This article was downloaded by: [Universidad de Sevilla]

On: 19 April 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 773444416]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Leadership in Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713693371

Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence

Alma Harris

To cite this Article Harris, Alma(2007) 'Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and empirical reticence', International
Journal of Leadership in Education, 10: 3, 315 — 325
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/13603120701257313
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603120701257313

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 INT. J. LEADERSHIP IN EDUCATION,
JULY–SEPTEMBER 2007, VOL. 10, NO. 3, 315–325

Distributed leadership: conceptual confusion and

empirical reticence1
ALMA HARRIS
0alma.harris@warwick.ac.uk
Professor
000002007
International
10.1080/13603120701257313
TEDL_A_225643.sgm
1360-3124
Original
Taylor
2007
10 and
& AlmaHarris
Article
Francis
(print)/1464-5092
Francis
JournalLtd
of Leadership
(online)
in Education

Introduction

The school leadership field is particularly susceptible to new leadership

terms that are temporarily popular, only to be quickly supplemented with
more fashionable ideas or theories. The field is replete with different labels
for leadership, even though it is clear that leadership does not take on a
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

different meaning simply because a new word is put in front of it. In a recent
synthesis of research on the impact of leadership on student learning
outcomes the need to be sceptical about the ‘leadership by adjective’ litera-
ture was highlighted (Leithwood et al. 2006: 8). Yet this literature continues
to flourish and grow. While some of this writing offers interesting, new
perspectives on leadership, much of it is not well grounded in research
evidence. The empirical base underpinning many of the new ideas or theo-
ries in leadership is either weak or non-existent. As a consequence, many
contemporary and popular leadership ideas exist without the benefit of any
empirical substantiation.
Distributed leadership is, without question, the latest fashionable idea
to capture the imagination of those in the educational leadership field
(Harris 2004a, 2004b, 2005, Spillane 2006). Part of this current popular-
ity stems from the fact that it is able to accommodate a wide variety of
interpretations and positions. Its chameleon-like quality makes it appealing
to policy-makers, researchers and practitioners alike, even though interpre-
tations of its meaning clearly vary. A recent review of the literature
highlighted how different definitions of the term ‘distributed leadership’
has resulted in conceptual ambiguity. Bennett et al. (2003: 4) pointed out
that distributed leadership has been used as a synonym for ‘shared, collab-
orative, facilitative and participative’ leadership. Similarities have also been
noted between distributed leadership and democratic leadership (Woods
2004). This accumulation of overlapping concepts has served to obscure
the precise meaning of the term, rendering it a catch-all phase for any type
of devolved, shared or dispersed leadership practice in schools (Harris
2004a, 2004b). It is an idea so conceptually vast that it is difficult to sepa-
rate what does and doesn’t constitute distributed leadership (Gronn
2003).

Alma Harris is Director of the Institute of Education and Professor of Educational Leadership, University
of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Email: alma.harris@warwick.ac.uk.

International Journal of Leadership in Education

ISSN 1360–3124 print/ISSN 1464–5092 online © 2007 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/13603120701257313
 316 A. HARRIS

This article aims to address and explain the conceptual ambiguity

surrounding distributed leadership. I argue that there are three different
frames for understanding distributed leadership that are being applied
simultaneously, but which need to be considered separately. These frames
are the theoretical, the empirical and the normative. The intention of this
article is to look at distributed leadership using each of these frames. I
suggest that even though there has been much contemporary interest in
distributed leadership theory, this form of leadership practice is certainly not
new. Many schools already have sophisticated patterns of distributed lead-
ership in place and have made structural changes to accommodate different
patterns of distributed leadership activity.
Following this analysis, I will argue that more empirical evidence is
needed about distributed leadership practice. I suggest that research is
urgently required to consider whether distributed leadership contributes to
school and student outcomes and which explores what forms of distributed
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

leadership in schools contribute most to school improvement. I conclude by

suggesting that if distributed leadership theory is to have any explanatory or
predictive power this can only be achieved through empirical investigation
and testing.

Distributed leadership: the theoretical frame

The first frame through which to consider distributed leadership is the

theoretical frame. Spillane et al. (2001, 2004) and Gronn (2000) are at the
forefront of the theoretical work concerning distributed leadership, although
their theoretical orientations differ. Spillane (2006) has drawn heavily upon
distributed cognition to generate a theory of distributed leadership, while
Gronn (2002) has used activity theory mainly to guide his work on leadership.
In this article I will draw primarily upon Spillane’s work to explore both the
contribution and the constraints of distributed leadership theory. In the last
few years a theory of distributed leadership has been developed by appropri-
ating concepts from distributed cognition. The work of Spillane et al. (2001,
2004), in particular, draws heavily upon the work of Hutchins (1995), Resnick
(1991) and Pea (1993), who focus upon the way in which cognition relies
upon certain material, social and cultural artifacts for understanding. Here
cognition is not viewed only as a matter of mental capacity, because sense-
making and connections are established through the situation or the context
in which it takes place (Resnick 1991). This work implies that cognition is
distributed situationally and socially through other people and situations in
the effort to complete complex tasks (Latour 1987). Other investigations in
distributed cognition have focused upon ways in which cognition is distrib-
uted or ‘stretched over’ material and cultural artifacts (Rogoff 1990). These
material and cultural artifacts are viewed as the products of particular social
and cultural situations and collectively they form a ‘socio-cultural context’
within which activity happens. In order to think and act, therefore, we draw
upon a set of cultural and social norms to guide us. Consequently, distributed
cognition reinforces the importance of context in thinking and acting: cogni-
tion is distributed in the material and social situation.
 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 317

In their work Spillane et al. (2004) have taken a distributed cognition

perspective and superimposed it upon leadership practice in schools. They
argue that leadership activity is ‘constituted—defined or constructed—in
the interaction of leaders, followers and their situation in the execution of
leadership tasks’. This implies a social distribution of leadership where the
leadership function is ‘stretched over the work of a number of individuals
and the task is accomplished through the interaction of multiple leaders’
(Spillane 2001: 20). Spillane et al. (2004) argue that the distributed
perspective they have developed on leadership is based on two assumptions:
first, that school leadership is best understood by exploring leadership tasks;
second, that leadership practice is distributed over leaders, followers and
the school situation. Spillane et al. (2004: 27) suggest that this theoretical
frame offers a new way of studying complex approaches to the expertise of
leaders and that it has substantial leverage in studying leadership activity in
schools. They concluded: ‘We believe that a distributed perspective offers a
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

new meta lens for thinking about a familiar activity—leadership practice—

by mobilizing a language and a set of analytical tools for reflecting on that
activity’ (Spillane et al. 2004: 28). However, while the theory undoubtedly
offers a new perspective on leadership practice in schools, the direct links to
empirical evidence are less clear.
Spillane (2006) sees distributed leadership theory primarily as an ‘analyt-
ical tool’ for understanding the world of school leadership differently. He
suggests that it offers ‘scholars a conceptual basis for understanding leader-
ship’ which implies a distancing of the theory from any practical application
or testing. However, he also states that while it is not a recipe for effective lead-
ership practice, it offers a productive way of thinking about leadership for both
‘diagnostic and design purposes’ (Spillane 2006: 103). On the one hand, Spill-
ane (2006: 10) is clear that distributed leadership is best conceived as ‘a way
of thinking about leadership practice’ and that it has no prescriptive power.
On the other hand, he suggests that it can be used as a ‘diagnostic instrument’
that helps practitioners approach their work in new ways. However, diagnosis
and design imply some predictive and applied purpose or intent.
It remains questionable how far distributed cognition provides us with a
robust theory of distributed leadership. The borrowed concepts and frame-
works seem to move from one discipline to another fairly easily, but this
form of theoretical superimposition has some inherent weaknesses. First, a
transfer of theory from one discipline to another inevitably results in some
limitations of appreciation and understanding, however close the perceived
fit. These are very different disciplines with different epistemological frame-
works. Second, distributed cognition is a descriptive rather than a prescrip-
tive theory. While design applications have been undertaken in the
cognitive psychology field using this theoretical base, they remain limited.
In contrast, education is a discipline where the practical application and
testing of ideas is fundamental and, therefore, the discipline itself presses
even the most abstract theory for application. If distributed leadership
theory is to be ultimately useful in the sphere of schooling it will need to
move into the normative and predictive.
While such a shift is not always possible, in the case of a theory of lead-
ership applied to schools this would seem to be imperative. Yet, Spillane
 318 A. HARRIS

(2006) is clear that distributed leadership theory does not have predictive
power and is not a panacea or guide to practice. Therefore, the options
facing the field of educational leadership seem to be two-fold. Option one is
for distributed leadership to simply exist as another leadership theory in a
field where multiple theories comfortably co-exist. In time, like all leadership
theories, it will cease to be centre stage. Option two is for distributed lead-
ership theory to be tested and further developed through empirical enquiry
and exploration. Taking this stance will mean actively using the theory to
frame empirical studies of distributed leadership practice. It will mean
generating studies that investigate the impact and effect of different forms of
distributed leadership upon organizational development and change. While
some of this work is already emerging, it is not extensive or conclusive at this
stage.
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

Distributed leadership: the empirical frame

The empirical work that currently exists concerning distributed leadership

varies in scope, focus and nature. Much of the evidence about the impact of
distributed leadership resides in studies that have not specifically focused on
this form of leadership activity directly. While specific studies of distributed
leadership practice have been undertaken, they remain limited in number
and have focused mainly on small school samples. The exception to the
trend has been the larger projects carried out in the USA by Camburn et al.
(2003) and Spillane et al. (2001, 2006). The study by Camburn et al.
(2004) focused upon 100 elementary schools and found that responsibility
for leadership functions was typically distributed across three to seven
formally designated leadership positions per elementary school. This work
surveyed formally designated leaders in each school to examine the distribu-
tion of responsibility for leadership functions. They concluded that those
with no formal leadership designations take responsibility for leadership
activities and also that teachers perform key leadership functions and
routines.
To date, the largest analysis of distributed leadership practice has been
undertaken by Spillane et al. (2001, 2004). This work and the subsequent
research that has followed (Spillane et al. 2006, Spillane and Camburn
2006) has adopted a distributed perspective to examine how the work of
leading and managing in schools is distributed across people. It has
compared and contrasted different types of leadership or management
activities by examining how leadership is distributed. This work has
concluded that the co-performance of leading and managing activities is not
unusual in schools. The preliminary analysis ‘suggests that the work of
leading and managing the schoolhouse is indeed distributed, not only
involving multiple designated leaders and informal leaders but also demon-
strated by the prevalence of the co-performance of work’ (Spillane and
Camburn 2006: 26).The studies by Camburn et al. (2003) and Spillane
et al. (2001) both used distributed leadership as an analytical frame to focus
on whether and in what form leadership is distributed in schools. They
share an interest in how leadership is distributed rather than focusing upon
 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 319

the effects or impact of the different forms of distribution. To gain any

insight into the relationship between distributed leadership and organiza-
tional development requires delving into other sources of empirical
evidence.
Two of the most thorough examinations of the relationship between
leadership and student learning outcomes have been conducted by
Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) and Silns and Mulford (2002). Leithwood and
his colleagues concluded that distributing a larger proportion of leadership
activity to teachers has a positive influence on teacher effectiveness and
student engagement. They also noted that teacher leadership has a signifi-
cant effect on student engagement that far outweighs principal leadership
effects, after taking into account home/family background. In their work
Silns and Mulford (2002) provided some cumulative confirmation of the
key processes through which more distributed kinds of leadership influence
student learning outcomes. Their work collected survey data from over
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

2500 teachers and their principals and concluded that ‘student outcomes
are more likely to improve when leadership sources are distributed through-
out the school community and when teachers are empowered in areas of
importance to them’. Similarly, a study of teacher leadership conducted in
England found positive relationships between the degree of teacher involve-
ment in decision-making and student motivation and self-efficacy (Harris
and Muijs 2004). This study explored the relationship between teacher
involvement in decision-making within the school and a range of student
outcomes. The researchers found that a relationship between more distrib-
uted forms of leadership and certain positive student outcomes existed.
Both teacher and student morale levels improved where teachers felt more
included and involved in decision-making related to the school development
and change.
Interestingly, most of the empirical evidence suggesting organizational
benefits from distributed leadership are not located in studies that have
focused centrally and primarily on this form of leadership practice. The
empirical evidence can be found in the broader literature concerning school
improvement and organizational change (Harris 2005). Here there are
several strands of research suggesting the positive impact of distributed lead-
ership. The first strand is one that makes an association between a strong
school culture and school improvement. Rosenholtz (1989) argued for
teacher collegiality and collaboration to generate a positive change in
schools. Effective schools, she argued, ‘have tighter congruence between
values, norms and behaviours of principals and teachers’ and that this is
more likely to result in positive school performance. A distributed perspec-
tive suggests the ‘co-practice of routines’ and the ‘co-sharing of leadership’
which, it could be argued, both necessitates and creates a supportive and
cohesive school culture.
The second strand of evidence on distributed leadership found in the
school improvement literature comprises composite lists of the character-
istics of the ‘improving school’. In their review of successful school
improvement efforts Glickman et al. (2001: 49) constructed a composite
list of the characteristics of what they term the ‘improving school’, a
‘school that continues to improve student learning outcomes for all
 320 A. HARRIS

students over time’. At the top of this list appears ‘varied sources of lead-
ership, including distributed leadership’. The most recent literature also
suggests that the form of leadership most often identified with improved
learning outcomes is one that is ‘distributed or shared’ (Fullan 2001,
Hopkins 2001).
The third strand of evidence can be found in the teacher development
and teacher leadership literatures (Harris 2005). Here there are a variety of
studies that show clear evidence of the positive effect of distributed leadership
on teachers’ self-efficacy and levels of morale (MacBeath 1998). The
research findings suggest that where teachers share good practice and learn
together, the possibility of securing better quality teaching is increased (Little
1990, 1993, Lieberman 2000). This literature provides positive evidence
about the impact of teacher leadership on student performance (Rosenholz
1989). In summary, there is evidence to suggest that distributed leadership
has a positive effect upon organizational development and change. However,
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

this research base is limited. As Lashway (2003) noted, ‘the research base
for distributed leadership is still embryonic. While there is considerable
theory, we have relatively little empirical knowledge about distributed lead-
ership’.
Two current projects by Leithwood et al. (2006) and Harris (2007) aim
to address this empirical gap. The Leithwood et al. (2006) research study
consists of a multi-methods study which, in the first stage, involved the
collection of qualitative evidence in a small number of schools, followed by
a second stage entirely based on quantitative data. The work aims to
provide systematic evidence about differences in patterns of leadership
distribution and those factors which assist or inhibit the development of
distributed leadership in schools. The emerging evidence from the first
phase of this study suggests that school leadership has a greater influence
on schools and pupils when it is widely distributed and that some patterns
of distribution are more effective than others. However, as yet the study has
not shed any light on questions about the range of patterns that actually
exist in schools and, most importantly, the relative effects of each pattern
on the quality of teaching and learning. The current research work by
Harris (2007) is exploring this issue. As a qualitative study of schools at
different stages on the distributed leadership continuum it looks at how
different patterns of distributed leadership influence school and student
outcomes.

Distributed leadership: the normative frame

A normative lens on distributed leadership is primarily concerned with how

leadership is distributed in schools and by whom. It is concerned with both
the descriptive and prescriptive dimensions, i.e. how do we understand
distributed leadership and how might we produce better forms of distrib-
uted leadership? Inevitably, this lens on distributed leadership moves us
closer to the realms of prediction, where the focus is on generating the
most effective forms of distributed leadership practice. In the last few years
changes in the workload patterns of teachers and school leaders intensified.
 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 321

The growth of what Gronn (2003) has termed ‘greedy work’ in schools has
resulted in the expansion of leadership tasks and has required leadership to
be actively shared within the school. As a consequence, the model of the
single leader is gradually being eroded within schools as the demands upon
one individual are too great. Schools are restructuring leadership responsi-
bilities through the creation of new teams, with greater emphasis being
placed upon teachers as leaders. Many schools are actively trying to create
‘distributed leadership’ by reallocating responsibility and authority more
broadly within the workforce of the school. Research by Harris and Muijs
(2005) found that distributed leadership in schools in its most extended
form meant that decision-making processes were widely shared and that
school development was the responsibility of teams rather than the senior
management group.
New models of schooling are emerging based upon school-to-school
collaboration and networking. The English government has been leading the
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

way in developing networks of schools in the form of partnerships, federa-

tions and network learning communities as an integral part of the drive to
improve standards. Most recently, the development of extended schools has
created new challenges for leaders and leadership in schools in England
(Department for Education and Skills 2006). Extended schools provide a
range of services and activities, often beyond the school day, to help meet the
needs of children, their families and the wider community. Consequently, in
the practice of leaders of extended schools there is an emerging picture of the
‘“capacity building school” capable of combining workforce reform, commu-
nity engagement and distributed leadership to help students, staff, parents
and other community members alike to learn and develop’ (DEMOS 2006:
16). In summary, leaders of extended schools are embracing and enacting
various forms of distributed leadership practice.
Mayrowetz and Smylie (2004) suggested that introducing distributed
leadership into schools will inevitably require some organizational restruc-
turing to take place. Drawing upon work redesign theory, specifically
Hackman and Oldham’s Job Characteristics Model (JCM), they argued
that teachers will need to be integrated together and a certain amount of
time must be made available to them to develop the internal mechanisms
to practice leadership. They also pointed out that time will be needed
before the formal leadership group will trust the teachers enough to grant
them autonomy. Even more time is required, they suggested, for these
groups to contemplate implementation of its decisions and make sense of
and learn from that feedback. As people process information in groups
they generate creative new solutions that, at least for some kinds of prob-
lems, are better than those that could have been generated alone. The
importance of organizational learning is hard to overstate:
We identify renewal of the overall enterprise as the underlying phenomenon of interest and
organizational learning as a principal means to this end… [We are] presenting organizational
learning as four processes—intuiting, interpreting, integrating, and institutionalizing—linking the
individual, group, and organizational levels. (Gibson and Zellmer-Bruhn 2001)

The implication here is that in schools where there is distributed leadership

too little attention may be paid to how that knowledge generated from that
 322 A. HARRIS

practice is shared and disseminated. This will require some attention to

boundary management within and across new organizational structures.
For example, in such new organizational forms there are likely to be multi-
ple internal groups of educators, groups that include teachers and non-
teaching staff, all working on separate but interdependent developments.
As a result, there will be more boundaries to manage. As organizational
theorists have pointed out, for groups to maintain their identities but not
be too isolated from the whole organization group boundaries need contin-
ual management to ensure that it becomes neither too sharply delineated
nor too permeable. In terms of leadership functions this type of boundary
management is essentially monitoring innovation. Without the perfor-
mance of this leadership function school improvement is less likely.
If distributed leadership initiatives are to facilitate more open and demo-
cratic decision-making processes (Neuman and Simmons 2001) teachers or
other members of the school community will need to bring their agendas
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

together with those in formal leadership roles whose influence is always

present. Inevitably, there is a danger that with all of these agendas converging,
confusion and compromise will lead to an incoherent direction for the school.
To avoid this position those in formal leadership roles, who still maintain the
formal authority and accountability in schools, must ensure that a coherent
vision is established and maintained. As Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001)
concluded from their extensive analysis of the teacher leadership literature,
this form of leadership is not a chance organizational event. The message from
the research evidence is unequivocal: ‘principals need to know how to develop,
support, and manage these new forms of leadership’ (Smylie et al. 2002: 182).
The conclusion one draws from the literature is that those in formal
leadership positions need to actively influence the development and imple-
mentation of distributed leadership, primarily through the processes of
building supportive structures and an organizational climate. So, although
distributed leadership initiatives are meant to flatten hierarchies and
empower teachers by having them engage in high impact and enriched work,
by virtue of their positional and symbolic authority principals still matter a
great deal to these reforms. The paradox is that without stable, consistent
leadership in schools distributed leadership will be incredibly vulnerable and
ultimately fragile. Furthermore, distributing leadership is not a way of reduc-
ing the workload of the head teacher. Leithwood et al. (2006) concluded that
distributing leadership ‘does produce greater demand: to coordinate who
performs which leadership functions, to build leadership capacities in others,
and to monitor the leadership work of those others, providing constructive
feedback to them about their efforts’ (Leithwood et al. 2006: 40). In short,
distributing leadership to others does not result in fewer demands on those
formal leadership positions.

Conclusion

The ascendancy of distributed leadership in the leadership research field

represents a significant shift in thinking about leaders, leadership and lead-
ership development. It presents the opportunity to think about leadership
 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 323

practice in a totally different way. Of central importance to both research and

practice, however, is the need to connect the multiple performance or enact-
ment of leadership to organizational change and development. The link
between distributed leadership and positive school and student outcomes
needs to be either clearly established or refuted. Those scholars who have
developed the theory of distributed leadership have been very careful to note
that its presence does not necessarily suggest positive or negative outcomes
for schools. They have been tentative to use the term in any prescriptive sense
or, indeed, as a blueprint or map to school improvement. They would
caution against seeking any prescription from a predominantly analytical
position.
Yet the research work that is currently underway (Harris 2007,
Leithwood et al. 2006) intends to do just that. It seeks to provide direct
evidence about a causal connection between multiple leadership functions
and school improvement. It seeks to examine whether there is any relation-
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

ship between distributed leadership and positive organizational change. As

things currently stand, distributed leadership practice in schools is expand-
ing extensively and rapidly without the benefit of any empirical steer. Within
and across schools it is viewed as a pragmatic response to the new pressures
imposed by new models or forms of schooling. Currently we have no way of
knowing if this massive shift in leadership practice is a good or a bad thing.
To generate such knowledge will mean asking the simple question ‘what
difference does distributed leadership makes to schools and students? A host
of epistemological and methodological challenges quickly follow. Spillane
and Camburn (2006: 3) suggested that researchers who wish to measure and
study the leader-plus aspect of distributed leadership face two important
epistemological questions. These are, first, ‘across which school actors do
researchers hypothesize leadership and management as distributed’ and,
second, ‘what aspects of leadership and management work are hypothesized
to be distributed across people?’ These are important questions that gener-
ate a wide range of methodological challenges about forms of evidence,
analysis and interpretation.
By definition, leadership which is distributed is a much more difficult
focus of empirical enquiry than leadership equated with a person or a role.
This is possibly why the leadership field is dominated by studies of individual
leaders and their actions. However, if we sidestep these methodological
challenges we also sidestep the possibility of ever really knowing whether
distributed leadership makes a positive difference to schools and students.
We avoid asking the ‘so what’ question that is so often factored out of
research studies of leadership. To avoid the ‘so what’ question means not
only removing any possibility of developing distributed leadership theory
further, but also willfully discarding the opportunity of understanding more
about the relationship between leadership and organizational development.

Note

1. This article is based on a keynote address ‘Distributed leadership: a case of theory following prac-
tice’, CCEAM Conference, Cyprus, 15 October 2006.
 324 A. HARRIS

References

Bennett, N. Harvey, J. A., Wise, C. and Woods, P. A. (2003) Distributed Leadership: a Desk Study
(Nottingham: NCSL). Available online at: www.ncsl.org.uk/literature reviews (accessed January
2007).
Camburn, E., Rowan, B. and Taylor, J. (2003) Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary
schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
25(4), 347–373.
DEMOS (2006) Taking the wide view: the new leadership of extended schools, report of six ContinYOU/
NSCL seminar demos.co.uk.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2006)(London: DfES). Available online at: www.every-
childmatters.gov.uk/ete/extendedschools/.
Fullan, M. (2000) Leading in a Culture of Change (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).
Gibson, C. and Zellmer-Bruhn, M. (2001) Metaphors and meaning: an intercultural analysis of the
concept of teamwork. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46(2), 274–303.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P. and Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001) Supervision and Instructional Leadership
(Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon).
Gronn, P. (2000) Distributed properties: a new architecture for leadership. Educational Management and
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

Administration, 28(3), 371–338.

Gronn, P. (2003) The New Work of Educational Leaders: Changing Leadership Practice in an Era of School
Reform (London: Paul Chapman).
Harris, A. (2004a) Distributed leadership: leading or misleading. Educational Management and
Administration, 32(1), 255–267.
Harris, A. (2004b) Teacher leadership and distributed leadership: an exploration of the literature.
Leading and Managing, 10(2), 1–10.
Harris, A. (2005) Crossing Boundaries and Breaking Barriers: Distributing Leadership in Schools (London:
Specialist Schools Trust). Available online at: www.sst-inet.net (accessed January 2007).
Harris, A. (2007) Beyond Workforce Reform (London: TDA, SSAT).
Harris, A. and Muijs, D. (2004) Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership (London: Open University
Press).
Harris, A. and Muijs, D. (2006) The Impact of Distributed Leadership on School Improvement (Warwick:
University of Warwick).
Hopkins, D. (2001) School Improvement for Real (London: Falmer Press).
Hutchins, E. (1995) Cognition in the Wild (Cambridge, MA: MIT).
Katzenmeyer, M. and Moller, G. (2001) Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Helping Teachers Develop as
Leaders (Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin).
Lashway, L. (2003) Distributed leadership. Research Roundup, 19(4), 1–6.
Latour, B. (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society (Philidelphia,
PA: Open University Press).
Leithwood, K. and Jantzi, D. (2000) The effects of transformational leadership on organisa-
tional conditions and student engagement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2),
112–132.
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N. and Yaskina, G. (2006) Distributing
leadership to make schools smarter. Leadership and Policy in Schools, in press.
Lieberman, A. (1995) Practices that support teacher development: transforming conceptions of profes-
sional learning. Phi Delta Kapan, 6, 591–596.
Little, J. W. (1990) The persistence of privacy: autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional rela-
tions. Teachers College Record, 91, 509–536.
Little, J. W. (1993) Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151.
MacBeath, J. (ed.) (1998) Effective School Leadership: Responding to Change(London: Paul Chapman
Publishers).
Mayrowetz, D. & Smylie, M. A. (2004) Work redesign that works for teachers, in: M. A. Smylie & D.
Miretzy (eds) Teacher Workforce Development. The One Hundred Third Yearbook of the National
Society for the Study of Education Part I (Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of
Education), pp. 274–302.
Neuman, M. & Simmons, W. (2001) Leadership for student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(1),
9–12.
 DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP 325

Pea, R. D. (1993) Practices of distributed intelligence and designs for education, in: G Salomom (ed.)
Distributed Cognition; Psychological and Educational Considerations (New York: Cambridge
University Press).
Resnik, L. B. (1991) Shared cognition: thinking as social practice, in: L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine and
S. D. Teasley (eds) Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition (Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association), pp. 1–22.
Rogoff, B. M. (1990) On the meanings of acts and what is meant by what is said in a pluralistic social
world, in: M. Brenner (ed.) The Structure of Action (Oxford: Blackwell).
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989) Teachers’ Workplace: the Social Organization of Schools (New York: Longman).
Silns, H. and Mulford, W. (2002) Leadership and school results, in: K. Leithwood, P. Hallinger,
K. S. Louis, P. Furman-Brown, P. Gronn, W. Mulford and K. Riley (eds) Second International
Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (Dordecht: Kluwer), pp. 561–612.
Spillane, J. P. (2006) Distributed Leadership (San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass).
Spillane, J. P. and Camburn, E. (2006) The practice of leading and managing: the distribution of
responsibility for leadership and management in the schoolhouse, paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, April.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001) Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed
Perspective, Institute for Policy Research Working Article (Chicago, IL: Northwestern University).
Downloaded By: [Universidad de Sevilla] At: 16:46 19 April 2010

Spillane, J. P. Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. B. (2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: a

distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34.
Spillane, J. P. Camburn, E., Lewis, G. and Stitziel-Pareja, A. (2006) Taking a distributed perspective in
studying school leadership and management: epistemological and methodological trade-offs,
paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San
Francisco, April.
Smylie, M., Conley, S. and Marks, H. (2002) Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school
improvement, in: J. Murphy (ed.) The Educational Leadership Challenge: Redefining Leadership for
the 21st Century (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press), pp. 162–188.
Woods, P. A. (2004) Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3–26.