titioners and educational reformers (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2008; Leithwood et ... Unfortunately, the leadership field is particularly susceptible to new theories or.
Chapter 1
Distributed Leadership: What We Know Alma Harris
Introduction Distributed leadership has caught the attention of researchers, policy-makers practitioners and educational reformers (Spillane, 2006; Harris, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2009a). It is the leadership idea of the moment, even though its genesis can be traced back to the field of organizational theory in the mid 1960s (Barnard, 1968). Critics argue that distributed leadership is nothing more than a “new orthodoxy” which reinforces managerialist principles (Fitzgerald and Gunter, 2007). Alternatively, others argue it offers a new way of thinking about leadership in schools and provides a powerful tool for transforming leadership practice (Spillane et al., 2001). Unfortunately, the leadership field is particularly susceptible to new theories or labels for leadership. The leadership industry is fuelled by new ways of defining and describing leadership practice. Many of these theories or labels appear in the leadership field without any empirical evidence or testing. They are championed, celebrated and exploited before being added to the stockpile of redundant leadership theories. Distributed leadership is undoubtedly “the new kid on the block” (Gronn, 2000) and is firmly centre stage in the discourse about leadership and organizational change. But what evidence do we have that distributed leadership is all that some claim or wish it to be? How do we know if it has more potential than any other form of leadership to secure organizational change and improvement? What evidence do we have about its impact on organizational change and development? This chapter reviews the evidence base and explores what is known about the relationship between distributed leadership and organizational change. It outlines the empirical evidence, highlights the main findings and identifies areas for future investigation.
A. Harris (B) Institute of Education, 20 Bedford Way, London, WCIH OAL Note: This chapter is based on Harris, A. (2008) Distributed Leadership: What We Know? Journal of Educational Administration 46 Issue: 2 Page:172–188.
A. Harris (ed.), Distributed Leadership, Studies in Educational Leadership 7, C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009 DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9 2,
11
12
A. Harris
What We Know The contemporary evidence base about distributed leadership is still emerging but there is now increasing evidence about its relationship with organizational change (Leithwood et al., 2009a). A wide range of studies now exist that have explored how different patterns of distribution influence organizational outcomes and organizational change (Spillane and Camburn, 2006; Harris, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2009b; Mayrowetz et al., 2009; Camburn and Won Han; Hallinger and Heck in this book). Findings show that the configuration of leadership distribution is important and that certain patterns of distribution have a more positive effect than others upon organizational development and change (Leithwood et al., 2009a). The emerging evidence also shows that distributed leadership has a greater impact upon organizational development where certain structural and cultural barriers are removed (Harris, 2008). It highlights that the configuration of distribution matters in school development and change. These findings are further substantiated by the organizational development and improvement literature. Within this literature is the strongest indication yet that distributed leadership has the potential to positively influence organizational change (Iandoli and Zollo, 2008). Interest in the idea of distributed leadership has undoubtedly been fuelled by associations with certain organizational benefits (e.g., Manz and Sims Jr., 1993; Gronn, 2002; Burke, Fiore et al., 2003). Work by Graetz (2000) presents distributed leadership as a positive channel for change. He notes that “organisations most successful in managing the dynamics of loose – tight working relationships meld strong personalized leadership at the top with distributed leadership”. Similarly Gold et al. (2002) point towards the development of leadership capacity within the school and its distribution as a key lever of organizational success. In their review of successful school improvement efforts, Glickman et al. (2001) construct a composite list of the characteristics of the “improving school” (p.49) defined as a school that continues to improve student learning outcomes for all students over time. At the top of this list appear “varied sources of leadership”, including distributed leadership. The school improvement literature similarly highlights a positive relationship between distributed leadership and change in schools. This research base has consistently underlined the importance of teacher involvement in decision making processes and the contribution of strong collegial relationships to school improvement and change. Little (1990) suggests that collegial interaction lays the groundwork for developing shared ideas and for generating forms of leadership that promote improvement. Rosenholtz (1989) argues even more forcibly for teacher collegiality and collaboration as means of generating positive change in schools. Her research concludes that effective schools have tighter congruence between values, norms and behaviors of principals and teachers and that this is more likely to result in positive school performance. Distributed leadership also features predominantly in the literature relating to professional learning communities. This literature shows that professional learning communities make a significant difference to student achievement and that
1 Distributed Leadership
13
leadership within these communities is widely shared or distributed (Louis and Marks, 1998). Extending leadership responsibility beyond the principal is shown to be an important lever for developing effective professional learning communities in schools (Morrisey, 2000) A range of other studies (Portin, 1998; Blase and Blase, 1999; Hallinger, 2000; Hallinger and Heck in this book) reinforce a positive relationship between certain organizational outcomes and distributed forms of leadership practice. More recently, distributed leadership has been identified as a key influence in sustaining professional learning communities (Stoll and Louis, 2007). It might be expected therefore that if even just a few of the claims made in the literature about distributed were to materialize, then the impact on schools would be significant (Leithwood et al., 2009a). However the evidence about impact is limited. Even within the teacher leadership literature, which is extensive, there is relatively little evidence of a direct impact on student learning outcomes (York and Barr, 2004). Rather, the empirical weight supports the greatest impact on the professional growth of the teacher leaders themselves, in terms of higher self efficacy and morale (Murphy, 2005). There is some evidence which shows that informal leadership “dispersion” can negatively affect team outcomes by contributing to inefficiencies within the team. Therefore having fewer leaders rather than more would seem preferable. In their work, Heinicke and Bales (1953) found that having fewer informal leaders was positively related to task efficiency over time. Other writers have argued that having fewer informal leaders enhanced peoples’ feelings of being socially validated for their work (Festinger, Schacter et al., 1950). Distributed leadership has also been identified as one of six “obstacles” to effective team performance: the clear differentiation of role responsibilities and the assignment of those responsibilities to particular team members provides a measure of stability and predictability that is otherwise lacking on a team where role assignments are poorly defined. . . An individual’s security derives largely from his being able to count upon a stable social environment. (Melnick, 1982, p 3.)
The contemporary literature points to some of the practical difficulties associated with distributing leadership in schools. It shows that distributed leadership can result in conflicting priorities, targets and timescales. Boundary management issues and competing leadership styles can emerge (Storey, 2004: Timperley, 2009). The evidence shows that in practical terms, implementing distributed leadership implies crossing structural and cultural boundaries. While distributed leadership among teachers may be desirable, some caution needs to be sounded about the potential difficulties involved. Although formally appointed leaders do not automatically command respect and authority, teacher leaders may be particularly vulnerable to being openly disrespected and disregarded because they do not carry formal authority. On the other hand, nomination of teacher leaders by colleagues may not realize potential expertise within the group because colleagues may select their leaders using other criteria (Timperley, 2005). p 412).
14
A. Harris
In their work, Fitzgerald and Gunter (2007:6) question whether it is possible for distributed leadership to occur in a policy climate that affords authority and responsibility for leadership and management to those labeled according to an established hierarchy? The implication here is that existing school structures mediate against distributed leadership practice and that this type of informal influence and agency is not possible within the existing hierarchical structure of schooling. Fitzgerald and Gunter (2007) also suggest that teacher leadership merely cements authority and hierarchy whereby “leaders” monitor teachers and their work to ensure a set of pre-determined standards are met. The empirical evidence conversely shows that authority and hierarchy are more likely to be challenged by those who are teacher leaders (York-Barr and Duke, 2004). The evidence highlights that the role of “leader” is not one imposed upon teachers, it is usually selected. Similarly, there is little evidence to suggest that teacher leadership is used a mechanism to monitor performance (Lieberman, 1995; Murphy, 2005). As highlighted earlier, the literature does reveal some reservations about the relationship between teacher leadership and student learning outcomes. This relationship is worth particular attention and scrutiny.
Distributed Leadership and Student Learning Outcomes Positions on the relationship between distributed leadership and student learning outcomes vary. Some writers have argued that seeking to explore this relationship is a futile exercise. They suggest that the search for normative links between specific leadership distribution patterns and student achievement results is unlikely to yield clear guidelines for practice (Anderson et al., 2009:135). Others have argued that distributing leadership is only desirable if the quality of leadership activities contributes to “assisting teachers to provide more effective instruction to their students” (Timperley, 2009:220). Reflecting upon these positions, Robinson (2008) and Harris (2008) argue that any exploration of the relationship between distributed leadership and student learning outcomes is only desirable and possible, if the leadership literature is more closely connected to the pedagogical literature. It is suggested that linking studies of leadership practice much more closely to learning practice will bring us closer to addressing the question of whether and how different pattern or configurations of distributed leadership contribute to student learning outcomes. There are already a range of studies that have touched upon the relationship between distributed leadership and learning outcomes. There are two studies, in particular, that offer a useful starting point in highlighting what we know about distributed leadership and student learning outcomes. The first study undertaken by Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) in Canada and the second conducted by Silins and Mulford (2002) in Tasmania, both focus on this relationship as part of much broader empirical investigation. The findings from the Leithwood and Jantzi (2000) research suggest that distributing a larger proportion of leadership activity to teachers has a positive influence on teacher effectiveness and student engagement. They also note that teacher
1 Distributed Leadership
15
leadership has a significant effect on student engagement that far outweighs principal leadership effects after taking into account home family background. Silins and Mulford’s (2002) work has also provided cumulative confirmation of the key processes through which more distributed kinds of leadership influence student learning outcomes. Their work concluded that student outcomes are more likely to improve when leadership sources are distributed throughout the school community and when teachers are empowered in areas of importance to them. (p) Other, smaller scale studies, have also demonstrated a positive relationship between distributed leadership and student learning outcomes. A study of teacher leadership conducted in England found positive relationships between the degree of teachers’ involvement in decision making and student motivation and self efficacy (Harris and Muijs, 2004). This study explored the relationship between teacher involvement in decision making within the school and a range of student outcomes. These findings show a positive relationship between distributed leadership and student engagement. In addition, both teacher and student morale improved where teachers felt more included and involved in decision making within the school. The “Distributed Leadership Study” (Spillane et al., 2001) undoubtedly remains the largest contemporary study of distributed leadership practice in schools. This four year longitudinal study, funded by the National Science Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, was designed to make the “black box” of leadership practice more transparent through an in depth analysis of leadership practice. The central premise for the study is that distributed leadership is best understood as distributed practice, stretched over the school’s social and situational contexts. This research, which focused on 13 elementary schools in Chicago, found that the task of instructional improvement engaged multiple leaders and highlighted how understanding the interplay between different leaders is crucial to understanding leadership practice. This study suggests that the school rather than the individual leader is the most appropriate unit for thinking about the development of leadership expertise. It also noted that intervening to improve school leadership may not be most optimally achieved by focusing on the individual formal leader but may be secured through influencing the practices of multiple leaders. Work by Copland (2003) which focused on improvement in eighty six schools that were engaged in data-driven, whole school reform similarly found extensive staff involvement in the leadership of the schools. The study highlighted the importance of involvement at all levels in decision making. The research identified positive trends in performance resulting from the large scale move towards more participatory and distributed patterns of leadership. Other research that has looked explicitly at the relationship between leadership and student learning outcomes has also highlighted the importance of distributed leadership. Work by Day et al. (2007:17) notes: substantial leadership distribution was very important to a school’ success in improving pupil outcomes. The findings from this study also showed that distributed leadership was positively correlated to the conditions within the organisation, including staff morale, which in turn impacted positively upon student behaviour and student learning outcomes (Day et al. 2009).
16
A. Harris
The evidence from this project highlighted that leadership practices in the most effective schools were widely distributed and the relationship between vertical and horizontal leadership structures was porous and inter-changeable. It reinforced that the principals or heads largely determined the nature and pattern of leadership distribution in their schools. The patterns they chose were determined by three main influences: a) their personal view of leadership (e.g. need for control) b) their own stage of development as a leader c) their estimates of the readiness of their staff to take on greater leadership (Day et al., 2007:19). Other contemporary studies that have focused, in part, on the relationship between leadership and learning (Leithwood et al., 2009b; Mascall et al., Louis et al., in this book) have also highlighted the influence of distributed leadership practices. In their work, Mayrowetz et al., (2009) offer a theory of both how and why leadership distribution might be expected to have positive consequences for students. They argue that “redesigned work in schools can lead to motivated and better equipped educators with a broader view of their schools and that these educators in turn will perform leadership functions which will both deepen and lengthen reform efforts” (Mayrowetz, 2009:191). In their work Mascall et al., (in this book) explore the relationship between planfully aligned forms of distributed leadership and academic optimism. Their results offer reasonable support for efforts to ensure that leadership is distributed in schools in planful ways.
Patterns of Distribution Much of the recent empirical work concerning distributed leadership has focused on patterns of distribution (Leithwood et al., 2007, 2009a). Findings show that the patterns of leadership practice in a school affect organizational performance. They also reveal that the effects and impact of distributed leadership on organizational outcomes depends upon the pattern of leadership distribution. Leithwood et al. (2006) highlight two key features necessary for successful leadership distribution. First, leadership needs to be distributed to those who have, or can develop, the knowledge or expertise required to carry out the leadership tasks expected of them. Second, the initiatives of those to whom leadership is distributed need to be coordinated, preferably in some planned way (Leithwood, 2006). These two conditions for successful leadership distribution are the starting points for Locke’s (2003) “integrated model” of leadership. This model acknowledges both the reality and the virtues, in most organizations, of distributed leadership based on multiple forms of lateral (e.g., teacher to teacher) influence. Also acknowledged are the “inevitable” sources of vertical or hierarchical leadership in virtually any successful organization.
1 Distributed Leadership
17
Gronn (2002) distinguishes between two distinct forms of distributed leadership that help further clarify Locke’s model. Gronn labels these forms “additive” and “holistic”. Additive forms of distribution describe an uncoordinated pattern of leadership in which many different people may engage in leadership functions but without much, or any, effort to take account of the leadership efforts of others in their organization. Locke’s model suggests that such unplanned patterns of distributed leadership would do little to help the organization develop or grow. Holistic or person-plus leadership (Spillane, 2006) refers to consciouslymanaged and synergistic relationships among some, many, or all sources of leadership in the organization. These forms of distributed leadership assume that the sum of leaders’ work adds up to more than the parts. It is also assumed that there are high levels of interdependence among those providing leadership and that the influence attributed to their activities emerges from dynamic, multidirectional, social processes which, at their best, lead to learning for the individuals involved, as well as for their organizations (Pearce and Conger, 2003). Gronn (2002: 657) has suggested that concertive forms of distributed leadership may take three forms:
r r r
Spontaneous collaboration: From time to time groupings of individuals with differing skills and knowledge capacities, and from across different organizational levels, coalesce to pool their expertise and regularize their conduct for duration of the task, and then disband Intuitive working relations: This form of concertive distributed leadership emerges over time “. . .as two or more organizational members come to rely on one another and develop close working relations” and, as Gronn argues, “leadership is manifest in the shared role space encompassed by their relationship” Institutionalized practice: Citing committees and teams as their most obvious embodiment, Gronn describes such formalized structural as arising from design or through less systematic adaptation.
The extent and nature of coordination in the exercise of influence across members of the organization is a critical challenge from a holistic perspective. When role overlap occurs in a coordinated fashion there can be mutual reinforcement of influence and less likelihood of making errors in decisions. Some elaboration and refinement of Gronn’s (2002) holistic forms of distributed leadership have been proposed by Leithwood et al. (2006b):
r
Planful alignment – This configuration is comparable to Gronn’s “institutionalized practice”. The tasks or functions of those providing leadership have been given prior thoughtful consideration by organizational members. Agreements have been worked out among the sources of leadership (principals, heads of department and teachers etc) about which leadership practices or functions are best carried out by which source. Although alignment is generally considered a good thing for organizations, positive contributions of this configuration to productivity cannot be automatically assumed.
18
r
r
r
A. Harris
Spontaneous alignment – In this configuration, leadership tasks and functions are distributed with little or no planning, for example: the principal assumes she will be responsible for modeling values important to the school and everyone else makes the same assumption. Nevertheless, tacit and intuitive decisions about who should perform which leadership functions result in a fortuitous alignment of functions across leadership sources. There is no significant difference in the contribution to short-term organizational productivity of this “method” of alignment, as compared with planful alignment. However, the tacit nature of decisions this method entails seems likely to reduce the flexibility and adaptability of the organization’s responses to future leadership challenges. Spontaneity offers few guarantees of fortuitous alignment. Spontaneous misalignment – This configuration mirrors spontaneous alignment in the manner of leadership distribution, as well as its underlying values, beliefs and norms. However the outcome is different or less fortuitous – misalignment (which may vary from marginal to extensive). Both short- and long-term organizational productivity suffer from this form of (mis)alignment. However, organizational members are not opposed, in principle, to either planful or spontaneous alignment thus leaving open reasonable prospects for future productive alignment of one sort or another. Anarchic misalignment – This configuration is characterized by active rejection, on the part of some or many organizational leaders, of influence from others about what they should be doing in their own sphere of influence. As a result, those leaders’ units behave highly independently, competing with other units on such matters as organizational goals and access to resources. Active rejection of influence by others, however, stimulates considerable reflection about one’s own position on most matters of concern.
Findings by Leithwood (2006:2007) and Mascall et al. (in this book) suggest that planful patterns of alignment have the greatest potential for short-term organizational change. Furthermore, planful alignment seems more likely to contribute significantly than other patterns of distribution to long-term organizational productivity. The research found that both spontaneous misalignment and anarchic alignment were likely to have negative effects on both short and long-term organizational change and development.
Commentary The empirical evidence about distributed leadership and organizational development is encouraging but far for conclusive. We need to know much more about the barriers, unintended consequences and limitations of distributed leadership before offering any advice or prescription. We also need to know the limitations and pitfalls as well as the opportunities and potential of this model of leadership practice. The methodological challenges in addressing these questions are extensive (Timperley, 2005: 417). Yet, as Spillane et al. (2009; and in this book) have shown
1 Distributed Leadership
19
distributed leadership provides a powerful analytical lens to look at ways in which organizational development and learning take place. It offers a frame to help researchers in the leadership field build evocative cases that can be used to assist practitioners in thinking about their ongoing leadership practice. It also provides a basis for measuring and investigating a more comprehensive and complex set of leadership practices that go beyond the checklists of leadership characteristics, skills and strategies. Contemporary studies of distributed leadership are going beyond the conceptual and empirical descriptions of what distributed leadership is to look much more closely at issues of impact and outcome. Ironically, if we shun the opportunity to undertake research about impact because of the methodological challenges it is more, likely that we will be blinkered to the limitations of distributed leadership (Timperley, 2005). We undoubtedly need empirical studies that highlight both the inadequacies of distributed leadership practice, as well as the possibilities.
References Barnard, C. (1968). Functions of the Executive. Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. Blase, J. R. and J. Blase (1999). “Implementation of shared governance for instructional improvement: Principals’ perspecitves.” Journal of Educational Administration 37(5): 476–500. Burke, C. S., S. M. Fiore, et al. (2003). The role of shared cognition in enabling shared leadership and team adaptability. Shared Leadership: Reframing the How and Whys of Leadership. C. J. Pearce and J. A. Conger. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage: 103–122. Copland, M. A. (2003). “Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 375–475. Day, C., K. Leithwood, P. Sammons, A. Harris, and D. Hopkins (2007). Leadership and Student Outcomes, London, DCSF Interim Report. Day, C., K. Leithwood, P. Sammons, A. Harris, and D. Hopkins (forthcoming). Leadership and Student Outcomes, London, DCSF Final Report. Festinger, L., S. Schacter, et al. (1950). Social Pressure in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing. New York, Harper. Fitzgerald, T. and M. Gunter (2007). Teacher Leadership: A New Myth for Our Time? Chicago, AERA. Gold, A., J. Evans, P. Early, D. Halpin, and P. Collabone (2002). “Principled principals? Evidence from ten case studies of ’outstanding school teachers’.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., and Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2001). Supervision and instructional leadership. MA: Allyn & Bacon., Needham Heights. Graetz, F. (2000). “Strategic change leadership.” Management Decisions 38(8): 550–562. Gronn, P. (2000). “Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership.” Educational Management and Administration 28(3): 317–338. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership. Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration. K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers: 653–696. Hallinger, P. and P. Kantarmara (2000). “Educational change: Opening a window onto leadership as a cultural process.” School Leadership and Management 20(2): 189–205. Harris, A. and D. Muijs (2004). Improving Schools Through Teacher Leadership. London, Oxford University Press.
20
A. Harris
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed Leadership: What We Know? Journal of Educational Administration 46(2): 172–188 ISSN 9578234. Heinicke, C. M. and R. F. Bales (1953). “Developmental trends in the structure of small groups.” Sociometry 16: 7–38. Iandoli, L. and G. Zollo (2008). Organisational Cognition and Learning, New York, Idea Group Incorporated. Leithwood, K. and D. Jantzi (2000). The effects of different sources of leadership on student engagement in school. In K. Riley and K. Louis (Eds.), Leadership For Change and School Reform, London, Routledge.: 50–66. Leithwood, K. D., C. Sammons, P. Harris, A. and Hopkins, D. (2006a). Successful School Leadership What It Is and How It Influences Pupil Learning. London Report to the Department for Education and Skills. Leithwood, K., B. Mascall, T. Strauss, R. Sacks, N. Memon, and G. Yashkina (2006b). “Distributing Leadership to Make Schools Smarter.” Leadership and Policy. Leithwood, K., B. Mascall, and T. Strauss (2009a). Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, London, Routledge. Leithwood, K., B. Mascall, T. Strauss, R. Sacks, N. Memon, and A. Yashkina (2009b). Distributing Leadership to Make Schools Smarter: Taking Ego out of the System. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, and T. Strauss (2009). Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, London, Routledge. Lieberman, A. (1995). “Practices That Support Teacher Development: Transforming Conceptions of Professional Learning.” Phi Delta Kapan 6: 591–596. Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional relations. Teachers College Record 91(4): 509–536. Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the Top in Pearce, C. J. and Conger, C. (eds) Shared Leadership: Reforming the Hows and Whys of Leadership, Thousand Oaks, CA Sage. Louis, K. S. and H. Marks (1998). “Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student work in restructuring schools.” American Educational Research Journal 33(4): 757–798. Manz, C. C. and H. P. Sims Jr. (1993). “Self-management as a substitute for leadership: A social learning perspective.” Academy of Management Review 5: 361–367. Mayorwetz, D. (2008). Making sense of Distributed Leadership: Exploring the Multiple Usages of the Concept in the Field Educational Administration Quartely 44: 424–432. Mitchell, C. and L. Sackney (2000). Profound Improvement, Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Lisse, Swets & Zeitlinger. Morrisey, M. (2000). “Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration.” Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting Teacher Leadership and School Improvement. Thousand Oaks CA, Corwin Press. Portin, B. S. (1998). “Compounding roles: A study of Washington’s principals.” International Journal of Educational Research 29(4): 381–391. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers’ Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York, Longman. Silins, H. and W. Mulford (2002). Leadership and school results. Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration. In K. Leithwood and P. Hallinger (Eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands, Kluwer: 561–612. Spillane, J., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J. (2001). “Towards a Theory of Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective” Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research Working Article. Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed Leadership. San Francisco CA, Jossey-Bass. Spillane, J. P. and E. Camburn (2006). The practice of Leading and Managing: The Distribution of Responsibility for Leadership and management in the Schoolhouse. American Educational Research Association. San Francisco.
1 Distributed Leadership
21
Stoll, L. and Seashore Louis, K. (2007). Professional Learning Communities, New York, Open University Press. Storey, A. (2004). “The Problem of Distributed Leadership in Schools.” School Leadership and Management 24(3): 249–265. Timperley, H. (2005). “Distributed Leadership:Developing theory from practice.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 37(4): 395–420. York-Barr, J. and K. Duke (2004). What Do we Know about Teacher Leadership? Findings from Two Decades of Scholarship Review of Educational Research 74(3):255–316. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in Organisations. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
