A much greater understanding is needed of power in the practice of distributed leadership. This article explores how the concept of social authority might be helpful in achieving this. It suggests that the practice of distributed leadership is characterized by multiple authorities which are constructed in the interactions between people. Rather than there being a uniform hierarchy (relatively flat or otherwise) of formal authority, organizational members may be ‘high’ in some authorities and ‘low’ in others, and people’s positioning in relation to these authorities is dynamic and changeable. The article maps different forms of authorities, provides illustrations from educational institutions, and concludes with implications for educational leadership. A key conclusion is that everyone is involved in the ongoing production of authorities by contributing to who is accepted as or excluded from exercising authority and leadership.
Recently, distributed leadership (DL) has become a popular approach to leadership across the social sciences, including education. This article documents reasons for the emergence of a distributed perspective and summarizes some of the background against which DL’s popularity emerged, in a field of study with a traditional adherence to leadership understood individually rather than collectively. When considered empirically, leadership practice in education and beyond is neither exclusively individual nor collective, but manifests degrees of co-existing individualism and collectivism. By implication, this hybrid or mixed patterning has to be reflected in a revised unit of leadership analysis. For this purpose, the article proposes a leadership configuration. To substantiate the argument, a range of illustrative social science evidence is drawn upon, some of which suggests that leadership hybridity may not merely be a contemporary phenomenon, but stretches back in time to include pre-modern social formations.
This article takes a contemporary look at distributed leadership in practice by drawing upon empirical evidence from a large-scale project in the USA. Initially, it considers the existing knowledge base on distributed leadership and questions some of the assertions and assumptions in recent accounts of the literature. The article also addresses some persistent misconceptions associated with the concept of distributed leadership and points out that certain fundamental misunderstandings still prevail. The article concludes by proposing that more evidence from practice would significantly enhance the current evidential base and that the future development of distributed leadership would greatly benefit from more input from practitioners.
Despite frequently expressed reservations concerning its fundamental theoretical weakness, distributed leadership (DL) has grown to become the preferred leadership concept and has acquired taken-for-granted status. This article suggests that the dominance of DL can best be understood as a fashion or fad rather than as a rational choice. It explores the techniques used to privilege DL, where not only logical but also emotional and moral arguments have been brought to bear. It is suggested that ongoing hybridization of distributed leadership theory serves to deflect criticism, rather as a virus continues to evade attack by changing its form. The article also argues that focusing on DL is a displacement activity, drawing people’s attention away from the core purpose of leadership, which is to address the persistent inequality of chances that children experience in school.
This article begins by examining the possible meanings of ‘sustainability’, and argues that most meanings are prescriptive rather than descriptive in nature: they tend, either overtly or covertly, to recommend the particular end-states that writers desire. The article then looks at the threats to leadership sustainability, suggesting that a lack of sustainability is not only caused by excessive volume of work and lack of preparation for the role, but also by how different stakeholders view the role. Greater sustainability, it is proposed, comes from recognizing the ‘wicked’ rather than the ‘tame’ nature of the role, and of the need to apply solutions which reflect the ‘wicked’ nature of many leadership challenges. Finally, links are made between leadership sustainability and the sustainability of larger social, economic and environmental systems, suggesting that they have many similar causes and many similar remedies.
What is the role of schools, and more specifically school leadership, in the transition to a sustainable future for humankind? What different forms of leadership are needed to enable this role? The challenges are huge and complex and for those of us engaged in promoting sustainability learning, it is clear that the issue has never been more pressing. Action at government and corporate level is required, as well as an immense shift in patterns of consumption, especially in richer countries. This paper aims to explore the nature, challenges and opportunities of sustainability leadership within the context of formal education in the UK. A critical pedagogy (Freire, 1970; Gatto, 1992) lens is used to explore ways in which the formal education system is constructed on mental models that are inherently unsustainable, and that reinforce the principles of hierarchy, power and control, separation, competition and colonialism that are at the root of sustainability challenges. Drawing on interviews with school leaders, some possibilities will be explored, such as alternative pedagogies that create space for relaxed, collaborative, co-constructive learning, that encourage critical thinking, and reignite children’s sense of connection with each other and with the environment (Woodlin, 2014).