Conference Agenda

Distributed leadership has – in a relatively short time – become a popular area of research but also an instrument of leadership development, with some scholars even attributing it a “taken-for-granted status” (Lumby, 2016, p. 161) and others calling it “one of the most influential and well-discussed ideas to emerge in the field of educational leadership” (Harris et al., 2022, p. 438). Since Spillane et al (2001) popularized a shift of perspective towards focusing on leadership as a practice and encouraged the study of interactions (taking into account leaders, followers and the situation) instead of singular leaders, hundreds of thousands if not over a million scholarly works have been published on this topic in the field of educational research (Mifsud, 2023, p. 5).

Yet, despite this enormous amount of publications, there are many theoretical and empirical challenges and “blank spaces”. For example, Tian et al. (2016) in their review found that a commonly accepted definition or conceptualization of distributed leadership could not be identified. More than a decade ago, Crawford (2012) criticized that scholars and practitioners had not sufficiently explored questions of identity and power in the context of distributed leadership; a critique that still seems to apply. The impact and pathways of impact of distributed leadership practices on various inner school factors such as teaching quality or student achievement have so far – at least compared to research on instructional leadership – not quite been mapped out. For Harris et al. (2022), “the black box of distributed leadership practice remains only partially open” (p. 452). Furthermore, the influence of various cultural contexts has not yet been fully explored. Some of the questions prevalent in this context are: what are commonalities and differences in the conceptualization of distributed leadership and in the cultural practices of it across several cultures? What do we know about the cultural and structural fit of distributed leadership in various contexts (for example in societies with a stronger emphasis on low hierarchies vs. a stronger emphasis on marked hierarchies)?

This symposium will try to explore the issues mentioned above. Contributions from Europe, the US and Australia will be used as focal lenses to study different conceptualizations of distributed leadership. Each contribution will present empirical insights into practices and effects of distributed leadership with some additionally presenting insights into methodological approaches and challenges of researching distributed leadership. The selection of countries will enable comparisons focusing on similarities as well as on contrasts. For example, Ireland and Switzerland are comparable in terms of rather strong school boards, while the US and Australia have rather pronounced accountability systems, a stark contrast to Switzerland’s low-accountability approach. Each country also brings unique cultural and school system features like the strong emphasis on direct democracy (for example articulated in lay authorities) or the commitment to standardized testing (US).

The symposium will feature four presentations. In each presentation, the underlying understanding of distributed leadership as a perspective and practice will first be laid out followed by a short overview of the cultural and systemic background before delving into the respective study and results. A discussant will offer a critique of the contributions, but more importantly connect them to the wider discourses, criticisms and “blank spaces” previously mentioned. The discussant has an Irish and US background and will offer commentary from a perspective that includes European as well as (broader) international elements.

In the wake of changing steering mechanisms in education and public administration around the turn of the millennium, most cantons in Switzerland introduced formal school leaders (Hangartner & Svaton, 2013). Despite the empirically supported relevance of school leadership and its distribution in the context of the organization and development of schools (Ärlestig et al., 2016), there is only little empirical evidence in Switzerland on how leadership is exercised and distributed in practice. Research on school leadership in Switzerland tends to be regionally limited and predominantly focusing on the position of formal leaders, although findings imply the importance of school staff beside the formal leaders for shaping and developing schools (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016; Hallinger & Heck, 2009; Spillane et al., 2004). These research gaps are what this contribution aims to address: In a cross-cantonal research project, investigating school leadership practice as a process of interaction in mutual influence across actors. Not only the leadership practices of formal school leaders but also teachers’ involvement and participation in the management and development of schools as well as the relationships between stakeholders are focal point of the study. In a first explorative phase, two schools each in the canton of Argovia and in the canton of Vaud were examined using shadowing-type observations over the period of several weeks, during which school leaders and meetings between teachers were observed. In addition, document analyses and interviews with principals and teachers were conducted. The analysis of the data is carried out in an iterative procedure according to the grounded theory principles (Corbin & Strauss, 2015), allowing a gradual construction of theories. In the present time, investigations are being carried out in additional schools in both cantons. Over the duration of the study, 12 schools are to be investigated. Preliminary findings suggest that factors such as school size, organizational structure, and the prevailing school culture may influence teachers' assumptions of responsibility for leadership-related tasks. Differences in the perception of leadership and its distribution also seem to exist due to previous professional experiences of school leaders and teachers, partly due to their experiences prior to the introduction of principals. Relationships and levels of trust between formal leaders and the teaching staff, as well as between individuals appear to play a significant role in shaping leadership processes and the involvement of stakeholders across the schools. Some markers of leadership distribution can be identified but appear to be contextually bound.

Ärlestig, H., Day, C., & Johansson, O. (Eds.). (2016). A Decade of Research on School Principals. Springer International Publishing. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research. Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4.). Sage. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed Leadership in Schools: What Makes a Difference? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives (Vol. 7, pp. 47–80). Springer Netherlands. Hangartner, J., & Svaton, C. J. (2013). From autonomy to quality management: NPM impacts on school governance in Switzerland. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 45(4), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2013.822352 Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616656734 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726

Over the last several decades, the educational system in the United States has undergone significant reforms leading to new forms of educational leadership that take a distributed approach to school improvement. In the context of shifting student demographics, the accountability movement, and the recent upheaval caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, educational leaders have been at the center of multiple initiatives to address the evolving needs of youth (Mehta, 2013; McLeod and Dulsky, 2020). These initiatives have distributed leadership across roles, institutions and levels of the school system in new, innovative ways. In this contribution, we focus on one such initiative, the Chelsea Children’s Cabinet, a cross-sector partnership among institutional and organizational leaders within one small city collaborating to support youth through coordinated actions (Ed Redesign, 2019). Formed in the Spring of 2021 to address issues related to the pandemic, the Cabinet includes local leaders from education, government, law enforcement, mental health and community-based organizations, along with our Boston College research team. We build on prior research about cross-sector partnerships. In recent years, an array of cross-sector initiatives have brought leaders together to address the community conditions that affect youth (Impellizeri and Lee, 2021; Miller et al., 2017). While designs vary, these initiatives share the aim to develop collective, context-specific solutions to community-level concerns (Boyer et al., 2020). We draw on distributed leadership theory as we consider the dynamic interactions among institutional and organizational leaders on the Cabinet. According to this framework, “leadership practice is constituted in the interaction of leaders and their social and material situations. (Spillane et al., 2001, p. 27). As such, leadership occurs across individuals, interactions and the artifacts that mediate those interactions. We use qualitative case study methods to examine distributed leadership within the Cabinet (Yin, 2009). Data sources include 25 semi-structured interviews conducted with cabinet members in the spring of 2021, fieldnotes taken during planning and cabinet meetings as well as community events led by the Children’s Cabinet throughout the 2021-2022 school year. Findings demonstrate how leadership is distributed across sectors based on privileged positioning by sector as well as existing relationships. Our analysis shows how leaders draw on distinct institutional logics to justify actions and rely on various tools and artifacts to structure their interactions. We end with theoretical implications for the distributed leadership framework as well as implications for leadership practice given the need for cross-sector coordination in an increasingly complex education landscape.

Boyer, A.M. et al. (2020). Predicting Community Adoption of Collective Impact in the United States: A National Scan. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 0899764020964583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020964583 Ed Redesign. (2019). Children’s Cabinet Toolkit. https://edredesign.org/files/childrens_cabinet_toolkit_a_roadmap_for_getting_started.pdf Horsford, S. D., & Sampson, C. (2014). Promise neighborhoods: The promise and politics of community capacity building as urban school reform. Urban Education, 49(8), 955-991. Impellizeri, W., & Lee, V. J. (2021). A Comparison of IHEs and Non-IHEs as Anchor Institutions and Lead Agents of Promise Neighborhoods Projects. Education and Urban Society, 00131245211049736. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131245211049736 McLeod, S., & Dulsky, S. (2021). Resilience, reorientation, and reinvention: School leadership during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Frontiers in Education (p. 70). Frontiers. Mehta, J. (2013), “How Paradigms Create Politics The Transformation of American Educational Policy, 1980–2001”. American Educational Research Journal. 50(2), 285-324. Miller, P. M., Scanlan, M. K., & Phillippo, K. (2017). Rural Cross-Sector Collaboration: A Social Frontier Analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 54(1_suppl), 193S-215S. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216665188 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational researcher, 30(3), 23-28. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Like in most educational jurisdictions around the world, successful Australian principals have embraced the notion of distributed leadership. Yet its application in practice is highly variable mainly because practitioners have different understandings of the concept. The term ‘distributed leadership’ is associated with concepts such as shared, collaborative, participatory and collective leadership. What is being distributed is still uncertain. For example, is it delegated tasks, shared responsibilities, leadership activities or leadership practices? The purpose of distributed leadership also varied and include alleviating pressures on the school leadership (Harris, 2007), broadening the scope of responsibility and decision making, succession planning ((Gunter and Rayner 2007); building capacity for leadership (Day, 2009), and creating greater involvement and ownership (Hallinger and Heck 2009). While there is confusion among practitioners, researchers are clearer in their conceptualisation of distributed leadership: reciprocal interdependences (Harris, 2009; Spillane, 2006)); a way of thinking about leadership practice (Spillane, 2006); involving the teachers in leadership of the school (Hallinger and Heck, 2009). There also appears to be some consensus that the principals are pivotal in creating the conditions, culture and structure that promotes distributed leadership whether it is seen as a form of work redesign (Gunter, 2008, 2012; Harris, 2009) or different formations or patterns of leadership distribution that emerge that impact on outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2009; Spillane, 2006). This presentation summarises the research from Australia case studies of successful school (International Successful School Principals Project, ISSPP) that show that for successful school principals distributing leadership is multi-faceted, takes on different forms, is implemented for different purposes and different motivations. Context was important in shaping the distributed leadership model. For some principals it is a deliberate intervention to include informal and formal leaders. The main thrust of this proposal is to also share the findings from the case study of one secondary school principal that centres on his experience in three schools over 30 years in successfully developing a distributed leadership model focussed on building leadership capacity. The findings from the case study of the principal were based on extensive interviews with the principal and current and former staff members who have or have had leadership formal positions in the school. This principal deliberately sought to identify talent and build the leadership capacity and capabilities of leaders in order for them to move to higher levels of leadership not only in the school but in the system.

Day, C. 2009. ‘‘Capacity Building Through Layered Leadership: Sustaining the Turnaround.’’ In Distributed School Leadership: Different Perspectives, edited by A. Harris, 121137. London: Springer. Gunter, H., and Rayner, S. 2007. ‘‘Modernizing the School Workforce in England: Challenging Transformation and Leadership?’’ Leadership 3 (1): 4764. doi:10.1177/1742715007073066. Gunter, H. M. 2012. Leadership and the Reform of Education. Bristol: Policy Press. Hallinger, P., and Heck. H.H. 2009. ‘‘Distributed Leadership in Schools: Does System Policy Make a Difference?’’ In Distributed School Leadership: Different Perspectives, edited by A. Harris, 101117. London: Springer. Harris, A. 2009. ‘‘Distributed Leadership: What We Know.’’ In Distributed School Leadership: Different Perspectives, edited by A. Harris, 1121. London: Springer. Harris, A. 2007. Distributed Leadership and School Transformation. Presentation at the 2007 Scottish International Summer School on Leadership. Edinburgh, UK: Scottish Government. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., and Strauss. T. 2009. ‘‘What We Have Learned and Where We Go From Here.’’ In Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, edited by K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, and T. Strauss, 269281. London: Routledge. Spillane, J. P. 2006. Distributed Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Torrance, D.(1913) Distributed leadership: challenging five generally held assumptions, School Leadership and Management, 33(4), 354-372, http://dx.doi.org?10.1080/13632434.2013.813463

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused “undeniable chaos” (Hargreaves and Fullan 2020, 334) in schools. While distributed leadership (DL) was regarded as the most commonly implemented educational leadership model prior to the Covid-19 crisis, its importance has been re-established during the pandemic as it is said to have become the default leadership style through necessity (Harris and Jones 2020). There has been a slow movement towards shared leadership practices in Ireland since the early 2000’s. Similar to many other countries, DL is endorsed in Irish post-primary school policy (Barrett 2018). Due to its current endorsement and the reported necessity of DL during the Covid-19 pandemic, a distinct need to research post-primary school personnel’s interpretations and perceptions of DL implementation was identified. The aims of this study were therefore, to explore Irish post-primary school personnel’s interpretations of DL, and to investigate the perceived prevalence of DL in Irish post-primary schools. To achieve the study focus, a two-part online questionnaire was shared with school teachers, leaders, guidance counsellors and special needs assistants currently working in Irish post-primary schools. This survey comprised an adapted version of the Distributed Leadership Inventory (Hulpia, Devos, and Rosseel 2009) comprising 21 Likert-type statements, as well as a series of open ended questions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the Likert-type statements while thematic analysis was used for the open-ended questions. The results of this study suggest that while there are some similarities in participants’ interpretations of DL, there are also divergences relating to who participants believe is involved in distributed practices, what exactly is shared, and how it is shared. Data analysis suggests that participants’ roles in their school, their school type, and number of years experience could be influencing their interpretations of DL. Analysis of data pertaining to the perceived prevalence of DL in Irish post-primary schools resulted in varied degrees of perceived implementation. The importance of school culture, the division of labour, and working relationships were interpreted as core factors influencing DL’s perceived implementation. The Covid-19 pandemic was reported to exacerbate the distribution of leadership practices or lack-thereof depending on the context. This study adds to the emerging body of literature on DL with potential to inform future school policy and practice. Suggestions to further conceptualise the division of labour, and school culture required for a distributed practice are presented as well as the importance of building positive relationships and a need to avoid “tick-the-box” DL.

Barrett, Alphie. 2018. "Leadership and Management in Post-pimary Schools." In, edited by Department of Education and Skills, 1-30. Hargreaves, Andy, and Michael Fullan. 2020. "Professional capital after the pandemic: Revisiting and revising classic understandings of teachers' work." Journal of Professional Capital and Community. Harris, Alma, and Michelle Jones. 2020. "COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times." School Leadership & Management 40 (4):243-7. Hulpia, Hester, Geert Devos, and Yves Rosseel. 2009. "Development and validation of scores on the distributed leadership inventory." Educational and Psychological Measurement 69 (6):1013-34.