PurposeThis paper aims to assess the empirical utility and conceptual significance of distributed leadership.Design/methodology/approachThree main sources of evidence are drawn on. The paper reviews some neglected commentary of an early generation of distributed leadership theorists. It also discusses a strand of social science writings on emergent small number management formations. An alternative interpretation of the findings of three recent empirical studies of distributed leadership is provided. Some unresolved issues are considered.FindingsDistributed leadership arose in reaction to understandings of leadership that emphasised heroic‐like individual behaviour. It has achieved a high level of theoretical and practical uptake. This paper, however, argues for reconsideration. Distributed leadership is shown to be largely unremarkable, especially in light of the continuity between current writings and those of early generation scholars. This claim is also reinforced by the inability of most current scholars to develop the emergent potential of a tradition of writings on the division of labour in small groups (emanating mainly from the work of Georg Simmel). Finally, the paper argues that a more appropriate descriptor for recent leadership analyses may be “hybrid”, rather than “distributed”.Originality/valueConceptually and empirically, there is still work to do. First, leadership's distributed status now aligns it with power and influence, each for some time recognised as distributed, although the preference for leadership as a vehicle of analysis ahead of power and influence still lacks sufficient justification. Second, while distributed leadership is sometimes thought of as synonymous with democratic organisational leadership, the latter is shown to be conceptually distinct.
In this article I argue for a revised unit of analysis in leader ship. I refer to this unit as a configuration. The need for this revision arises out of a reconsideration of 'distributed' as a valid and accurate means of representing leader ship. While aggregated, rather than holistic, understandings of distributed leader ship have assumed prominence in educational circles and the public sector, aggregation is an indiscriminate approach to demonopolizing the idea of solo leader ship and decentring 'the' leader. By treating pluralities of leaders as numerically equivalent or allof-a-piece, for example, an aggregated understanding makes little allowance for different levels of leader ship and for qualitative differences among leading units. In a number of empirical accounts of distributed leader ship, however, individual leaders still figure prominently as agents of influence, although they frequently do so in company with a variety of emergent 'small number' formations. For this reason, the totality of such arrangements represents a time-, space-, context-and membership-bound configuration of influence-based relationships, the dynamics of which, due to the mixed patterning of the formations, are most accurately characterized as 'hybrid'. Some suggestions are made concerning the significance of this proposed unit revision along with their implications for research into leader ship practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.