Search results

The purpose of this conceptual paper is to argue that leadership, including distributed leadership, is a concept of folk psychology and is more productively viewed as an emergent self‐organising property of complex systems. It aims to argue the case on the basis that claims to (distributed) leadership outrun the theoretical and empirical resources distributed and other leadership theorists can offer to support them.

The paper employs contemporary scientific as well as traditional philosophical criteria in determining the knowledge claims made by distributed leadership theories. Of particular importance are the coherence theory of evidence that employs the super‐empirical virtues, especially coherence to establish the scientific virtue of theory, and the conception of leadership as part and parcel of folk psychology.

When considering the basis of claims to distributed leadership from a neuroscientific and empirical perspective, there is little basis in fact about the existence of (distributed) leadership as an ontological category. Talk of leadership is a conventional, commonsense label for vastly more complex and fine‐grained causal physiological and neuronal activities within certain social contexts. In this sense distributed leadership is a conception available for reduction.

The significance and originality of this paper lies in the fact that it proposes causal investigations of social phenomena such as leadership; demonstrates the importance and necessity of interdisciplinary research; and outlines exciting new research agendas that both question traditional taken‐for‐granted conceptions of social explanations and suggests directions of where solutions may be found in the future that are defensible by the best of current science.

Several arguments have been put forward about why distributed leadership in schools should contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning. This paper aims to investigate the extent to which conceptual and empirical research in the field is aligned to this goal.

The discussion of alignment was structured around two differing and overlapping conceptions of distributed leadership. The first conception examines the distribution of the leadership of those tasks designated by researchers as leadership tasks. The second conception examines the distribution of influence processes.

The paper finds that the first conception has the advantage of giving leadership educational content by embedding it in the tasks and interactions that constitute educational work. The selected leadership tasks are typically not specified, however, in ways that discriminate the qualities required to make a positive difference to student outcomes. The knowledge base needed to make such discrimination is found in outcomes‐linked research on the selected educational tasks rather than in research on generic leadership and organisational theory. There is also little attention to the influence processes that are at the heart of leadership. While the second approach pays more attention to these influence processes, its generic treatment of leadership limits the possibility of finding and forging stronger links to student outcomes.

The paper highlights that research which integrates both concepts of distributed leadership, in suitably modified form, is likely to be a productive way of making stronger links between distributed leadership and student outcomes. The linkage requires more explicit use of the evidence base on the improvement of teaching and learning.

The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss the findings from research on the relationship between leadership theory and policy reform in Malaysia. Distributed leadership is normatively preferred in the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB), the country’s major policy reform document. The research was conducted in two dissimilar Malaysian states (Selangor and Sarawak).

The research was a multiple case-study design, with 14 schools (seven in each state). Sampling was purposive, with schools selected from the different bands used to categorise school performance in Malaysia. Within each school, interviews were conducted with principals (secondary schools), headteachers (primary schools) and a range of teachers, middle leaders and senior leaders, to achieve respondent triangulation.

The findings confirm that the MEB prescribes distributed leadership as part of a strategy to move principals and head teachers away from their traditional administrative leadership styles. While there were some variations, most schools adopted a modified distributed leadership approach. Instead of the emergent model discussed and advocated in the literature, these schools embraced an allocative model, with principals sharing responsibilities with senior leaders in a manner that was often indistinguishable from delegation.

A significant implication of the research is that policy prescriptions in major reform initiatives can lead to unintended consequences when applied in different cultural contexts. While distributed leadership is presented as “emergent” in the international (mostly western) literature, it has been captured and adapted for use in this highly centralised context, where structures and culture assume a top-down model of leadership. As a result, distributed leadership has taken on a different meaning, to fit the dominant culture.

The main practical implication is that principals and head teachers are more likely to enact leadership in ways which are congruent with their cultural backgrounds and assumptions than to embrace policy prescriptions, even when unproblematic adoption of policy might be expected, as in this centralised context.

The main social implications are that policy change is dependent on socio-cultural considerations and that reform will not be whole-hearted and secure if it is not congruent with the values of institutions such as schools, and the wider society which they serve.

The paper is significant in exploring a popular leadership model in an unfamiliar context. Beyond its importance in Malaysia, it has wider resonance for other centralised systems which have also shown interest in distributed leadership but have been unable and/or unwilling to embrace it in the ways assumed in the literature. This leads to theoretical significance because it adds to the limited body of literature which shows that allocative distributed leadership has emerged as a device for accommodating this model within centralised contexts.

The purpose of this paper is to know the extent to which a decision-making framework assists in providing holistic, comprehensive descriptions of strategies used by school leaders engaging with distributed leadership practices. The process by which principals and other education leaders interact various school-based actors to arrive at a distributed decision-making process is addressed through this paper. The position taken suggests that leadership does not reside solely with principals or other education leaders, but sustains the view that the actions of various actors within a school setting contribute to fuller and more comprehensive accounts of distributed leadership.

While the application of rational/analytical approaches to organizational problems or issues can lead to effective decisions, dilemmas faced by principals are often messy, complex, ill-defined and not easily resolved through algorithmic reason or by the application of rules, as evidenced by the two stories provided by Agnes, a third-year principal in a small countryside elementary school in a small northeastern community, and by John, a novice principal in a suburb of a large Southwestern metropolitan area.

The value of the objective knowledge growth framework (OKGF) process is found in its ability to focus Agnes’s attention on things that she may have overlooked, such as options she might have ignored or information that she might have resisted or accepted, as well as innumerable preparations she might have neglected had she not involved all the teachers in her school.

The implementation of the OKGF may appear, occasionally, to introduce unnecessary points along this route and may not be laboriously applied to all decision-making situations. However, the instinctively pragmatic solutions provided by this framework will often produce effective results. Therefore, in order to reduce potentially irrational outcomes, the systematic approach employed by the OKGF is preferable. The OKGF must be managed, implemented and sustained locally if it is to provide maximum benefits to educational decision makers.

Given the principals’ changing roles, it is abundantly clear that leadership practice can no longer involve just one person, by necessity, and it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine how things could have been accomplished otherwise. Expecting the principal to single-handedly lead efforts to improve instruction is impractical, particularly when leadership may be portrayed as what school principals do, especially when other potential sources of leadership have been ignored or treated as secondary or unimportant because that leadership has not emanated from the principal’s office (Spillane, 2006). In this paper, the authors have striven to reveal how a perspective of distributed leadership, when used in conjunction with the objective knowledge growth framework, can be effective in assisting principals in resolving problems of practice.

Different school leaders of varying status within the educative organization benefit from obtaining different answers to similar issues, as evidenced by John’s and Agnes’s leadership tangles. Lumby and English (2009) differentiate between “routinization” and “ritualization.” They argue, “They are not the same. The former erases the need for human agency while the latter requires it” (p. 112). The OKGF process, therefore, cannot provide school leaders with the “right” answers to their educative quandaries, simply because any two school leaders, facing the same issues, may utilize differing theories, solutions, choices or options which may satisfy their issues in response to their own individual contextual factors. Similarly, in a busy day or week, school leaders may be inclined to take the shortest distance between two points in the decision-making process; problem identification to problem resolution.

Should the OKGF process empower decision makers to obtain sound resolutions to their educative issues by assisting them in distancing themselves from emotions or confirmation biases that may distract them from resolving school problems, its use will have been worthwhile.

The article asserts that systems thinking and its concurrent organizational processes are central organizing structures in schools, yet “hide in plain sight” and are therefore underexplored and underutilized in leadership theorizing.

By exploring the theoretical literature concerning school organization and leadership, tensions and contradictions within the literature are surfaced. The article examines and critiques distributed leadership theory and provides new directions for thinking about leadership practice based on school organization literature.

Recent work (Kruse and Johnson, 2017; Murphy, 2015, 2016) suggests that schools are far too complex to be led and managed by a single dedicated leader, yet the practice of leadership remains largely reified within the literature (Bryk et al., 2015), Insofar as leadership theory relies on narratives derived from and about work of “the” leader, it ignores the larger system. A contrasting literature is that of distributed leadership (Gronn, 2000; Spillane, 2006). Yet, even within that literature, the focus remains on interpersonal interactions and conjoint actions concerning school operation. While not dismissing the importance of leadership as a theoretical and practical construct, thinking about leadership as less a property of individuals and more a variable within effective organizational practice holds promise for the study of educational leadership.

This article extends the existing literature by suggesting how systems processes and structures serve school leaders in addressing the leadership demands of fostering continuous (rather than episodic) change, processing information and creating contextual local knowledge with the potential to enhance school outcomes.

This paper aims to provide an overview of the literature concerning distributed leadership and organisational change. The main purpose of the paper is to consider the empirical evidence that highlights a relationship between distributed leadership and organisational outcomes.

The paper draws on several fields of enquiry, including organisational change, school effectiveness, school improvement and leadership. It systematically analyses the evidence in each field and presents a synthesis of key findings.

The evidence shows first, that there is a relationship between distributed leadership and organisational change, second, that there is evidence to suggest that this relationship is positive and third, that different patterns of distribution affect organisational outcomes.

The significance and originality of this paper lies in the fact that it: takes a normative position on distributed leadership and is chiefly concerned with the question of organisational impact; demonstrates the importance and necessity of further research about the way in which distributed leadership influences organisational outcomes; and acknowledges the methodological challenges in conducting research on distributed leadership but argues that such research will make a significant contribution to knowledge and theory generation in the leadership field.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the distribution of leadership practices in Sixth Form Colleges (SFCs). This is an area where very little research has been undertaken and the intention was to investigate the topic from a critical perspective using social constructionist methodology.

The research methodology was based on social constructionism. The research took place over two years at four SFCs and involved a range of teachers. An initial questionnaire was followed up with co-constructed discussions in which participants were able to express their views and develop the trajectory of the discussion.

The findings indicated that SFCs have been under pressure to distribute work roles in order to maximise efficiency and this has led to both opportunities for career advancement and work overload.

This is a limited research exercise. As a social constructionist research project, it was deliberately aimed at providing a deep insight into a few colleges rather than making generalisable observations about the nature of the sector as a whole.

There is very little research undertaken into the SFC sector. This research places an important concept such as distributed leadership into this niche sector. It also challenges the idea that distributed leadership is inherently positive in nature.

This chapter provides an overview of scholarship on leadership processes in groups. It investigates leadership both as a role and as influence, and considers structural influences on group leadership communication. A short chronological overview on the most important leadership theories gives a special emphasis on the meaning and role of communication within these approaches. The chapter shares the common basis of the handbook in communication as a fundamental and critical process in groups and teams. Approaches where communication plays a central role is amplified. The last paragraph focuses on three newer strands of leadership research as well as management practices. In each of these new contexts, leadership as a functional role and as social influence is discussed and the criticality of interaction and communication traced.

Understanding the relationship between distributed leadership and teachers commitment to change in the Chinese urban primary school context was the purpose of this study.

Quantitative research method is used in this study. For ensuring comprehensiveness, this research employed a random sampling method. This study took place in Chinese urban primary schools. A total of 350 questionnaires were circulated, 318 questionnaires were returned, and 291 questionnaires were valid, with a response rate of 90.9 per cent and a validity rate of 91.5 per cent.

The results of path analysis indicated that various dimensions of distributed leadership, including collaboration and cooperation, responsibility and accountability, and values and beliefs, had significant effects on group competence. Collaboration and cooperation and decision making had significant relationships with task analysis. Collaboration and cooperation, responsibility and accountability, and values and beliefs had significant effects on collective teacher efficacy as a single variable.

These findings contribute to the understanding of educational management in the Chinese context and advance knowledge about distributed leadership theories in an East Asian context.