About this Resource

Managing Research Projects

Managing Research Projects

Distributed leadership

[c]
There are many leaders, not just one. Leadership is distributed. It resides not solely in the individual at the top, but in every person at entry level who, in one way or another, acts as a leader… " (Goleman, 2002)

It is argued that distributed leadership is not a ‘style’ of leadership – as transformational, transactional – but a method (Petrov 2006). It is more likely and more appropriate to use in HE. It is less about leader/follower, but involves contribution from many stakeholders. It is an integral part of daily activities and interactions between everyone across the organisation, irrespective of position’ (ibid).

Distributed leadership has the advantage of ‘increasing initiative, creativity and spontaneity and therefore individuals have the power to influence events’. However, as accountability stays with the leader, individuals are ‘shielded’ both from the risks and the rewards.

As important as a collective working approach to this method is the need for a clear vision.

Benefits and disadvantages of distributed leadership

Benefits
  • More responsive to customer/market requirements
  • Improved quality of decision making, i.e., leads to stronger sense of ownership
  • Increases financial transparency (of financial devolution)
  • More entrepreneurial, therefore generates more initiatives and ideas
  • Generates improved levels of motivation and enthusiasm
  • Convenient way to manage desired complex demands 
  • Provides an opportunity to see role and the work of leaders and how to develop towards these roles
  • Engages better team work and better relations between academics and managers/administrators
  • Improves communications
  • Promotes shared knowledge and reduces the likelihood of one person holding key information (reduces threats)
Disadvantages
  • Work will become fragmented if there is no core value and mission that is worked towards
  • Financial devolution may result in rich/poor departments as some are more successful than others at securing funding
  • As a result, internal competition may arise
  • There may be a lack of clarity about roles and present possibilities to bypass a level of authority
  • Decision-making process may slow down with the involvement of more people
  • Distributed leadership may be rhetoric with decision already having been made, this leads to a breakdown in trust and communication
  • May devalue leadership role, with everyone thinking they can do it
  • Focus for leadership development may reduce

Despite some substantial disadvantages, Petrov’s research concludes that academics support the distributed leadership approach and saw it as conceivable in practice. However, the following are important factors to support the effective working of this approach in HE:

  • Good levels of trust must be built and maintained
  • Accountability/risk should be distributed in line with the leadership tasks, as must the rewards. In the case of research work this could extend to authorship recognition on publications of junior team members.
  • A common vision is necessary
  • Leaders must be visible and credible
  • The status level of leadership needs to be raised to the same status as academics
  • Leaders need to learn to ‘let go’ and not keep too tight a rein on their followers.

teamdev.jpg