Management in Education Copyright © 2007 British Educational Leadership,

Management & Administration Society (BELMAS), Vol. 21(2): 21–27.

DOI: 10.1177/0892020607076657
www.sagepublications.com

Distributed leadership
in secondary schools in
England: the impact on
the role of the
headteacher and other
issues
Trevor Arrowsmith
Open University, Milton Keynes, UK

Introduction 3. Enter distributed leadership: develop the

A
t a well-publicised conference on distrib-
uted leadership (DL) in 2004, the
National College for School Leadership
(NCSL) nailed a number of DL colours to its
corporate mast. DL had arrived as a new buzz-
word for our CVs and, more importantly, as a
possible solution to the crisis in headteacher
(HT) recruitment and retention.
The proposal was that:
1. HTs’ job descriptions, as confirmed by the
Hay Group, were among the most diverse
and demanding of any senior executive
across the business and education spheres.
2. The HT role was becoming unsustainable
and distinctly unattractive to many senior
staff who would in a quieter age have
aspired to the role.
make a positive difference to the recruitment
and retention of heads? This is not my main
capacity of your school and lighten the HT’s
burden, freeing her/him to do those key
things only HTs can do.
4. Enliven colleagues and improve provision/
raise standards for pupils.
This thinking was either coincidental or engi-
neered to chime with New Labour’s cooperation
rather than competition agenda for schools.
The recent General Teaching Council
(GTC) survey of full- and part-time teachers
reported in the Guardian on 5 September 2006
suggests a deepening crisis in headteacher
recruitment. With a sur vey response rate of
37 per cent, only 4 per cent of respondents
were considering headship in the next five
years while, simultaneously, 34 per cent of
heads are due to retire by 2011. So, will DL
research focus, but it is possible to
hypothesise around this question

21 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 21
 given some of the early field data described
below. The GTC sur vey does give an
urgency to the identification of effective
retention and recruitment strategies.
But what exactly is
DL?
The comprehensive A5 boxed set of DL mate-
rials released at the 2004 NCSL conference
leaves schools to make up their own minds and
discover their own path through DL. It
includes some interesting research by the Hay
Group (2004), MacBeath et al. (2004), cited
Arrowsmith (2005).
Distributed leadership (DL) is an emerging
form of power distribution in schools which
extends authority and influence to groups or
individuals in a way which is at least partly
contrary to hierarchical arrangements. There is
a continuum of views of what constitutes DL,
with the research findings of Spillane and his
acolytes and Gronn and his followers at the
contrasting extremities.
The critical issue, from a distributed per-
spective, is not that leadership is distributed
but how it is distributed. And, how it is dis-
tributed over leaders, followers, and their
situation ...
Who leads … depends on the leadership
function and on the leadership function or
activity ...
From a distributed perspective, leadership
practice takes shape in the interactions of
people and their situation, rather than from
the actions of an individual leader. (Spillane,
2006)
As MacBeath et al. (2004) note, terms such as
‘dispersed leadership’, ‘shared leadership’, ‘col-
laborative leadership’ and ‘democratic
leadership’ make up an ‘alphabet soup’ of
descriptors. In his 2004 research, MacBeath
identifies an important distinction in the con-
struction of DL in his sample of schools which
is key to the placing on the continuum of exam-
ples of DL. Distributed leadership may be
‘given’ or ‘taken’. Where it is given, the addi-
tional autonomy is conferred on an individual
or group by the headteacher or a member of
the senior leadership team (SLT). When
taken, as is most usually the case within the
studies of Spillane & Harris (2003/2005),
groups of staff (rarely individuals) take action
to improve the curriculum and/or teaching and
learning gener- ally with out reference to team
leaders, the SLT
DL implies the involvement of the many leadership moves away from concentrating on those in
rather than the few in leadership tasks, and is formal leadership positions to consider those leadership
premised on a collective approach to capac- practices that occur daily through informal interaction
ity building in schools. A DL perspective on and col- laboration. (Harris & Lambert, 2003)
22 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015
or the headteacher. Variations on this theme are
provided by Gronn and Spillane. Gronn (2003)
identifies two distinct forms of DL:
■ Additive – the uncoordinated distribution of
leadership, which implies its ‘taken’ quality.
■ Holistic – the consciously managed and syn-
ergistic leadership relationships among
some, many or all sources of leadership in an
organisation – leadership distribution which
is ‘given’.
Spillane’s terms for additive and holistic distri-
butions of leadership are ‘parallel leadership’
and ‘person plus’ leadership (2006).
Hobby (in Hay Group, 2004) identifies dis-
tributed leadership:
Neither … is it merely another word for del-
egation or empowerment ... Contrar y to
expectations, the virtues of warmth, egalitar-
ianism, collegiality or democracy were not
the cornerstones of distributed leadership:
they were not absent, of course, just not the
raison d’être of the school. (3.1, p. 25)
Hay Group research for NCSL (2004) identi-
fies five ‘pillars’ on which distributed
leadership is built in schools:
1. Self-confident and self-effacing headship
2. Clarity of structure and accountability
3. Investment in leadership capability
4. A culture of trust
5. A turning point
According to the Hay Group, of central impor-
tance are clear lines of accountability. The
greater the degree and extent of the distribu-
tion of leadership, the more important is the
process of accountability if institutional anar-
chy is to be avoided. ‘Where we saw distributed
leadership succeed in this study it was rooted
in clarity and accountability …’ (Hay Group,
cited in Arrowsmith, 2005: 6) and further,
‘effective role definition is more important still’
(Hay Group, cited in Arrowsmith, 2005: 13).
Distributed leadership is shared leadership
throughout an organisation but based around a
common vision (Harris, 2003). Harris, like
Spillane, links DL to teachers collaborating to
improve classroom practice for the benefit of
pupils. In contrast to the Hay Group view of
DL, Harris sees the role of headteacher and
other team leaders in the school hierarchy as of
secondary importance to the establishment and
functioning of DL.
MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 22

Structural arrangement is less important
than the opportunity for collaboration over
problem solving and collective action.
(Harris, 2005)
The following is the strongest and most
recently published expression of Harris’s view
of DL, which defines it as a unique distribution
of leadership:
Critics of DL argue that it is little more than
another term for delegation, as someone has
to do the distributing. To think this way is
to misunderstand what DL means and to
con- fuse it with traditional, hierarchical
notions of power …
Implicit within DL is collective leadership
responsibility rather than top down author-
ity. It is not about giving others tasks or
responsibilities but recognizing that leader-
ship practice is constructed through shared
action and interaction. (Harris, 2005)
Leithwood’s view is that DL is distinct from
shared, collaborative or democratic leadership
in that it ‘assumes a set of direction setting and
influence practices potentially enacted by
people at all levels rather than a set of personal
characteristics and attributes located in people
at the top’ (Leithwood, 2006: 20).
This is an interesting take on DL: the more
general notion of capacity building through the
extending of leadership formally and informally
to groups and individuals. This view occupies
the opposite end of the DL continuum to the
views of Spillane and Harris and was originally
initiated by Gronn. In 2003, he identified dif-
ferent patterns of DL: a far cry from the
ghettoising, specialism of Harris, cited above:
■ role overlap;
■ coordination (often by secretaries);
■ decision-making on the part of a group;
■ shared roles;
■ committees;
■ teams.
More generally, Gronn describes division of
labour as a form of DL: middle managers are
23 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015
very important in this conception of leadership
distribution. In work in 2000, Gronn presents
DL as situated in the collective actions and
interactions of a group of staff as a form of
cojoint agency.
Woods et al. in their 2004 review of the DL
literature identify three dimensions which char-
acterise distributed leadership. First, it is
owned by a group rather than an individual
and is the product of ‘concertive action’.
Second, the boundaries are open with regard to
who can be included in the leading. Third,
there is a variety of expertise across the group
of distributed leaders.
Accountability
In a review of the literature on the contribution
of leadership to school improvement, Hallinger
and Heck (2003) state that ‘achieving results
through others is the essence of leadership’ (p.
229) and that the role of transformational lead-
ership is ‘to help others find and embrace new
goals individually and collectively’ (p. 222).
Hatcher writes: ‘How is the commitment of
teachers to management agendas to be
achieved? The favoured strategy in school
management discourse is the notion of “dis-
tributed leadership”’ (2005: 253). It is central
to the Leadership Development Framework
adopted by the National College for School
Leadership. In the ‘Think Tank’ Report to
Gover ning Council, Professor David Hopkins
wrote of ‘the substantial contribution that dis-
persed and distributed leadership and
“network” leadership can make to the climate
of the organisation’ (Hopkins, 2001: 6).
Hatcher’s key argument is that: ‘There is there-
fore a tension – I would say a fundamental
contradiction – between distributed leadership
and government-driven headteacher manageri-
alism’ (Hatcher, 2005: 254). Hatcher sees the
central command and control stance of the
government with regard to schools, as prevent-
ing true DL from flourishing, as the agenda
and accountability mechanisms are dictated
from the centre.
Distributed and pseudo-democratic leader-
ship can be seen as the translation into
school management discourse of the idea,
central to New Labour, that some conces-
sions to participatory processes at the lower
levels of a managerialist power structure
represent popular democracy.
As Wainwright comments, this has become a
global discourse characterised by ‘the circum-
scribed patronising limits within which popular
participation is encouraged’ (2003: 192). ‘I
MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 23
 participate, we participate, but they decide over
what kind of issue we can decide’ (p. 193).
So, there appears to be a tension not only
between some aspects of the Gronn–Spillane
views of DL but a more fundamental one
between the truly democratic climate necessary
for real DL and the, at best, pseudo-demo-
cratic climate which inhibits DL.
An expression of the latter is seen in the
issue of accountability within DL. As described
above, the NCSL-commissioned Hay Group
DL research 2004 identifies the need for more
rigorous accountability as leadership autonomy
is rolled out across the school, to prevent a
descent into anarchy. Conversely, as noted by
Odoru (2004) and Hatcher (2005), accounta-
bility is an inhibiting/fear factor. In these lively
days of virtually unannounced Ofsted inspec-
tions, league tables and parental choice it is
understandable that some headteachers might
not feel so confident in distributing responsi-
bilities ver y widely, if at all beyond the
most conventional of job descriptions. Staff
too might think twice before accepting that
smiling headteacher’s invitation to ‘lead on the
intro- duction of the performance
management system’. Hence, the
accountability contradiction
– can’t live with it/can’t do without it: appar-
ently. But, my research in schools tells a slightly
different story.
Research methodology
My research in progress aims to answer two
questions.
1. What do headteachers do to develop/sustain
DL?
2. What is the impact of DL on the role of the
headteacher?
My approach involves working with six English
secondar y schools of contrasting character,
using a case study, ethnographic methodology.
The latter includes semi-structured interviews
with five staff in each school: the headteacher,
another member of the SLT, a subject team
leader, a ‘pastoral’ team leader and a teacher
who is not an NQT. Triangulation is
further provided by the obser vation of key
meetings involving middle leaders and SLT,
and scrutiny of relevant documents.
Early outcomes
1. How DL is developed
Following some work in four of the six sample
schools, themes and patterns are beginning to
emerge around the two research questions.
The development of DL was underway
in three of the sample schools and well-
24 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015
established under a long-serving headteacher
in the fourth school. An immediate common-
ality was the cautious nature of the roll out of
DL in the three schools and its strongly ‘given’
character. The head of a new school com-
mented that DL provides:
an opportunity for staff to take on leadership
roles at different times. It’s essential as the HT
role is too large for one person. Staff need the
freedom/autonomy to make decisions in the
context of clear outcomes and roles. I am
looking to push responsibility down through
the school, but this needs time and training.
This will develop school capacity.
In each of the schools, the accountability contra-
diction was not overtly inhibiting the
distribution of autonomy in decision-making,
although it could be argued that concerns over
external accountability by the head are behind
the exclusively given nature of the DL
observed. Staff were willing to take on leader-
ship roles, frequently unremunerated, at the
invitation of the head. Accountability was an
issue raised by inter viewees who saw it as:
operating vertically through the line-manage-
ment system; operating horizontally within and
across teams; and residing ultimately in the
headteacher having overall accountability for
the school’s progress.
There is an emerging degree of consistency
as to the generic role of the head in the devel-
opment of DL. Staff see the role of the HT in
developing DL on a daily basis. I asked them to
identify from a list of HT behaviours those
they considered of high, medium or low signifi-
cance in advancing DL. This is what they said
with regard to the high ratings.
HT actions encouraging DL rated high by
100 per cent of interviewed staff:
■ effective communication across the school;
■ structures;
■ advocacy to individuals;
■ occasional encouraging words;
■ staff appointments;
■ systematic defining of required outcomes ;
■ developing trust.
HT actions encouraging DL rated high by 80
per cent of interviewed staff:
■ shared vision;
■ defining roles;
■ giving support after errors.
The above categories are not in priority order
but they do in general echo the staff and
MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 24
headteacher views in the schools I have visited.
They consist of process features which might
be classed as part of the school ethos (develop-
ing trust/occasional encouraging word/giving
support after errors) and more instrumental,
structural actions (staff appointments/defining
structures and roles).
All staff said they were in favour of DL as it
‘made them feel valued’ and gave them oppor-
tunities. They also unanimously conceived DL
as ‘given’, not taken.
One head described how he went about the
development of the school’s capacity, including
the risks.
1. During the first two years, the HT ‘carried the
change agenda to get the school to re-think’.
2. He then removed ‘a blocking colleague’ from
the SLT and appointed a positive deputy head.
3. Extended emotional intelligence training
with staff enabled the exploration of issues
and approaches to sustain change. This
included exploring how to draw others into
leadership – i.e. to develop DL.
4. The responsibilities of SLT and a few other
staff were renegotiated on the basis of best fit.
5. In September 2005, ahead of TLR, a new
lead- ership and management structure was
agreed. This created an extended SLT of
eleven staff, including two very difficult
colleagues.
6. One of these colleagues was invited to lead
the introduction of the new house system
which a number of interviewees had identi-
fied to me as a major change, not only
structurally, but because it encouraged all
tutors to take an interest in issues across the
school. This colleague responded positively
to the challenge of persuading staff to sup-
port the introduction of a house system and,
according to the HT, better appreciated
what challenges senior leaders and other
leaders faced as a consequence.
The success of this incremental extension of
DL has resulted in there being eleven key lead-
ers who are working with other team leaders on
effective leadership and not just management.
The fact that there is now a rota for leading the
main school assembly rather than it always
falling to the HT is a small but significant indi-
cation of the change to a more DL climate.
The HT also indicated that although his key
structural decisions were important, it is the
ongoing micro-behaviours, modelled by the
SLT and himself, that are equally influential in
making a climate in which DL can work.
Sharing the new vision and individual coaching
of staff were perceived by the HT and all inter-
viewees as particularly significant aids to the
25 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015
establishing of DL. Again, accountability is
clear, but is not an inhibiting factor for the HT
or any of the interviewed staff. DL is seen now
as bringing opportunity and higher standards
of attainment.
The issue of climate, including trust, was also
seen as central by the long-serving head of the
fourth school where DL was endemic.
MacBeath’s analysis (2004) that climate is key
to the success of the development of DL in six
phases includes the central role of trust. This is
expressed through relationships between staff
and especially between the head and staff. All
interviewees at this school referred to the very
good relationships between staff which led to a
high degree of information exchange, coopera-
tion and ‘creativity’. MacBeath identifies that
the development of multi-level formal and
informal accountability systems is also impor-
tant in the process of building trust: ‘… this
may mean creating more lateral learning and
exchange, more peer mentoring and evaluation,
a greater openness to criticism and challenge,
modelled by those in senior and middle leader-
ship positions’ (MacBeath, 2005: 39).
This context is close to MacBeath’s sixth
phase of DL which he labels ‘Distribution
Culturally’ (2005). As Gronn (2002) sug-
gested, ‘the potential for leadership is present
in the flow of activities in which a set of organi-
sation members find themselves enmeshed’.
Even here, however, the distribution is ‘negoti-
ated through’ (HT) between staff and the head
and so remains ‘given’, although interviewees
stress how receptive the head and SLT are to
ideas from all staff irrespective of status or
length of service.
2. The impact of DL on the role of
headteacher
So, with DL underway or established, what are
the consequences for the head’s role and how
they spend their time? There are some similari-
ties in the views of the four headteachers
inter viewed and some contrasts which are
related to the level of DL development in the
individual schools.
All four heads commented on the benefit of
time which DL conferred on them and the
opportunity this provided for them to specialise
within their broad role, although with one
exception they believed they were working simi-
lar hours despite DL. They also agreed that the
public role and strategic whole-school planning
role were not appropriate areas for delegation.
As one head expressed it: DL ‘enables me to
find the next clearing in the jungle.’
The head of a school where DL was embry-
onic described her work focus in relation to the
developing DL as: ‘More planning and thinking
MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 25
 initially; more robust monitoring and evaluating
at the far end. This necessitates getting more
feedback and hence better communication.’
In contrast, the long-ser ving head with
strong DL commented:
Headteachers have a responsibility for suc-
cession planning and a need for people to
develop, e.g. LftM and Fast Track staff. I do
more work on bigger ideas, the international
school and extended school; more work with
the LA as this will benefit school; more
external work including SiP and NCSL
work; but also, more evaluation of teaching
and learning in the classroom.
So, without exception the sample heads see DL
as useful if not essential in allowing them to
make a qualitative difference to the work of the
school by focusing on particular aspects of the
broad HT job description.
The long-ser ving head captured the com-
mitment to DL demonstrated by each of the
sample heads in his concluding remarks to me:
‘DL is a moral and political issue – a view of
school culture.’
(This paper was initially presented at the
October
2006 national BELMAS conference held at Aston
University, Birmingham.)
References
Arrowsmith, T. (2005) ‘Distributed leadership: three
questions, two answers. A review of the Hay Group education
research, July 2004’. Management in Education, 19, 30–3.
Bassey, M. (1999) Case study research in educational settings.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Bell, J. (1999) Doing your research project. Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Bennett, N., Glatter, R. & Levacic, R. (eds) (1994) Improving
educational management. Buckingham: Open University/PCP.
BERA (2004) Revised ethical research guidelines. Nottingham:
BERA.
Blase, J. and Anderson, G.L. (1995) The micro-politics of
educational leadership: from control to empowerment. London:
Cassell.
Bottery, M. (2002) ‘Educational leadership and political
realities’. Educational Management and Administration, 30,
157–74.
Coleman, M. & Briggs, A. R. J. (eds) (2002) Research methods
in educational leadership and management. London: PCP.
Engestrom, Y. (2000) ‘Comment on Blackler et al. “Activity
Theory and the Social Construction of Knowledge: A Story
of Four Umpires”’. Organizational Dynamics, 7, 301–10.
Fullan, M. (2004) Leading in a culture of change: personal
action guide and workbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (2005) Leadership and sustainability. California:
Corwin Press.
‘Investigating school leadership practice: a distributed perspective’.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2001) Educational Researcher, 30, 23–8.
26 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015
Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed properties: a new architecture
for leadership’. Educational Management and Administration,
28, 317–38.
Gronn, P. (2002a) Distributed leadership. Camberley: Kluwer.
Gronn, P. (2002b) ‘Distributed leadership as a unit of
analysis’. Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–51.
Gronn, P. (2003) ‘Leadership: who needs it?’. In Towards
a new theoretical perspective. London: Paul Chapman.
Group, T. H. (2004) ‘The five pillars of distributed
leadership’. In NCSL (ed.) Distributed leadership.
Nottingham: NCSL.
GTC (2006) ‘Survey of full and part-time teacher
intentions’. Online: http://www.gtce.org.uk/research/tsurvey
Hallinger, P. H. R. (2003) Understanding the contribution
of leadership to school improvement. London: Sage.
Hallinger, P. & Heck, R.H. (1996) The principal’s role in
school effectiveness: an assessment of methodological progress,
1980–1995. London and Dordrecht.
Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995) Ethnography:
principles in practice. London: Routledge.
Harris, A. (2003) Teacher leadership: a new orthodoxy?
London: Pearson Press.
Harris, A. (2005) ‘Leading or misleading? Distributed
leadership and school improvement’. Journal of Curriculum
Studies, 37, 255–65.
Harris, A. & Chapman, C. (2002) ‘Democratic leadership for
school improvement in challenging contexts’. Paper
presented to International Congress on School Effectiveness
and Improvement, Copenhagen.
Harris, A. & Lambert, L. (2003) Building leadership capacity.
Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hatcher, R. (2005) ‘The distribution of leadership and
power in schools’. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26,
253–67.
Hay Group (2004) ‘The five pillars of distributed
leadership’. In NCSL (ed.) Distributed leadership.
Nottingham: NCSL.
Hopkins, D. (2001) ‘Think Tank’ report to governing council.
Nottingham: NCSL.
Leithwood, K. E. A. (2006) ‘Distributing leadership to make
schools smarter’, Research Report Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada, Ontario.
Leithwood, K., Jantzi, D. & Steinbach, R. (1999) Changing
leadership for changing times. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
MacBeath, J. (2005) ‘Leadership as distributed: a matter of
practice’. School Leadership and Management, 25(4), 349–66.
MacBeath, J., Oduro, G. K. T. & Waterhouse, J. (2004)
‘Distributed leadership’, in NCSL (2004) National Standards
for headteachers [revised], in Employment, DFEA (ed.).
Oduro, G. K. T. (2004) ‘Distributed leadership in schools:
what English headteachers say about the ‘pull’ and ‘push’
factors’. BERA Conference paper, September. Online: http://
www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00003673.htm, p. 20.
Sergiovanni, T. (2001) Leadership: what’s in it for schools?
London: Routledge/Falmer.
Southworth, G. (2002) Distributed leadership in action: a study
of current practice in schools. Nottingham: NCLS.
Spillane, J. (2006) Distributed leadership. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 26
Spillane, J., Halverson, R. & Diamond, J. B. (2004)
‘Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed Contact
perspective’. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3–34. E-mail: T.J.Arrowsmith@open.ac.uk
Wainright, H. (2003) Reclaim the state. London: Verso.
Woods, P. A., Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A. & Wise, C.
(2004)
‘Variabilities and dualities in distributed leadership: findings
from a systematic literature review’. Education Management
Administration & Leadership, 32, 439–57.

27 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 Downloaded from mie.sagepub.com at University of Ulster Library on May 20, 2015 MiE, Vol 21 issue 2 27