This artide is based upon a keynote address to the British

Educational Leadership and Management Association Annual

Conference 2002, ’Leaders and Leadership: Leadership Teams,
Team Leadersand Middle Managers, 20-22 September,
Bir mingham, England

Distributed Leadership in Schools:

Leading or
misleading?
Alma Harris For example, the differences between ’instructional
leadership,’ ’learner-centred leadership’ and
’pedagogical leadership’ are not entirely self evident.
Introduction They embrace similar concepts and endorse a model
ontemporary educational reform places a of leadership chiefly concerned with improving
~ great premium upon the relationship teaching and learning. But how far they adequately
between leadership and school reflect the reality of contemporary leadership practice
improvement.. The dominant message is also debatable as there is a significant lack of
from the research base is unequivocal - effective leaders contemporary empirical evidence supporting these
exercise an indirect but powerful influence on the particular leadership perspectives. It has been
effectiveness of the school and on the achievement of suggested that much of the literature fails to accurately
students (Leithwood and Jantzi 2000). It is for this reflect leadership practices in schools and has over
reason that ’leadership’ has generated an enormous relied upon the accounts of headteachers to define
amount of interest among researchers and effective leadership in action (Razik and Swanson
practitioners. A vast literature on school leadership and 2001, Owens 2001, Morrison 2002). Anyone who
leadership theory exists (see Hallinger and Heck looks at the leadership literature will find that, with a
1996). Yet, despite a substantial research base, a few exceptions, empirical studies of leadership practice
singular, overarching theory of leadership has proved at other levels or from other perspectives remain
to be elusive. While researchers in many countries somewhat rare (Sammons et al 1996, Harris et al 1995,
continue to produce a steady stream of empirical Day et al 2000). It is for this reason that models of
evidence about school leadership this endless leadership derived from and premised upon the
accumulation of findings still has not produced a leadership practice of one person are currently under
consensus around effective leadership practice. The scrutiny (Foster 2001, Goleman 2002, Gronn 2002,
sheer proliferation of leadership theories, styles or Harris and Lambert, forthcoming) .
approaches presented in the literature undoubtedly A powerful force in the quest for alternative and
contributes to the confusion. There appear to be as authentic perspectives on leadership practice is the
many perspectives on school leadership as those who notion of’distributed leadership’ which is currently
research and write about it. Furthermore, it is difficult receiving much attention and growing empirical
to discern exactly how alternative theoretical positions support (Gronn 2000, Spillaine et al 2001). In their
differ. recent review of successful school improvement efforts,

10
Glickman et al (2001 ) construct a composite list of the leadership approach and saw their leadership role as
characteristics of what they term the ’improving being primarily concerned with empowering others to
school’, a ’school that continues to improve student lead.
learning outcomes for all students over time.’ At the top The NAHT research revealed that although the
of this list appears ’varied sources of leadership, heads were at different stages in their careers, of
including distributed leadership.’ Similarly, research by different ages, had different experiences and were
Silns and Mulford (2002) has shown that student working in very different situations their approaches to
outcomes are more likely to improve where leadership leadership were remarkably similar. The evidence from
sources are distributed throughout the school this study pointed towards a form of leadership that
community and where teachers are empowered in was distributed through collaborative and joint

areas of importance to them. working. The evidence showed that these successful
In contrast to traditional notions of leadership heads led both the cognitive and the affective lives of
premised upon an individual managing hierarchical the school, combining structural (developing clear
systems and structures, distributed leadership is goals), political (building alliances) and educational
characterised as a form of collective leadership in leadership (professional development and teaching
which teachers develop expertise by working improvement) with symbolic leadership principles
collaboratively. This distributed view of leadership (presence, inspiration) and distributed leadership
requires schools to ’de-centre’ the leader (Gronn 2002) practice (empowering others to lead).They were
and to subscribe to the view that leadership resides not primarily transformational leaders who built self-
solely in the individual at the top, but in every person esteem, enhanced professional competence and gave
at every level who, in one way or another, acts as a their staff the confidence and responsibility to lead
leader (Goleman 2002). Distributed leadership, development and innovation.
therefore, means multiple sources of guidance and
direction, following the contours of expertise in an It’senabling other people to take over, to do
organisation, made coherent through a common things It’s being able to trust other people. To
...

culture. It is the ’glue’ of a common task or goal- be confident in your own ability to delegate tasks
improvement of instruction-and a common frame of and know they will be done to allow people to
...

values for how to approach that task (Elmore 2000). lead and not to try and control everything
This is not to suggest that sno one is ultimately yourself (Headteacher School 10).
responsible for the overall performance of the
organisation or to render those in formal leadership You don’t achieve things on your own.You set the
roles redundant. Instead, the job of those in formal way forward, lead by example, communicate
leadership positions is primarily to hold the pieces of what needs to be done and have to be hands on in
the organisation together in a productive relationship. the way you want it achieved ...it doesn’t always
Their central task is to create a common culture of have to be you doing the leading (Headteacher
expectations around the use of individual skills and School 5).
abilities. In short, distributing leadership equates with
maximising the human capacity within the The second contemporary study of successful
organisation. school leadership also investigated leadership practice
within a group of 10 schools designated by the
Distributed Leadership in Practice Department for Education and Skills (DfES) as ’facing
Two recent studies of successful school leadership have challenging circumstances.’ In all ten schools the
reinforced the importance of distributed leadership research found that distributed approaches to
practice in securing and sustaining school leadership prevailed and directly influenced
improvement. In 1999 the NAHT (National
Association of Headteachers) in England
commissioned research to identify and examine ...distributed leadership is
successful leadership practice in schools (Day, Harris,
Hadfield, Tolley, Beresford 2000). In 2001 the National characterised as a form of
College for School Leadership (NCSL) funded
research that explored successful leadership in schools collective leadership in
facing challenging circumstances (Harris and
Chapman 2002). Both studies offer a contemporary wh ich teachers develop
view of successful leadership and provide insights into
current leadership practices in schools. The central

message emanating from both studies was that

expertise by working
successful heads recognised the limitation of a singular collaborati~ely.
11
 .. approaches to problem solving and decision-making. The teachers now have greater responsibility and
While heads’ responses to problems varied, depending authority for leading. The days of waiting for the
on the circumstance or situation, their value position head to lead on all fronts have gone (SMT
remained consistently one of involving and consulting School 10).
pupils, staff and parents. Within the study the heads saw
the agency of staff and students as central to achieving Both studies point towards an emerging model of
the school’s purpose. The heads used a number of leadership that is less concerned with individual
strategies for distributing leadership. These included: capabilities, skills and talents and more preoccupied
involving others in decision making, allocating with creating collective responsibility for leadership
important tasks to teachers and rotating leadership action and activity. The focus is less upon the
responsibilities within the school. They had deliberately characteristics of ’the leader’ and more upon creating
chosen to distribute leadership responsibility to others shared contexts for learning and developing leadership
and had put in place systems and incentives to ensure capacity. But how do schools achieve distributed
this happened. Their leadership was underpinned by a leadership? What do formal leaders do to promote
set of core personal values that included the modelling distributed leadership? It would be naive to assume that
and promotion of respect for individuals, fairness and the structural, cultural and micro-political barriers
equality, caring for the well being and the development operating in schools would simply fall away to
of students and staff. accommodate and support distributed leadership.
In all cases, they remained important gatekeepers to Consequently, the difficulties of adopting models of
change and development, guiding their schools in a distributed leadership in practice should not be
clear and purposeful direction. Their approach to underestimated or simply ignored.
leadership was not one of ’delegated headship’ where
unwanted tasks are handed down to others. In contrast,
they distributed leadership activity through a Distributed Leadership: Pitfalls and
redistribution of power within the organisation by Possibilities
giving those who did not occupy ’formal’ leadership While it would appear from the research evidence that
positions responsibility for major and important distributed leadership can be advantageous to school
development tasks. The heads adopted highly creative and teacher development, achieving it is far from easy.
approaches to tackling the complex demands of Essentially, it requires those in formal leadership
implementing multiple changes. The decision to work positions to relinquish power and control to others. The
with and through teams as well as individuals was a inherent difficulties in achieving this are at once
common response to the management of change. From immediately apparent. Apart from the challenge to
the perspectives of those within the school community authority and ego, evidence would suggest that there
-

teachers, parents, governors and pupils - the are other barriers that need to be overcome to ensure

overarching message was one of the heads leading their that the distributed leadership operates effectively (Vail
schools through developing and involving others. and Redick 1993). The literature points towards ’top-
down’ management structures in schools as a main
When I first came to the school, the head and impediment to the development of distributed
SMT were considered to be the leaders, everyone leadership, as they militate against teachers attaining
else opted out. With the formulation of teams autonomy and taking on leadership roles within the
with clear targets I’ve been able to distribute school. In schools, functions and systems are premised
leadership and to energise teachers to take on maintaining the bureaucratic and hierarchical

responsibility for change and development (Head structure. A concomitant of this is that distributed

School 7) . leadership roles cannot successfully be imposed by

management. Wasley ( 1991 ) reiterates that teachers
need to be involved in the process of deciding on what
It would be naïve to assume that roles, if any, they wish to take on and must then feel
supported by the school’s administration in doing so.
the structural, culturalI and micro-
, The success or otherwise of distributed leadership
within a school can be influenced by a number of
politicalI barriers operating in interpersonal factors, such as relationships with other
teachers and school management. The importance of
schools would simply fall away these is evident, both with respect to a teachers’ ability
to influence colleagues and with respect to developing
to accommodate and support productive relations with school management, who
may in some cases feel threatened by teachers taking on
distributed leadership. leadership roles. There may also, on occasion, be

12
conflicts between groups of teachers, such as those that References
do and do not take on leadership roles, which can lead Barth, P, Haycock, K., Jackson, H., Mora, K., Ruiz, P.,
to estrangement among teachers. Research has shown Robinson, S., &Wilkins,A. (Artist). (1999). Dispelling the Myth.
that colleagues can at times be hostile to distributed High Poverty Schools Exceeding Expectations
leadership because of factors such as inertia, over- Day, C. Harris, A. Hadfield M. Tolley, H. Beresford, J. (2000)
cautiousness and insecurity (Barth 1999). Overcoming Leading Schools in Times of Change. Milton Keynes open
University Press
these difficulties will require a combination of strong
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a New Structure for School
interpersonal skills on the part of the ’teacher leader’
Leadership. Washington, The Albert Shanker Institute.
and a school culture that encourages change and
Foster, R. (2001) Constructivist leadership in the high school
leadership from teachers. Article presented to the Annual Meeting of the American
Clearly, more empirical evidence is required about Educational Research Association, Toronto,ON.
the ways in which distributed leadership currently
Glickman, C. Gordon, S. and Ross -Gordon, J. (2001)
operates in schools. We need to know more about how Supervision and instructional leadership:a developmental approach
it is developed and promoted. In particular, we need to Boston, MA:Allyn and Bacon
know if and how it contributes to better teaching and
Goleman, D. (2002) The New Leaders : Transforming the Art of
learning processes in schools. A new project funded by Leadership into the science of results, London, Little Brown
the General Teaching Council and the National Union
Gronn, P.(2000) ’Distributed Properties:A New Architechure for
of Teachers proposes to address these questions by Leadership Educational Management and Administration vol 28
collecting data from schools where forms of distributed no 3 p317-38
leadership are operating successfully. The project
Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. (1996) Reassessing the principal’s role
commenced in October 2002 and will be primarily in school effectiveness: a critical review of empirical research 1980-
concerned with the ways in which teacher leadership 1995 EducationalAdministration Quarterly 32 (1) 5-4

contributes to school improvement. We are currently Harris Harris, A. Jamieson, I. M. & Russ, J. (1995) ’A Study of
seeking the involvement of schools in this project and effective departments in secondary schools School Organisation, 15,
would welcome any suggestions or recommendations p 283-299

about schools to approach. Harris, A. And Chapman, C (2002) Effective Leadership in

Schools Facing Challenging Circumstances, Final Report, NCSL
As Jackson (forthcoming) notes despite more than
two decades of writing about organisational Harris, A.and Lambert, L. (forthcoming) Building Leadership
development we are still in a position of needing to Capacity for School Improvement, Milton Keynes, Open
University Press
develop understandings about what leadership really
involves when it is distributed, how schools might Jackson ,D (forthcoming) Building Leadership Capacity-Simple,
function and act differently and what operational Complex, Paradoxical Necessary in Harris, A. and
Lambert, L Building leadership Capacity for School Improvement,
images of distributed leadership in action might look
Bucks, OU Press
like. Without question we need to understand much
more about effective distributed leadership practice. Morrison, K. (2002) School Leadership and Complexity Theory,
London Routledge Falmer
The aim of the GTC/NUT project is to offer some
contemporary empirical evidence to assist this Ovando, M. (1996). "Teacher Leadership: Opportunities and
Planning and Changing 27(1/2): 30-44.
Challenges."
understanding and to ascertain whether distributed
forms of leadership contribute to sustainable school Owens,R. (2001) Organisational behaviour in education:
Instructional leadership and school reform Needham Heights,MA:
improvement. For unless distributed leadership Allyn and Bacon.
contributes to school improvement, unless it impacts
Rasik,T. and Fundamental
Swanson, A. (2001) concepts of
directly on the quality of teaching and learning, it will educational leadership. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Prentice Hall
at best, simply encourage schools to operate more INC
openly and collaboratively while at worse, it will be yet Sammons, P.Thomas, S. and Mortimore, P. (1997) Forging
another redundant theory that has proved to be Links: Effective Schools and Effective Departments. London: Paul
misleading. CPD Chapman Publishing.
Sergiovanni,T ( 2001) Leadership: What’s in it for Schools?
- &dquo; ~

. IT - ~: = - .%u=» r ires London, Routledge Falmer

..
Silns, H. and Mulford, B. (2002) Leadership and School Results
Tl~ pi ;,.Ic:_-
_ -

r,
p;: ~~Ir~r
;: .: ;... s = - . Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and
Administration (in press)

Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001) "Towards a

Acknowledgements Theory of Leadership Practice:A Distributed Perspective"
Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research Working
I am grateful to my co-researchers for allowing me to refer
Article.
to our work in this article. Therefore thanks go to Professor

Christopher Day, Christopher Chapman, Dr Mark Wasley, P. A. (1991). Teachers Who Lead: The Rhetoric of Reform
and the Realities of Practice. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Hadfield, Professor HarryTolley, and Dr John Beresford.

13