An Investigation into the Implementation of Distributed Leadership in ...

An Investigation into the Implementation of DistributedLeadership in English SchoolsbyCraig SiredThis Dissertation is submitted in part-fulfilment of the degree ofMA Corporate Strategy & GovernanceNottingham University Business School, 20081

AbstractPurpose: The purpose of this dissertation is to research into the relationship betweendistributed leadership and school performance and also to see in what context the enactmentof distributed leadership is likely to flourish.Approach: The research uses 358 secondary schools in England to represent a typical publicsector organisation. A thorough and systematic review of the literature is undertaken todevelop an understanding of the concept before Ofsted reports are used to test whetherdistributed leadership is being displayed or not. The inductive approach will then test thedistribution of leadership with various variables as the dissertation will attempt to shed somelight on the phenomenon.Findings: Relatively little correlation was identified between school performance and thedistribution of leadership. However, certain characteristics were found prevalent in assistingthe enactment of distributed leadership and therefore enhanced our knowledge on the topic. Inparticular the social and cultural context as well as the location of the school played animportant part in determining the level of distribution.AcknowledgementsI would like to thank all the people who supported me throughout the course of thisdissertation. First, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor, Professor AndyLockett, for his constant support and advice. I would also like to extend my thanks toProfessor Graeme Currie for his helpful suggestions and assistance throughout the project.In addition, I would like to express my thanks to my family, fellow students at NottinghamUniversity Business School, and special thanks must also go to my father for the continuedmotivation he provided and my mother for her assistance editing. Remaining errors, ofcourse, remain my responsibility. These people provided invaluable support, advice andencouragement, and my deepest thanks go out to them for helping me achieve completion ofthis piece of work.2

Table of ContentsChapter One – IntroductionPage No:1.0 Background 11.1 Justifications of Study 21.2 Research Design 2-31.4 Research Objectives 3-4Chapter Two – Reviewing the Literature2.0 Leadership: Introduction 52.1 Classic Leadership Theory and its Development 5-82.2 Leadership Styles 8-112.3 Education in the Public Sector 11-142.4 Public Sector Leadership 14-172.5 The Emergence of the Distributed Leadership Phenomenon 17-23Chapter Three – Research Methodology3.0 Research Methodology - Introduction 243.1 Research Design 243.2 Research Philosophy 24-253.3 Research Approach 25-263.4 Research Strategy 26-283.5 Sampling and Data Collection Methods 28-403.6 Limitations of Methodology 41Chapter Four – Empirical Analysis4.0 Introducing Data Analysis 424.1 Data Analysis 42-554.2 Summary of Analysis 55-56Chapter Five – Discussion, Conclusion and Recommendations5.0 Discussion - Introduction 575.1 Discussion 57-635.2 Conclusion 64-655.3 Further Research and Recommendations 65-665.4 Author’s Reflection 66-673

Chapter OneIntroduction1.0 BackgroundThis dissertation will research the effects of distributed leadership in the public sectorand the context in which it is most likely to flourish. Whilst the main topic area,leadership, has had much research and interest, both classical and recent, the conceptof distributed leadership is a relatively emerging theme issued by policy-makers.However, the twin paradoxes of the Blair education project contrast the theme ofdistributed leadership as the principal is essentially still held accountable for schoolperformance (Wright, 2001). A gap in research appears to be specifically evident inregard to empirical evidence on the matter (Bennett et al, 2003). It is thereforenecessary to research this and explore key issues, such as correlations between schoolperformance and distributed leadership as well as factors contributing to the effectivedistribution of leadership. For example, the location of the school or the level of socialdeprivation within a specified geographical area. In this study the research is beingemployed in the education sector using a sample of 358 secondary schools. WhenTony Blair, then prime minister, came to power as part of the New LabourGovernment, education was deemed as the number one priority (BBC, 2007). At thestart of Labour’s reign, education spending was £29bn, ten years on it is now £60bnso it is of interest that there is no agreed effective school leadership practice (Harris,2003).4

1.1 Justification of StudyThe National College for School Leadership (NCSL) is, at present, the primary sourcepromoting the use of distributed leadership within schools. “As schools become morecomplex places to manage and lead, we need many more leaders than ever before”(NCSL, 2008). However, despite this promotion, the relationship in regards to schoolperformance is largely unknown. Bennett et al (2003:12) confirm, “the relationshipbetween distributed leadership and learning is a crucially important issue, but thereare no data at all on this”. Therefore, this study aims to bridge a large empirical void,examining a link between distributed leadership and performance (Denis et al, 2001;Pearce and Conger, 2003).The scope of research will be based around the effectiveness of distributed leadershipwithin a sample of 358 secondary schools in England. The schools were selectedacross four geographical areas and Ofsted reports of these schools were examined.1.2 Research DesignFollowing this chapter, a critical analysis will be undertaken on literature regardingthe main topic of leadership, before looking at the public sector and there, morespecifically, the theme of distributed leadership. The aim of this section is torecognise the different views and theories of Academics and Practitioners, andanalyse their merits in a critical manner.In the third chapter there will be a discussion of the research philosophy, methodologyand design. This will include a description of the chosen methods and justification5

with respect to validity and reliability. As distributed leadership remains a widelydefined phenomenon, the methodology section is of the utmost importance to thisstudy. A further review of the terms used to describe distributed leadership is refinedin this area, providing a justification of the delineated keywords for the datacollection, a critical part of the study in deciphering whether leadership is distributedor not. The issue here is that the concept of distributed leadership remains distorted,especially between policy-makers and academics.The fourth chapter details the central part of this research, with the presentation of thedata collection. The chapter will include an analysis of trends, variations andsignificant findings from the research.The fifth and final chapter will bring together all the research gathered to develop adiscussion and then a conclusion, summarising the extent to which the researchquestions were answered. The results will be further related back to the key themeshighlighted in the literature review. This section will also provide recommendationsfor further research as well as the authors’ critical reflection of the researchundertaken.1.3 Research ObjectivesThe fundamental objective of this study will be to search for a relationship betweenleadership and organisational performance. The study will then follow an inductiveapproach following the data rather than deductive techniques. This will allow anunderstanding of the context in which the distribution of leadership is occurring(Saunders et al, 2003). Specifically, variables such as the location of the school and6

the level of social deprivation will be tested to see if they enhance the prospects ofdistributed leadership being undertaken.These research objectives will be used as a basis for investigation and explorationthroughout this study.7

Chapter TwoReviewing the Literature2.0 Leadership: IntroductionLeadership is a concept which has had much previous research, specifically, into whatcharacteristics make up a good leader and what is the most effective leadership style.First, it is important to define the term leadership. Wickham (2006:18) provides asimple definition of Leadership as “the power to focus and direct the organisation”.A more developed definition is given by Armstrong and Stephens (2005:5), whodefine leadership as,“The process of developing and communicating a vision for the future, motivatingpeople and gaining their commitment and engagement.”The concept of leadership has often been confused with management, which issimilar, but different in that it is less concerned with people, and more concerned withutilising and controlling resources such as money, equipment, information, as well apeople (Armstrong and Stephens, 2005).2.1 Classic Leadership Theory and its DevelopmentDirective-Autocratic vs. Participative-DemocraticRad and Yarmohammadian (2006), look at how perspectives on leadership have alsochanged a great deal over the past several decades, changing from a classical,autocratic approach, to a more participative approach which gives the leader moreinvolvement with their employees. This is because people are more educated and8

attitudes have changed and therefore, cannot be commanded in the same way theyused to. In some ways the power has balanced, with equal opportunities for all people,no matter what their background, class or ethnicity. All opinions are now expected tobe respected and people do not respond as easily to being spoken down to or directed.This can be termed as a directive approach, which is opposed by the participativeapproach, which differs in the level of participation of followers in the decisionmakingprocess. The similarities with distributed leadership will be discussed later inthe literature review. Since then, popular approaches such as TransformationalLeadership, which is also discussed later in the Literature Review, have takenelements of both participative and directive, to more develop more establishedleadership approaches. Participative leadership aims to increase followersparticipation and will consult with them to help with decision making and problemsolving, which acts as an equalisation of power (Kahai, Sosik and Avolio, 2004).Directive leadership however, ‘aims to guide followers participation and is defined asproviding and seeking compliance with directions for accomplishing a problemsolvingtask’ (Kahai, Sosik and Avolio, 2004:6).Trait TheoriesEarly theory suggests that leaders are those people who possess certain qualities, ortraits. This is a personality-based approach, believed to have been developed in the1920’s (Higgs, 2002). It is an approach that focuses on selection of the leader,meaning that if the right traits can be identified in a leader, then they would be put inpositions of leadership. This stresses the notion that leaders are born, and not made,and therefore leadership qualities cannot be developed. It is these traits thatdifferentiate leaders from followers (Horner, 1997). Higgs (2002) concludes that this9

approach has its limitations, namely the failure to identify exact characteristics thatexist in all great leaders, and it “[ignores] the situational and environmental factorsthat play a role in a leader’s level of effectiveness” (Horner, 1997:270). More recentresearch recognizes that whilst leaders appear to have characteristics to succeed intheir own area of expertise, it is clear that this does not make them good leaders in anygiven situation or environment.Contingency ApproachesSubsequently, further research was conducted into contingency approaches and thenotion of behavioural or situational leadership, which puts more of a focus ondeveloping leaders. This shifts the focus and outlines that there is no ideal leadershipstyle, instead, it depends on a variety of factors such as, “the type of organisation, thenature of the task, the characteristics of the group and, importantly, personality of theleader” (Armstrong and Stephens, 1995:14).CharismaA word that is used widely to describe a key attribute of a leader is ‘charisma’, or thecharismatic leadership style (Higgs, 2002). This has elements of early theory, whichdepicts leaders as being heroic and having the ability to inspire others through theircharismatic personality and ‘aura’. They are visionary leaders who are motivated byachievement and taking calculated risks (Armstrong and Stephens, 1995). Accordingto Higgs (2002), much of the research regarding this topic is largely using top-levelleadership performance and therefore does not focus on leaders throughout theorganisation. Another drawback described by Higgs (2002) is that it has failed toproduce compelling results and was very USA focused. Rather than seeing10

charismatic leadership as a leadership style itself, it appears that charisma is more acharacteristic of a good leader, which should be evident along with othercharacteristics depending on the situation and environment.CultureAs research into leadership grew, a broader outlook on the topic emerged,demonstrating a link between leadership and organisational culture (Schein, 1997).Schein develops a relationship between leaders and an organisation’s culture, mostspecifically the role that leaders have in creating and embedding culture in anorganisation or group of people. Similarly, there is also an emphasis on how leader’sneed to be able to react to culture. Leaders commonly need to make decisionsconcerning change, therefore any resistance to any change will stem from the culturethat is evident. It is important not to put too much emphasis on culture and leadership,as there are many other elements that affect and make up leadership, which need to beconsidered alongside culture (Schein, 1997).2.2 Leadership StylesOverviewAccording to Humphreys (2002), the full range of leadership styles can be seen as acontinuum, spanning from highly-avoidant at one end, to transformational at theother. Highly-avoidant leadership is also referred to as laissez-faire behaviour, whichis the complete avoidance of leadership, where the role as a leader is ignored andthere is a high reluctance to make decisions of any sorts (Humphreys, 2002). Thisapproach is only relevant in very few, if any, environments and lacks any interactionor pro-active behaviour to produce a response from an employee. More established11

theory into leadership has been proposed by Bass (1985), building on work by Burns(1978), particularly into the area of leadership style and behaviours. Silverthorne(2001:151), studied different leadership styles such as directive and participative, anddrew the conclusion that “an effective leader is one that knows which style to use andwhen to use it”. This suggests that whilst there are many leadership styles proposedby a range of theorists, there is not one ideal leadership style, it remains moredependent on situational circumstances. This range of different styles will now bediscussed.Transactional LeadershipBurns (1978) conceptualised leadership as either transactional or transformational.Transactional Leadership takes a more traditional view of the relationship between aleader and a follower, where there is an exchange, or transaction, between the twoparties of something that is valued or towards the completion of a task. According toBass and Avolio (1994:12), “the focus of the leader can be either to correct a problemor to establish an agreement to increase the probability of achieving positive results –for example, a constructive transaction.” This appears a more straight forwardapproach, based on contingent reward that does not take into account many aspects ofthe leader–follower relationship. The association between the leader and follower canbe seen as a means to an end, in order to get the job done. Higgs (2002) refers to this amanagement by exception, where intervention only occurs when a task or function isfailing to conform. An example of this mutual dependence is given by Humphreys(2002:488), “the leader gives followers something they want (i.e. bonus) in exchangefor something the leader desires (performance)”.12

Transformational LeadershipBuilding on previous theories such as charismatic and inspirational leadership,transformational leadership is the more revolutionary part of the transformationalmodel of leadership. According to Bass and Riggio (2005:3),“Transformational Leaders are those who stimulate and inspire followers to bothachieve extraordinary outcomes and, in the process, develop their own leadershipcapacity. Transformational Leaders help followers grow and develop into leaders byresponding to individual followers’ needs by empowering them and by aligning theobjectives and goals of the individual followers, the leader, the group, and the largerorganisation”The above definition shows how transformational leadership encompasses many ofthe characteristics of other early approaches to leadership, and builds on the basictransactional approach. It portrays leaders as charismatic and inspirational, whose jobit is to coach and mentor followers, to motivate them in pursuit of a goal.Transformational leaders are more involved with the employee and the focus switchesfrom bargaining with them, toward motivating the employee to achievetranscendental, longer-lasting goals instead of short term ones (Stashevsky andKoslowsky, 2006). Whilst transactional leadership is a straight-forward exchangebetween leader and follower, transformational leadership achieves superior results byexpanding on this and employing what Bass (1985) calls the four components oftransformational leadership. These components have been refined since they werefirst suggested by Bass, due to changes in the way transformational leadership isconceptualised and measured. The most recent are outlined by Bass and Riggio13

(2005) as, Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, andIndividualized Consideration.Transformational leadership does appear to have certain drawbacks and limitations.According to Higgs (2002), transformational leadership has only been looked at froma USA perspective, which contains certain types of leader, and ignores otherimportant cultures and societies. Something that also appears to be ignored is that itappears only to be looked at from a top-level focus, which suggests that thetransformational approach is possibly biased towards spotting certain characteristicsin executives and senior managers, and does not apply to leaders throughout theorganisation. In addition, As-Sadeq and Khoury (2006) suggest that by using the setcomponents, more factors measuring transformational leadership seem to becorrelated, and there are certain factors which measure transactional leadership are infact missing. This creates a biased questionnaire which is in favour of identifyingtransformational characteristics. Though the transformational model is perhaps themost researched and discussed model in leadership theory, many more recent modelsare emerging, drawing on the whole tradition of leadership.2.3 Education in the Public SectorThe re-branding of Labour to the term ‘New Labour’ and their empowerment in 1997led to a focus on new policies in the education sector in particular. The party promisedto “make education their number one priority”, their campaign focused on what theysaw as rectifying the “Tories’ biggest failure” (BBC, 1997). With further quotes suchas, “it’s an economic necessity for the nation” and New Labours promise to “attackeducational disadvantage, no matter where a school is”. Furthermore, Labour14

identified other areas to focus on, such as the underachievement in urban areas. Toimprove the shortcomings the party also aimed to exercise greater powers upon otherstakeholders, more specifically, parents, governors and LEAs. The previousConservative Government had “cut government spending as a share of nationalincome by the equivalent of more than £3 billion as spending on the bills of economicand social failure has risen” (BBC, 1997). The New Labour Government committedto reversing this trend and putting education at the forefront of their policy. Thisimplies the importance of the education system in the UK, and it still remains top ofLabours agenda at the present time. The most recent budget has declared educationspending to hit £74bn in 2010-11, representing 5.6% of UK GDP (BBC News, 2007).Under the Conservative Government, the failings in the education sector were initiallyhard to distinguish, as a result the Education (Schools) Act 1992 was passed. Thisarticle required the subsequent publication of school performance tables, which wouldthen turn into league tables, allowing the schools to be ranked (OPSI, 1992) Thethoughts behind this process was to provide a private sector environment, whereby theschools would compete against each other to achieve higher school performance.Therefore, more pupils attending the higher placed schools with funding following thepupils, allowed the stronger schools to prosper and the weak ones downsizing andlosing staff (Wright, 2001).One of the major changes brought in to assist this shift, was the introduction of theNational College for School Leadership (NCSL). Officially launched in 2000, apurpose built Learning and Conference centre was built and opened by then PrimeMinister Tony Blair. The centre offers professional leadership development to Head15

teachers, exemplifying the importance placed on the subject matter by thegovernment. The mission statement reads that “the NCSL is responsible fordeveloping excellence in England’s 23,000 state schools” (NCSL, 2008). It is agovernment funded venture which has four key goals, two of which are of particularimportance to this study; firstly, to develop excellent school leadership to transformchildren’s achievement and well-being and secondly, to develop leadership within andbeyond the school (NCSL, 2008). The second goal bears particular relation to thetheme of distributed leadership, a theme discussed later in the literature review.Gunter and Forrester (2008) recently reviewed empirical data focusing on therelationship between the state, public policy and knowledge in the construction andconfiguration of school leadership under New Labour from 1997. Amongst thediscussion is a scheme introduced by the NCSL titled the ‘fresh start’ scheme,whereby a failing school would close and then reopened under a new headteacher.This had mixed results upon school performance and often led to resignations fromthe principals themselves (Gunter, 2001). Furthermore, Gunter and Forrester(2008:152) proclaimed the supply of new headteachers through the NCSL trainingprogram was not meeting demand and finally, “there is research to which shows thatalternative narratives to those promoted by New Labour are in play, not least thathead teachers –particularly experienced ones – exercise professionality in regard tohow reforms and guidance are interpreted and engaged with”. Subsequently, despitethe Labour Government’s focus on leadership, there has been no resolve to theaforementioned issues and few conclusions drawn by academics. Whilst NCSLinitially promoted the theme of transformational leadership, academics have since16

questioned the effectiveness of taking this particular stance (Bolam, 2004; Currie etal, 2005; Currie and Lockett, 2006).2.4 Public Sector LeadershipIn the academic world the theme of leadership has been much coveted, often theresults exclaiming how leaders hold the key to organisational effectiveness (Bryman,1992). One of the topics frequently debated remains the transferability of leadershiptheories between public and private sector organisations. Some authors believe thereare fundamental differences between the two and therefore transferability is extremelydifficult to implement.Javidan and Waldman (2003) explored the concept of charismatic leadership in publicsector organisations and discussed the applicability of their findings to private sectororganisations. One of the major factors discussed is regarding the differences in therisk taking involved in public sector organisations as opposed to the risks undertakenby those in the private sector. The authors argue that public sector failures are oftenheld up to public criticism and successes are rarely rewarded. For this reason aloneleadership styles will vary in regards to the amount of responsibility delegated to lesssenior staff. Javidan and Waldman (2003:232) continue, “public sector managersmake decisions with direct consequences for public risk – risks to individuals whohave never had an opportunity to consent in a voluntary and informed way even to theextent that is available to a shareholder in the private sector”.Another difference highlighted between public sector leaders as opposed to privatesector leaders is that of the number of constituencies that need to be satisfied. Theauthors claim public sector leaders have a greater number to satisfy and “their17

attempts to satisfy various groups may be perceived by others as inconsistency andlack of commitment. Furthermore, the reward structure in the public sector makes ithazardous to make personal sacrifices and take personal risks” (Javidan andWaldman, 2003:232).Borins (2002) examined leadership and innovation in the public sector. The study alsounderlined key differences between private and public sector organisations, namelythe market forces and how they differentiate between the sectors. Borins (2002)argued that the private sector experiences a greater level of technological innovativebecause it operates in a more competitive environment, whereas public servicestypically operate as monopolies with little competition and therefore little reason to beinnovative. Murray (1975) termed the difference between the two types as ‘apples andoranges’ syndrome.Dobell (1989) looked at entrepreneurial behaviour in the public sector, distinguishingit from delegating decisions involving risks to others. Dobell (1989) argued thatpublic sector officials usually chose the latter option. Furthermore, “the senior officialmust manage organisations whose objectives are poorly defined and whose authoritystructure is cluttered and convoluted” (Dobell, 1989:4). As opposed to private sectororganisations whereby leaders are judged upon specific results, namely growth,profitability or market share. Resultantly, there remains “more than simply adifference of degree” (Dobell, 1989:4). The fundamental issue overseeing all of this isregarding the risk taker. In a private organization, the CEO is responsible to theshareholders, employees and clients, whilst in a public organisation such as asecondary school for example, when the principal makes a strategic decision, the18

public (whom the decision affects) have little consent in the matter. To summarise,“risk-taking behaviour of ‘sticking your neck out’ kind is apparently in short supply inthe public service – people apparently won’t take risks even when they should”(Dobell, 1989:2).Reverting back to the theme of the public criticism received by those public officials,as New Labour implement new strategies for public services in their tenure, thesestrategies and the performance of the public services will often come under scrutinyfrom opposition parties. This merely intensifies the importance related to decisionmakingby passing this scrutiny to the senior public officials, no doubt influencingtheir actions. Even the role the media play in informing the public is another majordifference between the lives of private and public sector leaders (Rainey et al, 1976).From the literature it is apparent that leadership findings cannot be generically appliedto both senior public and private sector professionals as there remain underlyingdifferences between the two roles as discussed above. However, potentially thecorrect application of these findings, with the appropriate understanding of the sectordifferences whilst applying them, can result in benefits to both sectors. Stewart andWalsh (1992) researched public sector management through a period of dramaticchange to identify key issues. The authors found the government used approachesfrom the private sector and simply tried to transfer them to a public domain. Theresearch concluded, arguing that these approaches can be applied, providing theyrecognise the values and key differences in the public sector. Currie and Lockett(2007:345) concur, “the public sector may be more complex than the private sector,and any transfer of management models may require particular modification because19

leadership in the public sector has to deal with much more ‘wicked’ problems,wherein not only the ‘solution’ but also the ‘question’ is beyond the capacity of anyone person to frame”.2.5 The Emergence of the Distributed Leadership PhenomenonThe title of this section is somewhat misleading as the term ‘Distributed Leadership’is not by any means a new topic, however, more recently a considerable amount ofresearch is being produced on the theme. In 1954 Gibb first discussed the idea,explaining distributed leadership as a function carried out by a group. Since then, aconclusive definition of the subject matter remains elusive.Woods et al (2004) examined the concept of distributed leadership reviewing theliterature composed on the topic in research commissioned by the National Collegefor School Leadership (NCSL). This study will also provide an important focus on thepolicy documentation of distributed leadership and see how this differentiates fromthe academic conception. In the following chapter, the ‘data collection’ section of themethodology exemplifies the differences between the two conceptions and deriveskeywords forming each conception of distributed leadership. Woods et al (2004:441)state “distributed leadership has a variety of meanings, and some of these meaningsresemble earlier notions such as collegiality”. Gibbs (1954) original descriptionimplies a sense of collegiality. From the author’s review of the literature, they found 3distinctive fundamentals of the concept of distributed leadership.20

Emergent Property“Distributed leadership highlights leadership as an emergent property of a group ornetwork of interacting individuals” (Woods et al, 2004:441). This contrasts the theoryof transactional leadership which arises from the individual but at least draws somesimilarities from transformational leadership. Gronn (2000) best describes thisleadership as ‘concertive action’. “Concertive action is about the additional dynamicwhich is the product of conjoint activity” (Woods et al, 2004:441). Where aconcertive action occurs and the result is “greater than the sum of their individualactions”.Openness of BoundariesThe second distinctive characteristic the authors found relating to distributedleadership is concerned with the boundaries of leadership. “This means that it ispredisposed to widen the conventional net of leaders, this in turn raising the questionof which groups and individuals are to be brought into leadership or seen ascontributors of it” (Woods et al, 2004:442).Leadership According to ExpertiseThis is the third and final characteristic of distributed leadership according to Woodset al (2004:442). “Related to openness of the boundaries of leadership the idea is thatnumerous, distinct, germane perspectives and capabilities can be found in individualsspread throughout the organisation and its stakeholders”. The concept remains thatthe result of such activities will provide a result greater than the sum of the individualcontributors, explaining the benefit of implementing such a form of leadership.21

There are a few underlying themes throughout, namely the concertive, collective,collaborative, collegiate or even team approach identified. An earlier book producedby Katzenbach and Smith (1993) delved into the importance of teams and theirnecessity in a performance driven world. This teamwork potential has now beenadopted by policy-makers alike and more specifically NCSL. However, this teamworkethic mixed with leadership requires the sharing of leadership. Authors then discussedthe conditions allowing the sharing of leadership including the barriers (Jackson,2000).Hartley and Allison (2000) examined the central role of leadership in theGovernments modernisation agenda, calling for new models of leadership to reflectnew challenges. The authors refer to leaders in the public sector as dissimilar to theirprivate sector counterparts, often delegating power and responsibility to others.Hartley and Allison (2000:38) discuss distributed leadership as being “dispersedacross an organisation”. However, the study also raises the risks associated withdistributed leadership.The growth of the phenomenon was inevitable according to a review by Lashway(2003:4), “the call for distributed leadership is often a response to principals’ rapidlyescalating responsibilities”. Gronn (2002) agreed with the inevitability, implying thatthe complexity and increased work intensification of principals meant the distributionof leadership was the only option. Elsewhere Lashway (2003:4) also statesimportantly, “leadership is distributed not by delegating it or giving it away, but byweaving together people, materials, and organisational structures in a commoncause”. The importance of this statement is apparent to help further define the term,22

as so many definitions contrast. During this study the author has differentiated thedelegated form of distributed leadership by terming it as ‘policy conception’, fardifferent from the ‘idealised conception’ of distributed leadership exemplified byLashway (2003). The two different approaches are refined during the Methodologysection of this study, whereby a further review of the literature has assisted the authorin the delineation of keywords associated with each conception of distributedleadership.Bennett et al (2003) also produced a review of the existing literature in a study carriedout for NCSL. The authors searched for a common understanding of the term bytrawling leadership literature undertaken in profit and not-for-profit organisations.Bennett et al’s (2003) is clearly based in the policy conception of the paradigm. Thisis evident in the keywords used to do a literature search; dispersed, delegated,democratic and distributed leadership. During this study the author aims to fulfil theirrequests for further research, “a sound database is need on which to assess theeffectiveness of distributed leadership strategies in raising school achievement. Therelationship between distributed leadership and learning is a crucially importantissue” (Bennett et al, 2003:12). However, on a broader scale this has been tested,Harris and Chapman (2002) tested democratic, distributed and other forms ofleadership against school performance. The findings recommended the use of anauthoritarian style of leadership in failing schools and that those schools not in failingcategories, can then attempt alternative forms of leadership. The generalisability ofthese findings is somewhat limited as only a sample of ten schools were used.Furthermore, the authors discuss the similarities between distributed leadership, orteacher leadership as they call it, and transformational leadership. “However, the23

particular emphasis given by the principals to distributing leadership andempowering others would suggest an approach to leadership that has democraticrather than transformational principles at its core” (Harris and Chapman, 2002).Louis and Marks (1996) undertook another study of a similar nature. Instead theylooked at the sharing of leadership roles and the impact on school performancefinding a positive correlation between the two. The sharing of leadership ties in withthe theme of distribution, Spillane et al (2001) calls this the stretching of leadership.“When school leaders work separately but interdependently in pursuit of a commongoal, leadership practice can be stretched across the practice of two or more leaders”(Spillane et al, 2001:23). Timperley (2005) acknowledged the call for furtherempirical research to be undertaken on the matter looking at it in a schoolimprovement context. Timperely (2005:396) also discusses the conceptual anddefinitional issues associated with distributed leadership, ascertaining that it “is notthe same as dividing task responsibilities among individuals but rather it comprisesdynamic interactions between multiple leaders and followers”. Timperley’s study wasconducted with varied success but failed to find conclusive results.During the extensive literature review undertaken by Bennett et al (2003), thevariables associated with influencing the level of distributed leadership are alsohighlighted. This is of particular importance as, whilst reviewing distributedleadership in secondary schools. This study will also aim to link the form ofdistributed leadership to the location of the school, the performance of the school andthe social deprivation in the surrounding areas. Figures for social deprivation areassumed by looking at those children eligible for free school dinners. The authorsfound four discernible variables from the existing literature;24

Control/AutonomyThis is of particular relevance to the education sector. The hierarchy within the schoollargely affects the extent to which distributed leadership can be practiced. Forexample, as Graetz (2000) explains, goals set by a leader who is accountable toexternal stakeholders may be non-negotiable, therefore restricting the amount ofauthority the leader may delegate to others. This is concurring with Wright’s (2001)article regarding ‘bastardised leadership’, whereby, although a distributed approach ispromoted, the principal is the one held accountable for any shortcomings.Organisational Structure and AgencyBennett et al (2003) refer to the work of Harris and Chapman (2002) and Spillane etal (2001) whilst making this observation. It is with regards to the enforcement ofdistributed leadership and how it is enacted. In some circumstances organisationsenforce structural change to implement the distribution of leadership, whereas themajority of authors feel it is something that occurs through a concertive action ratherthan being enforced.Social and Cultural ContextThis study, as discussed above, will look to establish a relationship betweendistributed leadership and the social context in which it occurs, using the socialdeprivation variable. Bennett et al (2003:8) found this to have “a significant bearingon distributed leadership”. The context may either have a positive or negative effecttowards creating and sustaining a form of distributed leadership. The socialdeprivation variable is therefore tested as a proxy. The reason being is that all25

stakeholders affect this form of leadership occurring, not least the pupils as one of thestakeholders.Source of changeThe final variable highlighted is regarding the driving force for developing thechange. The authors suggest policy issues can provide a stimulus for the rethinking ofleadership. It is evident that policy-makers have recently been promoting the idea ofdistributed leadership towards to the education sector, so this variable is apparent atpresent, allowing this to be a mitigated factor.To conclude, the present definitions of distributed leadership are somewhat vaguetherefore the next step of my research will involve a further search of the literature torefine the term, this is encountered in Chapter 3, the Methodology. As a key part ofthis study requires knowing whether leadership is distributed or not, then ajustification for such a decision will require clarification of the keywords associatedwith it.26

Chapter ThreeResearch Methodology3.0 Research Methodology - IntroductionThis chapter provides justification for the methods used to validate the objectives ofthe research. After identifying the appropriate methods used to collect the data, anexamination of their reliability, validity and limitations will be carried out.3.1 Research DesignThe following section entitled Research Methodology is loosely based on Saunders,Lewis and Thornhill’s (2003:83) recommended research process. Starting from thefirst layer, each subsequent layer will be addressed respectively. As illustrated below:Figure 3.03.2 Research PhilosophyThe first section to be addressed is the research philosophy. The approach adopted inthis study is that principally of interpretivism, due to the fact “that the social world ofbusiness and management is far too complex to lend it to theorising by definite ‘law’”(Saunders et al, 2003:84). Simply down to the fact that the findings from this studywill be both qualitative and quantitative, seeking to interpret whether academic or27

policy conception is the most common form of distributed leadership withinsecondary schools.Furthermore, as the primary source of data remain the proxies of Ofsted reports forevidence, then the validity of using these reports needs to be understood. Whilst thereis no way of knowing what the levels of understanding of leadership and moreimportantly distributed leadership were between the inspectors and whether thesewere common or shared understandings, interpretivism allows the author to place thisinto perspective. As Remenyi (1998:35) explains, certain aspects are necessary suchas “the details of the situation to understand the reality or perhaps a working realitybehind them”. Otherwise known as Social Constructionism, whereby “it is necessaryto explore the subjective meanings motivating people’s actions in order to understandthese” (Saunders et al, 2003:84). In this context it is important to interpret whyinspectors choose the particular keywords being quantified and whether this is as aresult of their socially constructed interpretations and meanings. The interpretivistapproach allows the author to attempt to make sense of the subjective reality behindcertain keywords and why these keywords form a particular conception, (academic orpolicy) are so dominant within the reports.3.3 Research ApproachFor the purpose of this investigation the practitioner-researcher has utilised theinductive approach. “The result of this analysis would be the formulation of a theory”(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003:87). This study is using a large sample ofschools and forming a close understanding of the research context with a moreflexible structure, to allow changes as the research is undertaken. Whereas thedeductive approach generally requires a larger population of firms to test28

predetermined hypotheses, which would in this case fail to address the reasoningbehind inspectors using certain words.The key to inductive research is that it permits the researcher to develop anunderstanding of the social world surrounding the research. In this sense, the authorcan attempt to explain a link between one particular form of distributed leadershipwith another, in the context in which the leadership is being undertaken. Thisapproach is particularly concerned with the context in which the events are takingplace. The topic itself has helped identify the research approach, whilst the topic isrelatively new and therefore brings much debate, it is increasingly difficult to define atheoretical framework beforehand, which the deductive approach obviously requires.3.4 Research StrategyThe research strategy employed, considers both quantitative and qualitative data.Bryman (2004) advocates the use of a multi-method approach to research intoleadership. Additionally, the multi-method approach allows triangulation to takeplace. “Triangulation refers to the use of different data collection methods within onestudy in order to ensure that the data are telling you what you think they are tellingyou” (Saunders et al, 2003:99). Both quantitative and qualitative approaches havetheir merits but to ensure the findings are not only informative but also credible thenthe two techniques will be used in conjunction with one another.A case study approach has been deemed most appropriate as Robson (2002:178)explains, it is “a strategy for doing research which involves an empirical investigationof a particular contemporary phenomenon within its real life context”. This approachis particularly appealing as it also has the considerable ability to generate answers to29

the question ‘why’. The case study strategy permits the author to gain a richunderstanding of the context of the research. A well-constructed case study can enableexisting theory to be challenged (Saunders et al, 2003:93).Time horizons also need to be addressed with the collection of research data. TheOfsted reports used only provide a snapshot of the particular year each individualschool was being assessed. The earliest report dates back to the year 2000 with themost recent being assessed in 2005, a 5 year period. Therefore, the data used in thisstudy is of a cross-sectional nature, “the study of a particular phenomenon at aparticular time” (Saunders et al, 2003:96). The opposite of this being the longitudinalapproach, whereby data is collected over a prolonged period of time with the capacityto study change. Due to this research project being undertaken for an academiccourse, stringent time constraints are determined restricting the possibility ofconducting a longitudinal study. In this context the author is examining the distributedleadership undertaken within secondary schools using reports conducted over the last5 years.The purpose can be defined as both exploratory and explanatory studies. Deemedmost appropriate as the aim, is to clarify our understanding of distributed leadershipwithin public sector organisations, specifically secondary schools. This approach isparticularly useful “if you wish to clarify your understanding of a problem”(Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill, 2003:97). The exploratory element allows theresearcher to change direction as a result of new data and insights occurring.However, the explanatory aspect sanctions the explanation of relationships betweenvariables. For example, the authors initial findings may show distributed leadershipbeing undertaken predominantly within the higher performing schools. Statistical testscould then be undertaken to find a correlation between these two variables and30

furthermore to see if the location of the school, whether it is based in an affluent areaor not, has any influence.The first step of the research will involve a quantitative analysis to examine therelationship between distributed leadership, school performance and school context.The inductive approach will be used to analyse the extent of the affiliation betweenthe stakeholders, whereby leadership is distributed whilst also using the othervariables, school context and school performance. This section requires a review ofexisting resources including academic literature and Ofsted reports.3.5 Sampling and Data Collection MethodsThe sample consists of public sector secondary schools situated in England. Currieand Lockett (2008) explain the reasons for using such organisations. Firstly, thephenomenon of distributed leadership research has been particularly pronouncedwithin school education, providing literature with which to compare and contrastfindings and conclusions. Secondly, these schools exemplify complex organisations,as whilst the schools are publicly funded they suffer from both economic and socialobjectives simultaneously. Also the complexity of authority relationships makes theman intricate organisation. Teachers’ powers are implemented through the TradeUnions and therefore the relationship between the professional, core employees andthe principal is complex. The authority of the principal is further reduced by theinfluence of the Department of Education and Skills (DfES) who provide the primarysource of funding, and the Office for Standards in Education (Ofsted) who inspect theschools regularly.31

The sample is also classified into location, rural or urban. This is deemed asignificant contingent factor for leadership in England (Day et al, 2001; Keys et al,2003). Therefore, the sample contains schools from both varieties of locality. Schoolshave been selected across four geographical areas and three exhibited a mix of ruraland urban classifications (Lancashire, Nottinghamshire and South East). Theremaining region is a metropolitan area (Inner London).The sample size consists of 300 schools which have all been inspected by Ofstedbetween the years of 2000 and 2005, whilst the dependent variable, schoolperformance, was recorded in 2006. The school performance variable consists of twoscores. The first score, KS2-KS3 compares Key Stage 2 test results, those taken priorto entering the secondary school, with Key Stage 3 results, taken after 3 years ofeducation within the school. The second score is referred to as KS3-KS4, contrastingKey Stage 3 results with Key Stage 4, outcomes of the General National VocationalQualifications (GNVQ) or General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) tests.These are the two public examinations undertaken in England. All of this data iscollected in the school’s achievement and attainment tables produced by theDepartment for Education and Skills in England (DfES). However, it is important tonote that the use of these value-added scores is not without criticism. These results areintended to indicate the performance and progress achieved by schools, whilstallowing comparisons between them. Gorard (2006) highlights the dependency on theprior attainment and socio-economic background of the students. Since, policymakersin Wales have withdrawn the publication of such figures and in Englandfurther information has been added to provide context for the results. Following thesecriticisms the author has also provided other widely accessible performance measuresalongside the value-added score. These measures include the absolute achievement of32

students at Key Stage 3 and 4; the Key Stage 3 absolute performance contains theaverage points scored by pupils and the percentage who obtain the nationallyapproved level in English, Science and Mathematics. Whereas the Key Stage 4measure evaluates the percentage of pupils obtaining five or more GCSE awards atA*-C (level 2) and the percentage obtaining five or more at A*-G (level 1). Thescores are all publicly available online, produced by the Department for Educationand Skills in England (DfES) at www.dfes.gov.uk/performance tables/schools.The sample provides a wide spectrum of high performing and low performingschools and even those located in the most deprived areas, as government’s emphasisfocused on improving such schools (Fergusson, 2000).3.4.1 Distributed Leadership Data MeasureThe independent variables concerned will focus on whether leadership is distributedor not and who it is distributed to. One of the key aspects of this study will relate tothe justification of whether or not leadership is distributed. As the literature reviewshows, clear concise definitions of the topic are often elusive and therefore this datameasure has been vindicated through an extensive review of current literature on thetopic. Of course this is open to debate as it remains the authors subjective opinion onthe matter, garnered whilst reviewing the literature. The author also appreciatesfurther subjectivity in the use of language on behalf of the Ofsted inspectors. Debateswill rage regarding the use of Ofsted reports as proxies during the content analysisand predominantly because there is no way of knowing what the understandings ofleadership were within a disparate group of inspectors. However, if any success isfound in the findings, then it will finally be evident that Ofsted inspectors do represent33

leadership within schools. Resultantly, the issue of secondary bias is an evidentproblem that is near impossible to remove entirely.The argument exists regarding the two different forms of leadership, whereby theauthor differentiates as either the academic conception or the policy conception ofdistributed leadership. This is a key part of the study, how the author justifies oneform or another. Therefore, the following section will highlight and explain thegroupings of the keywords for the two opposing forms of distributed leadership. In thefirst instance, the keywords derived from academic literature will form the academicconception of distributed leadership. Initially, to test the keywords a sample of 20schools were chosen at random and subjected to keyword collection from within thesection entitled ‘How well is the school lead and managed?’ After a successful testsample the following keywords were confirmed after delineation.3.4.1.1 Academic ConceptionCollective: One of the dominant themes in academic literature on distributedleadership is the ‘collective’ approach. This is exemplified in one paper by Denis et al(2001) entitled ‘The Dynamics of Collective Leadership and Strategic Change inPluralistic Organisations’. The paper uses case studies in the health care sector toevaluate the impact of a collective leadership approach towards achieving change.Despite the confusion and ambiguity which surrounds distributed leadership, thecollective approach insinuates a group effort. Referring to the origination of the idea,we can see the similarities in the collective approach, “leadership is probably bestconceived as a group quality, as a set of functions which must be carried out by thegroup” (Gibb, 1954:884). Denis et al (2001:2) suggest “the creation of a collectivemembership group in which members play distinct but tightly-knit and contrasting34

oles is a critical factor in achieving substantive change”. The similarities betweenthe two approaches are obvious, hence the reason ‘collective’ will form one of thekeywords representing academic policy.Shared: Another keyword frequenting the academic literature is that of ‘shared’leadership. Pearce (2004:48) explains, “shared leadership occurs when all membersof a team are fully engaged in the leadership of the team and are not hesitant toinfluence and guide their fellow team members in an effort to maximise the effort andthe potential of the team as a whole”. This also refers to a group context, whereby theresponsibilities of the leader are shared across many individuals, therefore distributingthe leadership. Other authors also refer to this concept of shared leadership with asimilar meaning, and the benefits of such a concept in regards to improving studentlearning (Lambert, 2003; Pearce and Conger, 2003).Collaborative: Whilst discussing the topic of building leadership capacity, Lambert(1998), describes distributed leadership as becoming a collaborative endeavourinvolving all teachers. For this reason the terms ‘collaborative’ and ‘collaboration’will be one of the units of analysis. Although there is a distinction between the two,that is distribution and collaboration, for distributed leadership to occur, a form ofcollaboration must take place. Further to this, Gronn (2000:332) argues that someform of distributed leadership has always occurred, “the more obvious instances arethe typical kinds of collaborative decision-making forums common to most educationsettings, such as teams or committees”.35

Systemic: ‘Systemic’ leadership remains in close correlation with the role ofdistributed leadership. The similarities link it closer to the pure academic conceptionrather than the policy conception. Defined as “leadership which flows throughout anorganisation, spanning levels and flowing both up and down hierarchies” (Ogawaand Bossert, 1997:10). “This is a view of leadership as ever-shifting and open to anymember of an organisation” (Lumby, 2003:284). Therefore, due to the closeproximities in the use of the terms, whilst acknowledging there are minordiscrepancies in the two forms, this will form a keyword for the academic version ofdistributed leadership.Partnership: Academic research also refers to the term ‘partnership’ when describingdistributed leadership, working in partnership with another stakeholder, the product ofa conjoint activity. This again refers to an equal footing with another stakeholder,whereby the leadership is therefore distributed. For example, the head teacher maywork in partnership with the deputy head on a particular matter, this would refer to theidealised conception of distributed leadership rather than the deputy purely reportingto the head. Grant (2006:524) researched management styles in the education systemof South Africa. During the study the author found that a “school that wishes toembrace teacher leadership would need to develop a culture that supportscollaboration, partnership, team teaching and collective decision making”. Many ofthe keywords relating to the phenomenon in this quote have already been identifiedbut the term ‘partnership’ is exemplified here. The teacher leadership Grant (2006)refers to requires the distribution of leadership among the teachers.36

Facilitative: The term ‘facilitate’ appears in research by Gronn (2000) alongsideother terms such as ‘shared’ and ‘collaborative’. Originating from the word ‘facilitate’referring to assisting the process. For example, should staff facilitate the head teacherin implementing a new regime then this implies they are equally distributing theleadership throughout this implementation. Gronn (2000:322) whilst researching theconcept of distribution, discusses how the actions of one team member facilitate thegroup. In the example, the use of a ‘beater’, beating the bushes and disturbing thehabitat in a primaeval collective hunt is facilitating the group as it frightens the herdand sends them towards the other hunters. The thoughts behind the illustration remainthat the ‘beater’ is assisting the hunters in gaining food for all, rather than satisfyingpersonal needs, equally distributing the actions within the group. This scenario,coupled with the literature from the health care sector, demonstrates distributedleaderships applicability to various environments, not just within the education sector.Together: The final keyword regarding the academic perspective includes leading‘together’. Denis et al (2000:24) highlighted the importance of “enabling members toacquire formal and informal power and to develop a successful way of workingtogether despite different skills and different sources of power”. In this context it canrefer to making a decision together, on equal footing, clearly resting in the academicconception of distributed leadership. If the principals and the support staff worktogether on a project, this implies minimal hierarchical characteristics.3.4.1.2 Policy ConceptionThe policy conception of distributed leadership represents a slightly differentapproach. The National College of School Leadership (NCSL) refers to distributed37

leadership using slightly different keywords, possibly representing a more bastardisedform of distributed leadership. Whilst distributed leadership remains a topic withinthis arena, it appears that the role of the ‘heroic’ head teacher is of paramountimportance rather than the distribution of leadership amongst a wider group (Wright,2001).Delegated: The first prevalent keyword contradicts all of the previous keywords inacademic conception explained previously. Policy-makers produced a report ondistributed leadership in 2003 and in one particular section, a review of researchundertaken by academics is described. “Distributed leadership; they (the headteachers) delegated responsibility and authority to the senior management teams, andgave teachers opportunities to share in decision-making” (Bennett et al, 2003:21).This paints a contrasting picture to the academic term. The word ‘delegating’insinuates a hierarchical structure of which the head teacher is still solely responsiblefor the leadership. Furthermore, the teachers only had opportunities to share decisionmaking,whereas the academic literature uses this term freely, not only permitting‘opportunities’ to share the process. As a result the phrase ‘delegating’ or ‘delegated’clearly signals the policy concept of distributed leadership.Democratic: This report also refers to another form of leadership in the samecategory, that of democratic leadership. Bennett et al (2003:20) refer to the distributedform as having “democratic principles at its core”. However, the authors proceed,“central to democratic leadership is the co-operation and the alignment of others tothe values and vision of the leader”. The contradictory stance of this literature inreference to the academic literature is evident. The head teacher in this scenario38

effectively distributes leadership responsibilities to those below him. In this sense,rather than the co-operation and collaboration of equals in the academic instance,justifying the choice of the words ‘democratic’ and ‘democracy’ as keywords underpolicy conception. Once again the contrasting descriptions between both academicand policy research is apparent, democracy remains a far cry from the academickeywords such as collaborative, shared and collective.Participative: A further word deriving from the policy conception is that of‘participation’. Participation declares that others are merely involved in leadershipactivities rather than being at the forefront of such events. Bennett et al (2003)describe an alternative method of improving schools, by allowing teachers tomeaningfully participate in our schools as organisations. This is a step back from theacademic stance, and much like the other keywords under policy, this is not sharingthe leadership burden but simply assisting the head teacher in activities.Devolved: Bennett et al (2003:32) refer to the terms distributed and ‘devolved’leadership in the same context. Whereas the term devolved is described by delegatingduties or authorities, extremely similar to another keyword from policy conception,‘delegated’. References in the report quote devolved leadership as being “thedevolution of responsibility”.Involving and Supporting: There is a recurring theme further exemplified with thesetwo keywords evident in the NCSL report. The phrases “involving your staff indecision-making” and “supporting colleagues” refer to actions that have little directimpact on the leadership process but rather are notified of routes taken and asked to39

help, whilst potentially another stakeholder leads the situation Bennett et al (2003:38).This is once again a clear distinction from the academic literature on the phenomenon.Consultative: Further literature from the policy conception refers to an equal footingof all stakeholders, yet the head teacher remains “first among equals” (Kimber,2003:18). Further from this there is a quote from the head teacher stating how heattempts to distribute the leadership, “I tend to be very consultative…I know how Iwant the school to go but I will consult with them about how we might go about doingit”. In this sense the head teacher has already made the decision the direction theywish to take, an obvious differentiation from the academic perspective whereby anydirection would be in conjunction with all stakeholders included,Figure 3.1 – Derived KeywordsAcademic ConceptionCollectiveSharedCollaborativeSystemicPartnershipFacilitativeTogetherPolicy ConceptionDelegatedDemocraticParticipativeInvolvingDevolvedSupportiveConsultativeEach Ofsted report consists of a section entitled ‘How well is the school led andmanaged?’ typically three or four pages in length. This section was analysed using40

content analysis techniques (Krippendorf, 2004). The content analysis was appliedwhilst using the definition of distributed leadership and the characteristics associatedwith it. This was an exhaustive process whereby examining the academic literature todate and utilising a few Ofsted reports as examples, provided various keywords todefine whether leadership is distributed or not. The following extracts provideexamples.Example A: Extract from school 59 providing an example of distributed leadershipbetween the head teacher and his deputy in the academic conception. ‘The headteacher and deputy work closely together and share the major responsibilities’. Theuse of the words ‘together’ and the fact they ‘share’ major responsibilities insinuatesthe academic conception of distributed leadership. Furthermore, school 109 providesanother example of distributed leadership, ‘the head teacher and his senior staff workvery well together to motivate and encourage others’. In this phrase, the head teacherand staff are working ‘together’ rather than being delegated to.Example B: Section from school 103 whereby the policy conception of distributedleadership is more prevalent here. ‘She (the head teacher) has the confidence of thepupils, staff, governors and parents and is fully supported by a team of highly skilledmanagers’. In this example the text shows how the head teacher is merely ‘supported’by managers rather than leadership being distributed to them. Second example of nondistributedleadership in school 86, ‘the governing body makes a good contribution tothe life of the school’. This sentence implies the governors have little direct impact onthe strategies undertaken by the school, a form of non-distributed leadership.In this context “distributed leadership is characterised by conjoint or concertiveactivity with others beyond the principal allowed to make and action decisions ofstrategic significance” (Currie and Lockett, 2008).41

The variables table below details those examined starting with whether or notleadership was distributed. Distributed being the binary variable signifying whichschools displayed distributed leadership (1=distributed leadership; 0=non-distributedleadership). This is calculated using the keywords, for example, should morekeywords from the academic conception appear than those from the policyconception, then distributed leadership is occurring in its purest form. In thesevariables, 1 represents leadership being distributed to that particular stakeholder and 0represents the non-distribution of leadership.The remaining variables are shown and explained in the table below includingmeasures of school resources, environmental context and the nature of the studentbody, all details obtained from within Ofsted reports.42

Figure 3.2 - Variable DefinitionsVariableVariable DescriptionTime LagLag (measured in Years) between year of OFSTED report and whenthe performance of the school was measuredDisplayedDoes the school display distributed leadership? (1=Yes;0=No)School PerformanceKS2 – KS3Value added between entry at 11 years of age and 14 years of age asassessed by test scoresSchool PerformanceKS3 – KS4Value added between entry at 14 years of age and 16 years of age asassessed by test scoresEnglishPercentage (%) of pupils achieving level 5 or above in EnglishMathematicsPercentage (%) of pupils achieving level 5 or above in MathematicsSciencePercentage (%) of pupils achieving level 5 or above in ScienceAverage point score at Average performance across KS4 variablesKS35+A*-C Percentage (%) of pupils achieving KS4 Level 25+A*-G Percentage (%) of pupils achieving KS4 Level 1Average point score at Average total point score per pupilKS4SizeNumber of pupils enrolled in the school studying at KS2 and KS4levelAuthorised absence Percentage of half days (sessions) missed through absence for thelatest complete reporting yearUnauthorised absence Percentage of half days (sessions) missed through absence for thelatest complete reporting yearFinancial Resources School’s expenditure per pupilFinancial Deficit OFSTED report shows negative ‘Balance carried forward to nextyear’ (1=Yes;0=No)Social Deprivation Percentage (%) of pupils entitled to free school mealsCultural Background Percentage (%) of pupils ‘with English as an additional language’School Teaching Number of pupils per qualified teacherResourcesKS3 Teaching Average teaching group size at KS3ResourcesKS4 Teaching Average teaching group size at KS4ResourcesParental Involvement Percentage (%) OFSTED Questionnaires returnedEast Midlands Is the school located in the East Midlands? (1=Yes;0=No)North WestIs the school located in the North West? (1=Yes;0=No)South EastIs the school located in the South East? (1=Yes;0=No)Inner CityIs the school located in the Inner City? (1=Yes;0=No)43

3.6 Limitations of MethodologyDespite the advantages of using secondary data, such as the ease of access in thiscase, it also carries disadvantages that need to be noted. As previously discussed therewill remain an argument from some parties about the use of Ofsted reports for proxiesof evidence. One of the major factors is the fact that this data is used primarily tocompare and contrast school standards and is collected with a specific purpose inmind. The may have an adverse affect on the reports as the Ofsted inspectors may berequired to refer to activities of leadership with a different approach. Therefore, thistype of study is vulnerable to a secondary bias. However, at present this is the mostappropriate form of measuring distributed leadership. As the data is collected by thegovernment then there is no question over the quality of the data.Furthermore, to mitigate the secondary bias and the use of words by Ofsted inspectorsto decipher what constitutes distributed leadership has been justified throughout thismethodology. The delineation of keywords is thoroughly explained and anappropriate pilot test has been undertaken using 20 schools whereby examples areprovided in the previous passage.44

Chapter FourEmpirical Analysis4.0 Introducing Data AnalysisThe following chapter will progress from the methodology section of the dissertationand collate the data, which will allow the author to attempt to answer by inductivelytesting the dataset.The secondary data will be presented and summarised with initial observations fromthe author regarding the findings from the research, before undertaking detailedanalysis related to the research question within the subsequent section, the discussion.4.1 Data AnalysisThe first step of the analysis produced simple descriptive statistics and a correlationmatrix for the performance measures as shown in Table 4.1 and 4.2 respectively onthe following pages.45

Table 4.1 – Descriptive StatisticsDescriptive StatisticsN Minimum Maximum Mean Std. DeviationTime Lag 358 2000 2005 2002.14 1.545KS2 - KS3 Performance 358 96.60 104.00 99.8106 1.26440KS3 - KS4 Performance 358 927.20 1045.70 996.0296 17.97356KS3 English 358 32 100 76.48 14.921KS3 Maths 358 34 100 77.91 14.000KS3 Science 358 25 100 74.87 16.870KS3 Av. Points Score 358 27.00 46.40 35.0425 3.608365+ A*-C 358 10 100 57.20 20.4085+ A*-G 358 65 100 92.83 6.343KS4 Av. Points Score 358 191.40 600.20 362.9824 74.35766Size 358 183 1990 927.02 305.246Authorised Absence 358 1.20 14.10 7.3737 1.84399Unauthorised Absence 358 .00 8.30 1.0444 1.21780Financial Resources 358 1672 5865 3062.20 679.705Financial Deficit 358 0 1 .24 .428Social Deprivation 243 .003 .717 .16170 .141658Cultural Background 243 .000 .927 .10043 .180626Teaching Resources 243 10.80 22.00 16.7062 1.43596KS3 Teaching Resources 243 15.40 41.70 24.5082 2.60129KS4 Teaching Resources 243 12.70 39.40 21.6041 2.50041Parental Involvement 243 .019 .936 .27891 .166251Valid N (listwise) 24346

Table 4.2 – Performance Measures Correlation MatrixKS2 -KS3 KS3 Eng. KS3 Math KS3 Sci KS3 AvP KS3 - KS4 KS4 Lv2 KS4 Lv1 KS4 AvP S.D. C.B.KS2 - KS3Value AddedKS3 EnglishKS3 MathsKS3 ScienceKS3 Av. PointsKS3 - KS4Value Added5+A*-C5+A*-GKS4 Av. PointsSocial DeprivationCulturalBackground1.000.753 ** 1.000.651 ** .782 ** 1.000.617 ** .746 ** .943 ** 1.000.813 ** .854 ** .789 ** .749 ** 1.000.381 ** .340 ** .370 ** .351 ** .231 ** 1.000.714 ** .826 ** .793 ** .751 ** .869 ** .479 ** 1.000.575 ** .688 ** .653 ** .638 ** .613 ** .552 ** .687 ** 1.000.721 ** .790 ** .747 ** .706 ** .842 ** .536 ** .942 ** .731 ** 1.000-.393 ** -.598 ** -.523 ** -.526 ** -.664 ** .130 * -.494 ** -.417 ** -.472 ** 1.000.024 -.123 .018 .025 -.212 ** .458 ** -.027 .009 -.025 .630 ** 1.000*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).47

Referring to Table 4.2 it is evident that the KS2-KS3 and KS3-KS4 value addedscores are not highly correlated. The significance of just .381 using the Pearsoncorrelation is predictable as a high score in KS2-KS3 from a pupil may be difficult tomaintain through to KS3-KS4 level at the same rate. Of further significance is thecorrelation between the Key Stage 3 points average and the Key Stage 4 pointsaverage. Once again this is predictable assuming those students performing well atKS3 level would then transfer this strong performance to a KS4 level. A significancemeasure of .842 indicates this relationship.The matrix results were as expected with social deprivation producing a negativecorrelation across each performance measure with the exception of the KS3-KS4value added score. However, despite some correlation, this remains extremelyinsignificant at just .130 and allows the analysis to continue due to this insignificance.The other measure included, relates to cultural background. The correlation resultstowards this area are somewhat mixed. In the majority of cases the measure is eithernegative or sufficiently low to not require further discussion. However, a relativelystrong correlation is provided in accordance with the KS3-KS4 value added score(.458) and as expected with the social deprivation variable, indicating a correlation of.630. In regards to the KS3-KS4 value added score, whilst not a strong correlation, itshould still be noted during the remainder of this study.4.1.1 Testing Social Deprivation with Policy ConceptionThe first social deprivation dummy variable has been set at 0

Table 4.3 – Two-Sample t test – Policy Keywords and Social Deprivation (0

schools, only 1.8 times per report. Surveying both of these t tests we can gather thatthe greater the level of social deprivation then the greater the number of policykeywords.4.1.2 Testing Social Deprivation with Academic ConceptionThe next step to be tested is the frequency of academic conception keywordsprevailing according to the level of social deprivation. The first Two-sample t testinvolves the testing against the social deprivation variable at between 0

Table 4.6 – Two-Sample t test – Academic Keywords and Social Deprivation (0

44 of the schools had in excess of 20% of their pupils using English as an additionallanguage, therefore resulting in a diverse school. The significant finding here showsthat the policy conception form of distributed leadership is far more likely to occur insuch surroundings with a mean of 3.07, as opposed to those less diverse schools witha mean of only 1.66.The same test was then conducted with Academic conception as the dependantvariable. The results are shown in table 4.8.Table 4.8 – Two-sample t test – Academic Keywords and Cultural Background (0

Table 4.9 – Paired t test – Prevalence of Academic and Policy KeywordsPaired Samples StatisticsMean N Std. Deviation Std. Error MeanPair 1ACTotal .97 358 1.569 .083PCTotal 2.03 358 2.509 .133Throughout the 358 reports, policy conception keywords were over twice as likely tooccur against those from the academic conception stated in the methodology. Thetotal Academic conception keywords averaged .97 per report in contrast to those froma policy conception, occurring 2.03 times per inspection. This shows distributedleadership is more likely to occur in the form of policy conception as evidenced bythe Ofsted reports.4.1.6 Testing the correlation between Academic Conception, Policy Conceptionand other variablesThe following test was undertaken to search for relationships between particularvariables, exemplifying the inductive approach to this study.53

Table 4.10 – Pearson Correlation between variablesCorrelationsPCTotal ACTotal S.D. KS3 - KS4 SizePC TotalPearson Correlation 1.000Sig. (2-tailed)AC TotalPearson Correlation .562 ** 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) .000SocialDeprivation.KS3 - KS4Pearson Correlation .268 ** .166 ** 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .010Pearson Correlation .128 * .168 ** .130 * 1.000Value Added Sig. (2-tailed) .015 .001 .044SizePearson Correlation .028 .002 -.060 .068 1.000Sig. (2-tailed) .593 .967 .349 .199*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).This produced a few interesting correlations, most notably, the AC Total variablerepresenting the number of academic conception keywords being correlated to thestrong performing schools. However, this is only at a level of roughly 17%. The otherrelationship of interest is in regards to the social deprivation variable. Sociallydeprived schools are correlated nearly 27% with the policy conception form ofdistributed leadership, but whilst testing social deprivation with the academicconception, the correlation is far less at only 16.6%. It is also apparent there is almostno correlation with the size of the school.4.1.7 Regression with different conceptions as the Dependent VariablesFurther inductive analysis led to the author investigating the relationship betweenPolicy conception and the other variables in a linear regression to explain in whatcircumstances the policy form of distributed leadership is likely to prosper.54

Table 4.11 – Linear Regression using Policy ConceptionCoefficients aStandardizedUnstandardized Coefficients CoefficientsModel B Std. Error Beta t Sig.1 (Constant) 6.456 9.541 .677 .499Social Deprivation 3.582 1.446 .220 2.478 .014KS3 - KS4 Value Ad. -.005 .009 -.041 -.554 .580Financial Resources .000 .000 -.122 -1.383 .168Financial Deficit -.181 .342 -.033 -.529 .597Size .000 .001 -.035 -.523 .602Cultural Background -.524 1.389 -.041 -.377 .706Teaching Resources .084 .117 .052 .718 .474East Midlands -.203 .409 -.039 -.498 .619North West .548 .410 .103 1.335 .183Inner City 1.622 .629 .289 2.579 .011a. Dependent Variable: PC TotalThe secondary data collected has concluded that the most dominant factor inexplaining the use of the policy conception is social deprivation. Those sociallydeprived schools, judging by the 0

Table 4.12 – Linear Regression using Academic ConceptionCoefficients aStandardizedUnstandardized Coefficients CoefficientsModel B Std. Error Beta t Sig.1 (Constant) -3.846 6.541 -.588 .557Social Deprivation .439 .991 .040 .443 .658KS3 - KS4 Value Ad. .005 .006 .055 .740 .460Financial Resources .000 .000 -.065 -.729 .467Financial Deficit -.110 .235 -.030 -.469 .639Size .000 .000 -.028 -.412 .681Cultural Background -.334 .952 -.039 -.351 .726Teaching Resources .022 .080 .020 .271 .787East Midlands .000 .280 .000 -.003 .998North West .216 .281 .060 .767 .444Inner City 1.297 .431 .341 3.008 .003a. Dependent Variable: AC TotalThe results here are far less clear than in table 4.11. However, two of the samevariables are both dominant once again, social deprivation and inner city schools.Although not as significant as in the previous regression, social deprivation is stillpositive at .439. Furthermore, those schools located in Inner Cities are once againmore likely to use words associated with Academic Conception.The distribution of the dependant variables mean that just a linear regression wouldnot suffice. The tests were also conducted using Poisson and negative binomialregression techniques. Both variables were tested for over-dispersion and eitherPoisson or negative binomial were selected as appropriate.56

Using policy conception as the dependant variable the error term was not found to beover-dispersed, therefore the Poisson regression was employed as is evident in table4.13.Table 4.13 – Poisson Regression using Policy ConceptionUnstandardized CoefficientsModel B Std. Error z P>z1(Constant) 4.757 4.859 0.98 0.328Social Deprivation 1.531 .640 2.39 0.017KS3 - KS4 Value Ad. -.005 .005 -0.93 0.352Financial Resources -.000 .000 -1.66 0.097Financial Deficit -.099 .169 -0.59 0.555Size -.000 .000 -0.63 0.527Cultural Background -.2 .788 -0.25 0.799Teaching Resources .049 .059 0.84 0.400East Midlands -.137 .196 -0.70 0.485North West .336 .219 1.53 0.125Inner City .843 .288 2.93 0.003a. Dependent Variable: PC TotalThis produces similar results to the linear regression highlighting the significantrelationships with social deprivation and those Inner City schools, although the resultsare not as prominent as the original regression.The same regression was undertaken with Academic as the dependant variable andonce again the Poisson regression was deemed most appropriate as the standard errorlevel was less than the mean. The outcome is produced in table 4.14. The results showmild decreases in the relationship towards social deprivation and Inner City schools,however, the North West sample seems to increase slightly.57

Table 4.14 – Poisson Regression using Academic ConceptionUnstandardized CoefficientsModel B Std. Error z P>z1(Constant) -5.211 7.858 -0.66 0.507Social Deprivation .350 .937 0.37 0.709KS3 - KS4 Value Ad. .004 .008 0.58 0.564Financial Resources -.000 .000 -0.71 0.48Financial Deficit -1.28 .240 -0.53 0.595Size -.000 .000 -0.36 0.715Cultural Background -.257 .796 -0.32 0.747Teaching Resources .031 .087 0.35 0.725East Midlands .008 .294 0.03 0.978North West .335 .317 1.06 0.291Inner City 1.196 .332 3.6 0.000a. Dependent Variable: AC Total4.2 Summary of AnalysisTo conclude, the exploratory nature of this study has led to some interesting findings.Firstly, the policy form is far more likely to occur in secondary schools in England.Evidence of this lies in table 4.9 wherein the prevalence of Policy keywords is morethan double those Academic keywords. Secondly, any relation between schoolperformance and distributed leadership is not apparent from the findings. Thecorrelation in table 4.10 and subsequent regressions indicate any relationship betweenKS3-KS4 value added scores and either form of distributed leadership is minimal.Thirdly, the level of social deprivation and the diversity of the school appear to varythe level of distributed leadership. Whilst both of the social deprivation variables at0

was extremely notable in those schools tested at 0

Chapter FiveDiscussion, Conclusion and Recommendations5.0 Discussion - IntroductionThis section will discuss the trends and issues which have arisen within the dataanalysis. Following this, conclusions will be drawn, recommendations will be madefor possible progression of the research topic and surrounding sub-topics and finally,the author will provide a personal reflection.5.1 DiscussionThe main aim from the dissertation was to identify a link, if any, between distributedleadership and school performance and then to look for contexts which encouragedthe enactment of distributed leadership. Using the data analysis, some notablefindings have been found which can contribute towards conclusions and be relatedback to the literature.Although Gibb first stumbled upon the theme of distributed leadership in 1954 andsince then theory surrounding the topic has been vast, empirical evidence still remainsfew and far between. This was one of the primary reasons in the author choosing toundertake such a study. Even on a wider scale the link between leadership and studentperformance has failed to produce any direct relationship (Hallinger and Heck, 1996).However, it is important to consider that the benefits of undertaking distributedleadership has been proven to produce other results that can be seen as improvingschool effectiveness. For example, Lieberman et al (2000) reported findingsdemonstrating the benefits assimilated by the teachers. The study interviewed 1760

teachers and as a result of leadership being shared or distributed the teachers felt moreconfident and able to perform their own duties. Furthermore, Fullan (2001:8)identified the importance of a “collaborative culture” in reference to schoolsachieving better results whilst Hopkins and Reynolds (2001) second this, linking thesharing or distribution of leadership to school improvement. Finally, Muijs and Harris(2003) confirm the benefits of collaboration in specific relation to the teachers.Pellicer and Anderson (1995) previously highlighted the autonomous nature ofteaching led and the organisational structure often to alienation. However, increasedcollaboration between the teachers helped to diminish the extent of alienation (Little,2000). These findings were not tested during this research but the impact ofdistributed leadership being displayed in relation to school performance remained oneof the primary reasons for conducting the study. However, based upon the findings inthe data analysis there is no reason to believe the distribution of leadership has anyrelationship to school performance at this stage. This is not to say there are no otherbenefits to distributed leadership such as the diminishing alienation of teachers asabove, which could in turn lead to better performance. One notable study did identifya link between teacher leadership and the improvement of life chances of students indisadvantaged high schools (Crowther et al, 2000). Potentially, with a stricter andconclusive definition of distributed leadership the positive benefits may well becomevisible, this will be discussed further in the recommendations for future researchsection.One of the potential issues remains that whilst distributed leadership research gainsmore momentum, and whilst a conclusive definition remains elusive then it is openfor interpretation between authors. As identified during this study it is imperative61

distributed leadership is differentiated from other forms such as delegated, devolvedor democratic leadership as the description to date is some distance from these formsof leadership. In the mean time, whilst a definition remains to be seen, discussionsand therefore research rely on a certain amount of subjectivity on behalf of the authorinterpreting distributed leadership. At present, too many forms of leadership are easilybeing coined as ‘distributed’, this is evident in the policy literature produced byNCSL.Bennett et al (2003) however, highlighted the lack of empirical data relatingdistributed leadership to school performance, specifically in regards to pupil orstudent achievement. This has been tested with the authors delineation of keywordsrelating to both the academic and policy conception of distributed leadership to noavail. This could be down to the keywords chosen to test the data or it could simplyascertain there is no relationship between school performance and distributedleadership.The Prevalence of the Policy ConceptionThe data analysis also found that the policy form of distributed leadership was farmore likely to occur rather than the academic conception form. There could be manyreasons for this. Firstly, we do not know the extent towards this message has beenportrayed to those within the secondary schools. We know the NCSL is activelypromoting it but is this being communicated adequately to the head teachers. Furtherresearch could interview or survey head teachers regarding their knowledge of thetheme of distributed leadership.62

Secondly, the following reason policy conception could be more prevalent is becauseif it is being communicated adequately, then this is how it may be portrayed.Documentation on the matter so far by the NCSL and other policy literature pointstowards a differing form of distributed leadership than that portrayed by academics,during this study it has been referred to as the policy conception. In theory this is theconception promoted to headteachers alike, using terms such as devolved anddelegated, failing to understand the true concept of distributed leadership. Principalsmay be delegating in a democratic culture but this contrasts the underlying themesthat have laden the term effective. This culture fails to produce a collaborative,concertive action, resulting in a synergy and therefore a sum greater than the mean ofthe sum of all individual efforts. Such implementation of distributed leadership wouldthen render all performance measures as void, failing to undertake distributedleadership. Although this has been termed policy conception for the use of this study,the author feels this is not a form of distributed leadership at all, rather just a form ofindividualistic leadership.Thirdly, another argument arises in regards to the culture of the other stakeholders.For example, Gronn (2000) refers to the ‘heroic’ leader resulting from past traditionstherefore indicating leadership can only be distributed below this level as theheadteacher always remains first. Although the eradication of such a culture may bepromoted, some stakeholders will continuously see only a heroic leader at thepinnacle of the school. For example, parents and governors may adhere to this stancemore than most. Such an issue will prevent the headteacher undertaking the idealisedform of distributed leadership.Finally, one of the most important reasons behind the idealised academic conceptionoccurring may be as a result of the high level of accountability on behalf of the63

headteachers themselves. As referred to in the literature review, Wright (2001)highlighted this as the twin paradoxes of the Blair education project. The publicationof school performance results in 1992 allowed schools to be compiled into leaguetables. As Wright (2001:282) explains, “government impositions laid increasedresponsibilities on headteachers”. In such a scenario where performance is revertedimmediately back to the headteacher why would they share or distributeresponsibility, too much is at stake. The question remains, “how can a moredistributed model of leadership be encouraged so that leaders are enabled to takerisks?” (Wright, 2001:288). It is certainly apparent at this stage distributed leadershipmay fail to explain performance as leadership in the majority of cases has effectivelyremained individualistic.The Enactment of Distributed LeadershipThis study used a variety of variables to further determine a link between what assistsdistributed leadership to occur. The empirical analysis provided links with three of thevariables, social deprivation, school diversity and inner city schools.The social deprivation measure was linked to free school meals, as the analysisshows a percentage of children eating free school meals met the criteria for a sociallydeprived area. Free school meals are offered to those individuals whose parents are onincome support. The levels were set at 20% and again at 40% of the children eatingreceiving free school meals would represent a socially deprived area. As this wouldessentially mean that 20%/40% of their parents in the area of the school werereceiving income support.Whilst set at 20% there was a clear relationship with the policy form of distributedleadership, however, when set at 40% this relationship became even stronger. Only 1864

schools met the criteria for 40% receiving free school meals and the mean for thepolicy conception occurring was quite strong. This proved that distributed leadershipmay struggle to develop in socially deprived areas. Bennett et al (2003:8) explainedthis in their extensive literature review and discussed it as having “a significantbearing on distributed leadership”. The pupils themselves will have a significantbearing on how leadership is enacted and particularly the confidence the headteacherhas in distributing such a duty. Potentially, the headteacher is unable to relinquishleadership duties in what may be a troublesome school. Furthermore, assuming a linkbetween socially deprived schools and lower school attainment grades there may wellbe another accountability issue. Those headteachers in such schools will be undercloser scrutiny to turn the school around and despite leadership being shared, they willbe the one held accountable should poor performance occur again.The diversity of the school was also denoted as affecting this form of leadership. Thiswas tested using the cultural background variable representing the percentage of thosepupils to whom English was an additional language. This was tested against a level of0

and their involvement alone is reliant on the cultural, historical and institutionalsetting from which they reside (Spillane et al, 2004).Finally, an interesting finding from the data analysis was regarding the significance ofInner City schools. The findings indicate distributed leadership is likely to occur inone form or another in these Inner City schools. Despite an extensive review of theliterature prior to this research, such a relationship had yet to be identified.Inner City schools are known to frequently perform below the national average butDfES recently produced a scheme to improve standards (BBC News, 2003). Thisprogramme, which received an £800m financial injection may well be the reasondistributed leadership is more prevalent in Inner City schools. The recent restructuringof such schools has occurred at a similar time to the promotion of distributedleadership and therefore during restructuring this implementation may have beenenforced.Another potential reason for such a significance could relate to the headteachersthemselves. Further tests could be undertaken in regards to the experience and abilityof the headteacher whereby if they had a previous track record they may be familiarwith NCSL initiatives or may have experienced the benefits of sharing the leadershipburden first hand. A recent article found on the BBC News (2007) website seems toindicate that leaders of Inner City schools are of a higher calibre, specifically targetedto undertake such a challenging role by the government to deal with students fromculturally diverse and disadvantaged areas.66

5.2 ConclusionCurrently, testing the relationship between organisational performance and distributedleadership remains difficult because of the lack of definition for the phenomenon.Whilst a definition remains elusive all resultant methodologies can then be contestedand debated, much like this one. However, as its emergence and promotion continuesthrough policy-makers at the current rate it is inevitable this will be resolved. Atpresent however, the problem exists along with a lack of empirical studies.Essentially a link between school performance and distributed leadership failed tomaterialise. This is arguably because the policy-makers promotion of distributedleadership differs greatly from the academic conception. If policy-makers are toendorse such a form of leadership, then it must demonstrate it is clearly differentiatedfrom other forms of delegated, democratic, devolved and participative leadership. Insuch cases the concertive action fails to materialise and others still report to theleader.However, some evidence was found of scenarios that help the enactment ofdistributed leadership. Most notably, the academic conception was evident in areas oflower social deprivation and in those less culturally diverse schools. Contrasting this,the policy conception, which the author argues is not a true form of distributedleadership, occurs in those socially deprived areas with a more diverse student body.This could either be a ‘box ticking’ exercise to show that the distribution of leadershipis occurring or simply down the to the fact that the headteacher is reluctant torelinquish control due to accountability issues.67

In regards to linking the distribution of leadership and school performance, hopefullythis study has assisted in shedding more light on the subject matter and will buildupon and add to a research base in its infancy but growing rapidly. The author has thehope that further empirical research will emerge as a result to distinguish arelationship between the phenomenon and organisational performance.5.3 Recommendations and Further ResearchThe author has been able to satisfy the main objectives of the research which was toprovide an insight into distributed leadership and its contributions to the secondaryschools. However, as a result of the research, the author has acknowledged that it hasprompted the need for further research to explain some of the findings.One of the suggestions for the immediate future is that academics and policy-makersalike should focus on what constitutes distributed leadership and provide a conclusivedefinition. To differentiate it from other forms of leadership is important as earlyacademic literature proves the phenomenon of distributed leadership varies greatlyfrom that portrayed by the policy-makers. After such time academics will be able toconduct extensive empirical studies to determine its effectiveness, however, until thenmethodologies and their subjectivities need to be interpreted through an extensiveliterature review as undertaken in this study. Until such time the use of keywordsdelineated from the literature review remain sufficient proxies for evidence.Recommendations for interviews with headteachers to determine their knowledge ofwhat constitutes distributed leadership and to what level it has been encouraged ingovernment directives is also advocated by the author. Such studies would garner68

further knowledge of the subject area and explain other potential variables such as therelationship between stakeholders. Stringent time constraints prevented such anapproach in this study.Furthermore, alongside a similar approach, Ofsted inspectors could be questionedregarding their knowledge of the concept. The Ofsted reports are subject to a strictprotocol so to what extent are the words they use relevant? One possible way offinding this information out is by asking the inspectors themselves. The inspectorscould potentially have a different idea of describing distributed leadership and thiscould be lost in translation in the reports whilst the data is collected.Finally, the occurrence of distributed leadership in reference to other stakeholdersholds the potential for further research also. For example, is leadership distributedamongst some stakeholders but not others? Whilst collecting the data certain uses oflanguage became evident, the governors in context with the headteacher appeared toalways be ‘supportive’. This terminology could be used because of a preconception inthe Ofsted inspectors mind or even because of history and tradition. Nonetheless, itmay not be telling the true story.5.4 Authors ReflectionWith the benefit of hindsight the author has been able to identify possible areas foralterations within the research which may improve any acknowledged weaknesses.Overall it was felt that the research helped to build upon current research within therealm of distributed leadership and as a result was successful. The author feels that allaims and objectives have been addressed and well-balanced arguments have been69

developed to contribute to the main academic theme of distributed leadership. It hasbeen a thoroughly enjoyable topic to research into, and one that has prompted widerinterest towards leadership and secondary schools.Word Count – 16,13370

ReferencesARMSTRONG, M. AND STEPHENS, T., 2005. A Handbook of Management andLeadership: A Guide to Managing for Results. London: Kogan Page.BASS, B.M, 1985. Leadership and Performance Beyond Expectations. New York:Free Press.BASS, B.M, AND AVOLIO, B.J., 1994. Improving Organizational EffectivenessThrough Transformational Leadership. London: Sage.BASS, B.M, AND RIGGIO, R.E., 2005. Transformational Leadership. 2 nd Edition.Mahwah: L. Erlbaum Associates.BBC, 1997. The Labour Party’s Manifesto 1997. Available from:http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/3labmaneduc.html[Accessed 03 October 2008].BBC NEWS, 2003. Inner City Schools ‘Still Struggling’, Available from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/2950858.stm [Accessed 16 October 2008].BBC NEWS, 2007. Budget 2007. Available from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6474789.stm [Accessed 03 October 2008].BBC NEWS, 2007. Top Heads for Toughest Schools. Available from:http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6256175.stm [Accessed 16 October 2008].71

BENNETT, N., WISE, C., WOODS, P and HARVEY, J.A., 2003. DistributedLeadership, Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.BOLAM, R., 2004. Reflections on the NCSL from a Historical Perspective,Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32, pp.251-267.BORINS, S., 2002. Leadership and Innovation in the Public Sector, Leadership andOrganization Development Journal, 23(8), pp.467-476.BRYMAN, A., 1992. Charisma and Leadership in Organisations. London: SagePublications.BRYMAN, A., 2004. Social Research Methods. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.BURNS, J.M., 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row.CURRIE, G., BOYETT, I., and SUHOMLINOVA, O., 2005. A Panacea forOrganisational Ills? Transformational Leadership within Secondary Schools inEngland, Public Administration, 83, pp.265-315.CURRIE, G., and LOCKETT, A., 2006. A Critique of Transformational Leadership:Moral, Professional, and Contingent Dimensions of Leadership within Organisations,Human Relations, 60, pp.341-370.72

CROWTHER, F., HANN, L., McMASTER, J., and FERGURSON, M., 2000.Leadership for Successful School Revitalisation: Lessons from Recent AustralianResearch. Paper presented at the Annual Meet of the American Educational ResearchAssociated, New Orleans, L.A.DAY, C., HARRIS, A., and HADFIELD, M., 2001. Challenging the Orthodoxy ofEffective School Leadership, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(1),pp.39-56.DENIS, J-L., LANGLEY, A. and PINEAULT, M., 2001. The Dynamics of CollectiveLeadership and Strategic Change in Pluralistic Organisations. Academy ofManagement Journal, 44(4), pp.809-837.DOBELL, A., 1989. The Public Administrator: God? Or Entrepreneur? Or are theythe same in Public Service?, American Review of Public Administration, 19(1), pp.1-10.FERGUSSON, R., 2000. Modernising Managerialism in Education. In: Clarke, J.,Gewirtz, S., and McLaughlin, E., New Managerialism New Welfare. London: Sage.FULLAN, M., 2001. Leading in a Culture of Change. Available from:http://administration.ucok.edu/documents/exe_lbsLeadingInACultureOfChange.pdf[Accessed 16 October 2008].73

GIBB, C.A., 1954. Leadership. In: Lindzey, G., Handbook of Social Psychology, 2,pp.877-917. Reading, MA; Addison-Wesley.GORARD, S., 2006. Value-added is of Little Value. Journal of Education Policy,21(2), pp.235-243.GRAETZ, F., 2000. Strategic Change Leadership, Management Decision, 38(8),pp.550-562.GRANT, C., 2006. Emerging Voices on Teacher Leadership: Some South AfricanViews. Educational Management & Administration Leadership, 34, pp.511-532.GRONN, P., 2000. Distributed Properties; A New Architecture for Leadership.Educational Management & Administration, 28(3), pp.317-338.GRONN, P., 2002. Distributed Leadership as a Unit of Analysis, The LeadershipQuarterly, 13, pp. 423-451.GUNTER, H., 2001. Leaders and Leadership in Education. London: Paul Chapman.GUNTER, H., and FORRESTER, G., 2008. New Labour and School Leadership1997-2007, British Journal of Education Studies, 56(2), pp.144-162.74

HALLINGER, P., and HECK, R.H., 1996. Reassessing the Principal’s Role in SchoolEffectiveness: A Review of Empirical Research, 1980-1995,EducationalAdministration Quarterly, 32(1), pp.5-44.HARRIS, A., 2003. Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresay, Fantasyor Possibility?, School Leadership & Management, 23(3), pp.313-324.HARRIS, A., 2004. Distributed Leadership and School Improvement. EducationalManagement Administration & Leadership, 32(1), pp.11-24.HARRIS, A., 2007. Distributed Leadership: Conceptual Confusion and EmpiricalReticence. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), pp.315-325.HARRIS, A., and CHAPMAN, C., 2002. Democratic Leadership for SchoolImprovement in Challenging Contexts, Paper presented to the International Congresson School Effectiveness and Improvement, Copenhagen.HARTLEY, J., and ALLISON, M., 2000. The Role of Leadership in theModernization and Improvement of Public Services, Public Money & Management,20(2), pp.35-40.HIGGS, M., 2002. How Can We Make Sense of Leadership in the 21 st Century.Leadership & Organizational Development Journal. 24(5), pp.273-284.75

HOPKINS, D., and REYNOLDS, D., 2001. The Past, Present and Future of SchoolImprovement: Towards the Third Age, British Educational Research Journal, 27(4),pp.459-475.HORNER, M., 1997. Leadership Theory: Past, Present and Future. TeamPerformance Management. 3(4), pp.270-287.HUMPHREYS, J.H., 2002. Transformational Leader Behaviour, Proximity andSuccessful Services Marketing. Journal of Services Marketing. 16(6), pp.487-502.JACKSON, S., 2000. A Qualitative Evaluation of Shared Leadership Barriers, Driversand Recommendations, Journal of Management in Medicine, 14(3), pp.166-178.JAVIDAN, M., and WALDMAN, D.A., 2003. Exploring Charismatic Leadership inthe Public Sector: Measurement and Consequences. Public Administration Review,63(2), pp.229-242.KAHAI, S.S., SOSISK, J.J. AND AVOLIO, B.J., 2004. Effects of Participative andDirective Leadership in Electronic Groups. Group & Organization Management,29(1), pp.67-105.KATZENBACH, J.R., and SMITH, D.K., 1993. The Wisdom of Teams: Creating theHigh-Performance Organisation. Boston: Harvard School Press.76

KEYS, W., SHARP, C., GREENE, K. and GRAYSON, H., 2003. SuccessfulLeadership of Schools in Urban and Challenging Contexts. Nottingham: NCSL(available at www.ncsl.org.uk).KIMBER, M., 2003. Does Size Matter; Distributed Leadership in Small SecondarySchools. Nottingham: NCSL (available at www.ncsl.org.uk).KRIPPENDORF, K., 2004. Content Analysis: An Introduction to its Methodology. 2 nded. London: Sage.LAMBERT, L., 1998. How to Build Leadership Capacity. Educational Leadership,55(7), pp.17-19.LAMBERT, L., 2003. A Framework for Shared Leadership. Educational Leadership,59(8), pp.37-40.LASHWAY, L., 2003. Distributed Leadership, National Association of ElementarySchool Principals, 19(4), pp. 1-7.LIEBERMAN, A., SAXL, A.R., and MILES, M.B., 2000. Teacher Leadership:Ideology and Practice. In: LIEBERMAN, A., SAXL, A.R., and MILES, M.B., TheJossey-Bass Reader on Educational Leadership. Chicago: Jossey-Bass, pp.339-345.77

LITTLE, J.W., 2000. Assessing the Prospects for Teacher Leadership. In:LIEBERMAN, A., SAXL, A.R., and MILES, M.B., The Jossey-Bass Reader onEducational Leadership. Chicago: Jossey-Bass, pp.339-345.LOUIS, K., and MARKS, H., 1996. Teachers’ Professional Community inRestructuring Schools, American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), pp.757-789.LUMBY, J., 2003. Distributed Leadership in Colleges; Leading or Misleading.Educational Management & Administration, 31(3), 283-293.PELLICER, L.O., and ANDERSON, L.W., 1995. A Handbook for Teacher Leaders.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.MUIJ, D., and HARRIS, A., 2003. Teacher Leadership – Improvement ThroughEmpowerment?, Educational Management and Administration, 31(4), pp.437-448.MURRAY, M., 1975. Comparing Public and Private Management: An ExploratoryEssay, Public Administration Review, 35(4), pp.364-371.NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, 2008. Introduction toDistributed Leadership. Available from:http://forms.ncsl.org.uk/mediastore/image2/distributedleadership_web/textonly/intro.htm [Accessed 08 October 2008].78

NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR SCHOOL LEADERSHIP, 2008. Our Priorities.Available from: http://www.ncsl.org.uk/priorities-index.htm [Accessed 03 October2008].OFFICE OF PUBLIC SECTOR INFORMATION, 1992. Education (Schools) Act1992 (c.38). Available from:http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1992/ukpga_19920038_en_1 [Accessed 03 October2008].OGAWA, R.T., and BOSSERT, S.T., 1997. Leadership as an OrganisationalQuality. In: Crawford, M., Kydd, L., and Riches, C, Leadership and Teams inEducational Management, pp.9-23. Buckingham: Open University.PEARCE, C.L., and CONGER, J.A., 2003. Shared Leadership: Reframing the Howsand Whys of Leadership. Thousand Oaks CA: Sage.PEARCE, C.L., 2004. The Future of Leadership: Combining Vertical and SharedLeadership to Transform Knowledge Work. Academy of Management Executive,18(1), pp.47-57.RAD A.M.M. AND YARMOHAMMADIAN, M.H., 2006. A Study of RelationshipBetween Managers’ Leadership Style and Employees’ Job Satisfaction. Leadership inHealth Services, 19(2), pp.11-28.79

RAINEY, H.G., BACKOFF, R.W., and LEVINE, C.H., 1976. Comparing Public andPrivate Organisations, Public Administration Review, 36(2).REMENYI, D., WILLIAMS, B., MONEY, A., and SWARTZ, E., 1998. DoingResearch in Business and Management: An Introduction to Process and Method.London: Sage.ROBSON, C., 2002. Real World Research. 2 nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.SAUNDERS, M., LEWIS, P., and THORNHILL, A., 2003. Research Methods forBusiness Students. 3 rd ed. Harlow: FT Prentice Hall.SCHEIN, E., 1997. Organisational and Culture. 2nd Edition. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.SILVERTHORNE, C., 2001. A Test of the Path-Goal Leadership Theory in Taiwan.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 22(4), pp.151-158.SPILLANE, J.P., HALVERSON, R. and DIAMOND, J.B., 2004. Towards a Theoryof Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective, Journal of Curriculum Studies,36(1), pp.3-34.STASHEVSKY, S. and KOSLOWSKY, M., 2006. Leadership Team Cohesivenessand Team Performance. International Journal of Manpower, 27(1), pp.63-74.80

STEWART, J., and WALSH, K., 1992. Change in the Management of PublicServices, Public Administration, 70(4), pp.499-518.TIMPERLEY, H.S., 2005. Distributed Leadership: Developing Leadership fromPractice, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), pp.395-420.WICKHAM, P.A., 2006. Strategic Entrepreneurship. 4 th Ed. Harlow: FT PrenticeHall.WOODS, P.A., BENNETT, N., HARVEY, J.A., and WISE, C., 2004. Variabilitiesand Dualities in Distributed Leadership; Findings from a Systematic LiteratureReview. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 32(4), pp.439-457.WRIGHT, N., 2001. Leadership, ‘Bastard Leadership’ and Managerialism.Educational Management & Administration, 29(3), pp.275-290.81