Leadership Functions
While it is important to distinguish that leadership functions are stretched across leaders, followers, and the situation as a whole when studying educational leadership, one must first identify which leadership functions – performed by any leaders – have the desired impact on followers across varied contexts (Leithwood et al., 2007). This is
an important aspect to consider before delving into which of these functions are best distributed to multiple individuals beyond the formal leaders of a school. The functions examined here are ones that have been proven to be transformational, encapsulating relatively broad categories of good leadership that can be applied in most situations (Leithwood et al., 2007). These categorical functions are setting a direction, building capacity, redesigning the organization, and managing the instructional program (Leithwood et al., 2007).
The first leadership function to be examined is that of setting a direction. This aspect of effective leadership involves creating a shared concept of where the
organization currently is functioning, a shared vision or where the organization is headed, and a collective set of goals that if accomplished will allow the organization to move from its current state in a direction towards its ideal state (Leithwood et al., 2007). This includes articulating the shared vision through effective communication, building a culture that has high expectations, and helping to build momentum towards supporting common goals (Leithwood et al., 2007). Vision setting is the first necessary cog of direction setting. It is critical for building creative tension between the school’s current reality and the vision for where the school should ideally be. Then, to
successfully implement a shared vision, leaders must articulate the vision and encourage school wide support (Leithwood et al., 2007). This buy-in comes in the form of common goals that if met will lead the school along the path towards a shared direction while revealing a commitment to high expectations for all (Leithwood et al., 2007). Leaders should be able to artfully communicate and express both vision and goals to all
stakeholders in a way that leaves little doubt as to the direction of the school and limits any possibility for misinterpretation (Leithwood et al., 2007).
While setting a clear, achievable direction is critical for leading a school towards change, other leadership functions are needed to increase the likelihood of success. One of these subsequent leadership functions involves developing members of the school community in their ability to act or work in such a way that leads the organization closer to the goals and the vision set by the direction of the school or district (Leithwood et al., 2007). The leadership functions that are noted as part of this category of building people involve leaders working to offer and improve the professional development provided to all staff (Leithwood et al., 2007). This can be followed by modeling specific practices determined as a focus for the school or through the professional development offerings and modeling the overall values of the organization (Leithwood et al., 2007). Building people also involves offering individual support for staff members and
mentoring as teachers interact with the wide variety of tasks and problems they face on a daily basis (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Through these leadership activities, leaders provide a direct effect on both the motivations of others and the technical core of education: teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2007). Teacher efficacy, or the capacity of a teacher or a team of teachers to produce the desired results, encapsulates both this mastery of the technical core and motivation to see it through. It is driven by four key components: the ability to master the task at hand, the emotional state of those involved, the successes or failures of those working in concert, and social motivation (Mascall et al., 2009). To build efficacy, teachers need to have the ability to master the tasks they are set to implement (Mascall et al., 2009). Teachers must understand what they are teaching, how to best teach it, how to know if students are learning, and what to do if students are not meeting
are learning best practices and pedagogy, with an explicit focus on modeling the appropriate tasks to be implemented (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Leaders must have an understanding of this technical core of teaching and learning as they facilitate the growth of others, but they cannot rely solely on this knowledge (Leithwood et al., 2007). Knowing the people they are trying to lead and having a high emotional intelligence is just as if not more important in effective capacity building (Leithwood et al., 2007). According to Walker and Riordan, “Given that school leadership is centrally concerned with the interpretation and enactment of values within a specific social and human context, leadership is essentially relational” (2010, p. 52). The relational aspect of capacity building is critical to this leadership function, with the most crucial element being a teacher’s belief that motivates him or her to act (Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss & Sacks, 2009). Teachers need to believe that they and their colleagues have the ability to accomplish the task at hand, and this should be fostered throughout the organization (Mascall et al., 2009). Teachers also need to trust in the formal leadership of the school and their colleagues (Mascall et al., 2009). Trust is the leadership linchpin for building successful schools. To build teacher efficacy, there must be trust between leaders and followers that there will be support as teachers implement higher-level tasks, and there must be trust between colleagues in that there is a belief that all are willing and able to take on these tasks (Harris & Muijs, 2004; Mascall et al., 2009). Overall, higher rates of teacher efficacy stem from mastery of the technical core of teaching and learning, motivation to implement high quality teaching, and high levels of trust – all of which, in turn, increase student mastery and a willingness to take risks and innovate (Mascall, 2009).
Along with setting the direction for a school and building the capacity of those in the school community, it is important to consider redesigning the organization as the next leadership function. This set of leadership activities works toward building optimal working conditions where staff can best take advantage of the capacities that are
fostered in the organization (Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008). Redesigning school organization can be centered around creating and improving collaborative structures (Leithwood et al., 2007; Leithwood, Harris & Hopkins, 2008). Collaborative decision- making processes using school leadership teams, committees and various other teams are all approaches that can help engage many in leadership activities of a school
(Leithwood et al., 2007). Another leadership activity under the category of redesigning the organization is building the community of the school and strengthening its culture (Leithwood et al., 2007). These efforts can be seen as schools build Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) that seek to change the structures around teacher collaboration and collective learning in order to support the process of teacher
improvement (Leithwood et al., 2007). Engaging parents and the broader community is another possible redesign effort to involve more partners in the work of teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2008). Adapting systems and structures in the school to allow and support teachers as they grow professionally or targeting improvements to the school’s culture are elements where changes to the organization might have a positive benefit on working conditions (Leithwood et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008). In the early stages of a turnaround process for a struggling school, a formal leader might need to improve communication or alter school-wide norms in order to lay the groundwork for future changes intended to increase student achievement (Leithwood et al., 2008).
creating an environment that maximizes teachers’ ability to grow and change instructional practices.
The final leadership function that is important to impacting student success is the management of teaching and learning (Leithwood et al., 2008). This function, like redesigning the organization, seeks to build a positive working environment for teachers by creating a stable organization and a strong infrastructure (Leithwood et al., 2008). Four categories of this leadership function are evident and necessary to consider (Leithwood et al., 2007). First, leaders must ensure that the instructional program is fully staffed with the right personnel to meet the school's vision (Leithwood et al., 2007). Second, leaders must also monitor teaching, student learning, and progress toward school improvement goals (Leithwood et al., 2007). Third, leaders need to deflect tasks or distractions that might interfere with the core technology of schooling (Leithwood et al., 2007; Leithwood et al., 2008). Finally, monitoring the instructional program requires leaders to align resources to the overarching goals of the school (Leithwood et al., 2007). Managing instructional programs requires consistent and planned systems and structures that align the work and resources of the school to allow teachers to teach and students to learn at optimal levels (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Leadership Function in a Distributed Environment
After examining these major categories of effective leadership, it is important for this research to determine which of these leadership functions are expressed differently in schools that are effectively distributing leadership. Three major studies reveal
potential clues that pinpoint these differences. First, a study of a large suburban and urban school district in Ontario, Canada by Leithwood et al. (2007) examined schools that showed clear efforts towards implementing a distributed model. The second study
by Day et al. (2009) examined a number of schools across England. The third study by Hargreaves et al. (2011) investigated a variety of organizations, including schools that perform beyond the expectations set in their field. Each of these studies deployed a mixed methods approach, using quantitative measures to first identify the schools to be studied, and then qualitative measures to collect and analyze data concerning factors involved with distributing leadership. The findings in these studies indicate types of leadership activities in schools that effectively distribute leadership.
Setting Direction in a Distributed Environment
When examining the leadership function of setting a direction for a school or district, it is clear that the heads of schools articulate a clear vision and direction (Day et al., 2009; Leithwood et al., 2007). This vision not only guides their own action but also influences the actions of others (Day et al. 2009). The school leader is the key driver for the creation and communication of the vision of the school (Day et al., 2009). They are also responsible for ensuring all new initiatives are aligned with the school vision (Day et al., 2009). For setting and communicating the vision, it appears that others in the school community play more of a consultative role instead of having any real decision- making authority. Informal leaders are more instrumental in setting high expectations and encouraging others towards the stated vision (Leithwood et al., 2007). They are typically less involved with creating the vision (Leithwood et al., 2007). The
proliferation of the stated vision by informal leaders throughout the school and the onboarding of new staff are extensive in successful schools (Day et al., 2009). Because vision setting is still under the purview of administrators of schools where distributed leadership is effectively implemented, one may think that setting a school’s vision does
address the potential negatives or benefits of distributing vision creation and
communication (Leithwood et al., 2007). More research in this area is needed to draw conclusions concerning the role of informal leaders in this process, but it is clear that maintaining high expectations aligned with the articulated vision and motivating colleagues to meet these expectations are key distributed leadership activities (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Developing People in a Distributed Environment
Developing people from these studies of schools where distributed leadership is implemented shows an emphasis on teaching and learning (Day et al., 2009; Leithwood et al., 2007). In the Leithwood et al. (2007) study, findings suggest that non-
administrators are more likely to provide support on an individual basis through modeling of the expected practices than administrators. Teacher leaders, school-based administration and central office leadership all participate in building teacher efficacy through professional development (Leithwood et al., 2007). In the Day et al. (2009) research, it is clear that all staff are focused on improving achievement through the betterment of teaching and learning.
Teachers are encouraged to be leaders in their own classrooms, which leads to more positive perceptions concerning their own ability as professionals and their own efficacy (Day et al., 2009). This culture of risk taking permeates the school and
positively affects the interactions between staff and students (Day et al., 2009). Risk taking is nurtured when failures are used as learning opportunities, which can bring a staff together to move forward to face failures and problems that have occurred
(Hargreaves et al., 2011). Leaders in these situations take on the challenges highlighted by failure and work harder to find optimal solutions (Hargreaves et al., 2011).
Classroom observations in a distributed model are different as well because they are supportive and growth promoting instead of arbitrary and punitive (Day et al., 2009). Teachers thus perceive these observations as a way to grow professionally and extend their teaching ability (Day et al., 2009). Overall, these high-performing schools are ones that do not grow the capacity of staff to implement a program or a top-down initiative. These schools that perform beyond expectation build people to innovate and create (Hargreaves et al., 2011). Through autonomy and distributed leadership, staff are flexible risk takers who think and act outside of the box in order to meet the needs of all students (Hargreaves et al., 2011).
A foundation of trust undergirds these school environments where leadership is distributed so that teachers lead and take risks in their classes, where all staff are invested in learning and many staff play a role in teaching their colleagues. There is a strong relationship between student outcomes and trust between formal school leaders and staff, teachers and other teachers, and staff and parents (Day et al., 2009). The distribution of leadership is in essence a communication of this trust from formal to informal leaders (Day et al., 2009). At schools that distribute leadership effectively, principals note four key factors concerning their own beliefs and actions involving trust that are consequential in deciding if and when to distribute leadership (Day et al., 2009). The first factor is whether or not the formal leader believes that their staff cares about students and will work to benefit their outcomes (Day et al., 2009). The second belief is a disposition of trust that comes from seeing benefits of trusting others in past situations (Day et al., 2009). The third involves formal leaders trusting others by
element of trust involves creating trust in the organization by building and
implementing structures that reiterate the core vision and values of the school (Day et al., 2009). Mascall and colleagues (2009) found that when teachers are both assured in their ability to teach and work in an environment where they have trusting
relationships, they are more apt to discuss teaching strategies and pedagogy with their colleagues. The core value of trust is the foundation for creating an environment where, through the positive impact of teacher motivation on teacher capacity, instruction can improve student achievement (Day et al., 2009). If trust is not in place, then distributed leadership functions that support teacher efficacy and student learning cannot be
implemented effectively (Harris, 2013).
Redesigning the Organization in a Distributed Environment The research on redesigning the organization from schools that have implemented a distributed leadership model includes increased distribution of
leadership for this function as well (Day et al., 2009; Leithwood et al., 2007). School- based administrators thoughtfully redesign structures and distribute leadership to provide staff with more ownership over the tasks being implemented (Day et al., 2009). This planful alignment is set to encourage staff to work towards improvement in student learning (Day et al., 2009). The specifics of these changes in the organization vary across schools, but the common component is a change in the hierarchical structure to a flatter organization (Day, et al., 2009). Decisions concerning responsibilities are made based on the abilities of those asked to lead and the needs of the school (Day et al., 2009). Changes made at these schools are defined and communicated to staff by not only documenting the new roles and expectations, but also revealing the purpose of the redesign (Day et al., 2009). In each school in the Day et al. (2009) study, leadership
distribution was expanded to involve more people. Teams had not only teaching staff but also support staff as members, which was perceived to improve teacher efficacy, and school leaders supported this distributed effort (Day et al., 2009). Schools in this study also had accountability systems and professional standards that are both strong and site-specific (Day et al., 2009). In the Leithwood et al. (2007) study, informal leaders tended to be more responsible for redesigning the organization than their formal leader counterparts. The leadership activities of seemingly most importance that executed by informal leaders focused on the work of building collaborative units and improving community in the school (Leithwood et al., 2007).
Leadership, according to Walker and Riordan, “is about building the capacity of the collective to make a difference” (2010, p. 52). The importance of the collaborative team aspect in redesigning the organization is highlighted by both the Day et al. (2009) and the Leithwood et al. (2007) studies. A professional learning communities (PLC) model is an often-used type of collective capacity building. The PLC model is not one where individuals with similar job descriptions complete mundane tasks collectively; it is one with disciplined inquiry at the heart of the tasks that are accomplished (Harris, 2014). PLCs involve teams that can manage themselves with little to no oversight and can create their own goals, curricula, and reflect and improve instructional strategies (Harris, 2014). They use former outputs as inputs to inform interventions to meet the need of the learner using a clear problem-solving cycle (Harris, 2014). The PLC chooses its facilitator, its members, and its focus (Harris, 2014). Schools now are faced with the new and the novel at greater rates, and these high rates of change require a workforce that is adaptable and effectively able to deal with changing circumstances both inside
distributed decision-making power have the potential to be successful in our dynamic world (Harris, 2014).
To accomplish this collective capacity building, it is critical that organizations are able to get the most out of their collaborative units (Hargreaves et al., 2011). If a staff member is struggling in one role, then a new role can be found that is a better fit (Hargreaves et al., 2011). It is also critical that relationships between colleagues working together must be built and nurtured (Walker & Riordan, 2010). Leaders in schools that perform beyond expectations must engage themselves in these collaborative tasks to set a model and provide support both intellectually and emotionally to those collaborating (Hargreaves et al., 2011; Walker & Riordan, 2010).
Managing the Instructional Program in a Distributed Environment Finally, Leithwood et al. (2007) found that informal leaders focus on certain elements of managing the instructional program. These informal leaders not only serve on committees but facilitate their work as well (Leithwood et al., 2007). They manage new programs and initiatives by supporting and encouraging their colleagues
(Leithwood et al., 2007). Informal leaders in schools that distribute leadership are responsible for providing resources and deciding how resources should be distributed (Leithwood et al., 2007). They also are responsible for sharing pertinent information with and from formal leaders in the school building (Leithwood et al., 2007). School administrators spend more time delegating these activities (Leithwood et al., 2007). Staffing the instructional program is a task that is taken on by administration, while monitoring student learning and the school improvement process is a shared task between formal and informal leaders (Leithwood et al, 2007).
The research around leadership functions that are most often distributed in successful schools point to several key findings. First, vision setting and articulation in schools that effectively distribute leadership is still under the control of the