0.2 Lindahl, r. (april 2011). school leadership structures in  (Page 2/7)

Recently, considerable attention has been shown in the knowledge base to various forms of shared leadership. This is not a new concept. Follett introduced it in 1940, in her writings on the Law of the Situation. However, its acceptance in education has been limited. Sarason (1996) wrote that the failure of school reform was predictable because of the power relationships [hierarchical principal structure] that exist in schools.

Spillane (2006) defined shared leadership as occurring when “organizational members influence the motivation, knowledge, affect, or practices of other organizational members” (p. 11) in activities tied to the core mission of the organization. Pearce and Conger (2003) noted that it is not tied to formal authority or expertise, but rather to the individual’s capacity to influence peers and to the organization’s specific needs at the moment. Fletcher and Kaufer (2003) explained that it involves a shift from individual achievement to focus on collective achievement, shared responsibility, and teamwork. Harris (2005) emphasized the development of a common culture. Senge (1990, 2000) used the term learning organization to describe his model of shared leadership. Crowther, Kaagan, Ferguson, and Hann (2002) termed it parallel leadership , whereas Raelin (2003) referred to it as leaderful practice and Yukl and Lepsinger (2008) used the term connected leadership.

Shared leadership can take many forms. Schwadel (1991) described co-Chief Executive Officers. Katzenbach (1998) and Ostroff (1999) discussed small groups of executives. Yukl (1998) talked of organizational structures with no formal, hierarchical leader. Lambert (2003) described study groups in Alberta, Canada, Kansas City, Kansas, Clayton, Missouri, and San Leandro, California. Lambert also described research teams in Manitoba, Canada, vertical learning communities and the vision team in Kansas City, Kansas, and the ZCI process and Circle of Leaders in Calgary, Canada. Park and Datnow’s (2009) study concluded that school systems centralize some decisions while de-centralizing others and that the configuration of teacher leadership and the types of responsibilities that teachers assume vary greatly by site.

The most recent additions to the knowledge base on shared leadership have focused on professional learning communities (DuFour, Eaker,&DuFour, 2005; Giles&Hargreaves, 2006; Gregory&Kuznich (2007); Harris&Muijs, 2005; Rasberry, with Mahajan, 2008; Sparks, 2005). York-Barr and Duke (2004) described these as schools in which there is active involvement by individuals at all levels of the organization. This involvement may be at the instructional, professional, or organizational level, as long as those involved grow and learn (p. 255). They may be formal or informal, but they should all involve collaborative problem solving and sharing of knowledge (Printy, 2008, p. 189). This should include sharing best practice, building a positive school culture, improving student learning, taking collective responsibility, using data wisely, providing shared leadership, effecting planned change, and creating supportive structures (Wells&Feun, 2007). The teams must be open to critical thinking, reflective dialogue, self-examination, and addressing student learning (Rasberry, with Mahajan, 2008, p. 2).