DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP: EVIDENCE AND IMPLICATIONS

I. Introduction

The policy and professional context of schooling in

the last decade has shifted considerably in response to

increasing concerns about student achievement. Schools are

anxious to find new ways of securing and sustaining improved

performance. Evidence suggests that distributed leadership

is one potential contributor to positive change and

transformation in school systems. Alternatively proponents

of distributed leadership suggest that it offers a new way

of thinking about leadership in schools and provides a

powerful tool for transforming leadership practice.

The idea shared, collaborative or participative

leadership is far from new. The work of Spillane et

al.(2001) has sparked renewed interest in leadership as a

practice focusing particularly on the interactions between

leaders, followers, and their situation. This work on

distributed leadership theory reinforces that there are

multiple sources of influence within any organization and

of leadership work.

Distributed leadership is not something done by an

individual to others or a set of individual actions through

which people contribute to a group activity that works

through and within relationships rather than individual

action. Common across all these accounts is the idea that

leadership is not only the monopoly or responsibility of

just one person, with each suggesting a similar need for a

more collective and systematic understanding of leadership

as a social process.

II. Objective

At the end of the lesson, the learners will be

able to conceptualize the significance about the impact

of distributed leadership to its contribution of

knowledge and theory generation in the leadership

field.

III. Content
 Educational researchers have commonly endorsed

distributed leadership as the backbone to school

improvement. One considers MacBeath(2004:4) distinction

between distributed and distributive leadership, she

suggests that distributed leadership views leadership roles

as something “in the gift of a principal” which he/she

allocates magnanimously while holding on to power. On the

other hand, distributive leadership implies holding or

taking initiative as a right rather than it being bestowed

as gift.

Elmore(2000) put it that “Distributive leadership

takes place when people who have been appointed officially

as leaders (principals) become committed to building

learning organizations and providing opportunities for all

to give their gifts to develop their skills and to have

access to leadership that is not dependent on one’s “place”

in the hierarchy or formal organizational chart.”

In distributed leadership as Gronn (2002:655)

suggests, it is not only the principal leadership that

counts but also the leadership roles performed by deputy

heads, substantive teachers, support teachers, members of

Leadership is dispersed rather than concentrated and does

and does not necessarily give any particular individual or

categories of persons the privilege of providing more

leadership than others.

As Bolden (2004) elaborates, this approach argues

a less formalized model of leadership (where leadership

responsibility is dissociated from the organizational

hierarchy) individuals at all levels in the organization and

in all roles can exert leadership influence over their

colleagues and thus influence the overall direction of the

organization.

Viewed this way, Bennet distinguishing notions,

states that, Distributed leadership is not something “done”

by an individual “to” others or a set of individual actions

through which people contribute to a group or organisation.

Distributed leadership is a group activity that works

through and within relationships, rather than individual

action. It emerges from a variety of sources from a variety

of sources depending on the issue and who has the relevant

expertise or creativity.
 Furthermore, leadership style of granting

departmental heads and teachers free hand to carry out

shared responsibilities enables them to resolve most issues

affecting students.

Distributed leadership development and sustenance

in the school may be either promoted or inhibited by

internal and external factors. Below sumps up major

promoters and inhibitors.

Evidence and Implications for professional practice and

policy

Administrators acknowledge distributed leadership

as a tool for promoting pupils learning and improving the

performance of their school. Yet, the aspect that of

distribution that requires a principal to relinquish his/her

role at times as ultimate decision maker and trusting others

to make the right decision remains problematic.

Resolving this dilemma has policy implication for

school accountability. Once a schools position on league

tables continues to determine its success and for that

matter the effectiveness of its leadership, administrators

through monitoring, scrutiny of data and performance

management. This tend to make the teachers apathetic towards

participating in leadership.

Another contemporary evidence base concerning

distributed leadership is still evolving and emerging. The

work by Graetz (2000) presents distributed leadership as a

positive channel for change. He notes that, “organizations

most successful in managing the dynamics of loose-tight

working relationships meld strong personalized leadership at

the top with distributed leadership”

In their work, Fitzgerald and Gunter (2007) also

suggest that the leadership merely cements authority and

hierarchy whereby “leaders monitor teachers and their work

to ensure a set of pre-determined standards are met”.

Conversely, the empirical evidence shows that the authority

and hierarchy are more likely to be challenged by teacher

leaders and that role of leader is not one imposed upon

teachers or used monitors performance.

or bad thing. It depends. Distributing leadership does not

automatically result in organizational improvement. Much

depends on how the way in which leadership is distributed

and for what is purpose. We need to know much more about the

nature and extent of this influence. The empirical evidence

is encouraging but far for conclusive. We need to know much

more about barriers, unintended consequences and limitations

of distributed leadership before any advice or prescription.

We need to know the limitations and pitfalls as well as the

opportunities and potential of this model of leadership

practice.

The important implications and offering

prescription. As we have seen, the remainder of this topic

will steer away from solutions and offer general

observations about the future leadership and leadership

development based on what we actually know about distributed

leadership practice. The principal sets the strategic

direction for the school to orchestrate the talent and

leadership capability of others to move the school forward.

This shift in the principal’s significant in a number of

authority which will be difficult for some principals to

undertake. Second, it requires a shift away from leadership

as position to leadership as interaction. Third, it requires

a high degree of reciprocal trust to negotiate successfully

the fault lines of formal and paid responsibility to fulfill

a leadership role. Effective principals will be able to

harness both and will ensure that the blend of distributed

leadership practice and activity contributes to school

development and improvement.

IV. Evaluation

1. What meanings are attributed to the term distributed

leadership?

2. When is leadership most appropriately shared?

3. How does one utilize shared leadership to leverage

the capabilities of knowledge workers?

V. References

Links:

https://www.leeds.ac.uk
 https://www.academia.edu/4828426/Distributed_leadership

_implications_for_the_role_of_principals

https://ddis.wceruw.orgs/docs/SpillaneHalversonDiamond2

004JCS.pdf