Distributed Leadership
Distributed Leadership
Distributed Leadership
THE
'
<5I'
'
'
'
'
'.
Distributed Leadership
by James P. Spillane
two reasons;.Firstjhe
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
Spillane
leadership involves multiple leaders; others argue that leadership is an organizational
quality, rather than an individual attribute. Still others use distributed leadership to define 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.
lDistributedleadership often is
cast as
sort
some
of monolithic
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 leadership scholars have long recognized the importance of these interactions and acknowledged that leadership typically involves more people than those at the top of the organizational hierarchy. My argument is not simply that situation is important to leadership
practice, but that it actually constitutes leadership practice-situation defines leadership practice in interaction with leaders and followers. This way of thinking about situation differs substantially from prior work.
Spillane
one immediately notices how leadership practice becomes defined in the interactions of leaders and followers. These leadership routines often involve some combination of four leaders: the principal, the school's literacy coordinator, the AfricanAmerican Heritage coordinator, and a teacher leader. At times, these leaders' actions
parallel or overlap one another; at other times, they do not. The principal emphasizes goals and standards, keeps the meetings moving, summarizes comments, and
reminds participants of what is expected in their classrooms. The literacy coordinator 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.
n7~LsJLStrlbUteL4 leadership
ledrsi
Strtor
and foremost about leadership
, .:
practice rather than leaders or
their roles,
routines,
their
. functions,
fuirol
and structures.
creating a reciprocal
interde-
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 interdependent tasks, arranged sequentially, are critical to the performance of a leadership
routine. For example, the five-week assessment at Adams School illustrates how leadership 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.
lems.
* The literacy coordinator
:nteractions
a af
~~~~~tha'n Qas
o o
or
dfnctiofi of one or
moreleaders'actions.
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 teachers in a literacy committee meeting is the performative aspect of the routine. The ostensive aspect frames practiceboth enabling and constraining
it. Practice creates and recreates
Descriptiv'e
heor~buildithe
Dsii hrb lng::
Essays
Is this perspective on situation new? After all, contingency theorists have long maintained 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, external variable. Rather it defines leadership practice in interaction with leaders and followers. 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.
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. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes9(3): 35668.
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. EducationalAdministration Qluarterly 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 Journal96(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: Captiring 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. Journalof
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 ofCurriciliiinStidies 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. Organizationsin 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 graduateprograms. He is author of
Standards Deviation (2004), Distributed Leadership (in press), and numerous journal
articles and book chapters. Spillane is PrincipalInvestigatorof the DistributedLeadership
Study, www.distributedleadership.org.
I~~
\cJu:!
COPYRIGHT INFORMATION