ARTICLE

Educational Management Administration & Leadership

ISSN 1741-1432 DOI: 10.1177/1741143208100301
SAGE Publications (London, Los Angeles, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC)
Copyright © 2009 BELMAS Vol 37(2) 257–277; 100301

Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

Rhetoric and Reality

Richard Bolden, Georgy Petrov and Jonathan Gosling

ABSTRACT

In this article we present findings from research in 12 UK universities that sought to

capture a range of perspectives on ‘distributed leadership’ and reveal common and
competing experiences within and between institutions. From analysis of findings we
identified two principle approaches to the distribution of leadership: ‘devolved’,
associated with top-down influence, and ‘emergent’, associated with bottom-up and
horizontal influence. We argue that while literature on distributed leadership largely
promotes the latter, the former is equally (if not more) significant in terms of how
leadership is actually enacted and perceived within universities. We conclude,
therefore, that as a description of leadership practice, the concept of ‘distributed
leadership’ offers little more clarity than ‘leadership’ alone. As an analytic framework
it is a more promising concept drawing attention to the broader contextual, temporal
and social dimensions of leadership. Fundamentally, though, we argue that distributed
leadership is most influential through its rhetorical value whereby it can be used to
shape perceptions of identity, participation and influence but can equally shroud the
underlying dynamics of power within universities.

KEYWORDS blended, collegiality, emergent, managerialism, power, shared

Introduction
Higher education (HE) in the UK is undergoing a major transition; changing
funding mechanisms, regulation and audit, increasing customer demands,
competition and internationalization all parts of the shifting landscape.
Combined with a need to deliver high quality teaching and research and engage
more actively with business and community it is, perhaps, unsurprising that
‘good leadership’ is increasingly espoused as a strategic and operational impera-
tive (HEFCE, 2004). The structure and nature of HE institutions, however, is
not generally well suited to managerialism or ‘top-down’ leadership. There
remains a deep-seated desire for collegiality, consultation and academic
freedom (Middlehurst, 1993; Deem, 2001). In such a context, where
universities must steer an uncertain path through competing and conflicting

257
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

demands and expectations, how can they offer a sense of continuity, motivate
staff to work towards a shared purpose and mobilize collective effort through-
out the organization rather than just from senior figures?
Partly in response to these challenges the HE sector in the UK is increasingly
espousing the practice of ‘distributed leadership’ (LFHE, 2004) whereby leader-
ship is conceived of as a process dispersed across the organization (within
systems, activities, practices and relationships) rather than residing within the
traits, actions and/or capabilities of ‘leaders’ in formal positions. Despite having
embraced this concept, however, it is still not clear what is actually distributed
(in terms of power or accountability), the processes by which it is distributed,
or whether the concept itself offers substantial benefits for either practice,
analysis or policy-making.
In this article we present findings from a research project that explores the
manner in which leadership is perceived and enacted at different levels in UK
universities. We will explore whether the concept of ‘distributed leadership’
offers a useful framework for understanding the nature of leadership within
such organizations and will reveal some of the paradoxes and tensions faced
when leading in HE.
In conclusion we argue that as a description of leadership practice the notion
of ‘distributed leadership’ is rather too broad to be of much use. Instead, we
argue, its main value is as an analytic framework, drawing attention to the
wider contextual dimensions of leadership, and as a rhetorical device, offering
a way of reframing university leadership that is a potential successor to the
traditional tension between ‘managerialism’ and ‘collegiality’. As with all
rhetoric, however, there is a potential shadow side whereby talk of ‘distributed
leadership’ may simply disguise the underlying dynamics of power and influ-
ence within universities and be used to mask creeping managerialism.

Distributed Leadership in HE

In setting out their strategic plan for the UK HE sector, HEFCE (2004: 35) define
leadership as ‘agreeing strategic direction in discussion with others and
communicating this within the organization; ensuring that there is the capabil-
ity, capacity and resources to deliver planned strategic outcomes; and support-
ing and monitoring delivery. As such this embraces elements of governance
and elements of management.’
Like the rest of the education sector the majority of research on leadership
and management in HE concludes that leadership in universities is widely
distributed (Middlehurst, 1993; Knight and Trowler, 2001) or should be distrib-
uted across the institution (Shattock, 2003). Despite this, however, the actual
processes and practices by which leadership is distributed and the implications
for leadership practice and development in universities have received rela-
tively little attention. Thus it remains unclear as to whether or not the concept
of distributed leadership is being used in a primarily descriptive or normative

258
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

manner and whether or not it exerts any influence on the effectiveness of

leadership practice within HE institutions.
The concept of distributed leadership has become popular in recent years as
an alternative to traditional ‘leader-centric’ models of leadership, suggesting
instead that leadership is a property of the collective rather than the individ-
ual. Gronn (2000, 2002) describes it as ‘concertive action’ where the total is
significantly more than the sum of its parts, whilst Spillane (2004: 3) proposes
that ‘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’. This approach, therefore, has much in common with process
theories of leadership (Hosking, 1988; Wood, 2005) and a systems perspective
on organizations (Senge, 1990; Wheatley, 1999). It offers a more inclusive view
of organizational life whereby individuals, groups and teams at all levels collec-
tively influence strategic direction and the reported presence of ‘leadership’.
Drawing on activity theory (Engestrom, 1999) the distributed perspective
places the activity or practice of leadership centre stage:

Activity theory emphasizes social life as a continuous flow of mediated activity; a

process of ever-moving relationships between technologies, nature, ideas, persons
and communities, in which the focus of action circulates to one person, then
another according to the social and environmental context and the flow of action
within this. (Woods, 2004: 5–6)

This perspective poses a serious challenge to traditional hierarchical and

bureaucratic models of organization, shifting the focus from individual post-
holders to broader collectivities and social relationships. In a review of the
literature Bennett et al. (2003) suggest that, despite some variations in defi-
nition, distributed leadership is based on three main premises: first, that leader-
ship is an emergent property of a group or network of interacting individuals;
second, that there is openness to the boundaries of leadership (that is, who has
a part to play both within and beyond the organization); and third, that vari-
eties of expertise are distributed across the many, not the few. Thus, distributed
leadership is represented as dynamic, relational, inclusive, collaborative and
contextually-situated. It requires a system-wide perspective that not only tran-
scends organizational levels and roles but also organizational boundaries. Thus,
for example, in the field of HE one might consider the contribution of parents,
students and the local community as well as academics, administrative/
professional staff, members of the university council and government policy
makers.
That said, advocates of distributed leadership do not necessarily deny the
key role played by people in formal leadership positions, but propose that
this is just the tip of the iceberg. Spillane et al. (2004: 5) argue that leader-
ship is ‘stretched over the social and situational contexts’ of the organization.
This approach therefore calls for the consideration and integration of context
to incorporate the non-human as well as human aspects of the system.

259
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Within HE such elements would include quality assurance processes,

physical infrastructure and IT systems, all of which shape the mode of
engagement and interaction between individuals and groups. The situated
nature of leadership is viewed as ‘constitutive of leadership practice’ (Spillane
et al., 2004: 21) and hence demands recognition of leadership acts within their
wider context.
By considering leadership practice as both thinking and activity that
‘emerges in the execution of leadership tasks in and through the interaction of
leaders, followers and situation’ (Spillane et al., 2004: 27) distributed leadership
offers a powerful post-heroic representation of leadership well suited to
complex, changing and interdependent environments. The question remains,
however, as to whether this represents the lived experience of leadership in
HE or just an idealistic fantasy unattainable in practice. It could certainly be
argued that the bureaucratic nature of HE organizations, with their imbalances
of power, authority and resources, combined with recognition and career paths
that tend to reward individual over collective achievement are largely at odds
with the principles and premises of distributed leadership. Furthermore the
somewhat abstract representations of such dispersed forms of leadership make
them difficult to convey in ways as compelling as the tales of heroism and
achievement recounted from more individualistic perspectives. It is the first
intention of this article therefore to put more meat on the bones of what distrib-
uted leadership might look like in practice and then to consider its utility as an
account of leadership practice in HE.

Method
The findings presented throughout the remainder of this article are drawn from
an investigation of the processes and perceptions of collective leadership in UK
universities. This study sought to examine how leadership is perceived to be
distributed throughout the organization, how it is sustained over time, and how
it is linked to organizational systems and procedures (finance, personnel, etc.).
Our research also looked at the personal experience of academic and adminis-
trative leaders when taking up these roles and the value and impact of develop-
ment interventions although these findings are explored more fully elsewhere
(Bolden et al., 2008a).
Our research was designed to capture a range of perspectives on leadership
and leadership development in HE in order to identify common and compet-
ing experiences and perceptions within and between institutions. In particu-
lar, we chose to focus our investigation on 12 UK HE institutions, selected to
give a broad range of locations, types, sizes and disciplines. Each university was
explored as a ‘case’, the main source of data being in-depth interviews enabling
the capture of narrative accounts of leadership (as recommended by Conger,
1998; Ospina and Sorenson, 2006), supported by additional documentary
evidence as well as two collaborative workshops with representatives from the

260
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

staff development divisions of participating institutions. Within each university

10 to 17 people at different levels were interviewed (vice-chancellors [VC]/
principals, pro and deputy vice-chancellors/principals [PVC/DVC], registrars,
human resource directors, deans of faculty, heads of schools [HOS] and heads
of department [HOD]) although the majority of interviewees were HOSs and
HODs (middle-level academic managers). The interviews generally lasted 45
minutes to one hour and covered the following topics: leadership strategy and
approach; taking up a leadership role and leadership development; sharing
leadership; and future issues. In total, 152 interviews were conducted, with all
but two (where participants requested that only written notes be taken) being
electronically recorded and subsequently transcribed. During analysis a profile
of each institution was constructed from the data to reveal the key issues and
factors for each leadership role and institution.
The main focus of this research was on the leadership of the academic work
of the university including teaching, research and ‘third stream’ (business and
community) activities. Within this, we were particularly interested in leader-
ship at the school/department level as this is the main operational unit of
universities, the primary source of future senior academic leaders, and the
main point of interface between leadership of the institution and leadership of
the academic discipline. We were interested both in how leadership is experi-
enced at this level and how it interacts with other parts of the organization.
Notably we were looking to explore how strategic direction emerges and is
negotiated between the varying actors.

Findings
The findings of this study are too numerous to present within this paper,
however, we will now recount the main themes relating to perceptions and
experiences of distributed leadership.

Perceptions of Distributed Leadership

In intention, there was a great degree of support amongst all interviewees

for a leadership approach which is shared across the institution. It was inter-
esting to note that even though the researchers deliberately did not provide
the interviewees with a strict definition of the concept of ‘distributed leader-
ship’, there was a considerable degree of commonality in the views and
perceptions expressed about the idea. The majority of interviewees
considered that distributed leadership was not just conceivable within the HE
context, but a necessity—that it is a function that is too complex and import-
ant to leave to a small group of individuals in formal roles. Despite this,
however, analysis of responses revealed a number of variations in the way
in which distributed leadership was being conceived, largely dependent on
the context, task, structures and personalities of significant individuals.

261
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

These classifications broadly match those identified by MacBeath et al. in

schools (2004) as indicated below.

• Formal: for example, devolution of financial and administrative author-

ity to schools and/or departments.
• Pragmatic: for example, negotiating the division of responsibilities
between roles such as VC and DVC or HOS and Deputy HOS (often
with one becoming external facing and the other internal facing).
• Strategic: for example, the appointment of people from outside the
university to bring in new skills, knowledge and contacts (particularly
in the case of the appointment of professional managers from outside
the sector).
• Incremental: for example, progressive opportunities for experience and
responsibility such as sitting on and chairing committees; leading
modules, programmes and projects; serving as a deputy.
• Opportunistic: for example, people willingly taking on additional
responsibilities within and outside the university (e.g. heading up
project teams; sitting on academic, professional and/or editorial
boards; consulting and liaising with business and policy makers).
• Cultural: for example, leadership is assumed and shared organically
such as in the development of a collaborative research bid.

While recognizing these dimensions, however, we gathered no evidence to

imply a continuum of progression from formal to cultural distribution; rather
these forms appeared to complement one another as different manifestations
of shared leadership (for example, formal distribution serving to facilitate
cultural and opportunistic distribution). Leadership was generally seen to be
distributed but within certain boundaries.

I think there is a perception that [leadership] is distributed based on the business

plans. When the idea came in the HOSs thought they’d be able to do whatever they
want and to an extent they can, but it’s within a very strict framework. . . . The
structure is quite inflexible because of the way [the VC] manages so there’s a percep-
tion that you can do what you want but actually you can’t. (School manager, post-
1992 university)

There is an element at which leadership is devolved but it’s to manage local issues.
[A] department cannot go outside the university guidelines on its admissions policy
or bid for research funding that doesn’t meet the university requirements for the
funding model. The big, corporate decisions are from the very top, however, the
way they are implemented locally is led by a local management. There is flexibility
within the structures. I say that but of course these days we’re ever more scruti-
nised about what we do. (Dean of faculty, pre-1992 university)

Formal distribution of leadership was reported to be most evident in the

area of governance and management. For instance, when asked about how

262
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

distributed leadership worked in practice interviewees frequently referred to

formal organizational systems and structures whereby decision-making author-
ity is devolved or delegated via formally designated channels. Accountability
for such activities is vested in the holders of formal positions (such as HOD,
HOS or Dean) whether or not they choose to execute the activity alone or in
collaboration with others. Formal committees were also seen as a systematic
means of sharing leadership, whereby academics and managers are brought
together to make joint decisions, although the increasing tendency for such
groups to be chaired by members of the senior executive, with carefully
selected membership, implies significant influence from the centre/top of the
organization.

Leadership is distributed. If you look at our school as an example you’ve got the
Dean, the Deputy Dean, the Chief Operating Officer and a large number of Associate
Deans. The Associate Deans for programmes have Course Directors under each of
them and then under that you have managers. It’s an incredibly distributed
pyramid type of organisation. (Dean of school, post-1992 university)

We do have distributed leadership [in the academic department]. There are five of
us that make an executive that actually make key decisions in the department and
they’re all professors. Two of them are line managers. The department is split into
two and I have line managers that run these two academic streams and the people
that manage them are on the executive. (HOD, pre-1992 university)

Although some authors (Knight and Trowler, 2001; Lumby, 2003; Harris,
2003) argue that delegation and devolution should not be confused with distrib-
uted leadership because they imply top-down rather than bottom-up influence,
we found that these were by far the most frequently cited mechanisms through
which leadership is shared within universities (perhaps partly as a conse-
quence of only interviewing holders of formal leadership roles). In terms of
devolution, the location of financial control (in particular control of any
‘surpluses’) was widely viewed as the most important, if not decisive, feature
in the distribution of leadership. Thus, while it may often be the case that
administration and workload are devolved rather than power and authority,
financial devolution to the school/departmental level is central to the
empowerment of HOS/HODs and financial transparency a key factor in the
development of a more entrepreneurial culture. In effect, without devolution
of financial control it is unlikely that a culture of shared or ‘distributed’ leader-
ship will flourish—it would appear that collaborative behaviour is correlated
with control of resources.
Remaining with MacBeath et al.’s (2004) taxonomy, the area where leader-
ship is most likely to be ‘cultural’, where academics willingly take the initiative
to lead and where leadership is assumed rather than given, is research. The
opportunities to lead in this area are numerous; in research, academics who
are not necessarily in formal management positions lead by their academic
credibility and enthusiasm and anyone who is willing and able to carry out the

263
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

initiative can do so (rather than relying on a designated post-holder). Leader-

ship in this area was represented by the interviewees as spontaneous, oppor-
tunistic and emergent rather than formally ‘devolved’, although it was reported
that universities are increasingly trying to ensure alignment of research with
the overall strategic direction of the institution and full economic costing
demands a robust business model.

These days we’re ever more scrutinised about what we do whether it be by the
RAE or whatever and if Professor Y down the corridor is doing some research that
hasn’t generated any research income in the last three or four years. . . . You’re
getting on very dangerous territory here because people get very uptight about
academic freedom, but from a management point of view there would have to be
questions asked. You’d have to say ‘you can research that if you want but I really
need to see you earning some money doing it.’ I think that has changed. . . . Even
ten or fifteen years ago you just got on with what you wanted to do and you
weren’t looked at as regularly to see what your grant income was. (Dean of
faculty, pre-1992 university)

Despite this, the area of research is frequently one where people willingly
take on their first leadership and management responsibilities such as
managing budgets and people. While part of the reason for this clearly lies
within the organizational processes and personal dispositions, our findings
would lead us to believe that another significant dimension is that of ‘social
identity’ (Haslam, 2004). It would appear that within the field of research, at
least, it is possible for academics to take on managerial responsibilities without
sensing a tension between their identities as an ‘academic’ (that is, member of
a peer group allied to a specific discipline) and as a ‘manager’ (that is, member
of a group with responsibilities allied to a specific organization and the achieve-
ment of particular tasks). By contrast, the accounts of holders of more formal
organizational posts, such as HOS, would indicate that at times there is a
marked tension between these two roles, where one is torn between allegiance
to ones’ academic colleagues (the discipline) and the broader university
(organization). Within our own study, such tensions were most evidenced
during a period of industrial action where HOSs were expected to address
managerial concerns about exam marking whilst also facing the same issues as
their academic colleagues about pay and conditions.

That’s the other thing that is quite a strange thing because throughout the dispute
on both sides there has been a tendency for there to be a ‘them and us’ and in my
situation as a HOS I’m part of ‘them’ and I’m part of ‘us’. I go to meetings where
I’m told by management ‘you must do this to them’ where ‘them’ is my colleagues
and in fact myself. That’s probably true for everything in the HOS role. We are
perceived to be part of management by the management and we are perceived to
be part of the team by the team. There isn’t a clear divide. (HOS, pre-1992
university)

264
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

Processes of Distributed Leadership

In terms of the processes of distributed leadership within a particular level, in

most universities members of the senior/middle management team have well-
defined portfolios and responsibilities, and in this sense the formal responsibil-
ities are perceived to be distributed among team members. As for promoting
and trying to achieve ‘concertive action’ (Gronn, 2002), several senior manage-
ment groups in our sample reported that they have been trying to develop a
‘team leadership’ approach at the centre/top with the explicit intent of provid-
ing a model that can be cascaded to other parts of the organization.

I’m trying to start by developing a well functioning team at the top and if you show
by example how a team can work and develop that team by having people in it who
have different strengths and different capabilities so that we actually together have
all the skills we need. And then each member of that team is the Chair or leader
of another team so you cascade it down. (VC, pre-1992 university)

Whilst members may be conscious of being part of a team, however, some

may decide to opt out when it does not suit them. One senior university leader,
for example, commented that when roles are tightly defined it may be difficult
to get ownership from across the team as responsibilities are seen to lie at an
individual rather than group level. In this sense, when responsibilities are
strongly segmented there is reported to be a tendency for people to start
building rivalries and a ‘silo-approach’ to management and leadership. A
contrast to this would be the senior management team of another university
where roles are ‘fuzzy’ and not tightly defined. This allows the VC and his/her
team to be engaged in all activities and to gain a broader understanding of what
is happening throughout the university. Responsibilities are delegated rather
than permanently devolved depending on the context, situation and project.
Developing a vision for a particular area becomes the responsibility for the
whole team rather than one individual. Overall, however, it would seem that
building a well-functioning top team is seen as one of the ways of embedding
a culture of distributed leadership.
While senior university managers may formally devolve leadership further
down the organization, whether distribution penetrates below the HOS or HOD
level remains largely dependent on the leadership style of the head and the
culture of the unit. While the majority of HOS/HODs in our study were happy
to devolve responsibilities, several found it difficult to ‘let go’ of control, power
and responsibility—sometimes due to concerns about trust and accountability
and other times to protect colleagues from unnecessary distractions.

There are some things, which are difficult to give up because they are personal
responsibilities. I’m also reluctant to distribute work to other people—I’d rather see
them spend all their time on their primary jobs. (HOD, pre-1992 university)

265
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Similar sentiments were also evident in a number of instances where

professional managers/administrators (e.g. school managers) were appointed
to work alongside heads. In the case of such co-leadership the division of work
and responsibilities is more likely to arise from personal negotiation and adap-
tation rather than predefined role profiles.
Despite widespread recognition of a distributed approach to leadership,
however, the majority of interviewees still expressed the need for formally
recognized leaders who provide a clear vision and direction and monitor
progress. Having ‘inspirational’ or ‘visionary’ leadership at the top of the
organization, in the words of many interviewees, is as important as cultivating
a culture of distributed leadership. Clear vision and direction coming from a
formal leader or senior team, it seems, is seen as one of the main pre-
requisites for distributed leadership to work in practice. It gives people the
confidence to explore new opportunities while being assured that they are not
going in a direction that will not be supported by the university.

We have some very exciting people at the senior level and in turn that means we
stretch ourselves. For me, I look at where the university is going and where the
main thrusts are that we need to develop. (HOD, post-1992 university)

Such an approach at the senior level can create an enabling environment in

which others can feel empowered to take action. Individual and inspirational
leadership, however, is not only required at the top of the organization with
key individuals (whether or not part of the formal hierarchy) facilitating
engagement, but present across the whole organization.

I think in this department it would be that you can have all those nice, friendly,
collegial discussions bouncing ideas around with people coming up with really good
plans but ultimately you need someone to work out how to make it happen and
delegate some responsibilities and make sure they’re followed up. (HOD, pre-1992
university)

Experiences of Distributed Leadership

Gronn (2002) expresses a concern that as distributed leadership becomes a

preferred approach to leadership in organizations attention to the potential
benefits and disadvantages may be neglected. We therefore asked the inter-
viewees in our sample about what they saw as the main benefits and challenges
of this approach.
With regards to benefits, interviewees generally believed that a well managed
distributed approach to leadership could be very positive for the school, depart-
ment and ultimately the university. The most frequently cited benefits
included: improved responsiveness to students, staff, funding agencies, etc.;
greater transparency of finances (and increased financial incentives for
innovation and entrepreneurship); ‘managerial convenience’ through the

266
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

distribution of managerial workloads; and improved teamwork and communi-

cation between academic and non-academic staff.
With regards to disadvantages, in the view of the interviewees, distributed
leadership should not present many problems provided that it is managed well
and in transparent way. Perceived challenges, however, included: organiz-
ational fragmentation and the creation of a ‘silo mentality’; reduced clarity of
roles, leading to confusion and competition; slow decision-making; and an
underestimation of individual differences in ability and unrealistic expec-
tations of performance.
Interestingly these benefits and challenges imply a somewhat ‘managerial-
ist’ (top-down) approach to the distribution of leadership whereby organiz-
ational impacts dominate the discourse. Whilst this is perhaps unsurprising,
given the fact that all interviewees were holders of formal management roles,
it gives strong clues as to how the discourse is being framed within the HE
arena. This is particularly true of the potential disadvantages identified.
Thus, rather than fragmentation, advocates of the ‘concertive action’
approach would argue that distributed leadership should lead to greater
cohesion and a sense of common purpose; rather than lack of clarity, indi-
viduals should be better enabled to negotiate and agree their roles so as to
minimize overlap and maximize personal fit; rather than slowing down
decision making, such an approach should enable decisions to be made more
rapidly, at the point of contact rather than further up the hierarchy; and with
regards to capability, distributed leadership should assume a differentiation
rather than commonality of expertise, drawing on individual strengths rather
than depending solely on formal ‘leaders’.
During the course of our interviews we noticed a number of clear tensions
within university leadership and some clear pressure points where this is most
strongly experienced (particularly at the HOS/HOD level). Furthermore, we
were presented with a range of descriptions of leadership that appear to arise
largely from these tensions and the manner in which leadership is experienced
across the organization. These accounts offer competing images to ‘distributed’
or ‘dispersed’ leadership that, perhaps, give a more graphic insight into
leadership practice in HE. A selection of these is given in Table 1.
In presenting these findings we in no way wish to imply a paucity of leader-
ship within UK HE, but rather to reveal the tensions and complexities inherent
when exploring leadership within large, complex organizations. The descrip-
tions given in Table 1, we feel, offer a richer account of the lived experience of
managers and academics in UK universities than idealized notions of distributed
leadership that dominate the literature. They reflect the frustrations at where
leadership is felt to be inappropriate or ineffective and also point to the multiple
and competing interpretations of leadership in HE. An example of this is
evidenced in the accounts of three leaders at different levels in an institution
where the VC is grappling with the tensions of devolution and centralized
control:

267
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Table 1 Alternative accounts of leadership in HE

Form Description Example

Dislocated Top-down and bottom-up systems do Weakened central leadership where

not match up; leadership do not occur budgets are devolved to schools or
where it is needed. faculties that make it difficult to initiate
and sustain institution-wide initiatives
such as corporate branding and IT.
Disconnected Different parts of the institution pulling Formation of a ‘silo mentality’ within
in different directions; lack of consistent/ schools, with holders of devolved
coherent direction/vision; competing budgets pursuing their own objectives,
agendas. not aligned with (or even counter to)
the overall university mission and
objectives.
Disengaged Staff avoid becoming involved in Leadership viewed as
leadership and management of the administration/bureaucracy rather than
institution; leadership is seen as strategic and inter-personal—e.g.
unappealing, unrewarding or leadership and management of
unnecessary. school/university versus academic
leadership of research or discipline.
Dissipated Leadership is too broadly diffused across This was a frequent criticism of the
groups with little accountability or committee structure, described as a
responsibility for implementing ‘washing machine’ where decisions go
decisions and actions. round and round remaining unresolved
and disowned.
Distant Leadership is felt to be removed from Decisions taken at senior management
the operational level of the organization; level and imposed with limited
inaccessible, imposed; not necessarily ‘in consultation. This situation seems to be
our best interests’. amplified where senior managers are
physically distant from academic
departments.
Dysfunctional Leadership fails to achieve its intentions; Negative reaction to performance
results in unexpected/undesirable review and appraisal process by senior
outcomes; misalignment of performance academic staff; performance measures
measures. driving individual rather than team
behaviour; risk aversion and
dysfunctional systems arising from
failures of senior leadership.

One of the most difficult things a VC has to do is to balance the business of central
direction and control with devolving responsibility, and getting that balance right. I
suspect some of the Deans here would say the balance is tipped slightly too far
towards devolved responsibility and not enough towards strong central leadership.
They would, however, only agree with that if the central leadership was in the direc-
tion that they wanted to go in. . . . I think that exemplifies the difficulty of getting the
balance right, and it’s a constant trade-off. . . . That is a constant juggling act for a VC
in a university and it’s more difficult to do that in a university than in many other
sorts of organizations because our reputation doesn’t depend on a particular product,
it depends on all the individual staff and they have to be empowered to develop that
reputation and share it with the university. (VC, post-1992 university)

268
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

An alternative account, given by a PVC, acknowledges these tensions whilst

recognising that communication and decision-making structures within the
university remain largely influenced by the legacy of a previous VC.

The point about leadership and my perception of it is that I think it’s quite dis-
located, and I think that goes back to the difficulties that they had. The previous
VC has left his mark on this institution . . . Universities have long memories and I
think that has influenced how things are set up here. There is a good example of a
leader in the VC . . . but I don’t think the structures affect clear lines of communi-
cation or decision-making. The university presents itself at one level as very
devolved, so its budget is based on a devolved method and the Deans in schools are
perceived at one level to have a lot of autonomy, but because they’re not engaged
in decision-making at the higher level they’re also slightly disenfranchised from the
corporate side of the university. (PVC, post-1992 university)

While at school-level this is perceived as centralized control, with the dean

acting as a buffer between managerial and collegial approaches.

The school is very much led in a consensual fashion, but the university isn’t. The
leadership style of the university is non-consensual, hierarchical and bureaucratic.
It doesn’t build consensus and it’s largely insensitive and distant. Some of them
are really nice people and if they came down from on high and talked to people
every now and then I think they’d get on a lot better and build a better consen-
sus. They don’t know, or appear to want to understand sometimes, and that’s very
sad. It’s a huge distinguishing difference between the two and it’s partly why I’m
quite happy here. I’m sort of shielded by the Dean from that next level and I don’t
really want to be open to it; I think I’d rather stay shielded. (HOS, post-1992
university)

Thus, the image of leadership appears very different from where one stands
within the organization. This is not just an issue of poor communication, but
more fundamentally linked to differences of identity, personal preferences and
dynamics of power and social influence. Interestingly, within the institution
described here these tensions did not necessarily have adverse effects on
organizational performance, on the contrary, of the 12 universities visited
during our research this one seemed to have a particularly strong culture,
happy and satisfied staff, and sense of place and purpose as an HE provider
within the local, national and international environment. Concepts of leader-
ship therefore, while inherently contested, were at least actively debated and
explored.

Discussion
The findings from this study indicate a general acceptance of the term ‘distrib-
uted leadership’ in HE but a wide variety of interpretations, and still more
diverse experiences, of the ways in which leadership is actually distributed. In
the discussion we will reflect further on the nature of distributed leadership
and its utility as an approach to leadership in HE.

269
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Nature of Distributed Leadership

Despite enthusiasm for a ‘distributed’ approach to leadership managers in all

of the institutions in our sample reported significant tensions between top-
down and bottom-up processes of influence. In effect, all the institutions
sampled are struggling with the tension between collegiality and managerial-
ism, individual autonomy and collective engagement, loyalty to the discipline
and loyalty to the institution, academic versus administrative authority, infor-
mality and formality, and inclusivity and professionalization.
Each institution has developed its own structures, systems and processes to
respond to these tensions—some incrementally over time and others through
adaptive or transformational change. What is evident, however, is that the
nature of these structures and how they operate are largely dependent on the
holders of formal leadership positions. Thus, for example, the VC or principal
will structure the senior management team to suit his/her personal style and
preferences, and HOSs and HODs will develop their own management struc-
tures according to how they identify with the role. The distribution of leadership
in HE thus becomes a dynamic negotiation and exchange between the
centre/top and schools/departments and amongst informal networks of
colleagues and peers. The way in which leadership is talked about by our inform-
ants draws sharp attention to the need for both top-down and bottom-up leader-
ship, not just as an ideal but as a necessity given the nature of academic work in
universities. A similar perspective, termed ‘blended leadership’, is reported by
Collinson and Collinson (2006) based on their research in further education.

Many FE staff prefer a leadership approach that combines specific elements from
both distributed and hierarchical perspectives which are often viewed as compet-
ing and opposing polarities within the literature. Repeatedly, respondents have
expressed a preference for aspects of both traditional, hierarchical leadership (struc-
ture, clarity and organisation) and contemporary distributed leadership (team-
work, communication and shared responsibility). (Collinson and Collinson, 2006:
10, original emphasis)

Rather like Howell and Shamir’s (2005) representation of ‘socialized’ charis-

matic leadership, there remains a desire for open and genuine consultation,
yet also a need to authorize individuals to act on behalf of the group for the
collective interest.
It has also been mentioned that we found evidence of all the forms of distrib-
uted leadership identified by MacBeath et al. (2004) even though most of these
(perhaps with the exception of ‘cultural’) are commonly associated with
traditional hierarchical models of leadership. Thus, while this taxonomy is
moderately comprehensive, it arguably gives little more clarity or precision
than the term ‘leadership’ on its own. In our own research we chose not to
impose a definition of distributed leadership, but rather to let the interviewees
present their own understanding and experiences of the concept. From this we

270
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

can identify at least two clearly interrelated yet competing representations as

described below.

(1) Devolved: when talking of distributed leadership, interviewees primarily

described formal mechanisms for the distribution of operational, strate-
gic and decision-making roles and responsibilities across the insti-
tution. Of these, devolution and delegation were fundamental in
assigning leadership responsibility to individuals, pairs, groups and
teams further down the organizational hierarchy. Despite representa-
tions in the academic literature, most interviewees painted ‘distributed
leadership’ as a process coordinated from the top and ‘rolled-out’ across
the organization.
(2) Emergent: where interviewees pointed to more bottom-up and
emergent processes of collaborative and informal leadership, whereby
individuals, groups and teams willingly take on responsibility and
generate new ideas and initiatives. This seems to be best captured
by the notion of leadership as diffused or dispersed across the
organization. Leadership, from this perspective, does not adhere to
clear lines of hierarchy and command, but emerges from the interplay
between collective engagement and individual agency—from this
perspective everyone has a part to play in the leadership of the
institution whether formally recognized or not.

The main distinction between ‘devolved’ and ‘emergent’ leadership in this

regard is between formal (and intentional) leadership orchestrated from the top
and informal (potentially unplanned) leadership emerging from across the
organization. Whilst devolved leadership is formally embedded within organiz-
ational structures and processes emergent leadership often operates outside
these parameters. Thus, for example, a researcher, lecturer or professor can
exert considerable influence within an institution by virtue of their academic
reputation, enthusiasm and/or connections, whether or not they are formally
recognized within the university management structure. Of these two
accounts, it is the latter that bears the closest resemblance to ‘distributed
leadership’ as most commonly described in the literature (Gronn, 2000; Harris,
2003; Lumby, 2003) but is the least prevalent within our own data (possibly
because our informants were selected on the basis of holding formal offices of
devolved authority).
Our study clearly supports the view that in order to be effective organiz-
ational leadership in HE needs to strike some form of balance between these
processes. Inevitably this may shift depending on the nature of the task—with
a ‘devolved’ approach most likely to be acceptable for the management of
finances and ann ‘emergent’ approach for the development of new research
ideas. The role of HOS/HOD may be defined as constantly seeking an integra-
tion of these two processes—one such mechanism being the Annual Strategic

271
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Planning Exercise whereby schools and departments present their business

plan in relation to the institutional strategy.
Ultimately, however, an understanding of how leadership is enacted within
HE is incomplete without an appreciation of the dynamics of power and influ-
ence within and beyond institutions. Broadly the two forms of distributed
leadership cited earlier draw on different sources of power—the first on ‘hard’
power (through formal authority and control of resources) and the second on
‘soft’ power (charisma, expertise, relationships, etc.) yet such a representation
is overly simplistic due to the complex interplay and interdependence between
these dimensions. Thus, as Foucault (1978–86: 1, 93) argues ‘power is every-
where; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from every-
where’. In focussing on the dynamics of power within universities we must not
neglect the wider political context of UK HE. Universities are at the forefront
of the government’s drive towards the ‘knowledge economy’ and improved
leadership and management are regarded as key enablers (Leitch, 2006).
The search for distributed leadership in universities is not merely born of
ideological commitment to inclusivity and participation but rather through
increasing commercial and market pressures (Olssen and Peters, 2005)—the
need to do more with less.

Utility of Distributed Leadership

From the account given so far the concept of ‘distributed leadership’, as used by
our interviewees, is applied very broadly and incorporates examples of individ-
ualized, top-down and formalized as well as shared, bottom-up and emergent
leadership. It could be argued, therefore, that as a description of leadership in HE
this concept offers little more clarity than the term ‘leadership’ on its own.
Despite this, however, it still appears that, as a concept, it has a certain resonance
and appeal to academic managers, perhaps due to the connection with notions
of collegiality, participative decision-making and the nature of academic work.
As an analytic framework for exploring leadership the concept of distributed
leadership is more promising. Its fundamental value, in this respect, is to draw
attention to the wider constituents of leadership—the systems, processes and
structures (both formal and informal) all of which shape leadership practice.
To this extent, the manner in which budgets and resources are handled, forums
for communication and participation, and reward and recognition, are funda-
mental aspects of leadership—influencing (and being influenced by) the
manner in which leaders and their constituents engage. This perspective also
draws attention to the temporal dimensions of leadership, encouraging us to
take a longer-term view of the situation—to consider the changing motivations,
actions and experiences of individuals over the course of their career. Further-
more, as an analytic framework distributed leadership encourages recognition
of different forms of leadership and influence (including top-down, bottom-up
and horizontal) and a consideration of leadership activity that occurs outside

272
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

traditional hierarchical channels of command and authority, frequently beyond

organizational boundaries.
Fundamentally, though, our research leads us to conclude that the manner
in which distributed leadership is being used in HE is primarily as a rhetorical
device. It seems to offer an ideal to which HE institutions and their members
can aspire; an alternative to the lived experience of dislocation, disconnection,
disengagement, dissipation, distance and dysfunctionality. Indeed, in describ-
ing their negative experiences of leadership interviewees inadvertently paint
an image of a more desirable approach—one that is located, connected,
engaged, clear/in-focus, close/in-touch and functional/beneficial.
It was Pondy (1978) who first referred to leadership as a ‘language game’
whereby, through the effective use of rhetoric leaders can frame the under-
standing of others. Bennis (1993, cited in Goddard, 1997: 51) likewise argues
that ‘effective leaders put words to the formless longings and deeply felt needs
of others. They create communities out of words.’ Distributed leadership
offers a persuasive discourse that embeds both concepts of collegiality and
managerialism. It appears to give a framework for the integration of top-down
and bottom-up decision making processes that is likely to be more flexible and
responsive than the traditional committee structure whilst evading the profes-
sionalization of management that has occurred in other sectors such as the
National Health Service. In the current climate of change within UK HE
whereby collegial and bureaucratic structures are increasingly giving way to
corporate and enterprise cultures (McNay, 1999) such a discourse becomes
particularly significant. Within this context the notion of ‘distributed leader-
ship’ could be used by universities to construct social identities that bring
together notions such as ‘academic’ and ‘manager’ so that, for example,
management is seen as an integral element of being a good academic or
‘management’ is reframed as ‘leadership’, rendering it more appealing to those
resistant to managerial connotations.
Such an approach, however, is a double-edged sword—while distributed
leadership may be used to enhance the sense of belonging and engagement
in universities it may equally be utilized by those in positions of real power
to give the illusion of consultation and participation while obscuring the true
mechanisms by which decisions are reached and resources allocated.
Another danger is that if organizations decide to push the ‘emergent’
approach to distributed leadership too strongly they may end up missing the
very real need for individual responsibility and accountability as well as a
strong sense of vision and direction. As Pearce (2004) argues it is not a case
of either or, but of achieving an appropriate balance between vertical and
shared leadership.
The issue is not vertical leadership or shared leadership. Rather the issues are: (1)
when is leadership most appropriately shared? (2) How does one develop shared
leadership? And (3) how does one utilize both vertical and shared leadership to
leverage the capabilities of knowledge workers? It is only by addressing these issues

273
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

head on that organisations will move toward a more appropriate model of leader-
ship in the age of knowledge work. (Pearce, 2004: 55)

The ‘shadow side’ of distributed leadership is particularly concerning when

considered in the current environment where most UK universities are ratio-
nalizing (if not eliminating) their main formalized mechanism for bottom-up
influence and decision-making: the committee structure. In this case does
‘distributed leadership’ just offer an empty rhetoric of engagement while
greater powers are being divested to smaller groups of people? Does it risk
undermining organizational effectiveness by reducing the influence of key
individuals without an appropriate forum for collective action? Or does it
simply offer an illusive ideal that will fail to meet the expectations of those
promoting it? As Salaman (2004: 77) warns:

Although the current cult of leadership may seem (and indeed present itself) in
marked contrast, even opposition, to management (hence the need for definitions
to clarify the differences between the two), in functional terms they are remark-
ably similar in that both offer to resolve the failures of organization by avoiding and
individualizing them.

In all likelihood leadership in HE is becoming more widely dispersed but in

ways that may not be recognized or controllable. In time (perhaps quite soon)
we may find that real influence in HE has become distributed well beyond the
boundaries of institutions, to cyberspace, where student blogs, market rankings
and media campaigns become the decentred locus of power.

Conclusion
In this article we have presented findings from research into distributed leader-
ship in HE. We have presented a range of complementary and competing
perspectives and distinguished between two principle approaches: ‘devolved’
leadership associated with top-down influence and ‘emergent’ leadership
associated with bottom-up and horizontal influence. We argue that whilst litera-
ture on distributed leadership largely promotes the latter, the former is equally
(if not more) significant in terms of how leadership is actually enacted and
perceived within universities.
We conclude, therefore, that as a description of leadership practice, the
concept of ‘distributed leadership’ offers little more clarity than ‘leadership’
alone. As an analytic framework it is a more promising concept, drawing atten-
tion to the broader contextual, temporal and social dimensions of leadership
that may be missed through a more individualistic and decontextualized
perspective (see Bolden et al., 2008b). Fundamentally, though, we argue that
distributed leadership is most influential through its rhetorical value whereby
it can be used to shape perceptions of identity, participation and influence but
can equally shroud the underlying dynamics of power within universities.

274
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

Ultimately, it seems, distributed leadership is a political concept. Interpret-

ations are invariably shaped by the stance of the perceiver—born of an ideo-
logical commitment to the collective or an instrumental commitment to
performance and power. It is undoubtedly a concept deserving further investi-
gation and consideration but ultimately one that is more complex and contro-
versial than may at first appear. What remains clear, however, is that
distributed leadership is not a successor to individual leadership in HE—
removing the need for formal leaders and structures. Power and influence are
exerted by individuals and groups in formal roles, and by informal networks
including and extending beyond them. Strong, visible, personal leadership is
appreciated when it brings clarity and a sense of direction; but only when it
serves to express the collective interests of organizational members. Whether
or not this happens, it would seem, remains contested and a matter of
perspective.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Leadership Foundation for
Higher Education in commissioning and sponsoring this work. Our study constitutes
one of 13 funded research projects that explore a wide range of issues relating to
leadership in UK higher education institutions. For further details please visit
http://www.lfhe.ac.uk/research/projects/.

References
Bolden, R., Petrov, G. and Gosling, J. (2008a) Developing Collective Leadership in Higher
Education: Final Report for the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. London:
LFHE.
Bolden, R., Petrov, G. and Gosling, J. (2008b) ‘Tensions in Higher Education
Leadership: Towards a Multi-Level Model of Leadership Practice’, Higher Education
Quarterly 62(4): 358–76.
Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P.A. and Harvey, J.A. (2003) Distributed Leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Bennis, W. (1993) An Invented Life: Reflections on Leadership and Change. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Collinson, M. and Collinson, D. (2006a) ‘Blended Leadership’: Employee Perspectives on
Effective Leadership in the UK FE Sector. Lancaster: Centre for Excellence in
Leadership.
Conger, J.A. (1998) ‘Qualitative Research as the Cornerstone Methodology for
Understanding Leadership’, Leadership Quarterly 9(1): 107–21.
Deem, R. (2001) ‘Managing Contemporary UK Universities—Manager-Academics and
New Managerialism’, Academic Leadership 1: 3. Available at: http://www.academic
leadership.org.
Engestrom, Y. (1999) ‘Activity Theory and Individual and Social Transformation’, in
Y. Engestrom, R. Miettinen and R-L. Punamaki (eds) Perspectives on Activity Theory.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foucault, M. (1978–86) The History of Sexuality, 3 vols. Trans. Robert Hurley. New
York: Pantheon Books.
Goddard, J. (1997) ‘The Architecture of Core Competence’, Business Strategy Review
8(1): 43–52.

275
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2)

Gronn, P. (2000) ‘Distributed Properties: A New Architecture for Leadership’,

Educational Management Administration & Leadership 28(3): 317–38.
Gronn, P. (2002) ‘Distributed Leadership as a unit of Analysis’, Leadership Quarterly 13:
423–51.
Harris, A. (2003) ‘Teacher Leadership as Distributed Leadership: Heresy, Fantasy or
Possibility?’, School Leadership and Management 23(3): 313–24.
Haslam, S.A. (2004) Psychology in Organizations: The Social Identity Approach, 2nd edn.
London: SAGE.
HEFCE (2004) HEFCE Strategic Plan 2003–08 (Revised April 2004). London: HEFCE.
Hosking, D.M. (1988) ‘Organizing, Leadership and Skilful Process’, Journal of
Management Studies 25(2): 147–66.
Howell, J. and Shamir, B. (2005) ‘The Role of Followers in the Charismatic Leadership
Process: Relationships and their Consequences’, Academy of Management Review
30(1): 96–112.
Knight, P.T. and Trowler, P.R. (2001) Departmental Leadership in Higher Education.
Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.
Leitch, S. (2006) Prosperity for All in the Global Economy—World Class Skills: Final
Report. Available at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leitch.
LFHE (2004) Introducing the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education. LFHE booklet.
Available at: http://www.leadership-he.com.
Lumby, J. (2003) ‘Distributed Leadership in Colleges: Leading or Misleading?’,
Educational Management Administration & Leadership 31(3): 283–93.
MacBeath, J., Oduro, G.K.T. and Waterhouse, J. (2004) Distributed Leadership in Action:
A Study of Current Practice in Schools. Nottingham: NCSL.
McNay, I. (1999) ‘Changing Cultures in UK Higher Education: The State as Corporate
Market Bureaucracy and the Emergent Academic Enterprise’, in D. Braun and
F. Merrien (eds) Towards a New Model of Governance for Universities? A Comparative
View, pp. 34–58. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Middlehurst, R. (1993) Leading Academics. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.
Olssen, M. and Peters, M.A. (2005) ‘Neoliberalism, Higher Education and the
Knowledge Economy: From the free Market to Knowledge Capitalism’, Journal of
Education Policy 20(3): 313–45.
Ospina, S. and Sorenson, G.L.J. (2006) ‘A Constructionist Lens on Leadership: Charting
new Territory’, in G.R. Goethals and G.L.J. Sorenson (eds) The Quest for a General
Theory of Leadership. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Pearce, C.L. (2004) ‘The Future of Leadership: Combining Vertical and Shared
Leadership to Transform Knowledge Work’, Academy of Management Executive 18(1):
47–57.
Pondy, L.R. (1978) ‘Leadership is a Language Game’, in M. McCall and M. Lonbardo
(eds) Leadership: Where Else Do We Go?, pp. 87–99. Durham, NC: Duke University
Press.
Salaman, G. (2004) ‘Competences of Managers, Competences of Leaders’, in J. Storey
(ed.) Leadership in Organizations: Current Issues and Key Trends. London: Routledge.
Senge, P. (1990) The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Company.
London: Random House.
Shattock, M. (2003) Managing Successful Universities. Buckingham: SRHE and OU Press.
Spillane, J.P. (2004) Distributed Leadership: What’s All the Hoopla?. Working paper,
Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research.
Spillane, J.P., Halverson, R. and Diamond, J.B. (2004) ‘Towards a Theory of Leadership
Practice: A Distributed Perspective’, Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(1): 3–34.
Wheatley, M. (1999) Leadership and the New Science: Discovering Order in a Chaotic
World, 2nd edn. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

276
 Bolden et al.: Distributed Leadership in Higher Education

Wood, M. (2005) ‘The Fallacy of Misplaced Leadership’, Journal of Management Studies

42(6): 1101–21.
Woods, P.A. (2004) ‘Democratic Leadership: Drawing Distinctions with Distributed
Leadership’, International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1): 3–26.

Biographical Notes
RICHARD BOLDEN is a lecturer at the Centre for Leadership Studies at the University of
Exeter. His research interests span a wide range of topics including leadership in
Higher Education, distributed leadership, leadership practice, leadership and
management competencies, work-based learning and leadership development for
organizational and social change.

J O N A T H A N G O S L I N G is a lecturer in Leadership, HRM and Organization at Kingston

University Business School. From 2005–2008 he worked at the University of Exeter,
researching leadership and employer engagement in higher education. His PhD at the
Institute of Education, University of London, focused on reform and transformation in
the post-Soviet Russian HE system.

GEORGY PETROV is Professor of Leadership and Director of Executive Education at the

University of Exeter. He has designed and directed development programs for many
companies, particularly in international and rapidly changing businesses. His current
research explores how to maintain continuity through tough transitions. Jonathan was
co-founder of the International Masters in Practicing Management (IMPM), a
collaboration of business schools around the world.

Correspondence to:
R I C H A R D B O L D E N,
Centre for Leadership Studies, University of Exeter, XfI Building,
Rennes Drive, Exeter EX4 4ST, UK. [email: [email protected]]

277