Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research

Volume 13, Issue 3 September 2018

epasr.penpublishing.net

ISSN: 1949-4270 (Print) 1949-4289 (Online)

Understanding Democratic and Distributed Leadership: How Democratic Leadership of

School Principals Related to Distributed Leadership in Schools?

Derya Kilicoglu

To cite this article

Kilicoglu, D. (2018). Understanding Democratic and Distributed Leadership: How Democratic Leadership of School Principals Related to
Distributed Leadership in Schools?. Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(3), 6-23. doi: 10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1

Published Online September 29, 2018

Article Views 5 single - 18 cumulative

Article Download 15 single - 22 cumulative

DOI https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1

Pen Academic is an independent international publisher committed to publishing academic books, journals, encyclopedias, handbooks of research of the highest
quality in the fields of Education, Social Sciences, Science and Agriculture. Pen Academic created an open access system to spread the scientific knowledge freely.
For more information about PEN, please contact: [email protected]

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300

Pen Academic Publishing, Canakkale/Turkey

Telephone: +90 286 243 06 66 | Fax: +90 286 213 08 00 | [email protected] | www.penpublishing.net
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Understanding Democratic and Distributed Leadership: How Democratic

Leadership of School Principals Related to Distributed Leadership in Schools?

Derya Kılıçoğlu
Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine democratic and distributed leadership perceptions of
teachers in their school and to explore the relationship between democratic and distributed leadership.
This study intended to enrich and expand scholarly reflections on democratic and distributed
leadership as regards considering the association between them, thereby deepening our understanding
of leadership. Correlational research design was used as a research design in the study. Study
population included teachers working at high schools in Eskisehir district in Turkey. Stratified
sampling was used as a sampling method. The study sample included 462 teachers working at high
schools. Descriptive statistics for democratic leadership suggested that respondent teachers perceive
democratic leadership in their school in moderate level. Support and supervision were perceived as
distributed leadership functions of the leadership team in schools. Regarding the leadership team
characteristics, it was concluded that leadership teams are moderately perceived as coherent. The
study results also revealed that there is a strong relationship between democratic leadership,
distribution of leadership functions and coherent leadership team characteristics.

Keywords: Democratic leadership, distributed leadership, school principals.

DOI: 10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1

---------------------------

Derya Kılıçoğlu, Assist. Prof. Dr., Faculty of Education, Eskişehir Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey

Email: [email protected]

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Introduction

The idea that leadership need to be distributed to be most effective in enhancing learning in
schools gains a powerful momentum in leadership studies. In order to increase student learning,
creating a culture of sharing responsibility and leadership in schools, not merely among school
members but collectively within the community, plays an important role (Louis, Leithwood, Wahl-
strom, & Anderson, 2010). Even though school leaders are key agents to promote students in receiving
learning opportunities and to sustain continuous improvement in schools, the traditional view of a
leader has been changing. Leaders at the organizational apex are not believed as the unique sources of
change and vision in school organizations (Woods, 2005). New tendencies for leading and managing
schools are asserted to be based on shared responsibilities of all members of the learning community
in participative environments (Delgado, 2014). Since school improvement is difficult to be performed
merely by school leaders, meaningful involvement of students, teachers, and parents in planning or
implementation processes is necessary. It cannot be assumed that school improvement could be
meaningfully succeeded and sustained only by the efforts of the school leaders. Democratic
approaches of leadership (Gunter, 2001; Harris et al., 2003) have been proposed to address the
challenges that the schools face with (Delgado, 2014).

In schools where democratic approaches are embraced, all school members engage to work as
a team in the decision making, implementation or monitoring processes, and sense of ownership is
developed with the participation of all school members. Therefore, democratic schools can easily cope
with the challenges that the schools are facing by exceeding the capabilities of individual leaders
through the participation of all school members. By means of using democratic approaches, decision
making authority is spread throughout the school by providing all school members opportunity to
participate in key decisions in schools (Delgado, 2014). Shared, collective and democratic leadership
approaches have been addressed as the most affective approaches for providing responsibilities to lead
and manage change and school improvement.

Distributed leadership where two or more individuals are in the practice of the principalship is
pointed as an example of democratic leadership (Woods, 2005). It is assumed that distributed
leadership fits within the collective and democratic approaches (Delgado, 2014). Indeed, distributed
leadership emerged as an alternative to charismatic leadership, which portrays super talented
characteristics with a single figure that persuade, inspire or direct followers towards the goals of
organizational success (Hartley, 2007; Woods, 2005), is believed to be more likely to have an
influence on student outcomes compared to traditional top-down leadership (Bell, Bolam & Cubillo,
2002, Silins & Mulford, 2002). Distribution of leadership roles and responsibilities is asserted to be
associated with improvement of pupil outcomes and development of students as human beings and
active participants (Day et al., 2009; Kensler, 2010; Woods, 2011). Distributed leadership also

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

enables change in educational performance and organizational culture (Avissar, Alkaher & Gan,
2017). In this context, distributed leadership is asserted to open up the boundaries of leadership
beyond those in formal leadership positions and challenge hierarchies in school organizations. It is
also indicated that distributed leadership is effectively performed in schools where an atmosphere of
trust, collegiality and cooperation exist. Indeed, the schools in the communities with democratic values
and devolution of power will provide a sound ground for adoption of distributed leadership (Saadi,
Hussain, Bhutta, Perveen, Kazmi & Ahmad, 2009).

There are several empirical investigations of democratic and distributed leadership that help
refine the theory and shed light on educational leadership literature. Even though the distinctiveness of
democratic leadership in comparison with distributed leadership is delineated (Woods, 2004), these
two leadership styles or approaches are related in the broadest sense like Spillane and Sherer (2004)
noted as “scholars and practitioners often use shared leadership, democratic leadership and distributed
leadership interchangeably, suggesting that, at least for some, distributed leadership may be no more
than a new label for a familiar phenomena” (p.3). While in some cases, these terms are used
interchangeably, some scholars describe those terms differ in meaning by trying to indicate fine
distinctions (Oduro, 2004). Even though there is considerable attention to these leadership approaches,
it is obvious that there is a definitional problem is further evident in the leadership literature and it is
suggested that distributed leadership is the repackaging of familiar leadership concepts (Lakomski,
2005; Storey, 2004). There is therefore a need to understand how distributed and democratic
leadership are interrelated.

The purpose of this study is to determine democratic and distributed leadership perceptions of
teachers in their school and to explore the relationship between democratic and distributed leadership.
The questions that guided the research were twofold:

 How do teachers perceive democratic and distributed leadership in schools?

 What is the relationship between democratic and distributed leadership in schools?

From this point of view, this study intended to enrich and expand scholarly reflections on
democratic and distributed leadership as regards considering the association between them, thereby
deepening our understanding of leadership.

Democratic Leadership

Democratic leadership has flowed in popularity throughout the history of education and
repackaged numerous times by the educational theorists and researchers (Klinker, 2006). Indeed, the
ideas about democratic leadership developed in the late 1930s, experiment undertaken by Kurt Lewin

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

and Ronald Lippitt in the United States. In the experiment, three groups of school children operated
under three differential leadership styles: authoritarian, democratic and laissez-faire. The authoritarian
leader offers clear expectations about what will be done, when and how. All decisions are taken by
authoritarian leader with minimum input from other group members. The democratic leader offers
guidance to group members with participating in the group and encouraging member involvement in
decision making while laissez-faire leader offers little or no guidance to group members with leaving
all decision-making up to group members. Each three group took place in common activity project in
the experiment and democratic leadership found as the most effective of the three leadership styles
regarding the fact that group members feel more engaged and motivated, work together more
cooperatively and creatively. However, the members in the authoritarian group were found as less
creative, more dissatisfied and uninvolved. Similarly, the members in laissez-faire group were found
as the least productive showing little cooperation and satisfaction (Rustin & Armstrong, 2012). As in
the experiment, it is clear that democratic leadership facilitates leaders’ and others’ growth toward
human potential (Woods, 2005). Indeed, the heart of democratic leadership rests a respect for what is
to be human, a sense of cultivation of the common good, and the individual freedom to act according
to one’s direction (McClain, Ylimaki & Ford, 2010). Therefore, democratic leadership created an
environment in which people are encouraged and supported in aspiring to truth in an open-hearted way
(Woods, 2005, p.xvi).

Democratic leadership is concerned with meaningful participation and decision making to

establish conditions for respectful relationships, collaborative associations, active cooperation, and
enable the formation of social, learning and culturally responsive educational organizations, in part by
employing strategies for achievement, enabling particular conversations and struggling to determine
what is needed, when, and how to get there in specific situations by developing a politically informed
commitment to justice for all (Gale & Densmore, 2010). It is also necessary to state that “democratic
leadership entails rights to meaningful participation and respect for and expectations toward everyone
as ethical beings” (Woods, 2004, p.4).

Democratic leadership based on philosophical tradition of Dewey’s pragmatism cultivates “an

environment that supports participation, sharing of ideas, and the virtues of honesty, openness,
flexibility and compassion” (Starratt, 2001, p. 338). Indeed, democratic leadership implies that school
principals are responsible to build educational organizations around central democratic values such as
supporting equity and social justice, as well as in the wider community. It emphasizes social justice,
dignity, rights and welfare of minorities and all individuals in the school. Democratic leadership
requires value base of leadership practice and the processes creating or sustaining social justice,
empowerment and community (Harris, Moos, Møller, Robertson & Spillane, 2007; Møller, 2003). By
means of balancing power and trust in leadership and management areas of the school, empowerment

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

can be achieved which in turn creates a stimulating learning environment where students develop as
citizens (Harris, et al., 2007).

Educational administration studies of democratic school leadership have frequently focused on

how principals show democratic behaviors, use cooperative relationships and shared decision making
in schools to improve schools, and some of the research emphasized the relationship between some
organizational variables (Adeyemi & Adu, 2013; Bhatti, Maitlo, Shaikh, Hashmi, & Shaikh, 2012;
Blasé & Blasé, 1997; Blasé, Blasé, Anderson & Dungan, 1995; Bozdoğan & Sağnak, 2011; Harris &
Chapman, 2002; Mbera, 2015; Riley, 2003; Terzi & Derin, 2016; Yörük & Kocabaş, 2001).

Distributed Leadership

Distributed leadership has come to prominence in school management and leadership

discourse as means to provide teachers participation and empowerment in schools (Torrance, 2013).
School leaders may not accomplish all the leadership tasks alone in the school and request for support
from school staff because it is clear that “the common ideal of a heroic leader is obsolete […] the task
of transforming schools is too complex one person to accomplish single handedly” (Lashway, 2003, p.
1). Therefore, school leaders have to run the school with multiple leaders to perform all leadership
functions, allow teachers to participate in decision making processes and enhance mutual
reinforcement (Gronn, 2002; Leithwood, Mascall, Strauss, Sacks, Memon & Yashkina, 2007; Wai-
Yan Wan, Hau-Fai Law & Chan, 2017). Since large schools with task complexity and large amount of
school members may lead to limited daily interaction of school staff, traditional view of school
leadership is left in favor of distributed leadership (Gronn, 2002).

There is variety of meanings attached to the concept of distributed leadership in leadership

literature (Bennett, Wise, Woods & Harvey, 2003; Woods, 2004). This favored notion is defined as
emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals in which group members pool their
expertise (Gronn, 2002; Woods, Bennett, Harvey & Wise, 2004). Indeed, distributed leadership
highlights a multi-faceted leadership, involving both formal and informal leadership positions
(Torrance, 2013). As Harris affirms that leadership “is shared and collected endeavor that engages all
members of the organization” (2003, p.75), distributed leadership challenges the traditional trait of
individualistic leader. Distributed leadership is noteworthy in that it is enacted collaboratively as two
or more leaders engage in a particular situation (Spillane, 2006). Specifically, leadership that is
distributed among all school staff provides multiple leaders, formally recognized or not, practice in a
wide range of leadership and management activities in schools (Spillane, Halverson & Diamond,
2004). Following the same line of thought, distributed leadership is “a shared process of enhancing the
individual and collective capacity of people to accomplish their work effectively” (Yukl, 2002, p.
432).

10

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

In regard to the origin of distributed leadership, it was pointed out that there is a
tendency to move away from the heroic leadership style to an approach focusing on distribution of
leadership among school staff due to questioning the “single leadership” paradigm and the complexity
of school leaders’ tasks (Bush & Glover, 2003; Goleman, 2002; Harris, 2004; Hartley, 2007). In
distributed leadership perspective, leadership is not considered as a school leader’s characteristic,
knowledge or skill, rather it is regarded as a process based on daily interactions or functions of
multiple leaders in the school and the situation, including organizational routines, structures and tools
(Spillane, 2005; Spillane et al., 2004). As Spillane (2006) asserted that distributed leadership is
stretched over a number of individuals and based on expertise, rather than hierarchical authority
(Bennett et al., 2003; Woods et al., 2004). Indeed, distributed leadership provides a way of thinking
about the practice of school leadership (Gronn, 2002; Spillane et al., 2004). As Bolden (2004)
elaborates distribution of leadership is a less formalized model of leadership, separated from the
organizational hierarchy, provides individuals at all levels leadership influence and roles, as cited in
Oduro (2004). Thus, the responsibilities for leadership functions can be distributed on multiple leaders
working in a coordinated manner (Heller & Firestone, 1995; Spillane, 2005) Existing scholarship
shows that the core functions of leadership are necessary to be distributed. Leadership functions
involves setting directions and articulating a school vision, developing and stimulating teachers,
monitoring and evaluating teachers’ performance (Hulpia, Devos & Rosseel, 2009, Spillane, 2005).
By distributing leadership functions to other people in the school, the workload of school leaders is
expected to decrease (Hulpia & Devos, 2009).

The mainstay of the literature regarding distributed leadership appears to focus on

educational organizations (Baloğlu, 2011; Currie, Lockett & Suhomliinova, 2009; Gosling, Bolden &
Petrov, 2009; Gunter, Hall & Bragg, 2013; Harris, 2008; Leithwood, Mascall & Strauss, 2009,
Özdemir, 2012; Spillane, 2006; Williams, 2011). These is evidence to show that where school staff
work collaboratively and leadership responsibilities are distributed, teachers’ expectations, morale,
confidence, professional development, stimulation and enjoyment in schools are enhanced (Court,
2003; Hulpia & Devos, 2009). Furthermore, distribution of leadership contributes to school
effectiveness and improvement (Harris, Muijs & Crawford, 2003; Harris et al., 2007; Silins &
Mulford, 2004). Distributed leadership also enhances teachers’ job satisfaction since working
collectively foster the teachers’ feelings about being valued and supported in schools (Ereş &
Akyürek, 2016; Hulpia & Devos, 2009). In addition, distributed leadership is asserted as potential
contributor to positive change and transformation in schools (Harris et al., 2007), as well as enhancing
organizational trust, organizational support and school success (Ereş & Akyürek, 2016; Yılmaz &
Turan, 2015).

11

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

METHOD

Study Design

The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between democratic and distributed
leadership from teachers’ point of view. Correlational research design was used to test whether
democratic leadership of school principals is related to distributed leadership in schools.

Participants

Study population included teachers working at high schools in Eskisehir district in Turkey.
Stratified sampling was used as a sampling method in the study. The study sample included 462
teachers working at high schools. Different type of 22 high schools included in the sample was
determined regarding their socio economic environment. Based on the information obtained from
teachers and Eskişehir Provincial Directorate of National Education, the high schools were separated
into three groups: lower, middle and upper layers. Of the selected high schools, 9 of them were
Anatolian high school, 6 of them were one of them was social sciences high school, 3 of them were
high school and 4 of them were science high school, social sciences high school, İmam Hatip high
school and teacher training high school. Of the respondent teachers, men (n=240) and women (n=217)
were close in number and their ages were between 25 and 62 years (M=41.72, SD=8.28). Great
majority of the sample (80.3%) hold the degree of Bachelor of Arts and the average work experience
of the participants was 18.48 years. Demographic characteristics of the study sample were presented in
Table 1.

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the study sample

Total/
1 2 3 4 5 6 response
Options rate
Women Men
Gender n 217 240 457*
% 47.0 51.9 98.9
25-35 36-45 46-55 56+ years
years years years
Age 26
n 88 218 108 440*
% 19.0 47.2 23.4 5.6 95.2
M 41.72
S
D 8.28
Education Pre B.A. Graduate Graduate
level bachelor program program program
program (MA) (Ph.D.)
n 15 371 63 7 456*
% 3.2 80.3 13.6 1.5 98.7
11-20 21-30 30+ years
Work
1-10 years years years
experience
n 63 219 122 38 442*

12

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

% 13.6 47.4 26.4 8.2 95.7

M 18.48
S
D 7.54
Turkish Mathemati English Biology History Other
language cs language
Field of and
experience literature
n 75 52 48 27 23 225 450*
% 16.2 11.3 10.4 5.8 5.0 48.7 97.4
Note. * There are missing parts in the data collection tool that participants did not answer all the items.
Data Collection Tools

The data of the study were collected through two scales. The first one was Leadership Style
Questionnaire, which was used to determine democratic leadership style of school principals. The
second one was Distributed Leadership Inventory (DLI), which was used to identify distributed
leadership in the school, based on the teachers’ view. Moreover, demographic characteristics of the
participants were collected via specific questionnaire items.

Leadership Style Questionnaire

Leadership Style Questionnaire developed by Northouse (2011) was administered on

participants in the study. The questionnaire provides three subscales with 18 items measuring
autocratic, democratic and laissez faire leadership styles. Since the present survey emphasized on
democratic leadership styles of school principals, only the subscale measuring democratic leadership
style was used. Democratic leadership subscale of the questionnaire comprised of six items. After
adaptation of the questionnaire into Turkish language, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was used
to determine construct validity of the scale. The CFA results revealed acceptable goodness of fit
indices (∆χ2=36.09, ∆df =9, ∆χ2/∆df ==4.27, RMSEA=.09, AGFI=.91, GFI=.97, SRMR=.034) which
indicate that the scale items fit the collected data (Hu & Bentler 1998; Jöreskog & Sörbom 2001;
MacCallum, Browne & Sugawara 1996). Furthermore, the reliability of the current study was analyzed
and the Cronbach Alpha coefficient was found as .87, which shows an acceptable internal consistency,
as shown in Table 2.

Distributed Leadership Inventory (DLI)

Distributed Leadership Inventory (DLI) developed by Hulpia and her colleagues (2009). The
inventory comprised two parts focusing on distributed leadership functions of the members of the
leadership team and characteristics of the leadership team. Leadership functions past of the inventory
identify whether supportive leadership behavior and supervising are achieved in the school leadership
team. Leadership team characteristics emphasize a clear management framework characterized by
group cohesion. Leadership functions were measured by 13 scale items with two sub-scales (support
and supervision) while leadership characteristics were measured by 10 scale items.

13

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to confirm the underlying two-component

structures for the leadership functions of the leadership team and one-component structure of
leadership team characteristics. The first CFA was carried out on the items corresponding to the
leadership functions. The analysis assure that the two-factor model of the leadership functions
revealed good model fit results (∆χ2= 252.47, ∆df = 60, ∆χ2/∆df = 4.20, RMSEA=.09, AGFI=.87,
GFI=.91, SRMR=.027). The second CFA was conducted on the items corresponding to the
characteristics of the leadership team. The one-factor model of the leadership team characteristics was
fit for the scale and indicated acceptable goodness of fit indices (∆χ2=169.32, ∆df=30, ∆χ2/∆df=5.64,
RMSEA=.10, AGFI=.87, GFI=.93, SRMR=.021). The two CFA indicated that the scale items fit the
collected data (Hu & Bentler 1998; Jöreskog & Sörbom 2001; MacCallum, Browne & Sugawara,
1996).

The reliability of the scores of the DLI was determined through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.
The scores of the coherent leadership team characteristics had a high internal consistency (α = .98).
The internal consistencies of the leadership functions were as follows: support scale scores were high
(α = .96) and the scores of the supervision scale had high reliability coefficient (α = .95) as well, as
shown in Table 2.

Table 2. Fit statistics for confirmatory factor analysis and cronbach alpha values

2
Model ∆χ2 ∆df ∆χ /∆df GFI AGFI SRMR RMSEA α

Democratic leadership 36.09 9 4.27 .97 .91 .034 .09 .87

DLI-Leadership 252.47 60 4.20 .91 .87 .027 .09 .97

functions
*Support .96
*Supervision .95
DLI-Leadership team 169.32 30 5.64 .93 .87 .021 .10 .98
characteristics

Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as mean and standard deviation were used in the study to determine
democratic and distributed leadership in schools. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to
determine the correlation between democratic and distributed leadership. Path analysis was used
through structural equation modeling to test developed theoretical model which asserts that democratic
leadership is related to distributed leadership in schools. IBM SPSS Statistics 20 and LISREL 8.7
software were used for statistical analyses in the study.

14

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Findings

The mean, standard deviations, and the correlation coefficients between democratic and
distributed leadership are presented in Table 3. Descriptive statistics for democratic leadership suggest
that respondent teachers perceive democratic leadership in their school in moderate level (M= 3.43;
SD= .78). Descriptive statistics also showed that support (M= 3.38; SD=1.07) and supervision (M=
3.47; SD= 1.11) are perceived as distributed leadership functions of the leadership team in schools.
Indeed, the results suggested that supervision is more equally distributed among the leadership team
than support according to the respondents. Regarding the leadership team characteristics, it was
concluded that leadership teams are moderately perceived as coherent (M= 2.97; SD= .91).

Before testing the theoretical model which investigates the relationship between
democratic and distributed leadership, Pearson correlation was conducted to determine the correlation
between democratic and distributed leadership in schools. As seen in Table 3, positive relations,
ranged between moderate to strong, were found between democratic leadership, leadership functions
and leadership characteristics of distributed leadership.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between democratic and distributed
leadership

M SD Skewness Kurtosis 1 2 3 4

1.Democratic leadership 3.43 .78 -.42 .31 - .59* .52* .58*

2.DLI-Leadership 3.38 1.07 -.42 -.60 .59* - .85* .66*
functions-distribution of
support
3.DLI-Leadership 3.47 1.11 -.52 -.50 .52* .85* - .62*
functions-distribution of
supervision
4.DLI-Leadership 2.97 .91 -.34 -.54 .58* .66* .62* -
characteristics
Note. * Correlation is significant (p< .01)

Path analysis was conducted to determine the correlations between variables by calculating the
goodness of fit indices for the developed model. The goodness of fit indices of the theoretical model
which are presented in Table 4 determined with GFI, AGFI, SRMR, RMSEA, Δχ2 and Δχ2 / Δdf ratio
statistics. GFI, AGFI, SRMR and RMSEA goodness of fit values were considered as the indication
that the theoretical model was suitable for the obtained data (Hoyle, 2012; Hu & Bentler 1998;
Jöreskog & Sörbom 2001; MacCallum et al., 1996).

15

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Table 4. Goodness of fit statistics for the theoretical model

2 2
Model ∆χ ∆df ∆ χ /∆df GFI AGFI SRMR RMSEA

1 418.94 109 3.84 .90 .86 .060 .08

The results of the path analysis conducted on the theoretical model to determine the
correlation between democratic and distributed leadership are presented in Figure 1. The first part and
the independent variable of the model of structural equation designed between democratic and
distributed leadership, the democratic leadership scale included 6 observed variables. The second part
and the dependent variable of the structural equation model, distributed leadership includes two sub-
scales, leadership team characteristics and distributed leadership functions. Leadership team
characteristics included 10 observed variables while distributed leadership functions involved 13
observed variables.

When the relations between democratic and distributed leadership were examined through t-
test in the model, the study results revealed that there is a strong relationship between democratic
leadership, distribution of leadership functions and coherent leadership team characteristics. In the
model, democratic leadership explained .71 standard deviation variance of distributed leadership
functions while democratic leadership explained .70 standard deviation variance of coherent
leadership team characteristics, as shown in Figure 1.

Distribution of
leadership functions
.71

Democratic leadership
.70
Coherent leadership
team characteristics

Figure 1. Model for democratic and distributed leadership

16

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Discussion, Conclusion and Suggestions

This article focuses on democratic and distributed leadership in schools as perceived

by teachers. The main purpose of the study was to determine democratic and distributed leadership
perceptions of teachers and to examine how democratic leadership is associated with distributed
leadership in schools. In conducting such an empirical research about democratic and distributed
leadership in schools, it was responded to close the gap that exists in the literature concerning the
relationship between democratic and distributed leadership approaches.

Descriptive statistics results revealed that democratic leadership was shown in moderate level
in schools. This means that school principals provide meaningful group participation and decision
making with enabling collaborative associations and cooperation in schools (White & Lippitt, 1969;
Woods, 2004). Furthermore, support and supervision were perceived as distributed leadership
functions of the leadership team in the current study. This shows that supporting leadership behaviors
of school members, providing instructional support, supervising and monitoring teachers regarding
their performance are core functions of distributed leadership in schools (Blasé & Blasé, 2002;
Hallinger, 2003; Hoy & Tarter, 1997; Southworth, 2002). It was also concluded that leadership is
distributed among members of the leadership team, which were moderately perceived as coherent.
This means that leadership team in schools have unambiguous roles known and accepted by school
members (Chrispeels, Castionno & Brown, 2000; Grubb & Flessa, 2006; Hulpia et al., 2009; Sanders,
2006), trust communicate and cooperate with each other (Holtz, 2004).

The result in this study also revealed that there is a strong relationship between democratic
leadership, distribution of leadership functions and coherent leadership team characteristics. Even
though it is asserted in the related literature that democratic leadership is not synonymous for
distributed leadership, distributed perspective in leadership practice allows for leadership can be
democratic or autocratic (Spillane, 2005) and leadership is stretched over multiple individuals in a
school with different type of functions or activities (Spillane, 2005; Spillane & Camburn, 2006).
Based on the study findings, it can be concluded that democratic leadership is significantly associated
with coherent leadership team and distributed leadership functions such as distribution of support and
supervision. As Woods asserts that ‘Democracy adds to the emergent character of distributed
leadership the notion that everyone, by virtue of their human status, should play a part in democratic
agency’ (2004, p. 12). Since characteristics of democratic leadership are distributing responsibility
among members, encouraging, cooperating, guiding, empowering group members, permitting self-
determination and aiding decision making process of the group (Gastil, 1994; Kuczmarski &
Kuczmarski, 1995), democratic leadership can pave way for distributed leadership in schools.
Furthermore, it is implicit that distributed leadership is related to more democratic and equitable forms
of schooling (Harris, 2011).

17

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Although this study sheds new light on the relationship between democratic and distributed
leadership, this research was not without limitations, and a number of steps could be taken in future
research to elaborate and extend the perspectives put forth in the present study. Firstly, limitation of
the research instruments is acknowledged in the study. Date collection is limited by a number of items
directed to the participants in the survey measuring democratic leadership in one aspect with six items,
and just two core leadership functions of distributed leadership. However, it is obvious that the role of
school leaders is too complex and more functions are performed by school leaders. Therefore, it is
advisable to extend the study by investigating the relationship between democratic leadership and
distribution of other leadership functions. Future studies can also expand democratic leadership
instrument to get a more in-depth approach. Moreover, “leadership team” concept for distributed
leadership was described participants as school principals and leader teachers in the school. However,
some schools may not have teacher leaders and respond the survey only by considering the school
principal or some schools may have multiple leaders including stakeholders. However, the role of
policy-makers or parents needs to be thought as regards developing a cooperative team for the goals of
the school by working collaboratively and advancing democratic approaches in schools.

References

Adeyemi, T. O., & Adu, E. T. (2013). Head teachers’ leadership styles’ and teachers job satisfaction in
primary schools in Ekiti State, Nigeria. International Journal of Academic Research in
Economics and Management Sciences, 2(2), 69-79.
Al-Momani, M., & Ajlouni, M. H. (2018). The practice degree of democratic behaviors of male and female
principals at the public basic schools in their task performance in Bani Obeid District, from the
standpoints of their teachers. Review of European Studies, 10(3), 12-27. doi:
10.5539/res.v10n3p12
Avissar,I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2017). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming
environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study.
International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education. doi:10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0105
Baloğlu, N. (2011). Dağıtımcı liderlik: Okullarda dikkate alınması gereken bir liderlik yaklaşımı
[Distributed leadership: A leadership approach that should be taken into account in the
schools]. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 12(3), 127-148.
Bell, L., Bolam, R., and Cubillo, L. (2002). A systematic review of the impact of school leadership and
management on student outcomes. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London: EPPI-
Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London.(Available
at http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk)
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership (Full Report).
Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

18

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Bhatti, N., Maitlo, G. M., Shaikh, N., Hashmi, M. A., & Shaikh, F. M. (2012). The impact of autocratic and
democratic leadership style on job satisfaction. International Business Research, 5(2), 192-201.
doi: 10.5539/ibr.v5n2p192
Blasé, J., & J. Blasé. (2002). The micropolitics of instructional supervision: A call for research.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 6-44. doi: 10.1177/0013161X02381002
Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1997). The fire is back? Principals sharing school governance. Thousand Oaks, CA.
Corwin Press.
Blasé, J., Blasé, J., Anderson, G., & Dungan, S. (1995). Democratic principals in action. Thousand Oaks,
CA. Corwin Press.
Bolden, R. (2004). What is leadership? Leadership South West Research Report. (Available at
www.leadershipsouthwest.com)
Bozdoğan, K., & Sağnak, M. (2011). İlköğretim okulu müdürlerinin liderlik davranışları ile öğrenme iklimi
arasındaki ilişki [The relationship between primary school principals’ leadership behaviors and
learning climate]. Abant İzzet Baysal Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(1), 137-145.
Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2003). School leadership: Concepts and evidence (Full Report). Nottingham, UK:
National College for School Leadership.
Chrispeels, J., Castillo, S., & Brown, J. (2000). School leadership teams: A process model of team
development. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(1), 20-56.
Court, M. (2003). Different approaches to sharing school leadership (Full Report). Nottingham: National
College for School Leadership.
Currie, G., Lockett, A., & Suhomlinova, O. (2009). The institutionalization of distributed leadership: a
‘Catch-22’ in English public services. Human Relations, 62, 1735-1761.
Day, C, Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Harris A., Leithwood, K., Gu, Q., et al. (2009). The impact of school,
leadership on pupil outcomes: Final report (Research Report No. DCSF-RR108). London:
Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Delgado, M. L. (2014). Democratic leadership in middle schools of Chihuahua Mexico: Improving middle
schools through democracy. Journal of International Education and Leadership, 4(1), 1-12.
Ereş, F., & Akyürek, M. İ. (2016). İlköğretim müdürlerinin dağıtılmış liderlik davranışları ile öğretmenlerin
iş doyumu algıları arasındaki ilişki düzeyi [Relationship between distributed leadership
behaviors of principals and the teachers’ perception of job satisfaction]. Gazi Üniversitesi Gazi
Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 36(3), 427-449.
Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2010). Democratic educational leadership in comtemporary times. International
Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 6(2), 119-136. doi:
10.1080/13603120304819
Gastil, J. (1994). A definition and illustration of democratic leadership. Human Relations, 47, 954-971.
Goleman, D. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of leadership into science of results. London:
Little, Brown.

19

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Gosling, J., Bolden, R. and Petrov, G. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education: what does it
accomplish? Leadership, 5, 299-310.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp. 653-696). Boston,
MA/Dordrecht/London: Kluwer.
Grubb, W. N., & Flessa, J. J. (2006). A job too big for one: Multiple principals and other nontraditional
approaches to school leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(4), 518-550. doi:
10.1177/0013161X06290641
Gunter, H. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London: Chapman.
Gunter, H., Hall, D., & Bragg, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: A study in knowledge production.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 555-580. doi:
10.1177/1741143213488586
Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading educational change: Reflections on the practice of instructional and
transformational leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership and school improvement. In A. Harris, C. Day, D. Hopkins, M.
Hadfield, A. Hargreaves & C. Chapman (Eds.), Effective leadership for school improvement.
London: Routledge Falmer.
Harris, A. (2004). Distributed leadership and school improvement: Leading or misleading? Educational
Management Administration and Leadership, 32, 11-24.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed school leadership: Developing tomorrow’s leaders. London: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2011). Distributed leadership: Implications for the role of the principal. Journal of Management
Development, 31(1), 7-17. doi: 10.1108/02621711211190961
Harris, A., & Chapman, C. (2002). Democratic leadership for school improvement in challenging contexts.
International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 6(9). ISSN 1206-9620 (Available
at https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/75099/1/75099.pdf)
Harris, A., D. Muijs, & M. Crawford. (2003). Deputy and assistant heads: Building leadership potential
(Full Report). Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Harris, A., Day, C., Hopkins, D., Hadfield, M., Hargreaves, A., & Chapman, C. (2003). Effective
leadership for school improvement. London: Routledge Falmer.
Harris, A., Moos, L., Møller, J., Robertson, J., & Spillane J. (2007). Challenging leadership practice:
Exploring different perspectives and approaches to the practice of school leadership. National
College for School Leadership.
Hartley, D. (2007). The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of
Educational Studies, 55(2), 202-214.doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8527.2007.00371.x
Heller, M. E, & W. A. Firestone. (1995). Who's in charge here? Sources of leadership for change in eight
schools. Elementary School Journal, 96(1), 65-86.
Holtz, R. (2004). Group cohesion, attitude projection, and opinion certainty: Beyond interaction. Group
Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 8(2), 112-125. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.8.2.112

20

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler., P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2009). Exploring the link between distributed leadership and job satisfaction of
school leaders. Educational Studies, 35(2), 153-171. doi: 10.1080/03055690802648739
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Rosseel, Y. (2009). Development and validation of scores on the distributed
leadership inventory. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69(6), 1013-1034. doi:
10.1177/0013164409344490
Jöreskog, K. G., & D. Sörbom. 2001. LISREL 8.51. Mooresvile: Scientific Software.
Kensler, L. A. W. (2010). Designing democratic community for social justice. International Journal of
Urban Educational Leadership, 4(1), 1-21.
Klinker, J. (2006). Qualities of democracy: Links to democratic leadership. Journal of Thought, 41(2), 51-
63.
Kuczmarski, S. S., & Kuczmarski, T. D. (1995). Values-based leadership. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Lakomski, G. (2005). Managing without leadership. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lashway, L. (2003). Distributed leadership. In Clearing house on Educational Management (CEPM).
College of Education, University of Oregon, Research Roundup 19, 4.
Leithwood, K., B. Mascall, T. Strauss, R. Sacks, N. Memon, & A. Yashkina. (2007). Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter: Taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 6, 37-67.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. New
York: Routledge.
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning: Final report of research findings. St. Paul: University of
Minnesota.
MacCallum, R. C., Michael, W. B., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of
sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149.
Mbera, P. G. A. (2015). Relationship between leadership styles used by head teachers of public secondary
schools and students’ academic performance. International Journal of Academic Research in
Business and Social Sciences, 5(7), 226-239.
McClain, L., Ylimaki, R., & Ford, M. P. (2010). Wisdom and compassion in democratic leadership:
Perceptions of the Bodhisattva ideal. Journal of School Leadership, 20(3), 323-351.
Møller, J. (2003). Democratic leadership in an age of managerial accountability. Improving Schools, 5(1),
11-21.
Northouse, P. G. (2011). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

21

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Oduro, G. K. T. (September, 2004). ‘Distributed leadership’ in schools: What English headteachers say
about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors. Paper presented at the the British Educational Research
Association Annual Conference, University of Manchester.
Özdemir, M. (2012). Dağıtımcı liderlik envanterinin Türkçe uyarlaması: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları
[Turkish adaptation of distributed leadership ınventory: The validity and reliability studies].
Educational Administration: Theory and Practice, 18(4), 575-598.
Riley, K. (2003). ‘Democratic leadership’- A contradiction in terms? Leadership and Policy in Schools,
2(2), 125-139.
Rustin, M., & Armstrong, D. (2012). What happened to democratic leadership. Soundings, 50, 59-71. doi:
10.3898/136266212800379482
Saadi, A. M., Hussain, A., Bhutta, R. N., Perveen, N., Kazmi, U., & Ahmad, N. (2009). Democratic and
distributed leadership for school improvement: Case studies from Pakistan. The International
Journal of Learning, 16(2), 521-532.
Sanders, M. G. (2006). Missteps in team leadership. The experiences of six novice teachers in three urban
middle schools. Urban Education, 41(3), 277-304. doi: 1177/0042085906287903
Silins, H., & Mulford, B. (2002). Leadership and school results. In K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger, K.Seashore-
Louis, G. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford & K. Riley (Eds.), Second international
handbook of educational leadership and administration. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Eucational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. doi:
10.1080/00131720508984678
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: John Wiley.
Spillane, J. P., & Camburn, E. (2006, April). The practice of leading and managing: The distribution of
responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Spillane, J. P., & Sherer, J. Z. (2004). A distributed perspective on school leadership: Leadership practice
as stretched over people and place. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American Education
Association. San Diego: CA.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23-28.
Southworth, G. (2002). Instructional leadership in schools: Reflections and empirical evidence. School
Leadership & Management, 22(1), 73-91. doi: 10.1080/13632430220143042
Starratt, R. (2001). Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility?
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 333-352.
Storey, A. (2004). The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership and Management,
24(3), 249-265.
Terzi, A. R., & Derin, R. (2016). Relation between democratic leadership and organizational cynicism.
Journal of Education and Learning, 5(3), 193-204.

22

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300
Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, V 13,N 3, 2018
© 2018 INASED

Torrance, D. (2013). Distributed leadership: Still in the gift of the headteacher. Scottish Educational
Review, 45(2), 50-63.
Wai-Yan Wan, S., Hau-Fai Law, E. & Chan, K. K. (2017). Teachers’ perception of distributed leadership in
Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership & Management. doi:
10.1080/13632434.2017.1371689
White, R. K., & Lippitt, R. O. (1960). Autocracy and democracy: An experimental inquiry. New York:
Harper & Brothers.
Williams, C. G. (2011). Distributed leadership in South African schools: Possibilities and constraints. South
African Journal of Education, 31(2), 190-200.
Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3-26. doi:
10.1080/1360312032000154522
Woods, P. A. (2005). Democratic leadership in education. London: Sage.
Woods, P. A. (2011). Transforming educational policy: Shaping a democratic future. Bristol, UK: Policy
Press.
Woods, P. A., Bennett. N., Harvey, J. A., & Wise, C. (2004). Variabilities and dualities in distributed
leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review, Educational Management,
Administration and Leadership, 32(4), 439-457.
Yılmaz, D., & Turan, S. (2015). Dağıtılmış liderliğin okullardaki görünümü: Bir yapısal eşitlik modelleme
çalışması [Distributed leadership view in schools: A structural equation modelling study].
Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi, 21(1), 93-126. doi: 10.14527/kuey.2015.005
Yörük, S., & Kocabaş, İ. (2001). Eğitimde demokratik liderlik ve iletişim [Democratic leadership and
communication in education]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(1), 225-234.
Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

23

This document downloaded from 70.167.252.66 [2 times] Sterling / United States on Mon, 01 Oct 2018 22:16:04 +0300