Distributed leadership: A critical analysis

Abstract

Changes to the governance and management of institutions of higher education (often described as ‘new managerialism’) and the effects this is having on the work of academics have been the subject of much discourse over the last 30 years in the pursuit of a globally appropriate model for higher education. Less attention has been afforded to discussion of new forms of institutional leadership needed to effectively respond to the associated challenges. Despite growing research into shared models of leadership, particularly distributed leadership, as a potentially appropriate approach distinct from traditional structural/positional leadership, discussion has been principally confined to normative description of the parameters that describe distributed leadership rather than rigorous critical analysis of its applicability in, and effectiveness for, higher education. Underpinning this discourse is the presumption that increased collaboration is synonymous with distributed leadership. This paper presents a more critical analysis of the experience of a distributed leadership approach used to build leadership capacity in learning and teaching in an Australian university. This example demonstrates first, that despite evidence of a relationship between distributed leadership and collaboration, there is no evidence of an inherent direct causal relationship, second, that a distributed leadership, while it may increase participation of academics in decision making, is not synonymous with democratic decision making. It is concluded that for a distributed leadership approach to be appropriate and effective, higher education institutions need to instigate action supported by formal leaders and underpinned by an action reflective approach that enables change over time.