Distributed Leadership

Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

Distributed Leadership as Task Distribution

In 2004, Spillane et al.’s theoretical description of distributed leadership was based on the performance of certain tasks, and the interactions between shifting combinations of leaders and followers, in the course of performing certain tasks.. Leadership is distributed across the three essential elements: leader, follower, and task.

Task distribution was the focus of a series of studies of distributed leadership in 2007, by Spillane et al. They analyzed patterns of distributed leadership by using the electronic logs of 52 school principals. Data was gathered by prompting the principals with electronic beeps, sounding at intervals throughout the day. They recorded whether they were engaged in leadership tasks, and if they were the ones leading/co-leading those tasks, or if others were doing it for them. The principals also indicated their intentions by choosing from a list, including increasing knowledge, monitoring teaching/curricula, developing common goals, motivating/developing others, or redesigning the teaching and learning.

In their 2003 study of distributed leadership, Camburn et al. also studied leadership as a task performance approach in a sample of schools. They studied distributed leadership by asking everyone in formal leadership roles to report the priority and/or the amount of time they spent on a variety of leadership activities. However, they did not explore the intended or actual influence of these leaders.

Leadership is clearly seen in the performance of certain functions or tasks. So, how do we establish what counts as a leadership task? Camburn et al. use organizational theories as their reference point, by following “A long line of research and theory that conceptualizes leadership in terms of organizational functions and then examines who within an organization performs these functions.” The problem with this approach is that the leadership tasks needed for this purpose may differ from those required to achieve specific goals in an organization. Most organizational theories cannot distinguish between the direct and indirect impact of leadership tasks on outcomes.

Existing evidence linking certain types of leadership to student outcomes is a better resource for determining educational impact. Research has shown instructional leadership tasks deliver more results for students. Robinson’s 2008 meta-analysis of 27 published studies of the impact of instructional leadership on student outcomes confirms this, by showing that the actual impact of instructional leadership was two to three times greater than that of transformational leadership.

The five different sets of leadership practices were measured to show different relative impacts. Relative effects were lower in the tasks of establishing goals, strategic resourcing, and establishing an orderly, supportive environment. The effects were average for planning, coordinating, and evaluating teaching and the curriculum, but were huge in relation to promoting and participating in teacher learning and development.

Clearly, using evidence is better than using general organizational theory. We can relate student impact to distributed leadership. For example, teacher engagement during a learning opportunity is far more important that whether or not teachers volunteered for it. Researchers should go beyond measuring distribution of leadership activities. The leaders’ ability to shape professional development should also be assessed, assuring they have qualities associated with better outcomes for students.
After selecting built-in leadership tasks for distributed leadership, evidence must be collected on the patterns of responsibility for the tasks. Thoughtful analysis is needed regarding who is involved, and the degree of knowledge they posses about the tasks. The level of influence leaders have over task performance should also be noted.

The third step investigates the links of these tasks to student outcomes. The most complex and expensive part of the study, it involves modeling and measuring the impact of variables, such as student background, which could dilute the data. Valuable data comes from studying the leadership of teachers, and teacher learning practices, especially where there is prior evidence of improved student outcomes. Careful analysis of these studies, and their association with student impacts, shows us the distribution of leadership practices that is most likely to make a difference to students.

When we look at the influence process itself, we can see the shifts in school and teacher culture needed to support the wider distribution of leadership tasks. This sharing of authority is vital for sustained educational improvement. Literature on teacher influence is plentiful. If distributed leadership is to fulfill its objectives, then it should focus on how those in senior leadership positions can develop a more balanced leadership approach.

References

Distributed leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by Peter Gronn, and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of his work on distributed leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Matthew Lynch

Distributed Leadership as Distributed Influence Processes

Leadership is an influence process that changes how others act or think. Therefore, one way of determining leadership is by investigation of its consequences. There are many ways of exercising influence that do not qualify as leadership. These include force, coercion, and manipulation, which are in no way related to leadership. The difference between all these influence processes is based one factor: the source of influence.

These sources of influence— positional authority, personal qualities, and rational persuasion—often separate leadership from any other form of power relationship. Distributed leadership is an influence process, since it embraces the social side of leadership. This is accomplished through an expansion of the specific influence processes that distinguish it from force, coercion, and manipulation. It uses influence processes that make use of the power of ideas, logical thinking, and evidence. This is particularly important in schools, since the professional culture of most schools typically makes it difficult to rely on the power of position alone.

There are some negative aspects of this concept. First, it lacks any educational content, and consequently, provides little or no guidance to the types of leadership practices that are likely to influence teachers, in ways that make a difference to students. Also, this leadership concept has been criticized for not identifying those particular leadership traits that are most likely to improve student outcomes. Instead, it focuses on distribution of leadership. Most of the available research shows that the knowledge needed to identify and define the types of leadership tasks that deliver these credible benefits are found in educational texts, and not in leadership literature.

Yet another limitation of this concept of distributed leadership is that it overlooks some of the ways leadership can be exercised indirectly. Not all interaction is through direct person to person communication. The three sources of leadership influence suggested—acceptance of orders from those in positions of power, response to essential personal characteristics, and acceptance of requests and ideas as reasonable—assume that all leadership influence is exercised through direct face-to-face interaction. This is simply not the case.

However, this conception ignores the most indirect ways in which educational leaders lend their talents to teaching and learning, such as the creation of the conditions that enable independent and unique patterns of thought and actions in others. This leadership practice is known as empowerment, and plays a huge role in the influence process.

A more powerful model is needed for measuring educational worth, if studies of distributed leadership are to give a greater understanding of how it can improve current teaching and learning processes. Recent research into distributed leadership has expanded the unit of analysis from that of leader-follower, to include the interactions among leader, follower, and other aspects of the situation, like the tools that guide and regulate teachers’ work. In summary, the concept of “distributed leadership as distributed influence” helps us distinguish between leader-follower interactions and how they produce change; this is a determining feature of what qualifies as leadership.

References

Distributed leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by Peter Gronn, and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of his work on distributed leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

  • no reactions
0
Share
Matthew Lynch published in Education Leadership, Higher Education, Matthew Lynch

Reasons for the Emergence of Distributed Leadership

Two explanations have been offered for the emergence of distributed leadership. The first is the failure of the “charismatic hero” associated with transformational leadership. The second is that school leaders now handle tasks of much greater complexity. . It is not the heroic leader who makes an organization function well, but rather the “mundane,” everyday activities that matter.

Distributed leadership is well within the broader policy spectrum for public services. In a government’s emerging model for public services, we see the three modes of leadership that the government favors. These are hierarchy, market, and network. If we overlay the school setup on the government model, then we see where the schools’ “capability and capacity” fits in relation to the network regime of governance, where distributed leadership is positioned.

Distributed leadership can therefore be said to be similar to the broader policy process, since government will construct a need, goal, or objective that would require both school actors and non-school actors to distribute their efforts between organizations and/or within organizations to achieve this end. It also provides a cultural reference to the official structural similarities of two traditionally separate organizations.

Distributed leadership fits well with the merging or networking of work-based activities according to current trends on inter-agency working in schools; with the joint production of personalized needs and solutions; and finally with the changing workforce . All these efforts seek to merge the professional cultures of different groups.

With the above in mind, the emergence of distributed leadership is not only a reaction to the recent policy shifts; it also reflects changes in contemporary culture. Organizations can no longer control their workers through the so-called rational or bureaucratic structures of the past. Those out-of-date methods inhibit the kind of independent work that relies on solidarity, respect, or mutual trust, since all they end up doing is bringing about authority conflicts.

The present focus on distributed leadership is not so much related to the cultural turn toward taking emotions into account, like transformational leadership, but is more of an example of management theory resonating with a contemporary shift toward the weakening of traditional logic. Organized social structure, as a result, has given way to a “network culture.”

These new changes also indicate a change in the knowledge economy. We have begun to see a form of “socialism” in education, proven by the use of terms such as “universal education” to symbolize the trend toward viewing education as something other than a market commodity in this age. Governments around the world are now keen to set up a policy that ensures that literacy is achieved by all, with no regard to social status. The role of the school leader is therefore shifting from economic management to social management.

References

Distributed leadership is a theory of leadership that was developed by Peter Gronn, and has been written about by many other scholars since then. To read more of his work on distributed leadership and other topics, click here to visit his Amazon.com page.

  • no reactions
0
Share