Peter Gronn

Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis

Abstract This article proposes a new unit of analysis in the study of leadership. As an alternative to the current focus, which is primarily on the deeds of individual leaders, the article proposes distributed leadership. The article shows how conventional constructs of leadership have difficulty accommodating changes in the division of labor in the workplace, especially, new patterns of interdependence and coordination which have given rise to distributed practice. A number of forms of distributed leadership are then outlined, in particular, three varieties of concertive action in which a key defining criterion is conjoint agency. These forms provide the basis for a taxonomy of distributed leadership and a review of examples in the literature. The article concludes with a consideration of some implications of the adoption of a revised unit of analysis, particularly for recent work on levels of analysis and for future research into leadership as a process.

Distributed Properties A New Architecture for Leadership

This article argues for a reconceptualization of leadership. Possible substitutes for leadership are reviewed along with a number of existing dualisms. These are rejected in favour of the claim that the leadership of organizations is most appropriately understood as a distributed, rather thanas a focused, phenomenon. Various attributes, dimensions and applications of distribution are then considered, and a revised approach to action and influence in organizations centred on conjointly performed activities is thenproposed. For this new formulation a summary is provided of the core concepts of, and recent developments in, activity theory. It is shown that two particular advantages of this approach include the helpful model it provides for contextual analysis—an aspect sorely neglected by the field of leadership—and its focus on the evolving division of labour in organizations, the prime mover for tracking emerging patterns of distributed leadership.

Leadership: Who needs it?

This article provides a critique of leadership. The thrust of this critique is focused on the discourse of leadership as a vehicle for representing organisational practice. In particular, the article identifies a series of important conceptual inadequacies, most of which are rarely addressed by leadership commentators. These include: difficulties in distinguishing leadership from management; tensions between leadership, influence and power; the potential redundancy of leadership in the face of possible substitute factors; leader-followerships presumption of a division of labour; the prevailing myth of exceptionality; and disciplined subjectivity achieved through emergent forms of designer leadership. Embedded in each of these criticisms is the claim that, if leadership is to retain its conceptual and practical utility, then it has to be reconstituted in a distributed, as opposed to a focused, form. A series of suggestions as to how this transformation might be accomplished is outlined in the final section of the article.

Substituting for leadership: The neglected role of the leadership couple

Abstract This article discusses the topic of a recent symposium in the LQ , the idea of substitutes for leadership. It provides a case study of a longitudinal qualitative variety suggested by Jermier and Kerr in their 1997 symposium contribution. The case documented is the foundation and first decade (1951–1961) of the famous Australian school, Timbertop. In particular the article considers the role played by the founder, J. R. Darling, and the first head of Timbertop, E. H. Montgomery, as a leadership “couple.” On the basis of the case data it is argued that the leadership couple is a common, but neglected, substitute for the single-handed leader. Attention is paid to the dynamics of the couple role, the ways in which couples achieve substitute outcomes and effects, the defining characteristics and properties of couples and the significance of couples for future research, particularly the need to rethink the unit of analysis in the field of leadership.

Nurturing Democracy The Contribution of Distributed Leadership to a Democratic Organizational Landscape

This article reviews the comparative merits of distributed leadership and democratic leadership as understandings of, and preferred alternatives to, the leadership of and in organizations. It is particularly concerned that, while distributed leadership may provide a welcome and worthwhile respite from and alternative to the kind of heroic orthodoxy that has been calculated to secure organizational membership control and compliance, distributed leadership entails a democratic deficit. The core components of these two conceptions of leadership, the points of connection and tension between them, the conditions that might facilitate or impede their realization, and the problems and possibilities entailed in their attainment are discussed. Neither the purpose nor the claim of this article is to resolve the complex questions concerned with democracy and leadership in organizations generally, or schools in particular. Its case is that the influential notion of distributed leadership needs to be interrogated critically from the perspective of a concern with building organizations that are more democratic and respectful of the human status of their members and other stakeholders. It concludes by suggesting a multi-stranded approach for educational leaders and policymakers concerned to advance the democratic potential of distributed leadership.

Principal Recruitment in a Climate of Leadership Disengagement

International and Australian evidence suggests there is a widespread problem with school principal recruitment. It appears that principal candidate pools are diminishing and that employers are unable to replace current vacancies and meet projected demand. In this article we investigate the parameters of this perceived principal recruitment problem in the context of recent school governance reforms. An unintended consequence of reform policies is the emergence of leadership ‘disengagement’—a disinclination among teachers to pursue the principalship and other school-level leadership roles. We explore some of the origins of disengagement, we provide an explanation for its emergence and we consider some of its major implications for future research into principal recruitment and replenishment.

A Bit More Life in the Leadership: Co-Principalship as Distributed Leadership Practice.

Most commentators think of leadership as individually focused, a preference which reflects historical understandings and usage. With the example of a co-principalship, this article shows how focused leadership is at odds with the reality of distributed work practice. The article reports research at College A, a Catholic all-girls’ secondary school owned by a religious order, which for some years has had a male and female co-principalship. The argument is that co-principalship is a form of shared role space inhabited by a distributed mind. The evidence for this claim is to be found in the contextual origins of co-principalships, the dynamics of the working division of labour between the permanent and temporary role space occupants and in the organisational consequences of shared authority. These findings are shown to have important implications for the representation of distributed leadership practice and for policies which intensify the role demands imposed on solo role incumbents.

Positioning oneself for leadership: feelings of vulnerability among aspirant school principals

The research context for this article is the difficulty being experienced by a number of school systems, especially in the UK, USA, Canada and Australia, in recruiting principals. In our discussion we draw on preliminary findings from ongoing research into the experiences of a cohort of aspiring primary and secondary school principals. Our data comprise the electronic journal (E‐journal) entries of the 21 aspirants. We characterize the E‐journal reflections as identity narratives in which the aspirants are able to explore a range of feelings, challenges and uncertainties associated with the possibility of future principal role incumbency. The significance of these E‐journalling narratives, therefore, is that they provide aspirants with an opportunity, through semi‐private reflection, to begin positioning themselves for leadership. For this reason we articulate the idea of ‘positioning space’, a supportive holding environment which facilitates the exploration of potential and possible selves and we explore some properties and protocols associated with occupancy of this space.

Leadership: its genealogy, configuration and trajectory

This article provides a longitudinal analysis of leadership. In the first section of the article, the evidence reviewed indicates how, historically, leadership has been significant in various societal arrangements in the co‐ordination of actions for collective purposes. Such co‐ordination may also be facilitated through self‐organisation, except that this mechanism struggles in the face of genetic human pre‐dispositions to dominate, and the group‐level threshold effects of small numbers. The second section discusses the leadership field’s longstanding fixation with heroes. It shows how, in the face of the compelling evidence in the previous section of small group reverse dominance hierarchy and dyarchy, for example, the evidential basis for such heroic individualism is questionable. This second section also discusses distributed leadership. It argues for its abandonment and replacement as an analytical unit of analysis by the idea of leadership configurations comprising combinations of role sets. These claims are illustrated with historical and contemporary examples. The final section of the article argues for evidence‐based capabilities as an antidote to heroic leadership. Here, a range of problems and possibilities associated with identifying capabilities for leading learning are discussed along with some implications for future research and theory in the field.

From Distributed to Hybrid Leadership Practice

Ideas come and go. Some retain their usefulness, while some fall by the wayside. Still others survive with their original integrity intact, while others undergo major surgery or revision. To this point in its career history, the signs for distributed leadership are optimistic. If one casts a roving eye back across a decade or so, between the point of its arrival and its more recent uptake, then this particular view of leadership appears to have weathered an initial stage of conceptual exploration and is now well into a phase of empirical investigation. Moreover, some sense of its impact (and the difference, if any, that it makes) is becoming clearer. In short, distributed leadership displays a number of the hallmarks of survival. Having said that, and without wanting to adopt a glass half-empty mentality, the purpose of this chapter is to give voice to some caveats and concerns. These include: first, a need to revisit the provenance of distributed leadership and to set the genealogical record straight; second, to rethink the meaning of the term; and, third, to inquire about future directions and what comes next. Taken at face value, these first two concerns have a rather deceptive “housekeeping” quality about them. That is, answers to the questions appear to serve the interests of conceptual tidiness. In fact, the clarity they introduce has significant implications for how researchers and commentators understand leadership more generally. In relation to the third concern, somewhat paradoxically, I am suggesting that, just as distributed leadership appears to have come into its own, it would be profitable to begin thinking beyond it. Throughout the chapter (but especially in the final section) I suggest what this would entail, why this needs to occur and how it might be done. To expand on each of these points, it can be said, for example, in relation to the first that, notwithstanding the current level of interest in distributed leadership, the claim that the leadership of an organization observes a distributed pattern is