CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
2.5 Distributed Leadership Theory
2.5.1 Description of distributed leadership
The theoretical construct that underpins this research is distributed leadership theory. Similar to other leadership concepts, distributed leadership is defined in various ways. Bennett, Harvey, Wise and Wood (2003) emphasize that there seems to be “little agreement about the meaning of the term distributed leadership‟‟ (p.3). Interpretations and understandings, therefore, vary.
However, these authors suggest that it is best to think of distributed leadership as a way of thinking about leadership rather than another technique. Harris and Muijs (2005) concur that distributed leadership is not a blue print for change but rather a way of rethinking current leadership practice.
In addition to varying definitions of distributed leadership, little is known about how distributed leadership is maintained and sustained in different organizations. Internationally, current research has not addressed the issues of different school contexts and how this influences their ability to promote and enact form of distributed leadership (Harris and Muijs, 2005). In South Africa, there is very little literature that explores what distributed leadership is, how leadership is distributed in the schools and there is certainly no literature on distributed leadership in the context of an FET College. Therefore, we need contemporary studies of distributed leadership practice in the South African context and especially in the context of the FET College.
2.5.1.1 Distributed leadership as practice
This study works from the premise that distributed leadership is defined as the interaction between leaders, followers and the situation (Spillane, 2006). This idea is supported by Bass (1990) cited in Spillane who states that distributed leadership is an “interaction between two or more members of a group that often involves structuring and restructuring of the situation and the perception and expectation of members” (2006, p.10). Moreover, Dahl (1961) and Cuban (1988) cited in Spillane (2006) concur that distributed leadership recognizes the centrality of followers to leadership which is why leaders do not only influence, but can also be influenced by others. Distributed leadership, as Gronn (2000) states, is not something one does to the other, but
instead it is a social practice which occurs in the interactions between leaders and followers in particular situations. In other words, the situations determine the leaders, not the hierarchy or the position. I agree with Spillane‟s idea, because delegating leadership to a stakeholder is not sufficient. I argue that there must be the interaction between the leader, follower and the situation. In the FET College context, the rector must be involved in the activities of the college even when a lecturer is leading in a particular situation. In such a case, the rector could be the follower and interact with the lecturer leader. What matters here, therefore, is who owns the required expertise, not the formal position.
Gronn (2000) endorses the above position by arguing that distributed leadership is fluid and not fixed to a particular position or individual, like the traditional view of leadership. Similarly, Bennett et al (2003) view distributed leadership as “a network of interacting individuals and through this dynamism people work together in such a way that they pool their initiative and expertise” (p.7). For me, this means that distributed leadership incorporates the expertise of many individuals in the college who take on leadership roles. As highlighted above, Spillane (2006) states that distributed leadership is not only the devolution of power to the many but how leaders interact with followers in a given situation. In other words, acknowledging that multiple leaders take responsibility for leadership is insufficient. The collective interaction among leaders, followers and the situation leading to a leadership practice is also important. In practice, the situation and the expertise required will determine a leader rather than roles, structures and the responsibilities that a person has. In addition, I concur with Gleeson and Knight that
“depending on the demand of the moment, individuals who are not appointed as formal leaders can rise to the occasion to exhibit leadership and step back at other times to allow others to lead”
(2003, p.16).
In summary, the person with the necessary leadership skills or knowledge should be given an opportunity to lead. This person must also be given power and authority to make decisions regardless of the position she holds and whether her leadership is formal or informal. The view, which this study supports, is based on the view of Harris and Muijs (2005) that “distributed leadership concentrates on engaging expertise wherever they exist in the organization rather than seeking it through the formal roles” (2005, p.28). This fluidity, according to Gronn (2000) blurs
the distinction between leaders and the followers. It opens boundaries of leadership meaning that classroom based lecturers can make a huge difference to the college leadership. In South African FET Colleges there is a wealth of knowledge and leadership expertise amongst the classroom lecturers that can be identified and utilized in particular situations. These skills should not be stifled but must instead be utilized. These classroom leaders must be invited to engage in leadership activities according to their expertise (Grant, 2005). Bennett et al (2003) call this an
„open boundary‟, where expertise is distributed across the many, not the few individuals. In this way, lecturers can be effectively engaged in leadership if the rector and campus managers relinquish empirical power in order to empower the lecturers. It is important to note that it is not just technical aspects that must be relinquished but possibly authority, responsibility and legitimacy to perform a task, in order to make a difference in the FET College, thus improving students‟ performance.
2.5.1.2 Distributed leadership as delegated from the head teacher to others.
Distributed leadership can take place through delegation. Gunter (2005) suggests that delegation is one form of distributed leadership that takes a top down approach which she refers to as authorised distributed leadership. In the FET context, authorised distributed leadership takes place when leadership is distributed from the rector to classroom lecturers. Similarly, Bennett et al (2003), state that distributed leadership can be positional and informal thus exploring both top down and bottom up dichotomies. However, Harris and Muijs (2005) argue that delegation is not distributed leadership. They state that “within distributed leadership there is a collective leadership responsibility rather than a top down approach” (p.9). Harris and Muijs (2005) further state that it is not about giving others tasks and responsibilities but rather recognizing that the leadership practice is constructed through shared action and interactions. Similarly, Spillane (2006; 2008) supports Harris and Muijs (2005) that distributed leadership is not just delegated but that it emerges through the interaction with other people and the environment. My take on this issue is that South Africa is still in the infant stages of leadership development. The rectors in the FET context are still using their positional power to lead. The Department of Education still requires that rectors be solely accountable for the functioning of the FET Colleges. Because of these dynamics in the country, I suggest a delegated form of distributed leadership, authorised distributed leadership according to Gunter (2005), as a starting point where rectors devolve
power to subordinates. When this form of leadership is in place then other forms of distributed leadership that are more emergent (dispersed and democratic) can be explored.
2.5.1.3. Distributed leadership as emergent from the individual
Distributed leadership is also viewed as emerging from an individual, regardless of the position the person holds in the organization. Bennett et al (2003) argue that distributed leadership is not something done by an individual to another. It is not something that can be prescribed or imposed but instead it emerges within the individual. The influence of distributed leadership shifts as different individuals emerge and are influential over others. Grant, in the context of South Africa, asserts that “by allowing distributed leadership to emerge, genuine and sustained changes are more likely to occur and the collaborative ethos with an emphasis on sound teaching and learning are likely to happen‟ (2006, p.514).
Emergent distributed leadership take place where the institution functions without formal hierarchical relationships. In this scenario, lecturers take up leadership without being told but on realizing a need. Gunter (2005) characterizes this form of leadership as dispersed distributed leadership. This emergent form of distributed leadership is more bottom-up, through networks, as the individual interests are promoted through groups and through the community. If applied within a college context, this would mean that lecturers (followers) would accept emergent leadership from a person because of the skills, knowledge and expertise the person has in the field she is leading (knowledge power). In this form of leadership, powers relations shift from the formal leader in the college to the Lecturer leader concerned which leads to effective teaching and learning.