Distributed Leadership
Distributed Leadership PDF
Donley, J., Detrich, R., States, J., & Keyworth, (2020). Distributed Leadership. Oakland, CA: The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/leadership-models-distributed
School principals have been the focus of much of the research on educational leadership, with studies generally demonstrating that principals exert a strong, though mediated, influence on student learning, and powerfully impact factors such as school climate and teacher working conditions (Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Hitt & Tucker, 2016; Leithwood, Harris, & Hopkins, 2020; Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008; Sebastian & Allensworth, 2012; Supovitz, Sirinides, & May, 2010). However, with the advent of the democratic and participative school restructuring movement of the 1990s that called for empowering teachers as professional educators to maximize the potential for school improvement (Marks & Louis, 1997), a key leadership model emerged to describe how principals and teachers work together to share the leadership load and determine the best instructional practices for the school (Marks & Printy, 2003). The distributed leadership model has been the focus of abundant lines of research (Gümüş, Bellibaş, Esen, & Gümüş, 2018); this review summarizes the evidence for the model’s efficacy in explaining how principals and teachers together influence school practices and effectiveness.
Background and Definitions of Terms
The origins of distributed leadership grew out of turning away from the “great man” concept of educational leadership, in which a single actor was thought necessary to lead in a top-down way in a bureaucratic organizational school structure (Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Pearce & Conger, 2003). The shift toward a flatter organizational structure, in which there are few or no levels of middle management between leaders and staff-level employees, reflected an increased appreciation for the contributions of individuals who often performed leadership roles in schools without holding positions of formal authority (Gronn, 2003). Distributed leadership was also touted as a way to support school principals who frequently face increasing complexities of leadership challenges in today’s schools. As noted previously, these challenges resulted from massive restructuring efforts to improve schools and to professionalize the role of teachers so more teachers could share responsibility for leadership work (Marks & Louis, 1997; Marks & Printy, 2003).
The seminal research conducted by Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001, 2004) set the stage for further lines of investigation into distributed leadership. These researchers argued that “to understand leadership practice, it is essential to go beyond a consideration of the roles, strategies, and traits of the individuals who occupy formal leadership positions to investigate how the practice of leadership is stretched over leaders, followers, and material and symbolic artifacts in the situation” (Spillane et al., 2004, p. 27). Distributed leadership involves the principal and teachers collaborating to determine and carry out the best practices for the school, rather than the principal serving as the sole or primary authority on these matters (Spillane et al., 2001, 2004).
Studies on distributed leadership use a variety of perspectives and terminology (Liu, Bellibaş, & Gümüş, 2020), such as shared instructional leadership (Marks & Printy, 2003), collective leadership (e.g., Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), and democratic leadership (Natsiopoulou & Giouroukakis, 2010). These terms are often used interchangeably with distributed leadership, leading to some confusion and the misperception that distributed leadership includes the notion that everyone leads together at the same level (Harris, 2007). Rather, distributed leadership “essentially means that those best equipped or skilled or positioned to lead do so, in order to fulfill a particular goal or organizational requirement.” (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016, p. 144).
Eckert (2019) noted that distributed leadership does not consist solely of delegation of tasks by principals to teachers. Rather, distributed leadership is considered a key component of learning-centered leadership, which is performed collaboratively by administrators and teachers and relies on complex, organic interrelationships as well as shared responsibility for learning outcomes (Murphy, Elliott, Goldring, & Porter, 2006). Administrators and teachers work and learn together as they coordinate practices such as setting the direction for the school, developing school staff, redesigning the organization as necessary, and improving the instructional program (Leithwood & Louis, 2012; Murphy, 2005). The idea of distributed leadership is based on the notion that when teacher-leaders, who have assumed responsibility for achieving common goals, work together with the principal, they accomplish more than the principal could accomplish working alone (Chrispeels, 2004; Hallinger, 2005). In fact, inflexible hierarchies can produce low staff morale and performance (Tian, Risku, & Collin, 2016).
Supporting Research and Important Factors and Caveats
Distributed leadership has received an extensive amount of research attention, particularly in the past decade (Gümüş et al., 2018), and supporting research includes related investigations that have generally confirmed the leadership potential of teachers to act as mentors, curriculum specialists, and resource providers in addition to classroom instructors (Tian & Huber, 2020). Distributed leadership has been associated with positive outcomes such as improved student academic performance (Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Hallinger & Heck, 2010b; Heck & Hallinger, 2009; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008), teacher academic optimism and professional efficacy (Mascall, Leithwood, Strauss, & Sacks, 2008), organizational commitment (Hulpia & Devos, 2010; Hulpia, Devos, & Van Keer, 2011), teacher satisfaction (Liu et al., 2020), and teacher retention (Booker & Glazerman, 2009; Cowan & Goldhaber, 2016), as well as increased teacher effectiveness and instructional improvement (Ali & Yangaiya, 2015; Camburn & Han, 2009; Supovitz & Riggan, 2012).
Collective leadership, which “encompasses the practices through which teachers and administrators influence colleagues, policymakers, and others to improve teaching and learning” (Eckert, 2018, p. 5), has also been shown to have a greater influence on student outcomes than individual principal leadership (Louis, Leithwood, Wahlstrom, & Anderson, 2010). The source of this influence may lie at least in part on collective leadership’s potential to enhance teachers’ professional efficacy, which has been shown to be a highly influential factor for student learning (Hattie, 2017).
In a recent overview of the research support for distributed leadership, Leithwood et al. (2020) stated that “school leadership can have an especially positive influence on school and student outcomes when it is distributed” (p. 9). Still, how that leadership is distributed produces diverse outcomes and results, and effectiveness depends on how leadership roles and responsibilities are distributed to optimally address the organization’s needs. Research suggests that careful planning, coordination, and intentional support on the part of the principal or other school leaders to distribute leadership based on staff characteristics or competencies maximize the chances for improved school outcomes (Bush & Glover, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2007).
The quality and distribution of leadership functions and opportunities for participative decision making and cooperation in leadership teams have been found to influence teachers’ organizational commitment, with teachers more strongly committed when informal leadership responsibilities are shared based on patterns of staff expertise, such as when new teams are created to solve problems of practice (DeFlaminis, 2013; Hulpia & Devos, 2010). These patterns of expertise, of course, vary from school to school context (Eckert, 2019; Hallinger & Heck, 2010a; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2020), meaning that distributed leadership will likely be enacted differently across schools.
As the research base on distributed leadership has expanded, criticisms have appeared in the literature. For example, some critiques suggested that distributed leadership was conceived as a way to get teachers to do more work and as a more efficient way to deliver top-down, standardized policies and practices (Hargreaves & Fink, 2009). Lumby (2013) argued that claims of distributed leadership’s potential to empower and open up new teacher opportunities might be unwarranted and that there was no mention of the potential for unequal inclusion related to gender and race. Lumby suggested that distributed leadership “reconciles staff to growing workloads and accountability and writes troubling issues of the disempowerment and/or exclusion of staff out of the leadership script” (p. 582). Indeed, some research has included examples of how those with leadership authority and responsibility in schools have used distributed leadership for detrimental and damaging purposes (Harris, 2013).
The empirical research suggests that careful design and wise execution of distributed leadership strategies, when tailored to suit the school context, provide the best chance for distributed leadership to improve organizational performance and outcomes (Camburn & Han, 2009). In addition, high levels of trust, transparency, and mutual respect, along with a culture of collaborative learning and shared practice, are necessary for distributed leadership to have a positive impact (Harris, 2014; Massachusetts Department Elementary and Secondary Education, n.d.; Tian et al., 2016). The leadership capacity of teachers must also be considered, as this capacity can be hampered or supported by factors such as degree of preparation and professional development for leadership work (Jensen, Roberts-Hull, Magee, & Ginnivan, 2016; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009), and even meaningful leadership work, when added to the workload of teachers who are already at capacity with their own instructional responsibilities, will likely not translate to more positive student outcomes (Eckert, 2019). As Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) noted, “distributed leadership is not a panacea, it depends on how it is shared, received and enacted” (p. 143).
Distributed Leadership in Action
Distributed leadership was initially intended to be a theoretical framework for understanding how school leadership actions are enacted among school leaders and staff depending on the situational context (Spillane et al., 2001). However, many researchers today view it through a prescriptive lens and advocate it for purposes of reshaping leadership practices to increase the likelihood of school improvement (Robinson, 2009). Nonprofit organizations, such as the Wallace Foundation, have supported research on distributed leadership and widely disseminated the encouraging findings to policymakers working toward school improvement (e.g., Hallinger & Heck, 2009, 2010a, 2010b; Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). National principal leadership standards now reflect the importance of distributed leadership and include it in effective practices for operations and management and school improvement (National Policy Board for Educational Administration, 2015).
The notion of distributed leadership was operationalized in the Annenberg Foundation’s Distributed Leadership Project (DLP), which sought to build leadership capacity through a distributed perspective in urban schools with highly diverse student populations and in need of substantial school improvement (DeFlaminis, 2013). The DLP provided principal preparation to establish a distributed leadership mindset, and assisted with the development of distributed leadership teams to build leadership capacity in Philadelphia schools. Positive results in the form of multiple leadership team outcomes (e.g., effective team functioning and trust and efficacy levels among team members) led to the program being replicated in New York in 2015 (Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016).
Leadership teams. As noted previously, studies have determined that distributed leadership must be purposefully designed (Leithwood et al., 2007). School leadership teams in the form of overall school improvement teams, instructional teams, or professional learning communities (PLCs) are examples of distributed leadership in practice that have received wide research attention. Research shows that when principals work with a team of teachers, forming school-based leadership teams, the speed at which improvement efforts occur increases and reform is more likely to be sustained (Edwards & Gammell, 2016; Pedersen, Yager, & Yager, 2010). Further, school leadership models are more effective when they distribute responsibilities to a team rather than promoting unilateral decisions and actions (Hanover Research, 2013; Wallace Foundation, 2013).
The potential of leadership teams to free up time for administrators to be more directly involved in day-to-day instruction and organization management appears to be part of the reason that distributed management responsibilities improve student performance. Horng, Klasik, and Loeb (2010) reported that principals spent significantly less time on administrative tasks and more time on day-to-day instructional tasks in high-performing schools than in low-performing schools, as rated by state accountability systems. To become effective instructional leaders—by visiting classrooms, contributing to curriculum development, and coaching teachers—principals must step away from more managerial responsibilities and delegate some leadership tasks to others (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013; Murphy, Elliot, Goldring, & Porter, 2007). These leadership tasks must be assigned based on patterns of expertise in the school and avoid excessive burdens to teacher-leaders (Spillane, 2005). In addition, a principal does not have expertise in every area of his or her instructional responsibility, particularly when it comes to secondary content areas. The literature recommends that principals share or distribute leadership to teachers with content area expertise in these areas, and that they partner with the leadership team to oversee their work (Hallinger & Murphy, 2013).
Summary and Conclusions
Distributed leadership has emerged as a key model in the field of educational leadership, as research has accumulated regarding the benefits of teacher leadership and the need to spread the responsibility for school improvement beyond the sole domain of the building principal. The model is part of learning-centered leadership, in which principals and teachers work together to share responsibility for the school’s instructional program and learning outcomes at the school. Distributed leadership has received extensive research support, suggesting that these collaborative leadership cultures are associated with positive teacher and student outcomes. However, leadership roles and responsibilities must be carefully planned and tailored to meet the needs of the school’s context by appropriately using staff’s areas of expertise to assign leadership roles. This, in turn, means that distributed leadership will look quite different in practice across schools.
Distributed leadership is not without critics who raise issues about the potential to burden already overworked teachers with additional responsibilities, and with failure in the research to discuss how to ensure equal opportunities based on staff gender and race. Schools offering a staff climate of trust, transparency, and a culture of shared practice, along with preparation and development to fulfill leadership roles, provide the best chance for distributed leadership to be effective.
The research support for distributed leadership has led many in the field to view the model as prescriptive for educational leadership practice, and this view has resulted in national principal standards that call for principal capacity to distribute leadership in schools as a key indicator of effective practice. Distributed leadership has taken the form of training and development of school leaders and teams in schools in need of improvement, with positive outcomes. The rise of leadership teams in schools also demonstrates how distributed leadership is enacted, and these teams afford principals the opportunity to engage more closely with instructional leadership as well as the chance to build the leadership capacity of school staff.
Citations
Ali, H. M., & Yangaiya, S. A. (2015). Investigating the influence of distributed leadership on school effectiveness: A mediating role of teachers’ commitment. Journal of Educational and Social Research, 5(1), 163–174. https://core.ac.uk/reader/228577190
Booker, K., & Glazerman, S. (2009). Effects of the Missouri Career Ladder program on teacher mobility. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507470.pdf
Bush, T, & Glover, D (2012) Distributed leadership in action: Leading high-performing leadership teams in English schools. School Leadership and Management, 32(1), 21–36.
Camburn, E., & Han, S. W. (2009). Investigating connections between distributed leadership and instructional change. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 25–45). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Chrispeels, J. H. (Ed.). (2004). Learning to lead together: The promise and challenge of sharing leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Cowan, J., & Goldhaber, D. (2016). National board certification and teacher effectiveness: Evidence from Washington State. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(3), 233–258.
DeFlaminis, J. A. (2013). The implementation and replication of the distributed leadership program: More lessons learned and beliefs confirmed. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
Eckert, J. (2018). Leading together: Teachers and administrators improving student outcomes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Eckert, J. (2019). Collective leadership development: Emerging themes from urban, suburban, and rural high schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 477–509.
Edwards, B., & Gammell, J. (2016). Building strong school leadership teams to sustain reform. Leadership, 45(3), 20-22. https://www.shastacoe.org/uploaded/Haylie_Blalock/Building-Strong-School-Leadership-Teams-to-Sustain-Reform.pdf
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practices in an era of school reform. London: Paul Chapman.
Gümüş, S., Bellibaş, M. S., Esen, M., & Gümüş, E. (2018). A systematic review of studies of leadership models in educational research from 1980 to 2014. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(1), 25–48.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221–239. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228633330_Instructional_Leadership_and_the_School_Principal_A_Passing_Fancy_that_Refuses_to_Fade_Away
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2009). Distributed leadership in schools: Does system policy make a difference? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Studies in educational leadership (pp. 101–117). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010a). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make a difference in school improvement? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(6), 654–678.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010b). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Philip_Hallinger/publication/280887669_Collaborative_Leadership_and_School_Improvement_Understanding_the_Impact_on_School_Capacity_and_Student_Learning/links/55caa71408aeca747d69f0cd/Collaborative-Leadership-and-School
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (2013). Running on empty? Finding the time and capacity to lead learning. NASSP Bulletin, 97(1), 5–21. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0192636512469288
Hanover Research (2013). Best practices in K-12 leadership structures. Washington, DC: Author. http://gssaweb.org/webnew/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Best-Practices-in-K-12-Leadership-Structures.pdf
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2009). Distributed leadership: Democracy or delivery? In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 181–193). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Harris, A. (2007). Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of School Leadership, 10(3), 315–325.
Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Harris, A. (2014, September 29). Distributed leadership. Teacher. https://www.teachermagazine.com.au/articles/distributed-leadership?lang=en
Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146.
Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning: 250+ influences on student achievement. https://visible-learning.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/VLPLUS-252-Influences-Hattie-ranking-DEC-2017.pdf
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (2009). Assessing the contribution of distributed leadership to school improvement and growth in math achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 46(3), 659–689.
Hitt, D. H., & Tucker, P. D. (2016). Systematic review of key leader practices found to influence student achievement: A unified framework. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 531–569.
Horng, E. L., Klasik, D., & Loeb, S. (2010). Principal’s time use and school effectiveness. American Journal of Education, 116(4), 491–523. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Principal%27s%20Time%20Use%20AJE.pdf
Hulpia, H., & Devos, G. (2010). How distributed leadership can make a difference in teachers’ organizational commitment? A qualitative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 565–575.
Hulpia, H., Devos, G., & Van Keer, H. (2011). The relation between school leadership from a distributed perspective and teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the source of the leadership function. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(5), 728–771.
Jensen, B., Roberts-Hull, K., Magee, J., & Ginnivan, L. (2016). Not so elementary: Primary school teacher quality in high-performing systems. Washington, DC: National Center on Education and the Economy. http://ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/169726_Not_So_Elementary_Report_FINAL.pdf
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership and Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332530133_Seven_strong_claims_about_successful_school_leadership_revisited
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/b3d8/34602d17a14f306f6961863aef9c7ab9e901.pdf?_ga=2.12843442.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243
Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, R., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 37–67.
Leithwood, K., & Louis, K. S. (2012). Linking leadership to student learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Leithwood, K., & Sun, J. (2012). The nature and effects of transformational school leadership: A meta-analytic review of unpublished research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(3), 387–423.
Liu, T., Bellibaş, M. S., & Gümüş, S. (2020). The effect of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on teacher self-efficacy and job satisfaction: Mediating roles of supportive school culture and teacher collaboration. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., & Anderson, S. E. (2010). Investigating the links to improved student learning. New York, NY: Wallace Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf
Lumby, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: The uses and abuses of power. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 581–597. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258135611_Distributed_Leadership_The_Uses_and_Abuses_of_Power
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245–275.
Marks, H. M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 370–397.
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2008). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 214–228. https://www.hsredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/09578230810863271.pdf
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (n.d.). An interactive planning guide for distributed leadership. http://www.doe.mass.edu/edeval/leadership/DistributedLeadershipIPG.pdf
Murphy, J. (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Murphy, J., Elliot, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2006). Learning-centered leadership: A conceptual foundation. Nashville, TN: Learning Sciences Institute, Vanderbilt University.
Murphy, J., Elliott, S. N., Goldring, E., & Porter, A. C. (2007). Leadership for learning: A research-based model and taxonomy of behaviors. School Leadership and Management, 27(2), 179–201.
National Policy Board for Educational Administration. (2015). Professional standards for educational leaders. Reston, VA: Author. https://www.npbea.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Professional-Standards-for-Educational-Leaders_2015.pdf
Natsiopoulou, E., & Giouroukakis, V. (2010). When teachers run the school. Educational Leadership, 67(7), 2–5. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/apr10/vol67/num07/When-Teachers-Run-the-School.aspx
Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Pedersen, J., Yager, S. & Yager, R. (2010). Distributed leadership influence on professional development initiatives: Conversations with eight teachers. Academic Leadership: The Online Journal, 8(3).
Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership. In A. Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership: Different perspectives (pp. 219–240). New York, NY: Springer.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on school outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635–674.
Sebastian, J., & Allensworth, E. (2012). The influence of principal leadership on classroom instruction and student learning: A study of mediated pathways to learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(4), 626–663.
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143-150. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00131720508984678
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23≠28. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5283/8fdbf34414a8beb75fed057f4959705215de.pdf?_ga=2.55369006.469798984.1593548135-1379934943.1547574243
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233013775_Towards_a_theory_of_leadership_practice_A_distributed_perspective
Supovitz, J., & Riggan, M. (2012). Building a foundation for school leadership: An evaluation of the Annenberg Distributed Leadership Project, 2006–2010. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=cpre_researchreports
Supovitz, J., Sirinides, P., & May, H. (2010). How principals and peers influence teaching and learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(1), 31–56.
Tian, M., & Huber, S. G. (2020). Mapping educational leadership, administration and management research 2007–2016. Journal of Educational Administration, 58(2), 129–150.
Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164.
Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. New York, NY: Author. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-Leader-Guiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning-2nd-Ed.pdf
Wei, R. C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/professional-learning-learning-profession-status-report-teacher-development-us-and-abroad.pdf
