All distributed: sharing leadership to build capacity

You may not be familiar with the term ‘distributed leadership’ (DL). If you have heard of it, you may not feel entirely comfortable as to its exact meaning. In either case, you are not alone. So, before I share my research into DL and its usefulness, I will clarify some terms and the national context.

There has been and continues to be a shortage of headteachers in England. The National College for School Leadership (NCSL) has attempted to address the issue of headteacher supply by developing courses and support for those considering headship and for those already in it. At a well-publicised conference on DL in 2004, NCSL nailed a number of DL colours to its corporate mast. Distributed leadership had arrived as a new buzzword for our CVs and, more importantly, as a possible solution to the crisis in headteacher recruitment and retention.

Distributed leadership provided the means to develop school capacity and lighten the burden on the head, freeing them to do those key things only heads can do. But its potential went beyond just making the job of head more manageable: it offered the potential to enliven all staff increasing their professional respect, as well as to improve provision for pupils and raise attainment.

This thinking was either coincidental or engineered to chime with New Labour’s cooperation rather than competition agenda for schools. But what exactly does NCSL mean by DL? The comprehensive A5 boxed set of distributed leadership materials released at the 2004 conference leaves schools to make up their own minds and discover their own path through DL – the pack costs £30 and is available to order via the NCSL website: www.ncsl.org.uk It includes interesting research by the Hay Group (2004, and Arrowsmith, 2005) and by MacBeath (2005) and others; it also includes a toolkit schools can use to develop their take on DL.

Research definition of DL

Gronn, writing in 2003, takes a commonsense and comprehensive view of DL, and sees it as the distribution/delegation of leadership in any way across some or all of the school. So, the typical tree-structure hierarchy, with the head at the top and the learning support assistants (LSAs) at the bottom is one such network for the distribution of leadership. Job descriptions identify the extent of an individual’s responsibility and autonomy.

MacBeath (2005) makes a distinction between the distribution of leadership that is ‘given’ (by the head) and that which is ‘taken’ by an individual or group of staff.

‘Given’ DL

As the most power rests with the head and frequently the senior leadership team (SLT), they may choose to give some of it up to particular staff and let them lead on an issue or area of the school’s work, making decisions within a framework of agreed values and priorities.

This raises the challenge and sometime sticking point of accountability. The NCSL-commissioned Hay DL research (2004) identifies the need for more rigorous accountability as leadership autonomy is rolled out across the school, to prevent a descent into anarchy.

Conversely, as noted by Odoru et al, accountability is an inhibiting fear factor. In the current performance-driven education climate it is understandable that some heads might not feel so confident in distributing responsibilities widely, if at all beyond the most conventional of job descriptions.

Staff too might think twice before accepting that smiling head’s invitation to ‘lead on introducing the performance management system’. There tends to be contradictory behaviour surrounding accountability: the ‘can’t live with it/can’t do without it’ syndrome.

‘Taken’ DL

‘Taken’ DL, as the name suggests, is a response by an individual or group of staff to a particular perceived need. Individually, or more usually collectively, a group of staff will decide to take some action to improve the situation, usually for the pupils. This ‘taken’ DL might involve developing:

• a series of projects
• an aspect of the curriculum
• a shared piece of classroom research
• a shared approach to a teaching and learning (T&L) development.

The SLT or head might know and approve of it, but have not instigated it. It is usually a staff response to a deficiency.

Activist approach

Jim Spillane in Chicago (Spillane et al, 2004) and Alma Harris at Warwick (Harris, 2005) see distributed leadership as coming from the interactions of a group of staff who ‘take’ up an issue and run with it for the direct benefit of the pupils. The head, SLT and middle leaders are nowhere in sight!

The leadership of this group of activists will change organically and is determined largely by expertise rather than status or length of service. Accountability is to and between the members of the group and ultimately to the pupils. Although this may appear anarchic, Spillane’s research (2005) in junior high schools in deprived areas of Chicago, strongly suggests that the activists’ typical focus on teaching and learning and curriculum makes a big, positive difference to the learning gains of the pupils involved. Perhaps this is because the work generates renewed commitment to improving the lot of pupils.

Distributed leadership on the ground

As part of my research work, I have been welcomed into several secondary schools of contrasting characters and size, to interview staff, observe meetings and scrutinise documents. In each school, I am interviewing the head, another member of the SLT, a subject leader, a ‘pastoral leader’ – who post-teaching and learning responsibility (TLR) payments are frequently now disguised as a ‘learning coordinator’ – and a teacher without additional responsibilities who is not an NQT.

The great potential of DL is to engage a range of staff in the national change agenda. Call DL ‘capacity building’ if you wish, but in the schools I have so far visited, there are tangible benefits for staff and for the pupils.

School A

School A is a new 11–18 urban school that has just completed its first year with Key Stage 3 pupils admitted under a first-time male head. The head explains his use of DL as:

An opportunity for staff to take on leadership roles at different times. It’s essential as the head role is too large for one person. Staff need the freedom/ autonomy to make decisions in the context of clear outcomes and roles. I am looking to push responsibility down through the school, but this needs time and training. This will develop school capacity.

So, the view from the top is that this head has a clear strategic view of the use of DL and sees it taking form as staff are systematically developed to extend and change their roles and responsibilities. But how do staff see the role of the head in developing DL on a daily basis? I asked them to identify from a list of head behaviours, those they considered of high, medium or low significance in advancing DL.

What they said with regard to the high ratings is given below:

Head actions encouraging DL rated high by 100% of interviewed staff:

• effective communication
• structures
• advocacy to individuals
• occasional encouraging words
• staff appointments
• systematic defining of required outcomes
• developing trust.

Head actions encouraging DL rated high by 80% of interviewed staff:

• shared vision
• defining roles
• giving support after errors

The categories listed are not in priority order but they do in general echo the findings in the schools I have visited. They consist of process features that might be classed as part of the school ethos (developing trust; occasional encouraging word; giving support after errors) and more instrumental, structural actions (staff appointments; defining roles). There is no single model for developing DL. But the actions listed below have been shown to be key.

Factors for success

• Provide systematic training of staff
• Create a long-term plan to extend DL
• Hold staff accountable. 
• Do not do too much too soon, as success and perceptions of success are powerful allies
• Be open about the changes and review progress not just via the SLT, but in groups across the school
• Keep distributed leadership high on the always too full institutional agenda.
• Do not expect total commitment from all colleagues to the DL changes — go for the growth points and use these successes as evidence and persuasion for others to get involved
• Support staff who make genuine errors and discuss the learning issues for ‘better ifs’
• Intervene relentlessly against anyone who deliberately obstructs and can be said to be denying others’ opportunities
• Be clear with yourselves, the SLT and governors about daily and strategic priorities: how and why you are spending time doing A, B and C, as DL rolls out, rather than X, Y and Z
• Be flexible as circumstances demand, and do not hide in the office
• Ensure SLT gives new leaders the positive space and encouragement with which to try out their new autonomy
• Be clear about what is going on across the school and hold colleagues accountable for outcomes rather than processes
• Enjoy the accomplishments of others, and do not be a back-seat driver!

All staff said they were in favour of DL as it ‘made them feel valued’ and gave them opportunities for development. They also unanimously conceived DL as ‘given’, not taken.I also asked staff what they thought might constitute barriers to the continuation/ development of DL in their school. They listed:

• the Government view of heads as ‘super heads’
• Government pressures on heads
• if the school became unsuccessful
• the growth of the school in size (but this was also seen as a potential opportunity for more DL)
• poor quality staff appointments: staff without the capacity to develop much
• a new head with a narrower vision.

Another barrier to add to this list is insufficient financial resources to support new posts, as School B found out (see below).

In School A, a developing school, interviewed staff seemed keen to take on issues and responsibilities. The accountability contradiction appeared to be having little if any impact. The head was confident in his immediate delegations of autonomy and in how it would develop as an integral part of the school ethos.

That, you might say, is all very well in a new school with no history, which many will say gets in the way of everything new. So it is useful to see how a school ‘with history’ dealt with introducing DL.

•  

  School B
  

  School B has history and it is not a pretty tale, but a new head is changing things for the better with the support of his staff through the distribution of leadership, over a six-year period. This is a semi-rural 11–16 school of 1,100 pupils and little money. The majority of the teaching staff has been at the school for at least 10 years.
  

  The interviewed staff identified teaching and learning, the curriculum and extra-curricular aspects of the school as areas where DL was most apparent to them. It is also significant that the school’s Key Stage 3 and GCSE results have improved markedly over the last three years in line with the freeing-up (as the head put it) of the school climate. The arrival of DL meant that the autonomy of subject leaders was increasingly respected, but accountability was equally clear.
  

  The deputy head also summarised the change in climate:

   

  I don’t feel I now have to push the wheelbarrow up the hill. Staff come to me with ideas and we work together.

  There was a high degree of consistency in the way staff viewed the change of climate. As with School A, DL was given systematically by the head out of a need to create capacity and to, as he put it, to ‘allow him to have a life’.
  

  One teacher described how her realisation that things were changing was linked with her involvement in the interviewing and appointment of a member of staff to her geography team, something that did not happen under the previous head.
  

  During the first two years, the head ‘carried the change agenda to get the school to rethink’. He then removed ‘a blocking colleague’ from SLT and appointed a positive deputy head. Extended emotional intelligence training with staff enabled the school to explore ways to sustain change, including how to draw others into leadership – to develop DL. The responsibilities of the SLT and a few other staff were renegotiated on the basis of best fit. In September 2005, ahead of TLR, a new leadership and management structure was agreed. This created an extended SLT of 11 staff, including two very difficult colleagues. One of these was invited to lead the introduction of the new house system, which a number of interviewees had identified as a major change, not only structurally, but because it encouraged all tutors to take an interest in issues across the school. This colleague responded positively to the challenge, and, according to the head, better appreciated what challenges school leaders faced as a consequence.
  

  The success of this incremental extension of DL has resulted in there being 11 key leaders who are working with other team leaders on effective leadership and not just management. The fact that there is now a rota for leading the main school assembly, rather than it always falling to the head, is a small but significant indication of the change to a more DL climate.
  

  The head also indicated that although his key structural decisions were important, it is the ongoing micro-behaviours, modelled by the SLT and himself, that are equally influential in creating a climate in which DL can work. Sharing the new vision and individual coaching of staff were perceived by the head and all interviewees  as particularly significant aids to establishing DL. Again, accountability is clear, but is not an inhibiting factor. Distributed leadership is seen now as bringing opportunity and higher standards of attainment.
  

  The deputy comments:

   

  The school had to ‘smell success’ before this [DL] became possible. The school was underperforming. Staff felt the work they did was not valued and what they had been doing was no good. Once changes produced results it was easier to take the agenda for change forward.

   

  Head redundant thanks to DL?
  

  So, what does the head now focus on as the spread of leadership becomes an everwidening delta? Strategic decisions, monitoring T&L through classroom observation and the coaching of individual staff are this head’s main interests. He also accepts that he always carries the ultimate responsibility. He adds, that owing to the underfunding of the school, he spends too long managing the budget so that funding does not get in the way of DL. He admits that it has this year, with the school being unable to find the money to support four team leaders to engage with the NCSL leading from the middle (LftM) programme. He also admits that some of the new TLR posts are not funded to the extent he would like. Staff are enjoying the opportunities afforded by the restructuring and the positive climate, but this lack of funding must be an issue with regard to further expansion of DL.

   

  Implementing distributed leadership in your school
  

  Any implementation strategy for DL must be a response to the existing climate and the perceived priorities for development. There is no blueprint. Some schools will have many staff keen and ready to take responsibility in a context of agreed values. Others may need to work up the vision and values with staff and then invite leadership participation from one or two staff at a time, building gradually on success. Schools where the values and vision are shared with staff may undertake a school-wide restructuring with new or amended roles. A key principle is to recognise the cliché, ‘nothing succeeds like success’. Cultural change is demanding and unsettling for those on the receiving end, just as it is demanding of leaders. It is generally recognised by most educationists outside the DfES and Ofsted, that real change takes three to five years to develop and embed. School B and the other schools I have visited were taking this broad timescale as their reality.
  

  The main obstacles to success concern staff readiness to receive a distribution of leadership. If they are used to having low autonomy and checking all decisions with the SLT or the head, they will need clear guidelines, repeated, for how to proceed. They will need support and/or coaching and especially a tolerant attitude to any errors they may make: as ever, these should be treated sympathetically as learning opportunities.

   

  Future of DL
  

  What of the national future of DL? I visit schools regularly in my consultant capacity and it seems that although the terminology may vary and the degree of given and taken DL may also vary, secondary schools are taking the need to build capacity seriously and are using DL to achieve this. Distributed leadership is set to assume even more importance given initiatives such as executive headships, increased collaboration and extended provision. It also lends itself to other key initiatives, including federation of schools.
  

  But a principal threat to its ongoing development remains: the Government-driven centralised systems of accountability that identify heads as pivotal to the effective leadership of the school. Let us hope that the courage of heads and the enthusiasm of staff outweighs the Government’s preference for centralised command, control and accountability.

   

  Trevor Arrowsmith, Education Consultant and Researcher

  The author wishes to thank all the staff who have been generous with their time in supporting his research into DL.

  In 2004, following nine years as principal of a Northampton upper school, Trevor Arrowsmith became an NCSL Consultant Leader. He has worked on a part-time consultancy basis with various local authorities, supporting schools in special measures and with self -evaluation. Following six years as an external adviser, he is now a school improvement partner (SIP).

   

  References

  Arrowsmith, T (2005) ‘Distributed leadership: three questions, two answers. A review of the Hay Group Education research’, Management in Education, July 2004, no 19, pp30–33
  

  Bassey, M (1999) Case study research in educational settings,
  Open University Press
  

  Gronn, P (2003) The new work of educational leaders, Paul Chapman
  

  Harris, A (2005) ‘Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, no 37, pp255–65
  

  Hay Group Education (2004) The five pillars of distributed leadership, NCSL
  

  MacBeath, J (2005) ‘Leadership as distributed: a matter of practice’, School Leadership and Management, September, vol 25, no 4, pp349–66
  

  Oduro, GKT (2004) Distributed leadership in schools: what English headteachers say about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’ factors, BERA paper, p20, available at: www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003673.htm
  

  Spillane, J, Halverson, JB and Diamond, JB (2004) ‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective’, Journal of Curriculum Studies, vol 36, pp3–34
  

  Spillane, J (2005) Distributed leadership, Jossey-Bass Press
  

  Woods, PA, Bennett, N, Harvey, JA, Wise, C (2004) ‘Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: findings from a systematic literature review’, Education Management Administration and Leadership, no 32, pp439–57