focuses on creating humble environment for optimal teaching and learning (HALLINGER, 2003). There is ample evidence from the previous that has pinpointed those principals who embrace impeccable leadership skills positively enhance the performance standards of schools but also reflect on the student outcomes through better performance
Denton, D. K. (2012). To manage change, manage the big picture. Human Resource Management International Digest, 20(6), 35-42. doi:10.1108/09670731211260898
HALLINGER, P., (2003) Leading Educational Change: reflections on the practice of instructional and transformational leadership, Cambridge Journal of Education, 33:3, 329-352, DOI: 10.1080/0305764032000122005