The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at

www.emeraldinsight.com/0262-1711.htm

Distributed
Distributed leadership: leadership
implications for the role
of the principal
7
Alma Harris
Institute of Education, London, UK

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to focus on distributed leadership in schools and explore the
implications arising from this model of leadership for those in formal leadership positions. It considers
how the role of the principal, in particular, is affected and changed as leadership is more widely shared
within the organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper draws upon a wide range of research literature to
explore the available empirical evidence about distributed leadership and organizational outcomes.
The analysis focuses particularly on the evidence base concerning distributed leadership and student
learning outcomes.
Findings – This analysis of the available evidence highlights the potential for distributed leadership
to make a difference to organizational change and improvement. It suggests that principals need to
relinquish power and authority; that there is an inevitable shift away from leadership as position
to leadership as interaction and that principals will need to build a high degree of reciprocal trust to
negotiate successfully the fault lines of formal and informal leadership practice.
Originality/value – The paper contributes a contemporary overview of literature about the impact
of distributed leadership and analyses the implications for the role of the school principal.
Keywords Principals, Schools, Distributed leadership, Educational policy
Paper type Literature review

Introduction
Distributed leadership, or the expansion of leadership roles in schools, beyond those in
formal leadership or administrative posts, represents one of the most influential ideas
to emerge in the field of educational leadership in the past decade (Hallinger and Heck,
2009). The idea of distributed leadership as “leadership shared within and between
schools” (Harris, 2008, p. 16) has found favour with researchers, policy makers,
practitioners and educational reformers around the globe (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2008;
Leithwood et al., 2009). Few ideas, it seems, have provoked as much attention, debate
and controversy in the school leadership field, than this particular concept.
Distributed leadership is the dominant leadership idea of the moment, even though
its genesis can be traced back to the field of organizational theory in the mid-1960s and
possibly even further. While the idea of shared, collaborative or participative
leadership is far from new, distributed leadership theory has provided a new lens on a
familiar theme. The work of Spillane et al. (2001) has sparked renewed interest in
leadership as practice focusing particularly on the interactions between leaders, Journal of Management Development
Vol. 31 No. 1, 2012
followers and their situation. This work on distributed leadership theory reinforces pp. 7-17
that there are multiple sources of influence within any organisation and has focused q Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0262-1711
empirical attention on the “leader plus” aspect of leadership work (Spillane, 2006, p. 3). DOI 10.1108/02621711211190961
JMD The current conversation about educational leadership has shifted decidedly
31,1 towards a focus upon distributed or multiple sources of influence and agency
(Leithwood and Mascallm, 2008, p. 529). While this shift, in part, reflects some
disillusionment with individual conceptions of leadership often characterised as the
“great man” theory, it does not imply that principals are redundant. The research
evidence highlights that without the support of the principal, distributed leadership is
8 unlikely to flourish or be sustained. Evidence shows that effective principals
orchestrate the structural and cultural conditions in which distributed leadership is
more or less likely. They play a key role in leadership distribution and are a critical
component in building leadership capacity throughout the school. At the school level,
to varying degrees all change flows through the principal’s office. As Murphy et al.
(2009, p. 4) note:
[. . .] these formal leaders are in a critical position to move initiatives forward or to kill them
off, quickly through actions or slowly through neglect. This law of change is magnified in the
area of distributed leadership.
In summary, principals occupy the critical space in the teacher leadership equation and
centre stage in the work redesign required to bring distributed leadership to life in
schools.
A distributed perspective on leadership however does suggest a changed role for the
principal. This shift is quite dramatic and can be summarised as a move from being
someone at the apex of the organisation, making decisions, to seeing their core role as
developing the leadership capacity and capability of others. What distributed leadership
means for principals is a fundamental change in their understanding of leadership and in
the ways they enact their leadership roles. It implies the relinquishing of some authority
and power, which is not an easy task, and a repositioning of the role from exclusive
leadership to a form of leadership that is more concerned with brokering, facilitating and
supporting others in leading innovation and change. It will require a different conception
of the organisation, one that moves away from the bureaucratic to the collaborative.
It will also mean the development of new skills and a new repertoire of approaches that
fit the new role.
From a distributed perspective, interactions are a critical part of leadership practice.
How leaders interact is considered to be more important than the nature of their
leadership roles, responsibilities or functions. While is important to know what leaders
actually do, and there is a great volume of literature on this particular subject,
analysing and understanding patterns of influence from a distributed perspective, it is
argued, gets us much closer to the practice of leadership. The implication for principals
is that they are a crucial part of the leadership practice in a school but that there are
other sources of influence and direction. The key message here is that for many
principals a personal transformation in leadership needs to occur so that efforts to
nurture the growth of other leaders can succeed. As Murphy et al. (2009) note:
[. . .] it is difficult to imagine that principals will develop the sense of security that is a
necessary ingredient in the distributed leadership formula. This is challenging work, but
principals who do not begin here are not likely to be effective in making distributed
leadership a reality in their schools.
This article explores what we know about distributed leadership and what this
evidence implies for future leadership in our schools.
Distributed leadership: what we know Distributed
Distributed leadership is increasingly been seen as a contributor to organisational leadership
growth and success. From a distributed perspective, it is the nature and the effects of
leadership practice that matter. Knowing if, how and in what way distributed
leadership practice influences organisational outcomes is at the heart of a great deal of
contemporary empirical enquiry (Leithwood et al., 2009; Harris, 2009). In England, a
recent study of school transformation has shown that distributed leadership is a key 9
component of success and highlights how this was associated with higher performance
and gains in achievement. In all the school cases, the principals had deliberately shared
leadership responsibilities in order to support innovation and change. This was a very
conscious and deliberate strategy by the principals to extend and build leadership
capacity within the schools.
Contemporary evidence tends to support a positive relationship between distributed
leadership, organisational improvement and student achievement (Harris, 2009;
Hallinger and Heck, 2009; Leithwood and Mascallm, 2008; Harris, 2008). These studies
have underlined and reinforced the importance of distributed leadership as a potential
contributor to positive organisational change and improvement. However, all these
researchers acknowledge that there is more work to be done to understand the impact,
both positive and negative, of distributed leadership across different schools and
school contexts.
Even though the evidence base about distributed leadership is still emerging,
distributed leadership has already been adopted as part of educational reforms in a
number of countries including the UK, the USA, Australia, parts of Europe and
New Zealand. Implicitly all these reforms take a normative stance on leadership
distribution and emphasise extended forms of leadership at school, district and system
level. Most of these reforms endorse and reinforce shared or collective leadership
practices primarily but not exclusively at the school level. In most cases, these policy
reforms have been located in Western contexts but in 2000 Hong Kong becoming one of
the first Asian societies to explicitly adopt distributed school leadership.
In The Netherlands and many Scandinavian countries, distributed leadership is
associated with more democratic and equitable forms of schooling. It is implicit in the
educational discourse and practices of many of European education systems.
For example, in The Netherlands, a new leadership competency framework has
embraced the principles of distributed leadership. In Wales, distributed leadership is a
key part of the national school effectiveness framework. It is seen as an essential
component of raising standards and improving school performance. In England,
distributed leadership has featured heavily in work-force remodelling and reform along
with the introduction of new models of schooling such as federations, partnerships,
networks and multi-agency working. In the USA, distributed leadership is a feature of
many of the comprehensive school reform approaches.
Despite words of caution from many in the research community, distributed
leadership is clearly being advocated and endorsed in educational policy around the
world. This is both good news and bad news. On the positive side there is evidence to
suggest that certain forms of collective leadership or forms of distributed influence
“have a modest but significant indirect effect on student achievement” (Leithwood and
Mascallm, 2008, p. 546). However, the caveat is that just distributing leadership is not
enough, it is how leadership is distributed that matters. Distributed leadership is not
JMD intrinsically a good or bad thing. It depends upon the purpose of the distribution and
31,1 most importantly, the role the principal plays in the distribution.
As Leithwood et al. (2009) have shown in their empirical analysis, purposeful or
planned leadership distribution is more likely to impact positively on school
development and change. This purposeful or planned distribution cannot take place
without the principal. The centrality of the principal in distributed leadership is further
10 confirmed by findings from a large-scale study of the impact of leadership on student
learning outcomes. This work shows effective principals that have sustained
improvement (in terms of academic attainment) exhibit certain key leadership
practices. The evidence shows that they actively and purposefully restructure,
re-formulate and re-design leadership practice so that it is more widely distributed. The
important point here is that the principals actively create and support certain forms of
distributed leadership and discount others. Distributed leadership in improving schools,
occurs by design rather than default (Day et al., 2009).
How leadership is distributed explains much of its subsequent effect, for good or ill, on
the organisation. We need to know much more about the patterns of distribution and to
understand which configurations are most likely to have a positive impact on the school.
We need to know how distributed leadership makes a difference to organisational outcomes
rather than continually seeking more confirmation that it does. We need to know more
about the role the principal plays in orchestrating and implementing distributed leadership
practice. If distributed leadership is worth further research and empirical investigation we
have to be assured that there is something worth pursuing. The school leadership field is
fond of producing new labels for leadership without any empirical verification or
confirmation. So the question is what do we know about distributed leadership and
organisational outcomes and what, if any, are the implications for principals?
It is important to note that at the outset that distributed leadership is not an idea devoid
of controversy or critique. Writes like Fitzgerald and Gunter (2006) and Hargreaves and
Fink (2009) have called into question the motivation of those espousing distributed
leadership. In their view, it is possible that distributed leadership is little more than a
palatable way of encouraging teachers to do more work, a way of reinforcing
standardisation practices, simply old managerialism in a contemporary guise. Instead of
being a more democratic form of leadership, Hargreaves and Fink (2009) propose that
distributed leadership could be another, more attractive, mechanism for delivering
government policy. Fitzgerald and Gunter (2006, p. 335) go further suggesting that teacher
leadership, which is closely associated with distributed leadership practices, “merely
cements authority and hierarchy whereby leaders monitor teachers and their work to
ensure set of predetermined standards are met.” They argue “that teacher leadership is
deeply rooted in neo-liberal versions of the performing school and that it is a management
strategy and not a radical alternative” (Fitzgerald and Gunter, 2006, p. 335).
It is important not to lose sight of these critical perspectives but it is unclear exactly
what form of “radical alternative” distributed leadership is assumed to be (Fitzgerald
and Gunter, 2006). Most writers on the topic have taken care not to pronounce in this
way. Within the expanding empirical literature on distributed leadership, those in the
leadership field have taken great care to point out the shortcomings and its limitations
(Leithwood and Mascallm, 2008; Harris, 2009). So it is difficult to understand the logic
of the “new rationalities” proposed by Fitzgerald and Gunter (2006) or indeed what
they are aiming to achieve.
Putting distributed leadership to the empirical test Distributed
The chameleon-like quality of the term “distributed leadership” immediately invites leadership
both misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Part of the problem is that the term is an
elusive concept. It tends to slide between descriptive, analytical and normative or
applied interpretations. As a consequence, it is often used to mean distinctively
different things and such discrepancy in meaning allow researchers to talk past each
other (Mayrowetz, 2008, p. 425). One common misuse of the term is as a convenient 11
“catch all” descriptor for any form of shared, collaborative or extended leadership
practice. This interpretation is quite prevalent in the literature, blurring the meaning of
the term even further. Yet it is clear from those writing about distributed leadership
that different conceptualisations and interpretations of the term persist and prevail
(Harris, 2007). As Mayrowetz (2008) argues it is crucial to inventory the multiple
usages of the term distributed leadership for two reasons. First, because of the
variation in meaning and second, in order to make clearer connections between these
usages and the goal of school improvement. If we are to look at the relationship
between distributed leadership and school improvement, precision of definition is
crucial. However, as Leithwood et al. (2009) has recently pointed out there seems to be
little to be gained in continuing to debate the rights and wrongs of different positions
or perspectives on distributed leadership. The main challenge is to start thinking about
measuring the degree and extent of any organisational impact and effect.
Apart from issues of definition, another problem with distributed leadership is its
popular positioning as the antithesis of top-down, hierarchical leadership. This
misinterpretation is unhelpful. While distributed leadership is certainly an alternative
way of understanding leadership practice and can certainly be positioned in relation to
“top-down” models of leadership, it is not the simply the opposite of formal autocratic
leadership. Distributed leadership encompasses both formal and the informal forms of
leadership practice within its framing, analysis and interpretation. It is primarily
concerned with the co-performance of leadership and the reciprocal interdependencies
that shape that leadership practice (Spillane, 2006, p. 58). This co-leadership can
involve both formal and informal leaders, it is not an “either/or”. To construe it this
way maintains an unhelpful dichotomy and fuels a rather futile debate about whether
hierarchical or distributed forms of leadership might be more desirable.
Although much has been written about distributed leadership two pressing questions
remain. First, what difference, if any, do certain patterns or configurations of distributed
leadership make to classrooms, schools and school systems? Second, how do we know?
The methodological challenges associated with research into these two questions are
considerable. Part of the reason for the proliferation of accounts of single and often “heroic”
leaders, is partly explained by the methodological ease of data gathering. If leadership
equates with role and position, then it is relatively straightforward to collect evidence
about the actions and responsibilities of those occupying leadership positions. It is fairly
easy to compile case studies based upon the actions, usually self-reported, of individual
leaders. However, if leadership is construed as interaction and the aggregate of a complex
set of social processes then the methodological challenges increase exponentially.
It is without question, more difficult to investigate distributed leadership because of
the multiple sources of influence. But it is not impossible. Clearly, the data collection
methods need to be more sophisticated and nuanced to capture distributed leadership
practice. As the work of Spillane (2006) and his colleagues has shown, it is possible
JMD to research distributed leadership practice and to provide an operationalisation of
31,1 distributed leadership in schools. This rich empirical work has provided the basis for
much of the contemporary evidence about distributed leadership practice.
Work by Spillane et al. (2001) highlights how the practice of leadership moves
between the principal and those in formal and informal leadership positions. This work
focuses on the nature of interdependencies and the co-performance of leadership
12 practice. Implicit in the notion of “co-performance” is the possibility that those
performing the practice might be pursuing different or even contradictory goals. “From
a distributed perspective, leaders can interact in the co-performance of leadership
routines even when they seek different or conflicting outcomes” (Spillane, 2006, p. 84).
This does not mean that dissent or a breakdown in performance is inevitable.
A distributed perspective simply recognises the possibility that people may be
working with different goals or outcomes in mind.
But what do we already know from the empirical evidence about distributed
leadership? What, if anything, can we say its impact and effects? There are things we
know about the evidence and from the evidence. First, we know that the empirical base
about distributed leadership can be found in different research fields and traditions.
Studies that offer research informed insights into distributed leadership are located in the
literatures pertaining to school improvement, organisational change, teacher leadership
and school leadership. This research terrain is inevitably diverse and draws upon
various traditions and methodological positions. However, despite the miscellaneous
nature of the evidential base, there are consistent messages about distributed leadership
and organisational change that are worth noting, most importantly that there is evidence
of a positive relationship and beneficial effects to the organisation of wider leadership
distribution (Harris, 2008; Leithwood and Mascallm, 2008).
Second, there are a growing number of studies that have started to focus
attention explicitly on the impact of distributed leadership on teachers and learning
(Leithwood et al., 2009). These studies provide evidence about the nature, form and
impact of distributed leadership practices in schools. Studies by Camburn and Han
(2009), Hallinger and Heck (2009) and Mascall and Leithwood highlight a positive
relationship between distributed leadership and certain student learning outcomes plus
a positive impact on teachers’ level of self-efficacy and motivation. As Leithwood et al.
(2009) conclude the field is now much closer to developing impact studies of distributed
leadership as a result of the theoretical, conceptual and empirical work undertaken to
date. The challenge to the field is to start designing these studies.
Third, a number of research studies have conceptualised distributed leadership as a
form of work redesign and have deliberately looked at distributed leadership as a form
of job re-design or work restructuring (Harris, 2008). Other researchers have paid close
attention to the different patterns of leadership distribution in schools (Leithwood et al.,
2009; Spillane and Camburn, 2006). In both cases the main question being pursued is
what different patterns of distributed leadership exist in schools and whether, and in
what way, if any, do they affect organisational outcomes? Generally, the findings show
that the configuration of leadership distribution is important and that certain patterns
of distribution have a more positive effect than others upon organizational
development and change (Leithwood et al., 2009).
It is also clear from the evidence that there are different formations of leadership
distribution in schools, some are random and some are carefully orchestrated.
Leithwood et al. (2009) suggest that there the different patterns of distribution reflect Distributed
differing degrees or active alignment and co-ordination. Their work reinforces the leadership
importance of planned, aligned distributed leadership practice that is purposeful and
focused. Other evidence points towards the importance of “principal directed”
approaches to distributed leadership (Harris, 2008; Day et al., 2009). The key message
here is that some patterns of distributed leadership are more likely to result in positive
organisational outcomes than others and that school principals play a pivotal role in 13
orchestrating the conditions of success.
This takes us to the fourth clear finding from the empirical evidence which shows
that schools that are successful have re-structured and re-designed themselves
deliberately so that leadership can be more widely shared and spread. They have
remodelled roles, responsibilities. They have created new teams, flattened structures
and essentially given individuals greater responsibility and accountability for their
work. As highlighted earlier some writers propose that distributed leadership is in fact a
form of work-redesign. The implication here is that certain forms of work redesign
creates key critical psychological states where employees feel more responsible for their
work, are given greater autonomy and are provided with adequate feedback on
performance. Mayorwetz et al. (2009) propose an elaborated model for the study of
distributed leadership based upon work re-design that explains how distributed
leadership equates with redesigned work and how this connects to motivation and
learning resulting, potentially, in improved organisational outcomes.
The emerging evidence reinforces that distributed leadership has a greater impact
upon organizational development where certain structural and cultural barriers are in
place. These findings are substantiated by the organizational development and
improvement literature. Within this literature is the strongest indication yet that
distributed leadership has the potential to positively influence organizational change and
student learning outcomes. This takes us to the fifth area of evidence, distributed
leadership and student learning outcomes.

Distributed leadership and student learning outcomes

It is clear that this is the most controversial and contested area. Positions on the
relationship between distributed leadership and student learning outcomes vary. Some
writers have argued that seeking to explore this relationship is a futile exercise. They
suggest that the “search for normative links between specific leadership distribution
patterns and student achievement results is unlikely to yield clear guidelines for
practice”. Others have argued that distributing leadership is only desirable if the
quality of leadership activities contributes to “assisting teachers to provide more
effective instruction to their students”. But what does the evidence show?
There are a limited number of studies that have explicitly explored the
relationship between distributed leadership and learning outcomes. However, we
have some evidence. Two studies, in particular, offer a useful starting point in
highlighting what we know about distributed leadership and student learning
outcomes. The first study by Leithwood and Jantzi suggest that distributing a larger
proportion of leadership activity to teachers has a positive influence on teacher
effectiveness and student engagement. They also note that teacher leadership has a
significant effect on student engagement that far outweighs principal leadership
effects after taking into account home family background. The second study by Silins
JMD and Mulford’s also provides confirmation of the key processes through which more
31,1 distributed kinds of leadership influence student learning outcomes. Their work
concluded that “student outcomes are more likely to improve when leadership sources
are distributed throughout the school community and when teachers are empowered
in areas of importance to them.”
Other studies have also demonstrated a positive relationship between distributed
14 leadership and student learning outcomes. A study of teacher leadership conducted in
England found positive relationships between the degree of teachers’ involvement in
decision making and student motivation and self-efficacy. This study explored the
relationship between teacher involvement in decision making within the school and a
range of student outcomes. These findings show a positive relationship between
distributed leadership and student engagement. In addition, both teacher and student
morale improved where teachers felt more included and involved in decision making
within the school.
Contemporary work that has focused upon distributed leadership and instructional
change includes work by Camburn and Han (2009) that explored the outcomes of
distributed leadership by drawing upon extensive evidence from an investigation into
the America’s Choice CSR program. A core design feature of this program is the
requirement to distribute leadership responsibilities to teacher leaders in schools, and
this distribution of leadership in turn, is intended to act as a key lever for instructional
change. Their research work outlined the impact of this program in 30 urban
elementary schools and investigated the association between the distribution of
leadership to teachers and instructional change. This study concluded that distributing
leadership to teachers can support positive instructional change.
In their research, Hallinger and Heck (2009) explored the impact of system policies
on the development of distributed school leadership and school improvement. Their
quantitative analysis and results support a relationship between distributed leadership
and school capacity for improvement. They conclude that distributed leadership is an
important co-effect of school improvement processes. Similarly, research by Day et al.
(2009, p. 17) found that “substantial leadership distribution was very important to a
school’ success in improving pupil outcomes”. The findings from this study showed
that distributed leadership was positively correlated to the conditions within the
organisation, including staff morale, which in turn impacted positively upon student
behaviour and student learning outcomes. Other studies that have focused, in part, on
the relationship between leadership and learning (Leithwood et al., 2009) have also
highlighted the potentially positive influence of distributed leadership practices on
student learning outcomes.
However, we need to know more about the unintended consequences and limitations
of distributed leadership before offering any advice or prescription. It is important to
understand the limitations and pitfalls as well as the opportunities and potential of this
“new model” of leadership practice. The methodological challenges in addressing these
questions are extensive. Yet, as Spillane et al. (2001) have shown distributed leadership
can be operationalised so that we can investigate further exactly how distributed
leadership practice impacts on organisational performance. So what are the
implications for principals arising from this evidence?
Implications Distributed
There is an important distinction between exploring implications and offering leadership
prescription. As we have seen, the distributed leadership evidential base is not yet
robust enough to offer definitive leadership models, blueprints or algorithms, even if
the inclination were to do so. The leadership field is already replete with formulaic
solutions that tend not to deliver all that they promise. Hence, the remainder of this
article will steer away from solutions and offer general observations about future 15
leadership and leadership development based on what we actually know about
distributed leadership practice.
As a starting point it is abundantly clear that the idea of what constitutes a “school”
is dramatically and irrecoverably changing. Increasingly, principals will be working in
a climate of uncertainty and unpredictable change as the system readjusts and
re-aligns itself to the demands of twenty-first century teaching and learning. This will
undoubtedly mean the abandonment of previous ways of working and the adaption of
new practices in a much shorter time frame of innovation than ever before.
The unit of change is no longer the school or the system but the individual learner
with his or her own personalised learning pathway. Schools of the future are more
likely to require multiple rather than individual leaders. As organisations become more
complex, diffuse and networked, various forms of direction and influence will be
required to respond to quickly shifting and changing environments. Multiple sources
or points of leadership will be needed within the organisation to ensure it has the
leadership capacity to be responsive to change. The complex nature of schools in the
future will mean that the co-ordination of leadership activity will most likely be
undertaken both laterally and vertically and leadership functions and responsibilities
will fluctuate with the changing needs of the organisation.
Considering what we know about distributed leadership, it would seem that
principals in the future will require the ability to re-design and re-invent their school in
order to maximise its potential to grow and develop in rapidly changing circumstances.
Structural change and work-redesign will become a central feature of leadership
activity in a context where the ability to adapt and innovate will be the key to
sustainable growth. There is already evidence of structural re-design and re-invention
in the shape of federations, partnerships, networks and various forms of
school-to-school collaboration. These new organisational forms are likely to grow in
complexity, sophistication and scale. Consequently, leadership can no longer be
premised on the single school or on organisational structures as they currently exist.
It is also clear that the role of the principal within a distributed leadership model is
no longer one of absolute authority. Distributed leadership implies sharing of power
and decision making and therefore, at times, the principal may not have either
positional or expert authority. If the distributed leadership model is one premised on
the broad-based involvement of staff in decision making and forward planning, then
the role of the principle has to change. The changed or redefined principal’s role will be
chiefly concerned with creating the conditions for others to lead rather than leading
from the front. This is not to suggest that the principal no longer sets the strategic
direction for the school but rather to argue that the role is now to orchestrate the talent
and leadership capability of others to move the school forward.
This shift in the principal’s role is significant in a number of ways. First, it requires
some relinquishment of power and authority which will be difficult for some principals
JMD to undertake. Second, it requires a shift away from leadership as position to leadership
31,1 as interaction. What principals do will be more important than the role they occupy.
Third, it requires a high degree of reciprocal trust to negotiate successfully the fault
lines of formal and informal leadership practice. Inevitably, there will be those with
formal and paid responsibility to fulfill a leadership role. There will also be those with
ability, talent and capability to lead who are not in formal leadership positions.
16 Effective principals will be able to harness both and will ensure that the blend of
distributed leadership practice and activity contributes to school development and
improvement.
The hope of transforming schools through the actions of individual leaders is
quickly fading. Strong principals with exceptional vision and action do exist but
unfortunately they do not come in sufficient quantities to meet the demands and
challenges of tomorrow’s schools. System transformation will not be achieved by
leaders or schools acting alone. Much will depend upon the formation of new networks,
partnerships, alliances or federations to share leadership knowledge, collectively
address problems and share expertise. Much will depend on successive generations of
principals that are adaptable enough to function and to connect within new and
challenging environments.

Final comment
To improve the life chances of young people in all settings this will require changing our
schools, our school systems and our leadership models. It will require relinquishing
organisational structures and associated leadership practices that simply are no longer
fit for purpose. This is certainly not without its risks or challenges. Meeting the
educational needs of twenty-first century schooling will require greater leadership
capability and capacity within the system than ever before. It will demand that
principals concentrate their efforts on developing the leadership capability and capacity
of others. But we do not simply need more leaders. Adding more leaders to organisations
and systems is not the answer. Similarly, spreading leadership responsibilities too
widely and thinly can be counter-productive. The accumulation of school leaders is
not the same as distributing leadership. It is not an issue of numbers but rather one of
leadership quality.
Recent evidence has shown that distributed leadership contributes to the
development of academic capacity and also contributes indirectly to student learning
outcomes (Hallinger, 2009). These findings, and other studies, provide growing
empirical support for the development of broader, more distributed leadership capacity
within, between and across schools. The central challenge now is to develop, foster and
actively encourage new, diverse and distributed models of leadership that can transform
schools and school systems.

References
Camburn, E. and Han, S.W. (2009), “Investigating connections between distributed leadership
and instructional change”, in Harris, A. (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different
Perspectives, Springer, Amsterdam.
Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2009), The Impact of Leadership
on Pupil Outcomes, Final Report, DCSF, London.
Fitzgerald, T. and Gunter, H. (2006), “Teacher leadership? A new form of managerialism”, Distributed
New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 44-57.
Hallinger, P. (2009), “Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement
leadership
and growth in math achievement”, paper presented at AERA Conference.
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (2009), “Distributed leadership in schools: does system policy make a
difference?”, in Harris, A. (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Springer,
Amsterdam. 17
Hargreaves, A. and Fink, D. (2009), “Distributed leadership: democracy or delivery?”,
in Harris, A. (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Springer, Amsterdam.
Harris, A. (2007), “Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence”,
International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 1-11.
Harris, A. (2008), Distributed Leadership: Developing Tomorrow’s Leaders, Routledge, London.
Harris, A. (2009), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Springer, Amsterdam.
Leithwood, K. and Mascallm, B. (2008), “Collective leadership effects on student achievement”,
Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 4, pp. 529-61.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B. and Strauss, T. (2009), Distributed Leadership According to the
Evidence, Routledge, London.
Mayrowetz, D. (2008), “Making sense of distributed leadership: exploring the multiple usages of
the concept in the field”, Educational Administration Quarterly, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 424-35.
Murphy, J., Smylie, M. and Seashore Louis, K. (2009), “The role of the principal in fostering the
development of distributed leadership”, School Leadership & Management, Vol. 23 No. 9.
Spillane, J.P. (2006), Distributed Leadership, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Spillane, J.P. and Camburn, E. (2006), “The practice of leading and managing: the distribution of
responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse”, paper presented at
AREA Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001), “Making sense of distributed leadership:
exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field”, Institute for Policy Research
working article.

About the author

Professor Alma Harris is Pro-Director Leadership at the Institute of Education, London and
Director of the London Centre for Leadership in Learning. Alma Harris can be contacted at:
[email protected]

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: [email protected]

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints