Distributed Leadership in Practice

Citation

Castro, R. (2009), "Distributed Leadership in Practice", Journal of Educational Administration, Vol. 47 No. 2, pp. 270-272. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230910941093

In the marketplace of leadership studies, definitions are plentiful. Leadership concepts and approaches often have diverse or worse, muddled and mischaracterized interpretations. Consequently, practicing educators develop a healthy skepticism toward educational terminology in general. For practitioners, it can be difficult to hone in on relevant and constructive leadership approaches. Spillane and Diamond acknowledge this challenge at the outset in Distributed Leadership in Practice (Spillane and Diamond, 2007). By using real situations in familiar contexts, however, they make a convincing argument about the potential for improved instructional discourse, in the conceptual framework they term “distributed leadership”. While “distributed leadership” may be (p. 1) “many things to many people”, Spillane and Diamond argue that their implication is not what scholars and practitioners may have heretofore attributed to notions such as “democratic leadership”, “shared responsibility” or “shared decision‐making”. They propose that, in contrast to much of the current scholarship on leading and managing, leadership is no longer the function of the positional leader, but the interaction of the leader, follower and situation.

Skillfully selected and compiled by James Spillane (School of Education and Social Policy and Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University) and John Diamond (Harvard Graduate School of Education), Distributed Leadership in Practice is a discussion of case studies in 15 Chicago elementary schools. Utilizing interview and observational data, a handful of scholars (including Diamond) provide didactic scenarios illustrative of the principles of distributed leadership.

The first two case studies explore the fundamentals of the distributive perspective. Two principals develop and implement organizational routines and tools to monitor instruction and strengthen professional community. In Chapter 2, Amy Coldren examines how the principal of Hillside Elementary implements a series of routines and tools – the review of student journals and teacher lesson plans and a conscious drive to link student assessment and teacher practice – to make meaningful connections between herself as a leader and the teachers as practitioners. In the next case, Richard Halverson focuses on the “systems of practice” – the regular meeting of the Breakfast Club, the 5‐Week Assessment Routine, and the overarching School's Improvement Plan – at Adams Elementary. A main point in this chapter is (p. 58) “while many schools offer ample opportunities for interaction, not all of these interactions help create a professional community”. The principal of Adams endeavors, in tandem with the faculty, to develop practices are relevant to the work of the teachers. And while the principal is the impetus and main facilitator of the routines and tools in both cases, the entire process is one of shared responsibility and ownership. As the tools and routines become embedded in the culture of the schools, Coldren and Halverson demonstrate how the distributed disposition in which professional community was developed serves to increase buy in from and healthy rapport with the staff. This (p. 52) “professional community is a kind of social capital that emerges in certain systems of practice”. These first case studies are examples of Spillane and Diamond's contentions that distributed leadership is not a function of individual's working in isolation, or using their “positional power”. Both principal's propagate a common mission through the tasks and work that is done while simultaneously building professional community.

From there, Distributed Leadership in Practice progresses logically. In chapter four, Diamond himself presents an example of how this social capital can be leveraged to facilitate change. At the Kelly School, a principal utilizes routines or “microtasks”, – weekly professional development sessions, teachers' classroom use of a skill chart, and the addition of culturally relevant classroom routines – to raise teacher expectations for students and increase accountability for student learning among teachers. Diamond also highlights how through these organizational routines, teachers are empowered under a common mission and assume leadership. This distributed leadership over instruction is “stretched across”, or distributed between mentor teacher and administrators. When a new teacher, Ms. Grant, joins the staff, she is seamlessly integrated into the professional community by her mentor teacher, much more so than by any administrator. This case further extends our understanding of the distributed perspective by showing how, with the establishment of a professional community, a school leader is more effectively able to solicit leadership and commitment from teachers, as well as hold them more accountable.

The theme of the constructive potential of teachers resonates throughout the first three case studies. In the next case however, Spillane and Diamond provide an example of the converse, how the destructive power of teachers working with a shared purpose can work against the leader and the mission of the school.

In chapter 5, Tim Hallet reveals to us the “underside” of leadership, further extending and challenging our understanding of the distributed perspective. What befalls the principal of Kox Elementary also serves as a particularly instructive and relevant lesson for new administrators. Ms Costen (a new principal) imposes strict reform oriented tasks intent on de‐privatizing teacher practice, but more from an individualistic/positional perspective. With the best of intentions, but complete dearth of professional community, her external mandate for change collides with a recalcitrant staff mired in tradition. As a result, the instructional discourse is sidelined and the school's performance ultimately suffers. Moreover, the struggle is indicative that leadership (p. 103) “is not inherent in organizational positions”, and demonstrates that shared tasks (in and of themselves) do not always produce professional community and rapport. In the absence of a professional community, teachers at Kox (p. 157) “emerge as leaders of organizational rebellion, rather than as compliant implementers of school leaders' instructional agendas”. In other words, it is not a question of whether leadership is distributed as much as it is how it is distributed.

The last two cases in the volume are unique, as it is uncommon for specific subject areas to be analyzed vis‐à‐vis their impact on the practice of leadership in schools. In Chapters 6 and 7, contributing researchers Sherer and Burch re‐examine the organizational routines and tools at their respective research sites, paying particular attention to how Language Arts and Mathematics play into the practice of leadership. Their findings are similar, and provide valuable insight. Both find clear differences in how leaders and followers enact their practice with respect to Language Arts and Mathematics. And in both cases Language Arts fostered collaborative leadership and spontaneous participation, where as mathematics leadership was more borne from perceived mastery of the subject; even the principal was more hesitant to participate. These findings could be significant, and definitely lend themselves to additional inquiry. What can we learn about the differences in leadership practice, from one subject to the next? Are these findings informative with respect to professional development, pedagogical strategy, and student achievement in the area of mathematics?

In the final chapter, Spillane and Diamond explain how each of the selected cases refine and clarify their definitions. Significant discussion is given to dispel myths about distributed leadership which are borne from mischaracterization of the conceptual framework. And even as they acknowledge that distributed leadership is not meant to be a universal remedy for the ills of leadership and management, leading with a distributive perspective is useful, both from the perspective of the researcher or practitioner. If the leader is genuinely interested in utilizing the distributive perspective, he or she must collaboratively develop tools and organizational routines that focus the interaction between leaders and followers on instructional discourse.

At the outset, Distributed Leadership in Practice seems a bit theory‐laden. But the book's aloofness is restricted to the introduction. As each case study unfolds, the reader will find more relevance and familiarity to his or her work as a practitioner. Granted, the book may leave the reader wishing for more cases and discussion. And because of the book's novel nature, the discussions are conducive to further inquiry. What potential does the distributed perspective have to improve student achievement? Can the conditions associated with effective distributed leadership (e.g. professional community, increased instructional discourse) be a catalyst for reform?

Even so, Distributed Leadership in Practice adds a great deal to the field. Not only do Spillane and Diamond make practical a complex conceptual framework, they clearly demonstrate its potential; therein lies the ultimate value of the book, as the lessons are not limited to the case studies in their volume. Similar scenarios are commonplace in the nation's schools everyday. As such, school administrative teams at every level in the K‐12 span would benefit from this book. Certainly, if distributed leadership is – the development of tools and organizational routines to focus the interaction between leaders and followers on instructional discourse – then Distributed Leadership in Practice is a valuable tool principals can employ to focus their administrative teams on the routine of ongoing instructional dialogue.