ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Stories of leadership successes follow a familiar structure: A charismatic leader, often the CEO or school principal, takes over a struggling school, establishing new goals and expectations and challenging business as usual within the organization. This leader creates new organizational routines and structures that with time transform the school's culture, contributing in turn to greater teacher satisfaction, higher teacher expectations for students, and improved student achievement.
V
Distributed
Leadership
by
James
P.
Spillane
THE
'
<5I'
' ' ' . ' '.
Stoiries
,of
leadertship
successes
follow
a
familiar
structure:
A
charismatic
leader,
ofte.he
CEO
or
school
principal,
takes
overa
struggling
school,
estab-
lishing
new
goals.and
expectations
and challenging
business
as
usual
within
the
orgaizaton.This
leader creates
new
organizational
routines
and
structu'res
that
with
time
trans
he
school's
culture,
contributing
in
turn
to
greater
teacher
satisfaction,h
hiher
teacher
expectations
for-
students,
and
improved
student
achievement.
Storis
ihe
"heoics
f
leadership"
genre,
ho
two
reasons;.Firstjhe
equate
school
leadership
chiefly
with
an
individual
leader-
typically
the
s'c
hool
principal.
This
is
inaccurate
because
school
principals,
or
any
other
leader
for
that
matter,
do
not
single-handedly
lead
schools
to
greatness;
leadership
in-
volves
an
array
of
individuials
With
various
tools
and structures.
Though
scholars
have
long
argu'ed
for
moving
be'yond
those
at
the
top
of
organizations
in
studies
of
leadership
(Barnard,1938),Jthe-"heroics
of
leadership"
genre
persists.
The
second
problem
with
these accounts
isttheir
inattehtion
to
leaderhip
practice. They
dwell
mostly
on
the
"what"
of
leadersh,ip,--friictuires'
fuinctions,
routines, and
roles-rather
than
the
"how"
of
school
leadership-,the
dAypeailyrfora
sccof
leadership
routines,
functions,
and
structures
(Hallinger
an'dt'tHeck
1996).o
Leadershpip
practice centers
not
only
on
what
People
do,
but
how
and
wy
theyo.' Tit
UAderstanding
leadership
practice
is
imperative
if
research
is
togenerate
usablek
rnowledgeabout
and
for school
leadership.
Distributedl
eadershipis
a
recent
antidote,
or
more
;
correctly
a
series
of
antidotes,
tothe
work
in
the
heroics
of
leadership.
Distributed4
eadrshiphas
garnered
considerable
attention
in
the
United
States
and
abroad.
lt
often
istused interchangeably with
"shared
leadership,"
"team
leadership,"
and
"democratic
leadership."
Some
use
distributed leadership
to
indicate
that
school
The
Educational
Forum
t
Volume
69
Winter2005
143
Spillane
leadership
involves
multiple
leaders;
others
argue
that
leadership
is
an
organizational
quality,
rather
than
an
individual
attribute.
Still
others
use
distributed
leadership
to
de-
fine
a
way
of
thinking
about
the
practice
of
school
leadership
(Gronn
2002;
Spillane,
Halverson,
and
Diamond
2001, 2004).
Distributed
leadership's popularity
likely
has
to
do
with
how
easily
people
can
use
it
to
relabel
familiar approaches.
It
is
little
wonder
that
many
observers
are
perplexed
about
the
meaning
of
distributed
leadership
and
whether
it
is
anything
new.
Perhaps
distributed
leadership
is
just
another
case
of old
wine
in
new
bottles.
My
understanding
of
dis-
tributed
leadership,
based
on
The
Distributed
Leadership
Study
lDistributed
leadership
often
is
(School
of
Education
and
Social
cast as some
sort
of monolithic
Policy
at
Northwestern
Univer-
sity
2004),
an elementary
school
construct
when,
in
fact,
it
is
-
leadership
research
study,
is
out-
lined.
The
following
question
is
:
merely
an
emerging
set
of
ideas
addressed:
What
does
it
mean
to
that frequently
diverge
from
take
a
distributed
perspective
on
school
leadership?
My
intent
is
one
another.
not
to
provide
a
comprehensive
review
of
different
perspectives
or
identify
the
"one
best"
defi-
nition,
but
to
lay
out
my
own
definition
of
distributed
leader-
ship. An
overview
of
distributed
leadership,
in
which
key
terms
and
ideas
are
intro-
duced
and
defined,
is
provided.
I
next
address
how
leadership
is
distributed
over
an
interactive web
of
people
and
situations,
examining
how
leadership
is
spread
over
both
leaders
and
followers
given
key
aspects
of
their
situation,
including
organizational
rou-
tines,
structures,
and
tools.
I
then
illustrate how
this
definition
of
distributed
leadership
is
a
case
of
new
wine-not
new
bottles
for
old
wine-and
consider
its
implications
for
research, practice,
and
leadership development.
Putting
Leadership
Practice
Center
Stage
Distributed
leadership
is
first
and
foremost
about
leadership
practice
rather
than
leaders
or
their
roles,
functions,
routines,
and
structures.
Though they
are
important
considerations,
leadership
practice
is
still
the
starting
point.
A
distributed
perspective
frames
leadership
practice
in
a
particular
way;
leadership
practice
is
viewed
as
a
product
of
the
interactions
of
school
leaders,
followers,
and
their
situation.
This
point
is
espe-
cially
important, and
one
that
is
frequently
glossed
over
in
discussions
of
distributed
leadership.
Rather
than
viewing leadership
practice
as
a
product
of
a
leader's
knowl-
edge
and
skill,
the
distributed
perspective
defines
it
as
the
interactions
between people
and
their
situation.
These
interactions,
rather
than
any
particular
action,
are
critical
in
understanding
leadership
practice.
Too
frequently,
discussions
of
distributed
leadership
end
prematurely with
an
acknowledgment
that multiple individuals
take
responsibility
for
leadership
in
schools.
This
"leader
plus"
view,
however,
is
just
the
tip
of
the
iceberg
144
*
The
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
Essays
because,
from
a
distributed
perspective,
leadership
practice
that
results
from
interactions
among
leaders,
followers,
and
their
situation
is
critical.
Some
educators
might
argue
that
this
is
merely
semantics,
pointing
out
that
leader-
ship
scholars
have
long recognized
the
importance
of
these
interactions
and
acknowl-
edged that
leadership
typically involves
more
people
than
those at
the
top
of
the organi-
zational
hierarchy.
My
argument
is
not
simply
that
situation
is
important
to
leadership
practice,
but
that
it
actually
constitutes
leadership
practice-situation
defines
leader-
ship
practice
in
interaction
with
leaders
and
followers.
This
way
of
thinking
about
situ-
ation
differs
substantially
from
prior
work.
People
and
Practice
Equating leadership
with
the
actions
of
those
in
leadership positions
is
inadequate
for
three
reasons.
First,
leadership
practice
typically involves
multiple
leaders,
some
with
and
some
without
formal
leadership.
positions.
It
is
essential, therefore,
to
move
beyond
viewing
leadership
in
terms
of
superhuman
actions.
Second,
leadership
practice
is
not
something done
to
followers.
From
a
distributed
perspective,
followers
are
one
of
the
three
constituting
elements
of
leadership
practice.
Third,
it
is
not
the
actions
of
indi-
viduals,
but
the
interactions'among
them,
that
are
critical
in
leadership
practice.
Existing
scholarship shows
that
responsibility
for
leadership
functions
can
be
dis-
tributed
in
various
ways.
Studies have
shown
how
this
responsibility
can
involve mul-
tiple
leaders-not
just principals
or
coprincipals-vwho
work
in
a
coordinated
manner
at
times
and
in
parallel
at
others
(Heller
and
Firestone
1995).
Recent
work
in more
than
100
U.S.
schools
showed that
responsibility
for
leadership
functions
typically
was distrib-
uted
among
three
to
seven
people,
including
administrators and
specialists
(Camburn,
Rowan,
and
Taylor
2003).
The
Distributed
Leadership
Study
also
showed
that
responsibility
for
leadership
rou-
tines
involves
multiple
leaders,
though
the
number'involved
depends
upon
the
routine
and
subject
area.
Some
routines, such
as
monitoring
and
evaluating
teaching
practice,
involve
fewer
leaders
(typically
the
principal and assistant
principal),
compared
with
routines
such
as
teacher
development
in
literacy,
which
often involve
the
principal,
cur-
ricular
specialists,
and
lead
teachers.
The
extent
to
which
responsibility
for
leadership
routines
was
distributed
differed
by
school
subject,
with
fewer
leaders
involved
in
lead-
ership routines
for
mathematics
than
for
literacy
For
example,
at
Adams
Elementary
School,
the
principal,
literacy
coordinator,
curriculum
specialist,
and
lead
teachers were
frequent
and
active
participants
in
executing
leadership
routines
for
literacy.
Conversely,
leadership
routines
for
mathematics
instruction
were typically
defined
by
one
of
four
lead
mathematics
teachers
(Spillane,
Diamond,
and
Jita
2003).
Leaders
act
in
situations
that
are
defined
by
others'
actions. From
a
distributed
perspective,
it
is
in
these
interactions
that
leadership
practice
is
constructed.
The
Distributed
Leadership
Study's
analysis
of
leadership
performance
documents
how
leadership
practice
is
defined
through
the
interactions
of
two
or
more
leaders.
When
observing leadership
routines
for
literacy
instruction at
Adams Elementary
School,
The
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
*
145
Spillane
one
immediately
notices
how
leadership
practice
becomes
defined
in
the
interac-
tions
of
leaders and
followers.
These
leadership routines
often
involve
some
combi-
nation
of
four
leaders:
the
principal,
the
school's
literacy coordinator,
the
African-
American
Heritage
coordinator,
and
a
teacher
leader. At
times,
these
leaders'
actions
parallel
or
overlap
one
another;
at
other
times,
they
do
not.
The
principal
empha-
sizes goals
and standards,
keeps
the
meetings
moving,
summarizes
comments, and
reminds
participants
of
what
is
expected
in
their
classrooms.
The
literacy coordina-
tor
identifies problems
with
literacy
instruction,
suggests
solutions and
resources,
and
encourages
teachers
to
present
their
ideas.
The
teacher
leader
describes
his
or
her
efforts
to
implement
a
teaching
strategy
that
the
literacy
coordinator
shared.
The
actions
of
followers
(in
this
case,
primarily
classroom teachers)
also
contribute
to
defining leadership
practice.
They
provide
knowledge about
a
particular
teaching
strategy-knowledge
that
sometimes
is
used
by
leaders
to
illustrate
a
point
about
improving
literacy
instruction.
Leadership
practice
takes
; .--
form
in
the
interactions
be-
tween leaders
and
followers,
n7~
leadership
>
rather
than
as
a
function
of
one
LsJLStrlbUteL4
ledrsi Strtor
more
leaders'
actions
and
foremost
about
leadership
(Spillane
et
al.
in press).
Indi-
,
.: S ;
+
viduals
play
off
one
another,
practice
rather
than
leaders
or
creating
a
reciprocal
interde-
their
roles,
functions,
routines,
.
pendency
between their
actions.
their rol
.
fui
The
Distributed
Leadership
and
structures.
Study
identified
interdepen-
dency
as
the
primary
charac-
teristic
of
interactions
among
leaders.
This
theory
has
been
informed
by
the
work
of
orga-
nizational theorists
(Thompson
1967;
Malone
et
al.
1999).
Three
types
of
interdepen-
dencies
identified
by
Thompson
(1967)-reciprocal,
pooled,
and
sequential-served
as
the basis.
Leadership
practice
can
be
spread
across
two
or more
leaders
who work separately
yet interdependently.
The
leadership
practice
used
in
monitoring
and
evaluating
teach-
ing
at
Ellis
Elementary
is
illustrative.
The
principal
believes
that biannual
visits
are
in-
adequate
to
evaluate
a
teacher's
practice.
She
and
the
assistant
principal developed
a
comprehensive
routine
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
teaching
practice.
The
assistant
principal,
who
has
a
good
rapport
with
teachers,
visits
classrooms
frequently
to
conduct
formative evaluations and
give
regular
feedback
to teachers.
The
principal
engages
in
summative
evaluations
through
her biannual
visits
to
classrooms.
Through
formal
and
informal meetings,
the
principal and assistant principal
pool their information
to
de-
velop
an
understanding
of
teachers'
practices..
Through
this
"pooled"
interdependency,
these
two
leaders' separate
actions
interact
to
define
a
collective
practice
for
monitoring
and
evaluating
teaching.
146
*
The
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
Essays
Sometimes
separate
leadership
practices
are
spread
over the
actions
of
two
or more
leaders
and
must
be
performed
in
a
particular
sequence.
In
these
cases,
multiple
inter-
dependent
tasks,
arranged
sequentially,
are
critical to
the performance
of
a
leadership
routine.
For
example, the five-week
assessment
at
Adams
School
illustrates
how
leader-
ship
practice
can
be
stretched
oVer
leaders
over
time.
This
assessment
involves seven
stages
performed
in
a
specific
order:
*
The
literacy
coordinator
creates
the
student
assessment
instruction.
*
Teachers
administer
the
assessment.
*
The
literacy
coordinator
and
her
assistant
score
and
.
analyze
the
results.
*
The
principal and
literacy
coordinator
meet
to
dis-
.
Leadership
practice
takes
form
cuss
the
assessment
re-
in
t
between
sults,
using information
t
:nteractions
from
classroom
observa-
leaders
and
followers,.
rather
tions
to
diagnose
prob-
t
a
a
f
o
o
or
lems.
~~~~~tha'n
Qas
dfnctiofi
of
one
or
*
The
literacy
coordinator
moreleaders'actions.
compiles
resources
and
strategies
that
might
en-
able
teachers
to
address
the
problems
identified
through
the
analysis
of
as-
sessment
data.
*
The
literacy
coordinator
reports
assessment results
to
teachers
during
literacy
com-
mittee
meetings.
-*
The
literacy
coordinator,
principal,
and
teachers
interpret
assessment results
and
identify instructional
strategies
to
address
problem
areas.
This
sequence
illustrates
coordinated
leadership.
The
term "coordinated"
is
used
to
emphasize
that
leadership
practice
that
involves
a
sequential
interdependency
must
be
performed
in
a
particular
sequence.
People,
Place,
and
Practice
Leaders typically
have interaction
with
others.
They also
have
interaction
with
as-
pects
of
the
situation
including
a
variety
of
tools,
routines,
and
structures.
Tools
include
everything
from
student
assessment
data
to
protocols
for
evaluating
teachers. The
five-
week assessment
described
here
is
an
example
of
a
routine.
Structures
include
routines
such
as
grade-level
meetings
and
the
scheduling
of
teachers'
prep
periods.
From
a
dis-
tributed
perspective,
these
routines,
tools,
and
structures
define
leadership
practice; the
situation
both
enables
and
constrains
leadership
practice.
Aspects
of
the
situation
define
and
are
defined by
leadership
practice
in
interaction
with
leaders
and
followers.
Structures,
routines,
and
tools
are
the
means
through
which
people
act.
Yet,
these
same
structures, routines,
and
tools
are
created
and
remade
through
The
Educational
Forum
*.
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
*
147
Spillane
leadership
practice.
The
distinction
between
the
ostensive
and
performative
aspects
of
organizational routines
(Feldman
and
Pentland
2003)
is
helpful.
The
ostensive aspect
refers
to
the
"routine
in
principle,"
while
the idealized version
of
the
performative
aspect
refers
to
the
routine
in practice
in
particular
places
and
at
particular
times. For
example,
the seven stages
of
the five-week
assessment
represent
the ostensive aspect
of
this
routine,
while
reporting
student
assessment
results
to teach-
ers
in
a
literacy committee
meeting
is
the
performative
aspect
of
the
routine.
The
osten-
sive
aspect
frames
practice-
both
enabling
and
constraining
it.
Practice
creates
and
recreates
Descriptiv'e
heor~
buildithe
ostensive
aspect.
Though
Dsii hrb lng::
Feldman
and Pentland
(2003)
is
essential
before
causal links
confined their
discussion
to
or-
ganizational routines, ostensive
between
distributed
leadership,
and
performative distinctions
instructional
improvement,
and
can
be
applied
to
other
aspects
of
the
situation,
including
struc-
student
outcomes
can
be
tures
and
tools.
established.
~~~~~~~Student
assessment data,
a
widely
used leadership
tool
by
all
schools
in
The
Distributed
Leadership
Study, is
a
good
ex-
ample.
In
an
effort
to
reflect
the
district's
policy
of
holding
schools
accountable
for
stu-
dent
achievement,
the
student
assessment
data
tool
framed leadership
practice
in
a
par-
ticular
way
across
all
schools
by
focusing
leadership
practice
on
curriculum
content
coverage. The
student
assessment
data
tool,
however,
was
transformed
differently in
and
through
leadership
practice at
each
school.
In
some
schools,
assessment
data
were
reported, problem
areas
were
identified,
and
specific
topics
on which
teachers
should
focus
were
presented
at
faculty
meetings.
In
other
schools,
assessment
data
were
used
differently.
At
Baxter
School,
for
example,
assessment
data
were
disaggregated
and
used
as
the
basis
for
ongoing
conversations
about
instructional
improvement and
curricular
priorities.
Sometimes
tools
designed
for
other
purposes
are
appropriated
for
leadership.
At
Hillside
School,
students'
"writing
folders"-designed
for
classroom
writing
instruc-
tion-have
become
a
core
leadership
tool.
The key
leadership routine
is
the
monthly
review
of
these
folders
by
the
school
principal.
Every
teacher
submits
a
folder
contain-
ing
one
composition
written
by
each
student
in
his or
her
class.
The
principal
reads
each
student's
work
and
provides
teachers
and
students
with written
feedback.
The
leader-
ship
practice in this example
is
defined
in
the
interactions
of
the
principal and
the
writ-
ing
folders,
as
well
as
those
between
teachers
and students.
Through
this
monthly
rou-
tine,
writing
folders
have been
redesigned
as
a
leadership
tool.
In
turn,
the
writing
folder
fundamentally
shapes
a
leadership
practice
grounded
in
what
students
are
learning
about
writing
and
engaging
teachers
and
students
in
improving writing
instruction.
148
*
T7he
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
Essays
Is
this perspective on
situation
new?
After
all,
contingency
theorists have
long
main-
tained
the
importance
of
situation
to
leadership.
Leadership
circumstances
influence
leaders'
actions,
as
well
as
their
effect
on
followers
(Bossert
et
al.
1982;
Murphy
1991).
From
a
contingency
perspective,
situation
works
independently
to
influence
a
leader's
behavior
or
mediate
its
effects.
A
distributed
perspective
differs
in
at
least
two
respects.
First,
situation
does
not
simply
affect
what
school
leaders do
as
an
independent,
exter-
nal
variable.
Rather
it
defines
leadership
practice
in
interaction
with
leaders
and
follow-
ers.
Second,
there
is
a
two-way
relationship between
situation
and
practice.
Aspects
of
the
situation
can
either
enable
or
constrain
practice,
while practice
can
transform
the
situation.
A
Case
of
Old
Wine
in
New
Bottles?
The
answer
to
this
question
depends
on
the
particular
definition
of
distributed
lead-
ership being
considered.
Distributed leadership
often
is
cast
as
some
sort
of
monolithic
construct
when,
in
fact,
it
is
merely
an
emerging set
of
ideas
that
frequently
diverge
from one
another.
The
distributed
perspective
on
leadership
in
this
paper
gives
center
stage
to
leader-
ship
practice.
Though
scholars have
viewed
leadership
as
a
behavior
or
act
for
some
time
(Fiedler
1973),
this
work equates leadership
practice
with
the
acts
of
individual
leaders. From
a
distributed
perspective,
leadership
practice takes
shape
in
the
interac-
tions
of
leaders,
followers,
and
their situation,
thus
breaking
new
ground rather
than
simply
relabeling
old
ideas.
Shared
leadership,
team
leadership,
and
democratic
leadership
are
not
synonyms
for
distributed
leadership.
Depending
on
the
situation,
a
distributed
perspective
al-
lows
for
shared
leadership.
A
team
leadership approach
does
not
necessarily
involve
subscribing
to
a
distributed
perspective
in
which
leadership
practice
is
viewed
as
the
interaction
of
leaders,
followers,
and
situation.
Similarly,
a
distributed
perspec-
tive
allows
for
leadership
that
can
be
democratic
or
autocratic.
From
a
distributed
perspective,
leadership
can
be
stretched
over
leaders
in
a
school
but
is
not
necessar-
ily
democratic.
Distributed
leadership
is
considered by
some
educators
as
a
cure-all
for
all
that
ails
schools-an
opinion
to
which
I
do
not
subscribe.
Distributed leadership
is
a
perspec-
tive-a
conceptual
or
diagnostic
tool
for
thinking about
school
leadership.
It
is
not
a
blueprint
for
effective
leadership
nor
a
prescription
for
how
school
leadership
should
be
practiced.
The
lack
of
empirical evidence
on
the
effectiveness
of
distributed
leadership
in
pro-
moting instructional
improvement
and
increasing
student
achievement
is
considered
a
weakness.
While
this
concern
is
understandable,
it
is
not
crucial.
What
matters
for
in-
structional
improvement and
student
achievement
is
not
that
leadership
is
distributed,
but
how
it
is
distributed.
Descriptive
theory
building
is
essential
before
causal links
be-
tween
distributed
leadership, instructional improvement,
and
student
outcomes
can
be
established.
The
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
*
149
Spillane
From
a
distributed
perspective,
leadership
is
a
system
of
practice
comprised
of
a
collection
of
interacting
components:
leaders,
followers,
and
situation.
These
interacting
components
must
be
understood
together
because
the
system
is
more
than
the
sum
of
the
component
parts
or
practices.
References
Barnard,
C.
1.
1938.
Thlefunzctions
of
the
executive.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
Bossert,
S. T.,
D.
C.
Dwyer,
B.
Rowan,
and
C. V.
Lee. 1982.
The
instructional
management
role of
the
principal.
Educational
Administration Quarterly
18(3):
34-64.
Camburn,
E.
M.,
B.
Rowan,
and
J. Taylor.
2003.
Distributed
leadership
in schools:
The
case
of
elementary
schools
adopting
comprehensive
school
reform
models.
Edutcatio,ial Evalutation
and
Policy
Analysis
25(4):
347-73.
Feldman,
M.
S.,
and
B.
T.
Pentland.
2003.
Reconceptualizing
organizational
routines
as
a
source
of
flexibility
and
change.
Adniinistrative
Science Qutarterly
48(1):
94-118.
Fiedler,
F.
E.
1973.
The
contingency
model:
A
reply
to
Ashour.
Organizational
Behavior
and
Human
Decision
Processes
9(3):
356-
68.
Gronn,
P.
2002.
Distributed
leadership
as
a
unit
of
analysis.
Leadership
Quarterly
13(4):
423-51.
Hallinger,
P.,
and
R.
H.
Heck.
1996.
Reassessing the
principal's
role
in
school
effectiveness.
Educational
Administration
Qluar-
terly
32(1):
5-44.
Heller,
M.
F.,
and
W.
A.
Firestone.
1995.
Who's
in
charge
here? Sources of
leadership
for
change
in
eight
schools. Elementary
School
Journal
96(1):
65-86.
Malone,
T.
W.,
G.
Herman,
M.
Klein,
E.
O'Donnell,
K.
Crowston,
J.
Lee,
B.
Pentland,
C.
Dellarocas,
G.
Wyner,
J.
Quimby,
C.
S.
Osborn,
and
A.
Bernstein.
1999.
Tools
for
inventing
organizations:
Toward
a
handbook
of organizational
processes.
Managemenit
Scienice
45(3):
425-43.
Murphy,
J.
1991.
Restructiring
schools:
Capti
ring
and assessing
the
phenomena.
New
York:
Teachers
College
Press.
School of
Education
and
Social Policy.
2004.
The
Distributed
Leadership
Stidy.
Chicago:
Northwestern
University.
Available
at:
http://dls.sesp.northwestern.edu.
Spillane,
J.
P.,
J. B.
Diamond,
and
L.
Jita.
2003.
Leading instruction:
The
distribution
of
leadership
for
instruction. Journal
of
Curricuilum
Stidies
35(5):
533-43.
Spillane,
J.
P.,
R.
Halverson,
and
J.
B.
Diamond.
2001.
Investigating
school
leadership
practice:
A
distributed
perspective.
Edutcational Researcher
30(3):
23-28.
Spillane,
J.
P.,
R.
Halverson,
and
J. B.
Diamond.
2004.
Towards
a
theory of
leadership
practice:
A
distributed
perspective.
lournal
ofCurriciliiin
Stidies
36(1):
3-34.
Spillane,
J. P.,
J.
B.
Diamond,
J.
Sherer,
and
A.
Coldren.
in
press.
Distributing
leadership.
In
Developing
leadership:
Creating
the
schools
oftomnorrow,
ed.
M.
Coles
and
G.
Southworth.
Milton
Keyes:
Open University
Press.
Thompson,
J.
D.
1967.
Organizations
in
action:
Social science
bases
of
administrative
theory.
New
York:
McGraw
Hill.
James
P.
Spillane
is
Professor
of Education
and
Social
Policy
and
a
Faculty
Fellow
at
the
Institutefor
Policy
Research,
Northwestern
University,
where
he
teaches
in
the
Learning
Sciences
and
Human
Development
and
Social
Policy
graduate
programs.
He
is
author
of
Standards
Deviation
(2004),
Distributed
Leadership
(in
press),
and
numerous
journal
articles
and
book
chapters.
Spillane
is
Principal
Investigator
of
the
Distributed
Leadership
Study,
www.distributedleadership.org.
I~~
\cJu:!
150
*
The
Educational
Forum
*
Volume
69
*
Winter
2005
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
TITLE: Distributed Leadership
SOURCE: Educ Forum 69 no2 Wint 2005
WN: 0534903464006
The magazine publisher is the copyright holder of this article and it
is reproduced with permission. Further reproduction of this article in
violation of the copyright is prohibited. To contact the publisher:
http://www.kdp.org/
Copyright 1982-2005 The H.W. Wilson Company. All rights reserved.
... However, leading innovation processes in schools involve school principals and teachers, referring to forms of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership means that multiple team members can be considered leaders and leadership is a fluid co-performance process (Daniëls et al., 2019;Harris & Spillane, 2008;Spillane, 2005). Such collaborative approaches to innovation in schools raise new situations of leadership and call for new roles, attitudes, and acts among school principals and teachers. ...
... In most theoretical frameworks, leadership has commonly been defined as individuals exerting influence over others to structure activities and relationships, knowledge, and skills (Daniëls et al., 2019;Yukl, 2002). Distributed leadership theory postulates that multiple team members can be considered leaders, thus both school principals and teachers, as they are able to influence the motivation, knowledge, or practices of other team members (Daniëls et al., 2019;Harris & Spillane, 2008;Spillane, 2005). A growing body of literature acknowledges a crucial role of distributed leadership for successful innovations in schools (Brown et al., 2020;Daniëls et al., 2019;Fullan, 2016;Hulpia et al., 2009;Jambo & Hongde, 2020;Law et al., 2010;Meijer, 2014;Ricard et al., 2017;Sullivan et al., 2012;Tian et al., 2016;Tummers & Knies, 2013;Vogel & Masal, 2015). ...
... Distributed leadership theory is well-known in both the academic world and school practice (Gronn, 2002;Spillane, 2005). However, limited studies exist that theoretically describe and afterwards empirically measure distributed leadership (D'Innocenzo et al., 2016;Daniëls et al., 2019;Harris, 2013;Tian et al., 2016). ...
... Results also partially support the rich get richer effect, or Matthew effect (Merton, 1968), as popular advisors tend to attract more advice seekers. As suggested by research on distributed or shared leadership (Carson et al., 2007;Spillane, 2005), one of the most important factors behind successful collaboration is trust-based relationships among team members. The significance of the transitivity effect in our models confirms the importance of leveraging the role of popular advisors to bridge silos and solve complex cases. ...
Article
Purpose This study aims to investigate the dynamics of knowledge sharing in health care, exploring some of the factors that are more likely to influence the evolution of idea sharing and advice seeking in health care. Design/methodology/approach The authors engaged 50 pediatricians representing many subspecialties at a mid-size US children’s hospital using a social network survey to map and measure advice seeking and idea sharing networks. Through the application of Stochastic Actor-Oriented Models, the authors compared the structure of the two networks prior to a leadership program and eight weeks post conclusion. Findings The models indicate that health-care professionals carefully and intentionally choose with whom they share ideas and from whom to seek advice. The process is fluid, non-hierarchical and open to changing partners. Significant transitivity effects indicate that the processes of knowledge sharing can be supported by mediation and brokerage. Originality/value Hospital administrators can use this method to assess knowledge-sharing dynamics, design and evaluate professional development initiatives and promote new organizational structures that break down communication silos. This work contributes to the literature on knowledge sharing in health care by adopting a social network approach, going beyond the dyadic level and assessing the indirect influence of peers’ relationships on individual networks.
Article
Full-text available
Schools are a complex system made up of not only relationships, infrastructures, and challenges, but also constraints. It seems essential that schools, as complex organizations, work in synergy, according to a shared vision with all the actors involved in the educational process. School management is now part of a process that is increasingly implemented in a shared way; a single person in charge cannot manage the complexity that the school requires. In order to observe and narrate this complexity, the National Institute of Documentation, Innovation, and Educational Research (INDIRE) has carried out several research projects in recent years that focus on the analysis of school leadership. In particular, the European project Learning Leadership for Change (L2C) aimed to promote and support the experimentation of a shared leadership approach in some strategic areas for schools. The results of this project highlighted the importance of the lighthouse leaders in implementing shared leadership, whose main function is to involve all school actors keeping the community active and growing. These more informal teams do not remove the need for the so-called formal intermediate management structures. It is also essential for the shared leadership approach to create sharing networks that include local and regional strategic partners to reinforce the sustainability of these innovative practices.
Article
School practitioners’ receptivity to reform influences the success of policy implementation. In Taiwan, the Ministry of Education launched a curriculum reform in 2019. To determine how to enhance school agency for the policy, we explored the individual and contextual factors affecting receptivity to the new curriculum. With a survey design, this study recruited secondary school teachers and principals throughout Taiwan as samples. Hierarchical regression models were conducted to examine the effects of individual factors (conceptions of distributed leadership and collective learning) and organizational culture (power distance, uncertainty avoidance, and academic emphasis) on practitioners’ receptivity to curriculum reform. Both the main and interactive effects were investigated. The results indicate that respondents who positively conceived distributed leadership and collective learning were more receptive to change. Regarding the three indicators of organizational culture, we found no significant effect of power distance, while the main effect of uncertainty avoidance and the moderation effect of academic emphasis existed. Those who perceived their schools with high uncertainty avoidance levels were more resistant to reform efforts. Besides, a positive linkage between teacher conception of collective learning and affection for change was more evident in schools with less academic emphasis. Our study suggests that school reforms must be understood within the individual and school contexts. The finding about the moderation effect of academic emphasis furthermore signifies the cultural implication in Asian societies.
Chapter
This chapter focuses on the role of school leaders as they work with and between the assessment and inclusion agendas. Highlighting first the complex governance arrangements in our case countries, we analyse leaders’ latitude as “policy remakers” in their own school contexts. With Deleuze and Guatarri’s (A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia. University of Minnesota, 1987) concept of affect as a theoretical framework, we then explore how various human and non-human bodies interact to strengthen or limit school leaders’ capacities to work in areas of assessment and inclusion and school leaders’ own affects in these domains. Our data reveals that school leaders draw on a variety of discourses, technologies, instruments, and actors in their attempt to provide a quality, inclusive education for all, while, on the other hand, attempting to cater for other social, economic, and educational agendas in the school. However, at various times, these bodies and intersecting agendas can restrict school leaders’ capacities. Most significantly, we highlight the significance of the multi-scalarity of affect and its implications for the transformative potential of education.
Article
Literature presents evidence of the exponential rise of distributed leadership both as a focus of research and as leadership development in education in the twenty first century (Hairon, S., and J. W. Goh. 2015. “Pursuing the Elusive Construct of Distributed Leadership: Is the Search Over?” Educational Management Administration & Leadership 43 (5): 693–718; Hall, D. 2013. “The Strange Case of the Emergence of Distributed Leadership in Schools in England.” Educational Review 65: 467–487), in addition to the growing criticism of the theory’s dominance and its ‘acquired taken-for-granted status’ (Lumby, J. 2016. “Distributed Leadership as Fashion or fad.” Management in Education 30 (4): 161–167). This paper thus seeks to provide a systematic review of the literature on distributed leadership published between 2010 and 2022 through a methodical collection, documentation, scrutiny, and critical analysis of the research publications. The review seeks to identify trends in distributed leadership knowledge production according to the study type/purpose, topical foci, methodological approach, focus group, and geographic distribution via a narrative synthesis approach (Oplatka, I., and K. Arar. 2017. “The Research on Educational Leadership and Management in the Arab World Since the 1990s: A Systematic Review.” Review of Education 5 (3): 267–307).
Article
The purpose of this study is to determine the distributed leadership level of school administrators. The study is in the cross-sectional survey model to determine the distributed leadership level of school administrators. The sample of the study consists of 325 school administrators (principals and assistant principals) working in schools in the districts of Konya, Türkiye. In the study, the “Distributed leadership scale” developed by Hairon and Goh (2015) and adapted into Turkish by Akyürek (2022) was used to determine the level of distributed leadership. The results show that distributed leadership perceptions of school administrators were high. Moreover, distributed leadership perceptions of school administrators did not show a significant difference according to gender, age, duty, educational status, seniority of administration and school type variables. In this context, cooperation can be made with all education stakeholders, especially school administrators, and their opinions can be sought in order to carry out distributed leadership in schools more effectively on the basis of authorization, participation and sharing.
Article
Il progetto “Rompiscatole” ha coinvolto due gruppi di studenti drop-out tra i 16 e i 18 anni della scuola secondaria CIA (Centro d’Istruzione per l’Adulto e l’Adolescente) “A. Manzoni” del Comune di Milano, che propone due anni in uno, per aiutare studenti che hanno avuto percorsi scolastici travagliati a ritornare a scuola. La sperimentazione svolta nell’ambito dei PCTO (Percorsi per le Competenze Trasversali e per l’Orientamento) prevedeva attività di laboratorio e progettazione collaborativa di ambienti della scuola poco utilizzati, per promuovere e migliorare motivazione, creatività, STEAM, riflessione metacognitiva attraverso un’autovalutazione sulle attività, e per orientarsi nel progetto di vita, proponendo un apprendimento attivo, in cui l’insegnante svolge un ruolo di mentore.
Book
Full-text available
In the early 1980s, a series of research studies reported that American schools had failed to produce literate and numerate graduates. This shortcoming was linked to the nation's declining economic position in the world marketplace, which led to a widespread, intensive school-restructuring movement. Drawing on multiple perspectives, the purpose of this book is to capture what has been learned to date about restructuring schools. Chapter 1 examines the impetus for rebuilding American schools by reviewing the classical arguments for organizational decentralization as well as more school-specific forces supporting reform. The second chapter provides an overview of restructuring and discusses the reasons why the restructured-schools movement represents a significant change in thinking about education. Chapters 3-5 deal specifically with major components of educational restructuring, including work redesign, organization and governance structures, and educational processes. The final chapter presents a critical examination of restructuring and the issues requiring further treatment as well as those factors that need to be addressed if change is to flourish. (Contains 290 references.) (LMI)
Article
Full-text available
Although the is little disagreement conquering the belief that principals have an impact on the lives of teachers and students, both the nature and degree of this effect continues to be open to debate. The relationship is complex and not easily subject to empirical verification. This article reviews the empirical literature on the relationship between the principal's role and school effectiveness during the period from 1980 to 1995. We specifically focus on the conceptual underpinnings of several theoretical models to study the role, the relationship between models and methods of investigation, an4 consequently, to what has been learned about the nature of the principal impact. We conclude by framing a possible research agenda for the next generation of studies on the effects of school administration.
Article
Full-text available
In this study we identified a set of change leadership functions, including sustaining a vision for change, encouraging staff, modifying standard operating procedures, and monitoring progress. This study of program change in 8 schools-4 that successfully institutionalized Elias and Clabby's Social Problem Solving (SPS) program, 3 that only institutionalized it in a token form, and 1 that institutionalized it among a subset of teachers-provided evidence that these functions do contribute to change. Data came from interviews with 8 principals, 24 teachers, 3 district informants, and SPS staff. Our results also suggested that these functions are performed redundantly by people in a variety of overlapping roles, including central office personnel, principals, teachers, and outside consultants rather by any ''heroic leader.'' Implications for teacher leadership are discussed.
Article
Full-text available
While there is an expansive literature about what school structures, programs, and processes are necessary for instructional change, we know less about how these changes are undertaken or enacted by school leaders in their daily work. To study school leadership we must attend to lead- ership practice rather than chiefly or exclu- sively to school structures, programs, and designs. An in-depth analysis of the prac-
Article
Full-text available
This is a study of distributed leadership in the context of elementary schools' adoption of comprehensive school reforms (CSR). Most CSRs are designed to configure school leadership by defining formal roles, and we hypothesized that such programs activate those roles by defining expectations for and socializing (e.g., through professional development) role incumbents. Configuration and activation were further hypothesized to influence the performance of leadership functions in schools. Using data from a study of three of the most widely adopted CSR models, support was found for the configuration and activation hypotheses. Leadership configuration in CSR schools differed from that of nonCSR schools in part because of the addition of model-specific roles. Model participation was also related to the performance of leadership functions as principals in CSR schools and CSR-related role incumbents were found to provide significant amounts of instructional leadership. Further support for the activation hypothesis is suggested by positive relationships between leaders' professional development experiences and their performance of instructional leadership.
Article
Full-text available
Dans le cadre de l'implementation de nouvelles reformes, quels sont les facteurs necessaires a la reussite d'un tel projet, notamment au niveau local, dans la prise en compte de la dimension hierarchique de l'institution scolaire. Quels sont les roles des differents acteurs de la vie pedagogique d'un etablissement ? L'article insiste sur l'importance d'une interaction et d'une intercomprehension entre enseignants et le personnel administratif, charge de veiller a l'implementation des reformes...
Article
Full-text available
School‐level conditions and school leadership, in particular, are key issues in efforts to change instruction. While new organizational structures and new leadership roles matter to instructional innovation, what seems most critical is how leadership practice is undertaken. Yet, the practice of school leadership has received limited attention in the research literature. Building on activity theory and theories of distributed cognition, this paper develops a distributed perspective on school leadership as a frame for studying leadership practice, arguing that leadership practice is constituted in the interaction of school leaders, followers, and the situation.
Article
In this paper, we challenge the traditional understanding of organizational routines as creating inertia in organizations. We adapt Latour's distinction between ostensive and performative to build a theory that explains why routines are a source of change as well as stability. The ostensive aspect of a routine embodies what we typically think of as the structure. The performative aspect embodies the specific actions, by specific people, at specific times and places, that bring the routine to life. We argue that the ostensive aspect enables people to guide, account for, and refer to specific performances of a routine, and the performative aspect creates, maintains, and modifies the ostensive aspect of the routine. We argue that the relationship between ostensive and performative aspects of routines creates an on-going opportunity for variation, selection, and retention of new practices and patterns of action within routines and allows routines to generate a wide range of outcomes, from apparent stability to considerable change. This revised ontology of organizational routines provides a better explanation of empirical findings than existing theories of routines and has implications for a wide range of organizational theories.
Article
This review of related literature and research prompted the development of a framework for understanding the role of the principal as an instructional manager. A number of links between school-level variables and student learning are proposed. The discussion includes consideration of instrictional organization, school climate, influence behavior, and the context of principal management.