Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence
Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence
复制标题
根据证据，分布式领导
DOI：
10.1177/17411432100380010301
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
D. Hartley
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Hartley
别再看了。 “几乎所有关于分布式领导方法的可用证据都可以在这本书中找到”。平装本封底上出版商的简介如是说。该流派中大多数杰出的研究人员都在收藏中。大多数人位于美国和加拿大，尤其是多伦多大学安大略教育研究所 (OISE)。一些人在英国工作，一位在新西兰工作。这些是经济新自由主义影响最深的社会。随之而来的是对学校的重新文化和“装备”它们以适应企业和协作资本主义时代的追求。据说我们是在一起的：一切都应该“联合起来”；正在寻求协同效应和战略联盟；我们将不再被隔离在各自的专业领域；信任度不断上升；需要集体智慧和集体努力。对于班主任或校长来说，独自面对源源不断的国家指令和市场力量会导致倦怠。独自一人扮演英雄不再是一种选择。一种新的“分布式”结构同构将遍布整个重新配置的教育体系，从而扰乱长期以来的官僚身份。它的迹象肯定会出现在教学交流（如协作学习和分布式认知）以及学校的管理和组织（如分布式领导）中。什么是“分布式领导”？这不是一个容易回答的问题，但除非概念清晰，否则很难在实证研究中实施分布式领导力。在第二章中，彼得·格隆（Peter Gronn）的工作对建立这一流派具有重要意义，他“对最近对分布式领导力日益增长的关注提出了一个小小的警告”。他现在倾向于“混合型领导”。这避免了从脚本中写出以个人为中心的领导力，而支持分布式领导力。有时两者都是必需的，并且混合配置将视具体情况而定。约翰·麦克比斯（John MacBeath，第 3 章）在对社会文化活动理论有所了解的情况下，提出了一种基于经验的“分配分类法”。它包括六种形式：正式分发；务实地分配；战略性分布；增量分配；机会主义分配和文化分配。根据有关组织学习的文献，Alma Harris（第 11 章）生成了一种分布式领导实践的“A”列表：即席分配；专制分配；自主分配；和附加分布。或者，在第 10 章中，以 Kenneth Leithwood 等人提出的四种不同的“分布式领导模式”为例：自发排列；自发错位；和无政府主义的错位。读完本书后，读者可能会认为分布式领导力的概念已经无处不在，这是情有可原的。在最后一章中，编辑们坦诚地说：“[。 。 .]对于大多数读者来说，这十章的结果很可能会让人感觉对这个想法的不同观点的“嗡嗡声混乱”（第270页）。就是这样。关于分布式领导力的概念就讲这么多。证据呢？大多数研究都牢固地符合解释范式。因此，本书的第二部分关注的是“分布式领导力如何在学校和地区发挥作用”。例如，教育管理行政与领导力 38(1)
Look no further. ‘Virtually all of the available evidence about a distributed approach to leader ship can be found in this book’. So says the publisher’s blurb on the back cover of the paperback edition. Most of the prominent researchers within the genre figure in the collection. The majority are based in the USA and in Canada, especially in the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE) at the University of Toronto. A few work in the UK, and one in New Zealand. These are the societies wherein the writ of economic neoliberalism has run the deepest. With it has come the quest to re-culture schools and to ‘equip’ them for an age of enterprise and collaborative capitalism. And we are said to be in this together: all is to be ‘joined up’; the search for synergies and strategic alliances is on; no longer shall we be sequestered in our separate professional silos; trust is on the up; collective intelligence and collective effort are required. For a head teacher or principal to face alone an incessant flow of state-based mandates and market forces is to invite burn-out. Going solo and playing the hero is no longer an option. A new ‘distributed’ structural isomorphism will suffuse itself throughout the re-configured education system, thereby disturbing long-held bureaucratic identities. Signs of it will surely surface in the pedagogical exchange (as in collaborative learning and distributed cognition), and also in the management and organisation of schools (as in distributed leader ship). What is ‘distributed leader ship’? This is not an easy question to answer, but unless there is conceptual clarity it will be difficult to operationalize distributed leader ship in empirical research. In chapter two, Peter Gronn, whose work was seminal in establishing the genre, sounds ‘a small note of caution regarding the recent growing attention accorded distributed leader ship’. He inclines now towards ‘hybrid leader ship’. This avoids writing individually focused leader ship out of the script in favour of distributed leader ship. Both are at times required, and the hybrid configuration would be contingent upon circumstance. With some acknowledgement to socio-cultural activity theory, John MacBeath (Chapter 3) generates an empirically based ‘taxonomy of distribution’. It comprises six forms: distribution formally; distribution pragmatically; distribution strategically; distribution incrementally; distribution opportunistically and distribution culturally. Informed by the literature on organisational learning, Alma Harris (Chapter 11) generates a type of ‘A’-list of distributed leader ship practice: ad hoc distribution; autocratic distribution; autonomous distribution; and additive distribution. Or, in Chapter 10, take Kenneth Leithwood et al.’s four distinct ‘patterns of distributed leader ship’: planful alignment; spontaneous alignment; spontaneous misalignment; and anarchic misalignment. By the end of the book, the reader could be excused for thinking that the concept of distributed leader ship is—appropriately—all over the place. In their concluding chapter the editors state candidly: ‘[. . .] the result across the ten chapters will very likely feel, to most readers, like a “buzzing confusion” of alternative perspectives on the idea’ (p. 270). Just so. So much for the concept of distributed leader ship. What of the evidence? Most of the studies fit firmly within the interpretive paradigm. Thus it is that Part 2 of the book is concerned with ‘how distributed leader ship works in schools and districts’. For example, Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(1)