Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership is seen as the mode of leadership that is most appropriate in schools worldwide and there have been a lot of related studies in the decade. It sees leadership as a collective entity involving everyone in the system in one way or the other.

According to several researchers, distributed leadership has become increasingly used in the discourse about school leadership in the last few years and is currently receiving much attention and growing empirical support (Gronn, 2000; Harris 2002; Hopkins &

Jackson, 2002; Spillane, Halverson & Diamond, (2001). However, as Bennett, Harvey, Wise & Woods (2003) point out, there seem to be ‘little agreement as to the meaning of the term, interpretations and understandings vary (p.2). Bennett et al. (2003) suggest that it is best to think of distributed leadership as ‘a way of thinking about leadership’ rather than as another technique or practice. Furthermore, Harris and Lambert (2003,p.4) argue that ‘in understanding distributed leadership this way it inevitably challenges

82

assumptions about the nature and scope of leadership activity as it reconceptualizes leadership in terms of the many rather than the few’

Therefore, as Harris (2004) puts it ‘distributed leadership concentrates on engaging expertise wherever it exists within the organization rather than seeking this only through formal position or role. Distributed leadership is characterized as a form of collective leadership in which teachers develop expertise by working together. Goleman (2002) suggests that it offers a frame for studying leadership practice whereby every person at any level, in one way or the other, acts as a leader’. As Sharma (2010,), explains

One does not need a title to show leadership. Leadership is not some complex art reserved for the chosen few with Harvard degrees and impeccable social backgrounds. Each of us, by the very fact of our shared humanity, can show leadership. And with all the cataclysmic change in our society right now, leadership has become the single most important master skill for success. (p.31)

Collaboration and collegiality are at the core of distributed leadership, but it is important to recognize that distributed leadership is distinctive from, and more than, mutual collaboration between teachers. Spillane et al. (2001: 10) argue that distributed leadership

‘emerges through interaction with other people and the environment’. The important delineation between forms of team-working, collegiality, collaboration and distributed leadership is the fact that distributed leadership results from the activity, that it is a product of a conjoint activity such as network learning communities, study groups, inquiry partnerships, and not simply another label for that activity. Not all collaborative activities will necessarily generate distributed leadership as much depends on the level and quality of involvement plus the degree of skillfulness within the group (Harris and Lambert, 2003). It also depends on the extent to which their activities impact upon organizational change and development. Much also depends on the internal conditions set, often by the formal leadership, to support and nurture collaborative learning and to harness the leadership energy that results.

83 Distributed leadership in action

In a functional dimension, distributed leadership is also considered as the preferred strategy. Elmore (2000) points out that in a knowledge-intensive enterprise like teaching and learning there is no way to perform these complex tasks without widely distributing the responsibility for leadership among roles in the organization. He further states that

Distributed leadership means multiple sources of guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common culture. It is the ‘glue of a common task or goal – improvement of instruction – and a common frame of values for how to approach that task (p.15).

The role of the formal leadership positions is primarily to hold the pieces of the school together in a productive relationship. Thus, their central task is to create a common culture of expectations around the use of individual skills and abilities, it equates with maximizing the human capacity within the organization.

In this sense, Spillane, Halverson & Diamond (2001) see distributed leadership as a form of collective agency incorporating the activities of many individuals in a school who work at mobilizing and guiding other teachers in the process of instructional change. It extends the boundaries of leadership significantly as it is premised upon high levels of

‘teacher involvement’ and encompasses a wide variety of ‘expertise, skill and input’

(Harris and Lambert, 2003, p.16).

Engaging many people in leadership activity is at the core of distributed leadership in action. Research by Silins and Mulford (2002) has shown that student outcomes are more likely to improve where leadership sources are distributed throughout the school community and where teachers are empowered in areas of importance to them. This illustrates Gronn’s (2000) view of the school as a learning community chiefly concerned with maximizing the achievement capacities of all those within the organization.

Distributed leadership and professional development

Distributed leadership is also seen as a means of improving teacher’s professional development. A variety of studies have found clear evidence of the positive effect of distributed leadership on teacher’s self-efficacy and levels of morale (Greenleaf, 1966;

84

Mitchell & Sackney, 2000). Moreover, evidence suggests that where teachers share good practice and learn together the possibility of securing better quality teaching is increased (Lieberman, 2000; Little, 1990, 2000).

One prerequisite for Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) is distributed leadership and it is a means to promote professional development. This will be discussed in the next section on PLC.

Importance of Principal leadership style

The principal plays an important role in the planning and implementation in a system which promotes distributed leadership. In 1999 the NAHT (National Association of Head teachers) commissioned research to identify and examine successful leadership practice in schools (Day et al., 2000). In 2001 the National College for School Leadership (NCSL) funded research that explored successful leadership in schools facing challenging circumstances (Harris and Chapman, 2002). The research revealed that, although the heads were at different stages in their careers, of different ages, had different experiences and were working in very different situations, their approaches to leadership were remarkably similar. The evidence from this study pointed towards a form of leadership that was distributed through collaborative and joint working. The evidence showed that these successful heads led both the cognitive and the affective lives of the school, combining structural (developing clear goals), political (building alliances) and educational leadership (professional development and teaching improvement) with symbolic leadership principles (presence, inspiration) and distributed leadership practice (empowering others to lead). They were primarily transformational leaders who built self-esteem, enhanced professional competences and gave their staff the confidence and responsibility to lead development and innovation.

Barriers and benefits of distributed leadership

While research highlights benefits of distributed forms of leadership, there are inevitable and inherent difficulties associated with its widespread adoption and adaptation within schools. According to Harris (2004), it would be naïve to ignore the major structural, cultural and micro political barriers operating in schools that make distributed forms of leadership difficult to implement. Schools being traditional hierarchies, with

85

demarcations of positions and pay-scales, they are not going to be instantly responsive to a more fluid and distributed approach to leadership. Furthermore, there are inherent threats to status and the status quo in all that distributed leadership implies. Financial barriers also exist as formal leadership positions carry additional increments and in order to secure informal leadership, other incentives and alternative ways of remunerating staff is required.

In a study of a school where distributed leadership was being implemented, Ovando (1996) found that time to meet was a central component of success and in schools that were improving, teachers were given dedicated time to collaborate with one another. Her research also suggests that interpersonal factors, such as relationships with other teachers and school management were important. Conflicts between groups of teachers, such as those that do and do not take on leadership roles can lead to estrangement among teachers. This can make some staff become insecure and hostile. Overcoming these difficulties will require a combination of strong interpersonal skills on the part of the

‘teacher leader’ and a school culture that encourages change and leadership from teachers.

In a study on distributed leadership in the event of the recent educational reforms in Quebec, Yvon and Poirel (2012) offered counterexamples to the case studies presented by Spillane and Diamond (2006) illustrating distributed leadership in some American schools. According to the case studies performed in three schools in Quebec, they found that the school leader considers the curriculum reform as part of his duty and do not question its existence. However, he finds himself alone in the change process and is confronted by the teachers. Teachers are not invested and instead of finding solutions together, they are disengaged and rather mobilized to slow down the process. In such a situation the school leader believes that the school climate is at stake, but has no choice than to assume his administrative responsibilities. Such a situation does not favor distributed leadership.

In a recent study of distributed leadership in 52 schools in the north-east of the United States, Spillane, Camburn, Pustejovsky, Pareja & Lewis (2008) use percentage of staff with formal leadership roles as a measure of distributed leadership. They find that on

86

average 30% of all staff spend a portion of their time in a formally designated leadership role and 25% in a full time leadership position. Formal role designation is, however, only one indicator of distributed leadership. The second indicator of distribution involves measures of who performs those activities, functions and tasks that are involved in leading a group or organization. From electronic records, Spillane et al. (2008) show that the most frequently reported co-leader is a classroom teacher with no formal leadership role.

Murphy, Smylie, Mayrowetz and Seashore Louis (2009) study distributed leadership development in six schools in Mid-Atlantic States in America during three years. They find certain common features in schools where distributed leadership exists and is being developed.

Reshaping culture to encourage and support understandings and forms of leadership, where the key actor is the principal is the first important step. Then, developing teacher leadership by setting clear goals and objectives, and by creating communities of practice, again the principal has a determinant role. Principals are most effective in creating dense patterns of leadership when they are active in identifying leadership opportunities in the school; identify potential teachers to help meet these opportunities, and bringing people and opportunities together. Another essential dimension of distributed leadership is the opportunity structure created by the use of school level teams and action teams and empowering teachers to lead, communicate and connect with others both in formal and informal ways. Teachers’ support by the principal in a number of ways is seen to be an important success factor. In schools where distributed leadership could not happen, it is attributed to the principal not capable to develop a culture of shared leadership and unwillingness on the part of teachers to commit leadership outside the classroom.

Financial problems and constraints are also seen to have a negative impact on distributed leadership.

Murphy et al. (2009) conclude that according to teachers, stability at the top of the formal administrative ladder and the work of teacher leaders are essential to the health of the distributed leadership initiative. There is considerable evidence that the norms of

87

autonomy and isolation and the views of teaching as a private practice are being dismantled and expanded leadership is seen as a growth opportunity.

Considering the trend of research on distributed leadership, with the focus on the formal leader, Gronn (2009) commends a practical representation, putting emphasis on leadership as a unit of analysis, with holistic understandings rather than an aggregated picture focusing on individual leaders. The totality of such an arrangement represents a time-, space-, context-, and membership-bound configuration of influence-based relationships which he characterized as ‘hybrid’. He compares an organization with a natural system, whereby adaptation to the environment and structural changes which arise due to this adaptation, give each organization its specificity which he referred to as

‘hybridized configurations of leadership’.

Distributed leadership has been studied extensively and many interesting points can be concluded from the research findings. Distributed leadership is more about leadership capacity and it engages people at all levels. It encourages collaboration and collegiality;

however, it is beyond just working collaboratively. It emanates from the collaboration process. When people work together as learning teams, they develop certain skills and attitudes that promote distributed leadership and in turn this leads to professional development. It is a dynamic concept which is developed in certain specific conditions based on the context. It can only develop when there are opportunities to collaborate. The role of the school leader to provide the necessary climate and environment is crucial. It has been seen to be associated with transformational leadership as staff is empowered to assume high levels of functioning. Distributed leadership is attributed to the school leader who is capable to develop a culture of shared leadership. A great deterrent of distributed leadership remains the game of power and politics which should not be underestimated.

The different shades of shared and distributed leadership have been discussed and analysed. Although at first glance, they look very similar, a thorough and careful analysis reveals strategic differences. Distributed leadership seems to be most relevant to our modern schools as it is directly linked to collaborative work. We can say that it is at the very core of a Professional Learning Community.

88

In the next part of this section we will try to find out some favourable leadership models involving the whole school as an organization. Leadership, seen as a school collective capacity with the participation of everyone, leads to a Professional Learning Community.

Transformational, Instructional and Shared Leadership

While several scholars have written about the possible forms instructional leadership might take, the most ambitious attempt to study shared instructional leadership empirically was undertaken by Marks and Printy (2003). Their conclusion points the way towards one possible avenue of reconciliation for these constructs:

This study suggests that strong transformational leadership by the principal is essential in supporting the commitment of teachers.

Because teachers themselves can be barriers to the development of teacher leadership, transformational principals are needed to invite teachers to share leadership functions. When teachers perceive principal’s instructional leadership behaviours to be appropriate, they grow in commitment, professional involvement, and willingness to innovate. Thus, instructional leadership can itself be transformational (p.393)

The work of Marks and Printy shows the importance of all three types of leadership operating together for optimizing resources and leading to greater heights and achievements. Considering all the leadership qualities together, a blend of all these capabilities and practices seems to be necessary for improved instructions and greater students’ achievement.