Exploring the Distributed Leadership Style

[This article was revised and updated on 3rd May, 2018]

Following my leadership interview, and assessing the leadership style against Levin & Schrum’s chart "Characteristics of Transformative, Distributed, and Instructional Leadership" (refer blog of 26 March), I explored the Distributed Leadership (DL) style in a little more depth. What I found caused me to become curious about the extensive use of DL as a management style in education.

In investigating DL, I found a number of authors who felt there was a disparity between what is theorised, and what happens in reality, within the school context (Gunter, 2010; Corrigan, 2013; Lumby, 2013; Morris, 2014). Helen Gunter views the educational structure as linked with external conditions of organisational expectations or culture (context) whereby a sense of agency may be heightened, controlled, or muted (the ability to meet expectations, or not) (Gunter, 2010). This suggests a conflict with the philosophy of distributed leadership which emphasises collaboration, shared responsibility, and distribution of power (Schrum & Levin, 2012; Timperley, 2005).  

Education institutes, by their very nature, are complex systems and require complexity thinking (Davis, 2018), particularly by their leaders. The environment is multilayered and dynamic where exchanges occur between and across sectors of the system, and where feedback loops are a significant part of the milieu.

Gunter describes how various academics perceive and react to what is known. For instance, the mathematics leader is likely to approach information from a linear perspective where truths are abstract and untainted, while the social sciences leader might tend towards a more reflective and soft approach where outcomes are seen as "enlightening" (Gunter, 2010). The level of collaboration expected in DL would undoubtedly require an uncomfortable stretch for some colleagues who hold such differing styles of knowing. Niki Davis alludes to these dynamics when she states that

“knowledge and thought are mediated by ideological beliefs and power relationships, both of which are historically constituted and may never be isolated from values” (Davis, 2018, p. 132).

This view is also reinforced by Paul Cilliers who suggests that 

"considerations of power and expediency affect the way in which we understand the world (p. 606)... and that knowledge ...will always be contextualised... and form part of our experience of the world, and will therefore be influenced by relationships of power" (Cilliers, 2005, p. 610).

John Morris’ report states that DL is one of the three major leadership styles used in New Zealand schools despite there being minimal studies that positively demonstrate its effects on student outcomes (Morris, 2014). He views DL’s popularity as due to its philosophical and democratic flavour rather than founded on evidence-based outcomes.

While the above views are mostly centred on the school context, Sandra Jones, Geraldine Lefoe, Marina Harvey and Kevin Ryland felt that DL was a potential alternative to the more traditional hierarchal leadership style of the tertiary sector (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012). However, they do perceive the significant challenges this is likely to present with the historical differences and dynamics within the various departments and layers of staff (academics and administration). Again, Cilliers alludes to this when he states

"The contingent and historic nature of complex systems entails that our understanding of the system will have to be continually revised; the frames of our models will have to change. The boundaries of complex systems cannot be identified objectively, finally and completely.” (Cilliers, 2005, p. 612)

Jacky Lumby’s article is largely scathing and describes the DL style as pervasive, utopian, and political; that it lacks equality and inclusivity; and that it holds subtle undertones of control and manipulation (Lumby, 2013). Lumby believes DL lacks serious critique, and its popularity is unwarranted. Having said that, Davis' description of leadership for complex systems, especially in systems where the individuals are more expert in their field than the leader, suggests that leaders need to support other domain leaders to 

“identify valuable adaptations by sharing visions and recognising the value of relevant activities and artefacts, both old and new" (Davis, 2018, p. 140).

Davis describes complex systems as being autonomous, where individuals are "interdependent agents", and the system engenders autopoiesis, whereby self-regulation and self-reference work towards the self-organisation of the system. This not dissimilar to the Distributed Leadership style.

While there appears to be no ideal model of leadership style as such, Morris suggested an integration of the Instructional (IL) and Transformational leadership (TL) models (Morris, 2014). He states that these styles are both backed by a number of studies that demonstrate increased outcomes for students, and this integrated model would deliver the ideological aspects of shared responsibility (from TL) with the direction and vision of a principal (through IL). While Keith Morrison talks about distributed leadership as "sine qua non", or an indispensable part of an emergent higher-order form of leadership within complex environments (Morrison, 2012). 

When I began this research, I started from the position of thinking Distributed Leadership was an ideal style in which to lead a school. Its popularity certainly seemed to confirm this. I am curious now about the breadth of negative reports on the topic, some of which are quite damning. It seems that leadership in the education sector appears to be a very complex and contentious matter.

[Image via Pixabay. No attribution required]

References

Cilliers, P. (2005). Knowledge, limits and boundaries. Futures 37, 605-613.  

             doi: 10.1016/j.futures.2004.11.001

Corigan, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: rhetoric or reality? Journal of Higher Education

             Policy and Management, 35 (1), 66-71. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2013.748479.

Davis, N. (2018). Digital technologies and change in education: The Arena framework. 

             New York: Routledge.

Gunter, H. (2010). Leaders and leadership in education. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.

Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harvey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: a collaborative framework for academics, executives and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34(1), 67-78. doi: 10.1080/1360080X.2012.642334

Levin, B. B., & Schrum, L. (2017). Every Teacher a Leader: Developing the Needed Dispositions, Knowledge, and Skills for Teacher Leadership.  Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 518-597. doi: 10.1177/1741143213489288.

Morris, J. (2014). The school leadership effect. Wellington: The New Zealand Education and Scholarship Trust.

Morrison, K. (2002). School leadership and complexity theory. New York: Routledge

Schrum, L. & Levin, B. (2012). Evidence-based strategies for leading 21st century schools. London: Sage Publications

Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of  Curriculum Studies 37 (4), 395-420. doi: 10.1080/00220270500038545.