Applying distributed leadership across contexts

Abstract

Distributed leadership is the most popular leadership model, judging by the number of submissions on this theme received by EMAL, and by the growing interest expressed by academics, policymakers and practitioners. It is in the vanguard of an emerging recognition that solo, heroic, leadership is inadequate to address the complex issues facing education systems in an increasingly globalised world. However, the main focus, conceptually and empirically, has been on distributed school leadership. The first paper in this issue, by Sandra Jones, Marina Harvey, Geraldine Lefoe and Kevin Ryland, provides a welcome contribution to the more limited literature on distributed leadership in higher education. These authors argue that a new approach is required, which goes beyond individual control and management bureaucracy, and they explore whether distributed leadership provides this alternative model. Through an action research approach, building on four earlier projects in Australian universities, they conclude that a prescriptive definition of distributed leadership that fits all contexts is not possible, and claim that a more fluid description is required. It is difficult to imagine distributed leadership working well without the involvement of middle leaders. In the second article, Annette Thomas-Gregory examines the role of middle managers in a university department of health and social care. She points to the developing literature on middle management in higher education and explores the professional identities assumed by middle managers in her case study university. She notes that professional identity is formed during initial socialisation and concludes that there is a complex relationship between self and role. Leadership is strongly aligned with values, the focus of the third paper, by Robin Mueller. She stresses the complexity of organisational values and addresses this concept in the domain of university administration. She examines how values have been depicted, drawing on a literature review and unstructured interviews with administrators. She concludes that values may be seen as both structural and phenomenological and that objective and subjective variables may exist simultaneously. Cheri Minkler examines the relationship between school leadership and teacher social capital. She defines social capital as the resources used by teachers by virtue of their membership of social networks. She conducted a survey of teachers in Louisiana, United States, to establish if teacher social capital was prevalent in their schools. The study found high-moderate positive correlations between transformational leadership and aspects of teacher social capital. The fifth paper, by Stelios Orphanos and Margaret Terry Orr, also focuses on leadership preparation. They report a study of 175 teachers whose principals were prepared in an innovative ‘exemplary’ leadership programme, and of 589 teachers whose principals were prepared in more traditional ways. The findings show that the more innovative programme, focused on instructional strategies, has a small but discernible influence on teacher outcomes. The authors conclude that effective leadership practices are influenced by the nature and quality of leadership preparation. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 2014, Vol. 42(5) 601–602 a The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permission: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1741143214541369 emal.sagepub.com