Distributed Leadership,
a literature review and discussion of the implications for
Professional Development
Jan Coleman
September 6, 2006
Distributed Leadership,
a literature review and discussion of the implications for
Professional Development
Intro
In any organisation, the members want and need, to be part of the bigger picture, to be able to work together effectively and productively in ways that achieve organisational success, meeting the larger, collective purpose. The role of leadership is to create the commitment, alignment and direction to enable this to happen. (Drath, 2003). However, because of increasing challenges and complexities, often unpredictable, faced by organisations it is now believed that more inclusive, collective leadership is required (Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond, 2004). Schools are no exception. In times when change is the only constant, where technology is an increasing part of daily lives old teaching and leadership models are no longer delivering the level of student achievement needed, even demanded, by today’s society. New models of leadership are being sought that may be able to address these ever more complex needs. Distributed leadership is advocated by many as one possible solution. (Spillane et al, 2004; Harris, 2002; Southworth, 2005).
Background
Traditional leadership theory largely explores leadership by those holding a managerial position. Leadership has been researched by many, resulting in over 350 being developed (Harris, 2005), each applying to differing contexts, but recently more diverse concepts of leadership have emerged. Management and leadership are sometimes confused. Southworth (2005) distinguishes the two quite simply – “management is essentially about ensuring the school runs smoothly, while leadership is about ensuring the school runs somewhere.” Traditional models of leadership in schools can be viewed through one of four key lenses - Managerial / Transactional, Transformational, Interpretive and Instructional or Pedagogical Leadership. (Bush and Glover, 2003) Leithwood, Jantzi, and Steinbach (1999) also review leadership models, clustering these into 6 key models adding moral and contingent to Bush and Glover’s four which are as follows:
o The Managerial model of leadership views leadership as a series of transactions largely related to system rather than people. Organisations are most often hierarchical and managers oversee a series of transactions. This encompasses transactional leadership theory that was dominant in the 1980’s.
o Transformational leadership is seen as more akin to school leadership. The focus here is on people rather than structures. Leadership is linked to the culture of the organization. Leaders and followers are engaged in the pursuit of the same goals or ideals. Leadership here is therefore about building relationships between individuals and setting the goals. Leithwood et al, (1999 cited in Harris, 2005, p80) see leadership as a set of behaviours by which teachers are motivated and their self-efficacy is increased. Effective leadership in this model is measured by the degree to which leaders and others are empowered to act.
o Interpretive model of leadership looks at actions of participants as related and inter-related actions where the leadership is shared between the participants rather that ‘manager’ led.
o The Instructional model is seen to be a dynamic between people, primarily concerned with improved practices within the organization and may be referred to as pedagogical leadership. While there is wide acceptance of this model of leadership, it is difficult for find explicit descriptions or definitions of instructional leadership. (Harris, 2005; Bush and Glover, 2003 and others).
Distributed leadership looks at the ‘how’ of leadership. It is within the last two models that the recently emerging concept of ‘distributed leadership’ as a form of social action is located.
Distributed leadership or rather the idea of multiple leaders, is not a new phenomenon. Schools have traditionally had multiple leaders as has any hierarchical organisation. Where this concept differs is that it concerns a sharing of the leadership in relationship to organisational change and improvement, not simply a sharing of tasks as may previously been the case with team leaders, heads of departments (HOD) etc. (Spillaine and Sherer, 2004).
Culture, as well as context, affects the view taken on leadership. In their study of leadership in American Indian culture, Warner and Grint (2006) define leadership as influence. The concept of leadership as other than a set of tasks can also be found in other literature. Leadership has been seen as function rather than role. In order to understand this new concept of leadership we need to think of leadership (individual & collective) as a process that is used to accomplish a set of leadership tasks. In distributed leadership the tasks are distributed but it is possible for traditional hierarchy or formal roles to remain. (Spillaine and Sherer, 2004).
Distributed leadership, or very similar concepts such as learning-centred leadership, (Southworth, 2005), pedagogical leadership or connected leadership, Drath (2003) involves getting people to work together in different ways so increasing the likelihood that people who are able to make the needed changes themselves will become influential in the leadership process. These forms of leadership involve empowerment, involve leadership teams and/or leadership of teams, a moving from a belief in the power of one, as seen in traditional leadership models, to a belief in the power of many, everyone.
Issues
While distributive leadership may be seen as the solution to complex problems this concept is not without issues. There are implications for those in traditional leadership roles. Senior leaders must ‘let go’ and allow others to lead. Their role changes, lots of leaders need co-ordinating, there are also issues relating to accountability. Who is now accountable? Senior leaders need to hold individuals accountable for their role and responsibilities.
There are also issues relating to changes in expectations of others in the organisation. Traditional roles involve leaders and followers. Charismatic leaders have been sometimes seen as ‘saints or saviours’ who have developed followers’ expectations of ‘being led to’ the vision, to a brighter future painted by the vision espoused by the leader. Fullan, (2002).
Distributed leadership is not for every school, context and timing matter. There is a need to develop leaders within the school. There need to be sound processes whereby teachers are mentored and coached for leadership roles. (Southworth, 2005)
What are the implications for principals? They have been seen as both the managers and leaders of learning within schools. What is it that is distributed when leadership is shared? Distributed leadership is the process whereby the leadership of learning is shared, where the expertise of others is recognised, where development of both pedagogical knowledge and subject knowledge become the focus and responsibility of teachers, not the domain of the principal alone. Both the process of leading and responsibility for the focus of study and the content of the programme are shared. Many of the management functions of the principal will remain their sole responsibility. Fullan, M. (2002).
Another issue for principals in the driving change is that of sustainability. How does a school maintain their progress? New research from Fullan and Sharratt (2006) suggests that sustainability at school level is supported when processes within the school perpetuate distributed leadership and a culture professional learning. They see the principal as ‘first change’ agent and other leaders within the school, especially those with expertise in curriculum and pedagogy, as ‘second change’ agents. Commitment on the behalf of leaders is another critical component as is a process of ‘on-going personal renewal and challenge of those leading the change’. External agents are seen as having an important role here.
Can all teachers become teacher leaders? Are teachers themselves able to select those that lead them? Timperley, (2005) suggests that these are very real issues, that teachers, may not follow those with the knowledge as they lack credibility or may choose to follow those they like rather that those with the knowledge and skills the principal wishes to have others acquire (and may be needed to create real change).
How is the principal able to recognise those suitable for this form of leadership? How is distributed leadership developed? The answers to these questions involve issues related to professional development. Schools must develop programmes that not only address the need for development in content and pedagogical knowledge areas but they must also develop the leadership skills of their teachers.
Implications for Professional Development
As stated earlier, schools need to develop and enact policies and practices that ensure more high-quality teachers for students. This requires teachers that teach in more powerful ways and understand the complexities of learning. Without these skills and understandings, innovation and changes driven centrally will not succeed.
“Teaching today requires teachers that:
- Understand how to represent critical ideas in powerful ways
- Can systematically organise a usefully learning process
- Can adapt instruction to the different approaches students use for learning.” (Darling-Hammond, p. 77, 2006)
Professional development needs to move teachers beyond what they have experienced and become “a process of sustained learning and development of sophisticated practice.” (Darling-Hammond, p78, 2006) Leading this is critical and is one place where distributed leadership is situated.
There are key components that need to be incorporated into any successful professional development programme. The programme needs to incorporate:
· Studying theory, new angles and longer held beliefs
· Doing, trailing and testing new ways of working and their effects on student learning
· Reflecting on their teaching and its effectiveness
· Collaborating with other teachers to explore and evaluate new or different ways of ‘doing’, observing others ‘in action’
· Looking closely at student work and identifying areas of strength and weakness
· By sharing and discussion of what they see and try
· Research and inquiry – action research
· Evaluating and assessing the impact of new strategies on student learning
· Talking about the results of teaching and learning (Hill, Hawk and Taylor, 2002).
Annan, Lai and Robinson (2003) describe the impact of “teacher talk” on student learning. They claim that redirecting the conversations in the staffroom from general, “non-school talk”, to talk about teaching and learning can have a dramatic impact on teacher practice and consequently on student learning. Hunker & Feckmann, (2004) and Howden & Kopiec, (2006) further support this in research into teacher conversations.
Professional development is therefore needs to be:
· Experiential, concrete task based, assessment and observation of teaching and learning processes
· Grounded in research, inquiry (action research, teacher portfolios structured around practice containing artefacts such as; video, lesson plans, student work, analysis of own or others practice), experimentation and teacher questioning
· Collaborative sharing of knowledge
· Connected to
o teachers’ work, students and subject matter
o to other areas of school change
· Sustained supported and intensive, by modelling, coaching, problem solving around specific problems found in practice (Darling-Hammond, p82, 2006)
· Regular engaged in evaluating theirs and others practice against theory in the school setting.
This implies professional development that is significantly different from the traditional short course, a day off campus where teachers are given new ideas to trial in their classroom with little or no follow up. It requires that professional development be planned with specific improvement in student achievement in mind (Gusky, 2002). Gusky (2006) also believes that teachers must see improved outcomes for their students in a short timeframe, two weeks or they will revert to previous practice. This means that support and opportunities to discuss must be available at regular intervals. This may require removal of one barrier, structuring of the traditional school to enable teachers to have time to work intensively with students and collaboratively with each other (Southworth, 2005). It is unlikely that external change agents, facilitators and consultants, will fulfil this role. Other teachers within the school that are having similar experiences are the answer. Distributed leadership is the key.
Conclusion
If teachers are to be used as ‘leaders of learning’, both with their peers and with their students, then principals need to recognise this in a leadership sense. The skills, knowledge and understanding of how to influence, and so lead, others need to and integral part of teacher learning. This, together with professional development of a more traditional type, on teaching pedagogy, must be woven into the everyday tasks of a learning institution. Distributed leadership is the vehicle through which on site, effective professional development can be delivered.
References:
Annon, B., Lai, M. and Robinson, V. (2003), Teacher Talk to Improve teaching practices. Set 1, 2003, p 31-34, NZCER, New Zealand.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006), Enhancing Teaching, Chapter 8, p 75-87, Best Practices: Best Thinking, Edited by Owings and Kaplan, (2006), Sage Publications, London.
Drath, W.H. (2003), Leading Together Complex Challenges Require a New Approach. LIA Vol 23, No 1, March/April 2003
Fullan, M. and Sharratt, L. (2006), Sustaining leadership in Complex Times: An Individual and system solution. Chapter 5, prepared for Brent Davis, Ed. Sustaining and Developing Leaders. London: Sage Publications. June, 2006.
Fullan, M. (2002), The latest Ideas on School Reform. Leading and learning for the 21st C. Vol. 1 No. 3. January, 2002.
Bush, T. and Glover, D. (2003) ‘School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence’, www.ncsl.org.uk/literaturereviews. (downloader 23.8.2006)
Gusky, T. (2006), Address to Leadership and Management Advisers Hui, Ministry of Education, Rotorua, New Zealand.
Gusky, T. (2002), Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional Development. Educational Leadership, March 2002 p45-51
Harris, A. (2005), Leading from the Chalk-face: An Overview of School Leadership. University of Warwick, UK.
Harris, A. (2002), Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or Misleading?
Hill, J., Hawk K. and Taylor, K. (2002), Professional Development: What makes it work? Set 2, 2002. NZCER, New Zealand
Hunker, D. & Feckmann, J. (2004), Focusing Conversations to Promote Teacher Thinking. Teaching Children Mathematics, March 2004.
Howden, J. & Kopiec, M. (2006), Teachers talking – A Model for Professional Development. http://www.caslt.org/Print/provdev2p.htm (downloaded 18/3/2006)
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. and Steinbach, R. (1999), Changing Leadership for Changing Times. Open University Press, Buckingham – Philadelphia.
Southworth, G. (2005), from “The essentials of School Leadership,” Davis, B. (editor) Chapter 5, p75-92. Paul Chapman Publishing: London