The aim of this paper is to review conceptual and empirical literature on the concept of distributed leadership (DL) in order to identify its origins, key arguments and areas for further work. Consideration is given to the similarities and differences between DL and related concepts, including 'shared', 'collective', 'collaborative', 'emergent', 'co-' and 'democratic' leadership. Findings indicate that, while there are some common theoretical bases, the relative usage of these concepts varies over time, between countries and between sectors. In particular, DL is a notion that has seen a rapid growth in interest since the year 2000, but research remains largely restricted to the field of school education and of proportionally more interest to UK than US-based academics. Several scholars are increasingly going to great lengths to indicate that, in order to be 'distributed', leadership need not necessarily be widely 'shared' or 'democratic' and, in order to be effective, there is a need to balance different 'hybrid configurations' of practice. The paper highlights a number of areas for further attention, including three factors relating to the context of much work on DL (power and influence; organizational boundaries and context; and ethics and diversity), and three methodological and developmental challenges (ontology; research methods; and leadership development, reward and recognition). It is concluded that descriptive and normative perspectives which dominate the literature should be supplemented by more critical accounts which recognize the rhetorical and discursive significance of DL in (re)constructing leaderfollower identities, mobilizing collective engagement and challenging or reinforcing traditional forms of organization.

This article indicates how the competency approach to leadership could be conceived of as a repeating refrain that continues to offer an illusory promise to rationalize and simplify the processes of selecting, measuring and developing leaders, yet only reflects a fragment of the complexity that is leadership. To make this argument we draw on two sets of data: a review of leadership competency frameworks and an analysis of participant reports from a reflective leadership development programme. A lexical analysis comparing the two data sets highlights a substantial difference with regards to the relative importance placed on the moral, emotional and relationship dimensions of leadership. The implications of these differences are considered, as are ways in which the competency approach could be aligned more closely with the current and future needs of leaders and organizations. In particular, we argue that a more discursive approach that helps to reveal and challenge underlying organizational assumptions is likely to be more beneficial if organizations are looking to move beyond individualistic notions of leadership towards more inclusive and collective forms. Methodological issues are also raised around the comparative analysis (both semantic and linguistic) of apparently incommensurable texts.

Studies are required to establish the organisational, occupational and individual determinants of minor psychiatric disorder among NHS employees.

In this paper we present findings from research in 12 UK universities that sought to capture a range of perspectives on 'distributed leadership' and reveal common and competing experiences within and between institutions.