Distributed leadership: A critical analysis

Abstract

Changes to the governance and management of institutions of higher education (often described as 'new managerialism') and the effects this is having on the work of academics have been the subject of much discourse over the last 30 years in the pursuit of a globally appropriate model for higher education. Less attention has been afforded to discussion of new forms of institutional leadership needed to effectively respond to the associated challenges. Despite growing research into shared models of leadership, particularly distributed leadership, as a potentially appropriate approach distinct from traditional structural/positional leadership, discussion has been principally confined to normative description of the parameters that describe distributed leadership rather than rigorous critical analysis of its applicability in, and effectiveness for, higher education. Underpinning this discourse is the presumption that increased collaboration is synonymous with distributed leadership. This paper presents a more critical analysis of the experience of a distributed leadership approach used to build leadership capacity in learning and teaching in an Australian university. This example demonstrates first, that despite evidence of a relationship between distributed leadership and collaboration, there is no evidence of an inherent direct causal relationship, second, that a distributed leadership, while it may increase participation of academics in decision making, is not synonymous with democratic decision making. It is concluded that for a distributed leadership approach to be appropriate and effective, higher education institutions need to instigate action supported by formal leaders and underpinned by an action reflective approach that enables change over time.

Přínos distributivního vedení škol k pracovní spokojenosti učitelů

“…tito aktéři neuplatňují proaktivně iniciativu ve vůdčích procesech (Harris, 2014;McBeth, 2008;Spillane, 2006). Demokratické vedení nemůže být identifikováno s distributivním vedením proto, že neexistuje dost důkazů, že implementace DVŠ nutně zvýší úroveň demokratického rozhodování (Bolden, 2011;Gronn, 2008;Jones, 2014). faktor, který přispívá dalšímu posílení schopností zúčastněných aktérů (Hairon & Goh, 2015).…”

The shared principalship: invitation at the top

“…Collective leadership is an umbrella term for shared responsibility in an organisation and is here thought of as consisting of two distinct but connected subsets: distributed leadership with a spreading of responsibility and power to those not in management positions (e.g. Jones, 2014;Spillane, 2005), and shared leadership between managers (e.g. Döös, 2015), with the latter being the focus of this paper.…”

Dynamics of distributed leadership during a hospital merger

“…While some studies of plural leadership constellations subscribe to a classical normative approach regarding the positive effects of such leadership constellations, we also wish to combine this point of view with a more descriptive approach of the contextual conditions for distribution of leadership tasks to emerge (c.f. Bolden, 2011;Jones, 2014). A recent study (Chreim, 2015) highlights the need for a closer investigation of situations in which the potential distribution of leadership tasks, as well as its assumed positive effects, fail to materialize.…”