THESIS 2:Ex A Qualitative Analysis of distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective of Principal Leadership Effectiveness

Northeastern University
Education Doctoral Theses School of Education
March 01, 2013
A qualitative analysis of distributed leadership and
teacher perspective of principal leadership
effectiveness
Jane O'Connor Lizotte
This work is available open access, hosted by Northeastern University.
Recommended Citation
Lizotte, Jane O'Connor, "A qualitative analysis of distributed leadership and teacher perspective of principal leadership effectiveness"
(2013). Education Doctoral Theses. Paper 96. http://hdl.handle.net/2047/d20003030

1

A Qualitative Analysis of Distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective
of Principal Leadership Effectiveness
A thesis presented
by
Jane O’Connor Lizotte
to
The School of Education
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
in the field of
Education
College of Professional Studies
Boston, Massachusetts
March 2013

2

Abstract
In recent years, expectations for schools have increased to the point where they are now
expected to ensure that all students are learning at high levels. This is a daunting, complex, and
ambitious aspiration that requires leadership beyond that provided by the principal. The purpose
of this qualitative study was to analyze teachers’ perception of principal practices that positively
or negatively influence distributed leadership in a school, as well as teachers’ perceptions of the
benefits and drawbacks of such efforts. In doing so, this researcher will improve ways in which
a principal can best support a distributed leadership model.
The study focused on the perspectives of 57 middle school teachers from one suburban
school district in Central Massachusetts. Data collection involved the following components:
a) An anonymous online questionnaire to obtain information regarding teachers’
perceptions of distributed leadership and a principal’s influence on distributed leadership
in a school,
b) A series of three focus groups, heterogeneously grouped to represent a cross-section of
teachers and specialists, discussing participants’ personal experiences in the context of
distributed leadership.
c) Reflective note-taking to assist with recall of group dynamics and information shared.
These data were thematically coded and analyzed in order to identify principal practices that
positively or negatively influenced distributed leadership in a school, along with the benefits and
drawbacks of such efforts. The findings provide teachers’ perceptions of principal practices that
support distributed leadership. Results of the study are relevant to principals and school leaders

3

who seek to better understand what a principal does (or does not do) to influence distributed
leadership in a school, while considering the benefits and drawbacks of these efforts.
Keywords: teacher leadership, distributed leadership, shared leadership, collaboration,
professional learning communities

4

Acknowledgments
Acknowledging the many people who have supported me throughout this period in my
life, as I attempted to balance my roles of wife, mother, sister, daughter, aunt, friend, colleague,
principal, teammate and student may be the most challenging portion of this project, yet by far,
the most gratifying. There are numerous people who I would like to recognize and thank for
their support of me, particularly when I was under significant pressure to complete this doctoral
program.
I would like to begin by thanking my husband, David, and our children, Katherine, Joe,
Elena, and Anna, each of whom consistently picked up the pieces at home, on the soccer field,
and in the classroom, when I was not able to be there to fulfill those responsibilities. Words
cannot adequately express my gratitude to them for their unconditional love and their words and
expressions of encouragement during this challenging process.
I am also extremely grateful to my NEU cohort partners consisting of Ann Jones, Gina
Kahn, Brian Reagan, and Todd Bazydlo, each of whom provided the support needed to reach the
finish line. A special thanks to Ann for her willingness to help me along—no matter how early
in the morning or how late in the evening. Her dedication to my project was amazing. Thank
you to Dr. Joseph Sawyer, my third reader, colleague, supervisor, friend, and neighbor, who
advised me throughout this process and encouraged me to keep going. I would also like to thank
my mother, father, siblings, friends, neighbors, assistant principals, and colleagues for keeping
the light inside my head and heart alive and refused to allow that flame to burn out. Finally, I
would like to thank Dr. Nena Stracuzzi for serving as my advisor during the latter portion of the
program and who was there for me from start to finish of the writing of my thesis. I would not
have completed this major portion of the program requirements without her support and

5

encouragement. Thank you to all for serving as the support systems that I needed to complete
this doctoral program.

6

Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………………………………………………………………. 2
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………. 4
Chapter I: Introduction ……………………………………………………………..… 8
Problem Statement ……………………………………………………………. 8
Significance of Problem ………………………………………………………. 9
Intellectual Goals ……………………………………………………………… 12
Practical Goals ………………………………………………………………… 12
Summary of Research Questions ……………………………………………… 13
Document Organization and Content …………………………………………. 13
Theoretical Framework ……………………………………………………….. 14
Distributed Leadership Theory ………………………………………………… 14
Chapter II: Literature Review ……………………………………………………….. 21
The Emergence of Communities of Teacher Leaders …………………………. 23
The Power of Professional Communities ……………………………………… 25
The Role of Trust in Collaborative Practice …………………………………… 27
The Emergence of Distributed Leadership …………………………………….. 29
Implications for Further Research ……………………………………………… 36
Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………………… 37
Rationale for a Qualitative Design ……………………………………………… 38
Site and Participants …………………………………………………………….. 38
Data Collection ………………………………………………………………….. 39
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………………. 44
Limitations ……………………………………………………………………… 49
Validity …………………………………………………………………………. 51
Reliability ……………………………………………………………………….. 52
Protection of Human Subjects …………………………………………………... 54
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………. 56
Chapter IV: Research Findings ………………………………………………………… 56
Study Context …………………………………………………………………… 59
Data ……………………………………………………………………………… 59
Research Question 1: Findings and Analysis…………………………………… 61
Research Question 2: Findings and Analysis …………………………………… 77
Summary of the Findings ……………………………………………………….. 92
Chapter V: Discussion of the Research Findings …………………………………….. 95
Summary of the Problem ………………………………………………………... 95
Review of the Methodology …………………………………………………….. 99
Summary of the Findings ………………………………………………………... 100
Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Theoretical Framework ………….. 105
Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Literature Review ………………... 113
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………... 122
Personal Reflections………………………………………………………………. 128
References ………………………………………………………………………………... 132
Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………….. 139

7

List of Appendices
Appendix A ……………………………………………………………………………. 139
Appendix B ……………………………………………………………………………. 141
Appendix C ……………………………………………………………………………. 143
Appendix D ……………………………………………………………………………. 146
Appendix E ……………………………………………………………………………. 148
Appendix F ……………………………………………………………………………. 150
Appendix G ……………………………………………………………………………. 152
Appendix H ……………………………………………………………………………. 153
Appendix I ……………………………………………………………………………. 154
Appendix J ……………………………………………………………………………. 155
Appendix K ……………………………………………………………………………. 156

8

Chapter I: Introduction
Problem Statement
The pressure for improved student achievement has never been greater as schools face
significant challenges to respond to the demands associated with preparing students for the 21st
century and standards-based reform (Elmore, 2000). The enormous weight of the many
associated expectations rests traditionally upon the school principal (Danielson, 2007). Indeed,
according to Fullan (1998), “the constant bombardment of new tasks and the continual
interruptions keep principals off balance. Not only are the demands fragmented and incoherent,
but even good ideas have a short shelf life as initiatives are dropped in favor of the latest new
policy” (p. 6). As such, researchers investigating school leadership contend, that no one person
can effectively lead a school, and recommend a collaborative model that involves the
participation of school faculty through shared decision-making as defined by a distributed
leadership model (Gronn, 2008; Spillane, 2005; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990; Blase & Blase;
1994). A distributed leadership model is one in which teachers and principals share leadership
roles (Spillane, 2005). Though research contends that distributed leadership is a valuable
pathway to school improvement and a necessary skill for principals in the current educational
environment, it remains unclear how principals influence the course of distributed leadership in
their schools (Crow, Hausman, & Scribner, 2002).
Distributed leadership is evident in schools where teachers and principals share
leadership functions including facilitating grade level curriculum meetings, coordinating
professional development opportunities, and serving as school representatives on district-wide
sub committees. It is important to note, however, that distributed leadership is a way of thinking
about leadership within an organization. In other words, it is a perspective rather than a

9

prescription for how leadership should be accomplished (Spillane, 2005, 2006). Though it has
been demonstrated to be a successful model for school management, it has not been clearly
defined as to how principals should go about developing and implementing a distributed
leadership model (Harris & Spillane, 2008). What is known is that in order for distributed
leadership to take hold and thrive in a school, principals need to determine ways to empower
teachers to assume leadership opportunities with the ultimate goal of influencing one another to
improve student learning, which is the mission of all schools (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). In order
to do this, the role of the principal must change, as this requires a different set of facilitative
skills that, in turn, transforms the role of the teacher (Barth, 2001; DuFour & Eaker, 1998). It
cannot be presumed, however, that principals understand how this can be accomplished. As
noted previously, with distributed leadership practices as yet undefined as to how these changes
occur, further investigation is needed. The problem of practice explored in this research is the
gap between the concept of distributed leadership and teachers’ perceptions of this concept when
a principal enacts a distributed leadership model in a school. This research investigated the
experiences and insights of teachers to determine some of the ways in which the practices of a
school principal can foster and support positive outcomes through distributed leadership and
sought to identify the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts.
Significance of the Problem
Given the expectations that schools have upon them in the education reform era, it is not
possible for the leadership of the principal alone to enable the school to meet those demands.
Schools are expected to do more than ever before, so the idea that one formal leader can meet
those demands by adhering to the policies and mandates set before them is not realistic (Blase &
Blase, 1994, 1999; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Spillane, 2005, 2006). While principals are

10

significantly impacted by these demands, teachers are also at the pressure point of such policies
(Achinstein, 2002; Hallinger & Heck, 1996). Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001) observed that
many previous reform efforts, often created and communicated by administrators or others who
are either not associated with the school or lack any classroom teaching experience, “sent a
message to teachers that they were incapable of creating adequate learning environments for
their students. The teachers rarely saw the strategies as relevant to their work. The teachers
were viewed as individuals who needed ‘fixing’” (p. 41). In other words, these efforts and
mandates that were intended to be supportive of teachers were viewed with disdain and
disappointment, as teachers found them to be ineffective. Researchers contend that the key to
engaging teachers in effective reform is to not only include them as professionals in the work of
improving student learning (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour & Marzano, 2011), but tap into
their power to help lead these efforts in their schools. To the extent that a distributed leadership
model can facilitate this, how principals make this shift needs to be further explored.
In its 1996 report on improving teaching in the United States, the National Commission
on Teaching & America’s Future (NCTAF) clearly stated that in order to improve, schools must
become places where teachers are treated as professionals and where they are allowed the
opportunity to collaborate. DuFour and Eaker (1998) proposed that schools become professional
learning communities that include teachers in all aspects of school improvement and emphasized
the importance of this concept. They argue that in order to achieve a true professional learning
community, “principals must foster this image of the teacher as a leader and demonstrate that
they regard teachers as fellow leaders rather than subordinates” (p. 198).
Promoting, cultivating, and utilizing a distributed leadership model is a potentially
powerful way for principals to involve teachers meaningfully in the improvement of public

11

education (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1990, 1999), but it must be understood from the teachers’ point
of view in order to successfully occur. Because the norm in American schools has been and
continues to be the bureaucratic model where teachers are workers and administrators are
managers, research and practice in educational leadership has mainly focused on the
administrator as leader. Virtually all of the literature on teacher leadership cites the importance
of the principal’s influence as a key determinant of whether teacher leadership is cultivated in a
school. Barth (2001), Crowther et al. (2002), Donaldson (2001), DuFour and Eaker (1998),
Katzenmeyer and Moller (2001), and Lambert (2003) all make specific reference to the crucial
role that the principal plays in supporting teacher leadership. Crowther et al. (2002) stated,
“[W]here we have seen teacher leadership begin to flourish, principals have actively supported it,
or, at least, encouraged it” (p. 33). Based on his work with teacher leaders in Rhode Island,
Barth (2001) said that principals can “inspire a culture of teacher leadership in their schools” (p.
110).
Ultimately, the goal of any school is to provide an environment where student learning
takes precedence over everything else. Barth (2001) advised that schools work to become
communities of learners where the leadership of the principal leads to teacher development
which leads to successful student development and where teacher leadership shapes educational
practice and the profession of teaching. Distributed leadership is evolving as one vehicle to
accomplish this goal (Barth, 2001; Blase & Blase, 1999; Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Fullan,
2001; Marzano, 2003). However, further investigation is needed to determine how principals
can influence its practice.

12

Intellectual Goals
Maxwell (2005) suggested five possible intellectual goals for qualitative studies: to
understand the meaning of events, situations, experiences, and actions; to understand a particular
context; to identify unanticipated phenomena; to understand the process by which events or
actions take place; and to develop causal explanations. The intellectual goals for this study were
to understand teachers’ perceptions of a principal’s practices of distributed leadership and to
identify the benefits and drawbacks of such practices, in order to improve teaching and learning.
These goals emerged from both the researcher’s observations in one school and a review of
literature that explored how distributed leadership is fostered in an organization. Identifying
teachers’ perceptions may provide insight into how principals can develop distributed leadership
in a school community.
Practical Goals
This study investigated teachers’ perceptions of principal practices in order to identify
how principals influence teachers’ decisions to assume leadership roles in a school and to gain an
understanding of teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts. By
engaging in collaborative dialogue with teachers and listening and responding to their questions
and comments, this researcher sought to become better equipped with practices that foster and
support distributed leadership at Lydon Middle School. Further, the researcher identified
teachers’ perceptions of principal practices that had either a positive or negative influence on the
school community and outlined the benefits and drawbacks of such practices. In accomplishing
these goals, the study not only provides solutions to the problem of practice, but offers insights
into the field of education, as schools and districts confront increasing challenges in meeting
local, state, and national mandates.

13

Summary of Research Questions
Two research questions guided this study. The questions are:
Question 1. What principal practices do teachers perceive as having a positive or
negative influence on distributed leadership at Lydon Middle School?
Question 2. What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of a principal’s
efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school?
Participants involved in this study provided insight into the ways in which distributed leadership
positively and/or negatively influences a school and considered the benefits and drawbacks of a
principal’s efforts to support a distributed leadership model.
Document Organization and Content
This dissertation is presented in five sections and is organized in a way that provides the
reader with a framework for understanding what distributed leadership is and how teachers
perceive that a school principal positively or negatively influences distributed leadership
practices in a middle school. The theoretical framework of distributed leadership, and its
relevance to the problem of practice, forms the foundation for the study and is outlined in
Chapter 1. Chapter 2
reviews the literature to gain a better understanding of what distributed
leadership is, how teachers emerge into communities of teacher leaders, ways in which
professional learning communities contribute to how leadership is practiced in a school, why
trust is essential to collaborative practice, and finally, how distributed leadership has emerged as
a vehicle for improvement. Identified gaps in the existing bodies of work affirm the goals and
establish the merit of this additional research. Chapter 3
consists of the research design of the
study, the research questions, methodology, information about the site and participant
demographic data, data collection methods, and data analysis. In addition, qualitative

14

approaches including survey and focus group design, data gathering, coding and thematic
analysis are described. Further, the steps that were taken to ensure validity and credibility,
including adherence to strict ethical research standards and protection of study participants from
potential harm are included. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study. Finally, Chapter 5
discusses the findings, draws conclusions about their relevance and presents the study’s
significant contributions in the ways that principals will positively influence distributed
leadership in a school, with an understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts.
Appendices include all pertinent supporting documentation that was used in the study or
referenced within the report of findings.
Theoretical Framework
Distributing leadership in a school community provides an opportunity for teachers to
influence meaningful collaborative practices through shared leadership. Spillane (2005)
explained that distributed leadership is a perspective—a conceptual or diagnostic tool for
thinking about school leadership. It is not a detailed outline for effective leadership, nor a
description of how school leadership should be exercised. This type of leadership focuses on
what people do and how and why they do it. Using a distributed leadership framework,
leadership practice is viewed as a product of the interactions of school leaders, followers, and
their situation. Leadership practice is not viewed as the result of a leader’s knowledge and skill,
but is viewed instead as the interactions between people and the circumstances surrounding
them. It is through these interactions, rather than actions, that leadership practice is understood,
as the interactions inform, influence, and construct leadership practice.
Distributed Leadership Theory
Distributed Leadership Theory framed this research and informed the problem of

15

practice; namely, how does a school principal influence distributed leadership practices in order
that all students are learning at high levels? As mentioned previously, this is a daunting,
complex, and ambitious goal that requires leadership beyond that provided by the principal. At
the middle school where this researcher serves as principal, a distributed leadership model is
emerging, yet it is uncertain what is influencing the development of this model. This
researcher’s interest involved analyzing the practices, actions, and structures that teachers
perceive to cultivate the practice of distributed leadership. Distributed leadership theory advises
that a principal develop leadership throughout an organization, in individuals and in teams, in
order to meet the increasing demands of education, and specifically the policy measures,
mandates, and calls for continuous improvement (Gronn, 2000). Distributed leadership theory is
at its core a theory of practice as viewed from both social and situational aspects, and offers a
lens through which to reflect on leadership as it relates to the inner workings of a school
community consisting of various stakeholders (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001).
Distributed leadership theory promotes the decentralization of the leader within the
organization and supports the idea that every individual has an opportunity to demonstrate
leadership in a distributed capacity. Leadership in this context is fluid rather than individually
fixed, as a specific role defined phenomenon within an organization (Gronn, 2003). This type of
leadership does not imply that everyone in a group is a leader, but opens the possibility for a
more collective leadership approach (Harris, 2003). Central to distributed leadership is the
capacity to work together to provide leadership using collaborative measures. Further,
distributed leadership is a framework whereby leadership practice is examined and organized in
a way that is inclusive of all in the organization. Leadership is viewed as a stream of activities
and interactions in which organizational constituents find themselves engaged (Gronn, 2000).

16

Spillane (2006) explained,
What distributed leadership, like all leadership theory, can do to benefit practice, is to
provide a framework that helps school leaders and others interpret and reflect on practice
as a basis of rethinking and revising it. In this way, a distributed leadership approach can
be a powerful tool for transforming the practice of leadership. (p. 87)
It is this framework that forms the foundation of distributed leadership practice and fosters its
development.
Distributed leadership theory provides a framework for understanding and identifying
teachers’ perceptions of the practices and structures that either limit and/or broaden distributed
leadership practices in a school. It highlights the ways in which distributing leadership
throughout a school community influences teaching and learning, school culture, collaboration,
and motivation of those within the organization. Little (1990) discussed the benefits of
distributed leadership, as it pertained to collegiality,
The reason to pursue the study and practice of collegiality is that, presumably, something
is gained when teachers work together and something is lost when they do not; in effect,
the perceived benefits must be great enough that the time teachers spend together can
compete with time spent in other ways, on other priorities that are equally compelling or
more immediate. (p. 166)
It was the intent of this researcher to gain a deeper understanding of teacher perception of
principal practices that positively or negatively influence distributed leadership in a school. Data
from an anonymous survey and focus groups were used to inform this research.
Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) provided a theoretical framework for
distributed leadership. Embedded within the framework included the “argument…that school

17

leadership is best understood as a distributed practice, stretched over the school’s social and
situational contexts” (p. 23). This stretching over is illustrated in much of the research over the
past decade and continues today under the theoretical framework of distributed leadership
(Spillane, 2005). Distributed leadership is inclusive of all members of an organization—not
simply those in formal authority roles. This type of leadership is embedded within the
organization and is realized through social interactions between and among the members of the
organization (Crow, Hausman, & Scribner, 2002; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). It is
non-exclusive and can be realized through the social interactions between leaders and followers
(Spillane, 2005). Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001) contend:
Attending to situation as something more than a container for leaders’ practice, we argue
that socio-cultural context is a constitutive element of leadership practice, fundamentally
shaping its form. In our distributed view, leadership practice is constituted in the
interaction of leaders and their social and material situations. (p. 27)
Specific descriptions regarding principal practices that are used in schools to support a
distributed leadership model need to be further explored. This study investigated teachers’
perceptions of principal practices in order to identify how principals influence teachers’
decisions to assume leadership roles in a school and to gain an understanding of teachers’
perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts.
Central to distributed leadership is the opportunity and capacity to collaborate with team
members and share leadership responsibilities among all members of a school community. This
is different than delegating responsibilities, as described by Diamond (2007),
…distributed leadership moves beyond trying to understand leadership through the
actions and beliefs of single leaders…It is constituted through the interaction of leaders,

18

teachers, and the situation as they influence instructional practice. Distributed leadership
is a powerful way to understand leadership activity in schools in more complex and
interconnected ways. (p. 156)
Distributed leadership is not absent of conflict, as it involves shared decision-making. In order
for decision-making to be shared effectively, teachers need to be taught how to engage in this
process. School principals are called upon to provide teachers with the training needed to
develop effective facilitation and collaboration skills. This training results in a common
understanding of how to facilitate meetings and other initiatives in order to lead effectively.
A principal’s influence on teacher leadership, school culture, shared decision-making and
collaborative practice forms the foundation from which distributed leadership theory informed
this research. Central to effective distributed leadership practice is the willingness and capacity
of individuals within an organization to work together to improve their practice. Sergiovanni
(1984) described this work as a participative approach to leadership. He wrote, “The burdens of
leadership will be less if leadership functions and roles are shared and if the concept of
leadership density were to emerge as a viable replacement for principal leadership” (p. 13). This
approach brings faculty together and reduces the burden on the school principal.
Copland (2001) celebrated the potential of easing the burden on principals and
distributing leadership throughout the organization. In doing so, the principal is not expected to
be the “superhead,” but rather the facilitator of leadership opportunities (p. 6). Copland
contended, “Leadership is embedded in various organizational contexts within school
communities, not centrally vested in a person or an office…exciting work is under way that
explores specific ways in which schools might distribute leadership more broadly…[There is] a
need to identify and support aspects of leadership beyond the role of the principal” (p. 6). This

19

distribution of leadership within an organization is accomplished after identifying clear,
observable and measureable goals. One of those goals includes formulating “the design and
enactment of tasks involving the identification, acquisition, allocation, coordination and use of
social, material and cultural resources tied to the core work of the organization” (Spillane et al.,
2001; Spillane, 2006). Distributed Leadership Theory provides a framework for understanding
the leadership within an organization and how that leadership influences and is influenced by,
the development of its members.
Distributed leadership emerged as a shared practice by individuals seeking to
collaboratively share responsibilities in an organization. Bush (2003) placed Distributed
Leadership Theory in the context of shared collegiality and discussed Distributed Leadership
Theory as a “collegial model” (pp. 64–65). He defined the collegial model as follows,
Collegial models assume that organizations determine policy and make decisions through
a process of discussion leading to consensus. Power is shared among some or all
members of the organization who are thought to have a shared understanding about the
aims of the institution. (p. 64)
Bush (2003) discussed the major features of collegial models, which included the following:
1. They are strongly normative in orientation…collegial approaches in particular reflect
the prescriptive view that management ought to be based on agreement. It is an
idealistic model rather than one that is founded firmly in practice.
2. Collegial models seem to be particularly appropriate for organizations such as schools
and colleges that have significant numbers of professional staff. Teachers possess
authority arising directly from their knowledge and skill…Collegial models assume
that professionals also have a right to share in the wider decision-making process.

20

Shared decisions are likely to be better informed and are also much more likely to be
implemented effectively.
3. Collegial models assume a common set of values by members of the organization.
These may arise from the socialization which occurs during training and the early
years of professional practice.
4. The size of decision-making groups is an important element in collegial management.
They have to be sufficiently small to enable everyone to be heard…The collegial
model deals with this problem of scale by building in the assumption that staff have
formal representation within the various decision-making bodies…Where heads seek
the advice of colleagues before making a decision…the process is one of
consultation, whereas the essence of collegiality is participation in decision-making.
5. Collegial models assume that decisions are reached by consensus rather than division
or conflict…The case for consensual decision-making rests in part on the ethical
dimension of collegiality. It is regarded as wholly appropriate to involve people in the
decisions, which affect their professional lives (pp. 65-67).
Collegial models are distributive in nature and involve members of the community in
decision-making, but questions remain regarding how teachers perceive principals to influence
collegiality, collaboration, and leadership. Distributed leadership theory supports these
questions, but a further investigation into the literature is needed to understand its specific
relevance to the problem of practice. The next section summarizes the bodies of scholarly
literature that currently exist, and includes pertinent information regarding the emergence of
distributed leadership through the lenses of teacher leadership, professional communities, and the
role of trust in collaborative practice.

21

Chapter II: Literature Review
In recent years, expectations for schools have increased to the point where schools are
now expected to ensure that all students learn at high levels. The reference made to all students
includes students who are English language learners; students diagnosed with moderate to severe
learning disabilities; and students who suffer from mental, physical, and/or emotional
disabilities. This is a complex and ambitious aspiration that requires leadership and skill beyond
that provided by the principal. Elmore (2000) characterized the issues facing both policy makers
and school leaders as they seek to improve their work: “Schools are being asked by elected
officials—policy leaders, if you will—to do things they are largely unequipped to do. School
leaders are being asked to assume responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume” (p. 2).
Embedded within his response is a call for distributed leadership:
This shift requires first, a redefinition of leadership, away from role-based conceptions
and toward distributive views. Distributed leadership…derives from the fact that large
scale improvement requires concerted action among people with different areas of
expertise and a mutual respect that stems from an appreciation of the knowledge and skill
requirements of different roles. (pp. 35–36)
Smylie, Conley, and Marks (2002) described specific principal behaviors that may support
teacher leadership:
Principals may be required to provide examples, incentives, guidance, and support, as
well as the means of accountability. It may fall to them to keep teacher leadership
focused on meaningful work. Principals need to know how to develop, support, and
manage these new forms of leadership. (p. 182)
Further attempts to synthesize distributed and transformational leadership continued in the early

22

part of the last decade and continue to emphasize the centrality of collaboration to do this work
today.
Education in the 21st century has become quite complex, as schools and educators are
confronted with the important task of preparing students for a global world that is changing at a
rapid rate. In the state of Massachusetts, requirements outlined in the Massachusetts Education
Reform Act of 1993 significantly influenced teachers’ and principals’ practices and challenged
the requirements that teachers are expected to meet in order to be considered highly qualified.
These mandates have occurred in an effort to hold schools and communities accountable for
teacher quality and student performance. In order to focus efforts on the increasing policy
demands placed on schools, principals are called upon to strengthen teacher and student
performance; a task that can be purposefully accomplished through a distributed leadership
model where teachers serve as teacher leaders.
At the middle school where this researcher serves as principal, a distributed leadership
model is emerging, yet it is uncertain what is influencing and sustaining the development of this
model. This study investigated teachers’ perceptions of principal practices in order to identify
how principals influence teachers’ decisions to assume leadership roles in a school and to gain an
understanding of teachers’ perceptions of the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts. As a
backdrop and context for the research, a literature review was conducted in the following four
areas: The Emergence of Communities of Teacher Leaders, The Power of Professional
Communities, The Role of Trust in Collaborative Practice, and the Emergence of Distributed
Leadership. In studying these areas, this researcher was provided with a lens through which she
could better understand a distributed leadership framework.

23

The Emergence of Communities of Teacher Leaders
Over the past three decades, researchers and scholars have proposed ways in which they
believed the complex task of leading in a culture of change could be accomplished. Judith
Warren Little and Peter Senge were among those whose work paved the way for further study in
the area of organizational and teacher leadership. Judith Warren Little’s (1982, 1990) work of
the early 1980s focused on organizational and instructional characteristics that contributed to
teacher training and teacher quality. Peter Senge’s (1990, 1993, 2006) seminal work of the late
1980s and early 1990s, focused on the transformation of organizations from “resource-based to
knowledge-based,” as transformational leadership initiatives were underway and progress toward
the development of professional communities, including professional learning communities had
taken hold. Arguably one of the most promising initiatives included the emergence of teacher
leadership. Teacher leadership, an area of focus prevalent in the 1990s that continues to be
refined today, focuses on the teacher as leader in a community of learners. Barth (2001)
contended that the goal of a school should be to build upon its “community of learners” to
become a “community of leaders” (p. 85). Teachers are called upon to be involved in decision-
making that ultimately impacts students, faculty, and the entire school community, as teachers
are the key ingredient to student success. Educational scholars including Saphier (2005)
discussed the long-lasting impact that effective teaching and school cultures that promote
effective teaching have on student learning. Saphier asked, “Have you ever had someone in your
life who consistently communicated to you that you were an able person, that you were valuable,
and that you had worthwhile things to accomplish?...Teachers who send these messages and
schools that are organized to do so get results that others do not” (p. 88). Teachers’ belief

24

systems are critically important to the school culture and need to be taken into consideration
when looking at student performance.
Educators have never experienced such pressure to perform. Expectations outlined in the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, further illustrated the need for high quality teaching and
improved student learning. As referenced previously, due to the increasing pressure to prepare
students for standardized testing including the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
System (MCAS) and other mandated assessments, administrators and teachers have become
inundated by the amount of assessment data they receive, and understand that they are
responsible for preparing students for these assessments, while simultaneously ensuring that they
are planning effective instruction, communicating closely with parents, advocating for students
who need additional support, in addition to their other responsibilities. Michael Fullan (2000)
observed:
The main enemies of large-scale reform are overload and extreme fragmentation…All
those involved in reform, from the schoolhouse to the state house, can take advantage of
the growing knowledge base embedded in this framework to combat these enemies of
large-scale reform. The prospects for reform on a large scale have never been better—or
more needed. But it will take the fusion of spiritual, political, and intellectual energies to
transform that reform into a reality. (p. 584)
Much of this pressure has been placed on the shoulders of the school principal or building leader
who is called upon to act with decisiveness, while being charged with creating a school culture
that encourages teacher collaboration, teacher leadership and student achievement. The
involvement of teacher leaders increases the likelihood that this important work will be done
through the support of professional communities that promote its practice.

25

The Power of Professional Communities
Peter Senge’s (1990, 1993, 2006) seminal work centered on the transformation of
organizations from resource-based to knowledge-based, as transformational leadership initiatives
were underway and progress was made toward the development of professional communities.
Senge (1993) explained the shift toward the “knowledge-based” organization and identified
characteristics of the “knowledge creating, or learning, organization” and contrasted five tasks
“common to all organizations: direction setting, thinking and acting, the nature of thinking,
conflict resolution, and the role of leadership (p. 8). Senge’s idea that the learning of a group or
team is far superior to the individual knowledge of its members contributed to the understanding
of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. He believed that in order for teams to
succeed, active collaboration and a distribution of leadership between members was needed. He
described:
Traditional resource-based organizations are giving way to knowledge-based
organizations, a fundamental change that requires a transformation of the practice of
management. Knowledge-creating companies will require distributed leadership built on
a four-level foundation of philosophy, attitudes and beliefs, skills and capabilities, and
tools {artifacts}. (p. 5)
Leadership is only as successful as the skills of the leaders who promote it within the
organization. In the case of school leadership, it is the practices of the principal that determine
the likelihood that teachers will assume leadership roles and responsibilities and behave as
professional communities.
Professional communities are only as successful as the individuals within those
communities. As such, schools require leadership that is keenly focused on the success of the

26

students and faculty within the school community, with student achievement being the ultimate
goal. Hallinger’s and Heck’s (1996) meta-analysis explored the relationship between principal
leadership and student achievement—the results of which emerged in 1996. They concluded,
The general pattern of results drawn from this review supports the belief that principals
exercise a measurable, though indirect effect on school effectiveness and student
achievement. While this indirect effect is relatively small, it is statistically significant,
and we assert, meaningful. (p. 30)
Ten years later, Hallinger (2006) explored the journey from instructional leadership to leadership
for learning and described “…instructional leadership has morphed into a new term, leadership
for learning, and has become a new paradigm for 21st century school leadership” (p. 2). Fullan
(2001) discussed the importance of relationship building between all members of a professional
learning community, as relationships are an essential ingredient to forming, strengthening and
maintaining a positive and professional school culture. He wrote, “If moral purpose is job one,
relationships are job two, as you can’t get anywhere without them” (p. 51). Ten years later,
DuFour and Marzano (2011) joined Fullan (2001) as they discussed creating the collaborative
culture of a professional learning community:
Effective leaders with moral purpose don’t do it alone. And they don’t do it by hiring
and supporting ‘individuals.’ Instead, they develop and employ the collaborative…The
collaborative, sometimes known as professional learning communities, gets these
amazing results because not only are leaders being influential, but peers are supporting
and pressuring each other to do better. (p. 65)
The idea of colleagues challenging one another to improve is one of the key components of a
professional learning community. Professional learning communities are those that thrive

27

through collaborative practice. Barth (2001), DuFour and Eaker (1998), Lambert (1998, 2003),
and Sergiovanni (1996) endorsed the desirability of a school’s faculty functioning as a
community of learners where collegiality and collaboration are the norm. It is within such
environments that these and other theorists (Crowther et al., 2002; Katzenmeyer & Moller, 2001)
propose that teacher leadership will transpire and flourish. In order for this to occur, members of
a community must trust one another.
The Role of Trust in Collaborative Practice
The belief that trust is essential to effective collaboration is a recurring theme in the
theoretical work of researchers and scholars over the past few decades. In order for principals to
form positive relationships with those in their school communities, they must build the trust
necessary to sustain those relationships. Professional learning communities cannot be developed
and leadership cannot be distributed if members do not trust one another. Helen Tschannen-
Moran (2001, 2009) focused a significant portion of her work on the critical role that trust plays
in the transformation of school culture, noting that “collaboration involves the investment of time
and energy, as well as the sharing of resources, responsibility and rewards, and this is difficult
without trust” (p. 315). Her study affirms the notion that in order for teachers to position
themselves as leaders, there must be a culture of trust present in the school environment. In the
absence of trust, leadership will not flourish. Trust is an essential ingredient to transformational
leadership.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1990, 1998) paved the way to what became known as
transformational leadership in the early 1990s. Their work focused on school culture,
collegiality, and trust building. They contend that cultural change is the most critical element of
school reform and can best be realized through collegial relationships. They contended that the

28

principal, as cultural leader, is at the forefront of the practice of creating, developing, and
sustaining a school’s culture in his or her role. In fact, they offered specific behaviors that
prevent a school community from working in collaboration. Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) used
Little’s (1982) indicators of collaboration as described previously, in order to articulate ways in
which principals and building leaders positively impact professional collaboration. Leithwood
and Jantzi (2009) investigated transformational leadership in an effort to obtain a deeper
understanding of the development of strong professional communities. Their research included a
look at the ways in which principal and administrator behaviors and practices influence
collaborative school cultures. The practices of administrators in 12 schools who had developed
highly collaborative professional relationships over the course of a three-year period as they
worked to accomplish school-wide initiatives were examined. They identified six broad
strategies regarding school administrator behaviors:
• Strengthen the culture by clarifying goals, reducing isolation, and finding ways to have
those less committed to the change move on from the school.
• Use bureaucratic mechanisms to support these changes, such as providing resources and
using evaluation as a lever.
• Foster staff development.
• Engage in direct and frequent communication about cultural norms and values.
• Share power and responsibility with others.
• Use symbols to express cultural values, such as public recognition and encouragement to
share practice. (pp. 22–23)
This important work helped to better identify and understand teachers’ perceptions of
administrator behaviors that contributed to the formation of highly collaborative professional

29

relationships that led to the accomplishment of school-wide initiatives. Transformational leaders
are focused on helping every member of the group succeed and work to distribute leadership
within an organization.
The Emergence of Distributed Leadership
According to Gronn (2000), distributed leadership theory advises that a principal foster
leadership throughout an organization, in individuals and in teams, in order to meet the
increasing demands of policy measures and calls for continuous improvement. Central to
distributed leadership is the capacity to work together to provide this leadership using
collaborative measures. Principals lead the way in developing practices that support all members
of the school community who demonstrate an interest in and willingness to lead. This
collaborative leadership sets the stage for the important work that is accomplished in schools
each day. Leithwood and colleagues (2006) determined that the core leadership functions in
school systems that are often distributed by principals using distributed leadership strategies
included: setting the school mission, establishing professional development initiatives,
redesigning the organization, and managing instruction. According to these researchers, these
core leadership functions are an integral part of a successful school community.
Gronn (2002) referred to “key defining criterion” of distributed leadership as “conjoint
agency” (p. 423). He wrote, “As an alternative to focused leadership, I argue for a unit of
analysis which encompasses patterns or varieties of distributed leadership” (p. 424).
Researchers, including Blase and Blase (1990, 1993, 1997, 1999); Spillane (2001, 2005, 2007,
2008, 2009), Harris (2003, 2008), Achinson (2002) and Hallinger and Heck (1992, 1996, 2010)
contend that the practice of leadership in an individual setting and extending over a period of
time is significant to the questions raised by scholars who seek to understand how this distributed

30

perspective is actually a framework for thinking about leadership and what leaders do to
facilitate shared leadership. This perspective on leadership recognizes the work of all individuals
who contribute to leadership practice, regardless of whether or not they assume formal leadership
roles (Blase & Blase [1990, 1993]; Spillane [2001, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009]).
While understanding that actions of leaders is important, understanding what they do,
how they do what they do, why they do it, and when they do it, is critical if the research is to
contribute to the understanding and improvement of leadership practice. For example, Blase and
Blase (1997) discussed the “everyday micropolitical strategies and personal characteristics of
principals who directly and indirectly contribute to teachers’ sense of empowerment.” An
understanding of micropolitics, defined as “the use of formal and informal power by individuals
and groups to achieve their goals in organizations” (p. 138) led to the overarching question,
“What are teachers’ perceptions of the characteristics of school principals that influence their
sense of empowerment, and what does being empowered mean to teachers” (p. 141; see also
1990, 1993, and 1999)? In their exploration of this question, Blase and Blase examined the
characteristics of successful principals, used perceptual data from teachers, and analyzed the data
to formulate descriptive categories, themes and conceptual ideas. Though their analysis was
extensive, they discovered that questions remain regarding how to best address increasing policy
and other demands, while at the same time provide teachers with opportunities for collaboration,
shared learning and teacher leadership.
As the researchers noted previously suggest, schools and organizations led by many
people sharing the same vision are more effective than one person working in isolation. Crow
and Pounder (2000) studied interdisciplinary teams in middle school settings, and reported
findings describing the principal as highly influential to the success of the school team.

31

Principals have a responsibility to provide teachers with time, resources, and professional
development opportunities, as research indicates that it is the classroom teacher who has the
greatest influence on a student’s education—not the principal, assistant principal, or curriculum
coordinator.
Providing these resources to them appears to be a fairly simple task, yet teacher
perception as to how this is best accomplished needs to be considered. For example, a principal
may feel that providing classroom coverage for a group of teachers to meet together will be
helpful to teachers, yet teachers may object to meeting during class time, as this means preparing
plans for a substitute teacher, adding to their workload. Therefore, it is important to for the
principal to focus her time on teachers who are interested in coordinating these efforts with the
principal.
The journey from transformational leadership to teacher leadership to distributed
leadership revealed the change in teacher perception from the principal as the cultural leader of
the school to the principal as promoter and facilitator of leadership teams. Gronn (2002)
proposed that distributed leadership is a result of interdependence and coordination. Following
his initial work in this area, he joined researchers Day and Salas (2004) to study leadership
capacity in teams and explored ways in which teams utilized shared leadership to confront
challenges and increase the team’s capacity:
Team leadership capacity is thought to be an important resource for teams, especially
when complex adaptive challenges are experienced. These are the kinds of problems that
no single leader can be expected to solve…Team leadership capacity can be developed as
an emergent state in teams through teamwork, team learning, and shared leadership. (p.
877)

32

Leadership in this context is fluid rather than individually fixed as a specific role-defined
phenomenon within an organization (Gronn, 2003). Distributing leadership in a school does not
imply that everyone in a group is a leader, but opens the possibility for a more collective
leadership approach (Harris, 2003).
According to Spillane (2005), distributed leadership is a way of thinking about the practice
of school leadership. Spillane’s work (2005), based on the 2004 Distributed Leadership Study
(School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University), addressed how leadership is
distributed “over an interactive web of people and situations, examining how leadership is spread
over both leaders and followers given key aspects of their situation, including organizational
routines, structures, and tools” (p. 143). Spillane believed that the interactions between leaders
and followers are paramount when considering ways in which to involve people in leadership
opportunities. However, questions remain regarding the types of tools, practices, actions and
structures used by school leaders that are perceived by teachers to positively influence
distributed leadership in a school community.
Researchers affirm the belief that principals play a critical role in defining and
distributing leadership within their school communities. The discussions in which Harris and
Spillane (2008) participated focused on the interactions, rather than the actions of building
leaders. They dismissed the historic view of the leader as the singular hero and replaced it with a
team focus that involves teachers, support staff, and student leaders. Spillane (2005) explained
that distributed leadership practice is viewed as a product of the interactions of school leaders,
followers, and their situation. Leadership practice is not viewed as a product of a leader's
knowledge and skill, but is rather viewed as the interactions between people and their situation.
It is through these interactions, rather than actions, that leadership practice is understood, as

33

these interactions inform, influence, and construct leadership practice. Little (1982) discussed
teacher motivation as a key ingredient to effective collaboration, yet the question regarding how
principals foster and sustain teacher motivation remains. If teachers are not motivated to lead,
principals will be unable to do their jobs well. There remains little question that principals need
teachers to assume leadership responsibilities in a school community.
The movement that began in the 1980s focused on the principal as instructional leader, as
there was, and continues to be, an increased public focus on the mission to improve public school
performance in our nation’s schools. The instructional leadership of the principal was viewed as
critically important to the success of the school. However, in order for the principal to serve in
this role effectively, he/she is expected to understand best practices in education and ensure that
teachers are consistently using these practices with students. The principal is charged with
holding teachers accountable for increased levels of student learning, while also following the
licensure requirements required by the state and federal departments of education. The end of
the 1980’s gave way to a new understanding of the role of principal as instructional leader to the
role of principal as cultural leader. Phillip Hallinger (1992) cautioned:
The predominant conceptions of schooling taught to principals assumed that the practices
of effective teaching (and leadership) could be standardized and controlled. Thus, while
instructional leadership demanded a new focus and set of work activities from the
principal, the role conceived for the principal was still inherently managerial in nature.
(p. 35)
Hallinger (1992) believed that instructional leadership was not all encompassing, and therefore,
was unable to fully promote a culture of true reform.

34

The journey from transformational leadership to distributed leadership entailed the
change from the principal as the cultural leader of the school to the principal as the promoter and
facilitator of leadership teams within the school. Distributed Leadership Theory espouses the
idea of the decentralization of the leader within an organization and supports the idea that every
individual can demonstrate leadership in distributive organizations (Gronn, 2003). Leadership in
this context is fluid rather than individually fixed where people within the organization are
assigned specific roles that do not change (Gronn, 2003). This type of leadership does not imply
that everyone in a group is a leader, but entertains the idea of a more collective leadership
approach and is accepting of non-binding roles (Harris, 2003).
Central to distributed leadership is the capacity of individual members of a team to
commit to collaborate with one another to provide shared leadership throughout the organization.
Distributed leadership is a collective trend where leadership is a stream of activities in which
organizational constituents find themselves entangled (Gronn, 2000). Leithwood and colleagues
(2006) determined that the core leadership functions in school systems that often get distributed
by principals include: setting the school mission, professional development programs,
redesigning the organization, and managing instruction. Blase and Blase (1999) studied teacher
perceptions of effective instructional leadership with promotion of collaboration being one
subset of this leadership. While they referred to instructional leadership, the research in this area
is more clearly situated in the distributed leadership scholarship, as they described an inclusive
instructional leadership different than the top-down approach of the 1980s. Their study provided
many significant perspectives into this leadership, including specific advice including:
“Principals who are effective instructional leaders use a broad-based approach; they integrate
reflection and growth to build a school culture of individual and shared critical examination for

35

improvement” (p. 370). They advised that principals should “support collaborative efforts
among educators by supporting the development of coaching skills and reflective conversations
among educators. Work to provide time and opportunities for peer connections among teachers”
(p. 371). At the conclusion of this survey-based quantitative study they noted,
[O]ur study, for example, provided no detailed contextual data about the particular
schools in which the teacher participants worked. We suggest that the use of case studies
of effective instructional leadership incorporate the perspectives of teachers, students, and
parents and employ methods such as depth interviewing and observation. (p. 372)
This type of contextual data remains largely unexplored over one decade later.
As the discussion about the necessity of reforming school cultures and distributing
leadership started to gain momentum, writers and researchers spent significant time specifically
exploring the different forms that teacher collegiality and collaboration may take (Fullan, 2000).
The research, in Fullan’s words, “does not tell educators how to change their own situation to
produce greater collaboration. They can get ideas, directions, insights, but they can never know
exactly how to go about it because such a path is exceedingly complex” (p. 582). Despite the
merit of Fullan’s arguments that collaboration is heavily context-bound and cannot simply be
lifted from one setting and repeated successfully in another, it is nonetheless important that we
investigate successful instances and the principal leadership efforts that helped to shape and
sustain collaboration.
Interactions between and among those in an organization became the focus of the work of
Spillane, Camburn, and Pareja (2007), who revealed, “Rather than viewing leadership practice
through a narrow psychological lens where it is equated chiefly with the actions of an individual
and cast as the product of an individual’s knowledge and skill, the distributed perspective draws

36

attention to the interactions of people and their situations” (p. 110). That same year, a study by
Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-Moran (2007) neglected to mention principal leadership
when discussing teacher collaboration. The researchers contended, “… the most important
outcome of teacher collaboration may be that teachers learn how to improve their instructional
practice” (p. 892). The obvious omission regarding strategies used by principals to foster teacher
collaboration and teacher leadership suggested its unimportance to this research, as they focused
their attention almost exclusively on the actions and beliefs of the teacher, rather than those of
the principal.
Implications for Further Research
One may wonder how distributed leadership in a school can be accomplished in a way
that is inclusive of those not in the role of principal and specifically, those who represent,
supervise, and evaluate the teachers in the school, namely the school administrators, each of
whom is responsible for ensuring that teachers are provided with meaningful ways to become
involved with the school community. There is no doubt that principals are ultimately responsible
for providing high quality leadership opportunities to professional faculty in their buildings, but
how this work is best accomplished continues to be studied. There is a need for continued
exploration regarding specific ways in which principals can best support collaborative work and
strengthen a school’s culture. Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) shared concerns regarding the lack of
information that existed regarding ways in which strong cultures develop and are sustained over
time. The authors also commented on the lack of research in the area of principal influences on
strong school cultures (p. 2). Almost two decades later, Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-
Moran (2007) studied teacher leadership extensively, yet never mentioned the role of the

37

principal when discussing ways in which teacher leadership is fostered within a building. It
seems apparent that further investigation is needed.
Distributed leadership is a subject that warrants further examination and research,
particularly as it relates to its impact on a faculty’s collaboration in a school community. Further
research on the concept and practice of distributed leadership will help confirm the findings of
this study and contribute to the understanding of the topic. It is recommended that studies be
done similar to this one, where teacher perceptions are carefully considered when determining
principal practices that help or hinder distributed leadership, and where the benefits and
drawbacks of distributed leadership in a school community can be further examined. Such
studies would further advance the understanding of the conditions and circumstances under
which distributed leadership is effective (or not) as a tool to institute the change.
Chapter III: Methodology
This researcher conducted a qualitative analysis of teachers’ perspectives of distributed
leadership as supported by a principal in a middle school in central Massachusetts. In particular,
this investigation examined ways in which a school principal’s actions either supported or
hindered distributed leadership in a middle school as perceived by faculty, as well as the benefits
and drawbacks of the principals’ efforts. Given the focus of this investigation, the following
questions guided the research investigation:
1. What principal practices do teachers perceive as having a positive or negative
influence on distributed leadership at Lydon Middle School?
2. What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to
enact and support a distributed leadership model in her school?

38

Rationale for a Qualitative Design
In this qualitative analysis, distributed leadership theory was used as the lens through
which to better explore teachers’ perceptions of the actions and behaviors of the school principal
that either positively or negatively influenced distributed leadership. A distributed perspective
focuses on the leadership activity within an organization and advises that the role of the principal
includes the cultivation of individual and collective leadership throughout an organization.
Though distributed leadership is often equated with shared leadership, it is more than “multiple
leaders in a school sharing responsibility for leadership activities” (Spillane, 2006, p. 13).
Shared decision making is undoubtedly an important ingredient to distributed leadership, yet the
impact on instruction has long lasting implications when leadership is distributed in such a way
that is respectful, trusting and collaborative.
Site and Participants
This research study occurred at Lydon Middle School (SMS), a suburban middle school
in Central Massachusetts, where this researcher currently serves as the building principal. The
site was chosen because LMS is the only fifth and sixth grade public school in the district and is
home to 970 fifth and sixth grade students and 121 faculty members (80 professional staff).
There is diversity among this large faculty, particularly in their teaching experience (number of
years teaching) and in their areas of curricular expertise. The faculty is predominantly white and
middle class, comprised of predominantly white females ranging in age from 22 to 74. Only
eight are males, ranging in age from 30 to 48. Some of the teachers have worked exclusively in
this district, but the majority has had experiences either teaching in other towns and states or
working in the corporate world. There is a small minority of the teaching population (3 females)
who are Asian and Hispanic. Each of these teachers is in the foreign language department. In

39

addition, there is a wide range of personalities, life experiences, and professional attributes
among the members of the group on which to draw. This school setting and this population are
appropriate for the purposes of this study because they are representative of a typical suburban
middle school in Central Massachusetts, where 73% of the student body is white and the
remaining 27% are Hispanic, Native American, African American, Asian, Indian, and/or other
students of mixed-race. In addition, 13% of the student population meets the low-income
criteria, 2% of the students are English Language Learners, and 18% of the students require
special education services. The heterogeneity of the student population contributes to the need
for talented teachers who are able to meet the needs of diverse learners. The name of the school
has been changed and the actual names of the teacher participants will not be used in the study.
The participants involved in this study will include a cross section of faculty members including
classroom, special education, and special subject (technology, art, music, physical education,
foreign language, etc.) teachers.
Data Collection
Data collection methods included an anonymous survey that was comprised of an online
questionnaire with both Likert-scale and open-ended questions, audio recordings, focus group
transcriptions, and reflective notes. During a regularly scheduled faculty meeting, all teachers
were invited by me to complete the online survey on distributed leadership practices. I informed
them that they would be receiving an e-mail from me outlining the details of this study,
following the faculty meeting (see Appendix H). Teachers attending the faculty meeting were
also invited to participate in smaller focus groups (three) for two, one-hour sessions. In order to
participate in one of the focus groups, teachers were required to complete the questionnaire, as
this exercise provided them with the experience upon which they would draw some initial ideas

40

and thinking regarding distributed leadership. The groups consisted of six to eight participants,
each of whom agreed to meet to discuss distributed leadership practices at Lydon Middle School,
and specifically, ways in which the building principal influenced distributed leadership. Focus
group participants were selected according to the content area or special subject they taught, as I
believed it was important to have a cross-section of faculty represented. I balanced the number
of team content teachers with art, music, physical education, and foreign language teachers in
each of the focus groups. The focus groups were representative of varying age groups and levels
of experience teaching in the public schools.

The groups discussed what they perceived to be the benefits and/or drawbacks of
distributed leadership in a middle school community. The verbal invitation provided at the
faculty meeting consisted of sharing the voluntary nature of participation in the study, as that
participation related to both the questionnaire and the focus group opportunities. Teachers were
assured that they could withdraw from the study at any time. The voluntary and confidential
nature of participation was emphasized in order to alleviate any concerns the faculty may
experience due to the dual role of the researcher as the principal of the school (and therefore the
supervisor of the faculty). Emphasis was also placed on informing teachers that whether or not
they chose to participate in this study would have no impact on their school-standing or in any
future evaluation of their performance, per the supervision and evaluation practices outlined in
the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, they would not be adversely affected as a
result of choosing not to participate, nor would there be any consequences for speaking their
minds should they choose to participate in the study. In fact, I communicated to participants that
it was my hope and expectation that they would speak openly and candidly. This expectation
was reinforced through verbal and/or written communication that was provided to the

41

participants. Given the researcher’s dual role of building principal and primary researcher of the
study, it was imperative that this was made abundantly clear. Participants were asked to sign a
consent form that indicated their awareness of the purpose of the study, the steps that would be
taken to ensure the confidentiality of the information shared with the researcher, and the fact that
information gained from the study would not be used in a way that would negatively impact their
role in the school or in their professional evaluation.
Online survey. Following a verbal announcement to the faculty during a faculty meeting
regarding details of the study, this researcher sent an e-mail memorandum to the entire faculty
within 24 hours informing them of the anonymous online survey and asking that they complete
the questionnaire within one school week, or five days. Faculty did not inform this researcher of
their decision to participate in the survey, as that would not be in keeping with the tool’s
anonymity. However, they were asked to follow the timeline for completion. If this researcher
did not have 50% or more faculty responding to the questionnaire, this researcher planned to
send out a reminder and extend the timeline three days. However, this was not needed, as there
was a strong response rate of 75%, which provided a more thorough understanding of teacher
perception, as it related to distributed leadership. Faculty were directed to a link to Survey
Monkey. Survey Monkey was used as the surveying tool, as this was a familiar tool, consistently
used by teachers at the school and throughout the district. The anonymous questionnaire that
was used in this study was designed by this researcher specifically for the purpose of this
research study (see Appendix A). Questions were phrased clearly and succinctly in order to
ensure that the data was not corrupted in any way. The questionnaire included four statements to
which respondents were asked about the extent of their agreement on a five-point Likert scale

42

(strongly agree to strongly disagree) and six open-ended questions on the questionnaire, which
included the following:
• The building principal supports teachers’ participation in distributed leadership practices
at SMS.
• Distributed leadership supports teachers’ professional growth.
• The school’s culture is conducive for the growth of distributed leadership practices.
• Distributed leadership practices align with our school goals.
• Based on your experience and knowledge, what resources are in place at LMS for
teachers to participate in distributed leadership?
• Based on your experience and knowledge, what obstacles exist at LMS that interfere with
teachers who may be interested in practicing distributed leadership?
• What does the principal do to promote distributed leadership amongst teachers?
• What does the principal do to impede distributed leadership among teachers?
• What do you believe are the benefits of distributed leadership?
• What do you believe are the drawbacks of distributed leadership?
Themes that emerged from the survey guided the initial work of the focus group(s).
In order to be considered for participation in the focus groups, teachers were required to
complete the questionnaire. Teachers were asked a series of questions regarding their
perceptions of ways in which the transference of leadership from the principal to others within
the organization supported the premise that every individual in the school can demonstrate
leadership in distributive organizations (Gronn, 2003). Questions asked included teachers’
perceptions of the actions of the school principal, along with their understanding of what leaders
do, how they do what they do, why they do it, and when, each of which was critical if the

43

research was to contribute to understanding and improving leadership practice. Understanding
teacher perspectives allowed me to better determine ways in which a school principal could
support distributed leadership practices. It was also important to understand teacher perspectives
of the benefits and drawbacks of such leadership. Questions remain in the literature regarding
ways in which teachers believe that principals foster and sustain teacher motivation to participate
in distributed leadership practices within a school. It was the hope and expectation of this
researcher that this information could be obtained from the focus groups and shared in ways that
would positively impact the school and district.
Focus groups. Focus group participants were formed from those teachers who had
completed the anonymous questionnaire and agreed to participate. An online consent form was
used for the survey and was completed at the time of the survey. The consent form included an
invitation to participate in one of two focus groups. The focus groups furthered the distributed
leadership discussion, and specifically addressed the two research questions. All teachers were
provided with an equal opportunity to participate in the study through the verbal and written
invitations described previously, and were reassured that my dual role as researcher and principal
would not interfere with their positions in the school in any way. Focus group participants were
selected according to the content area or special subject they taught, as I believed it was
important to have a cross-section of faculty represented. I balanced the number of team content
teachers with art, music, physical education, and foreign language teachers. I selected teacher
participants who represented different age groups and levels of experience teaching in the public
schools.
Reflective note-taking. Reflective note-taking was utilized by the researcher as a
strategy to capture the nature of the interactions, comments, questions and overall spirit of the

44

groups immediately following the focus group sessions. The researcher began with a review and
analysis of field notes (Beyea & Nicoll, 2000), anecdotal observations and aspects of the
conversations from the focus group sessions, while having an opportunity to reflect upon the
context that was provided by the group participants. The notes allowed for a more thorough
recall of the focus group conversations. The researcher gained additional insight into the nature
of the conversations by reviewing and analyzing the notes, while formulating a reflection or
researcher’s memo (Maxwell, 2005), from which the initial components of themes began to
emerge. Discrepancies between the focus groups were included in the notes.
Data Analysis
At the core of distributed leadership is the capacity to work together to provide leadership
using collaborative measures. Collaborative measures include activities such as engaging in peer
observation opportunities whereby teachers visit other classrooms to gain a deeper understanding
ways in which teachers engage students, use classroom management techniques, or provide
support to students who are struggling to understand a concept or skill. Bogdan and Biklen
(1982) defined qualitative data analysis as “working with data, organizing it, breaking it into
manageable units, synthesizing it, searching for patterns, discovering what is important and what
is to be learned, and deciding what you will tell others” (p. 145).
As noted previously, one goal
of this study was to ascertain teachers’ perceptions as they related to principal practices that
either helped or hindered distributed leadership in a school. In order to gain an understanding
regarding teachers’ perceptions, data was analyzed on an ongoing basis throughout the course of
the study and began with an analysis of the information obtained through the questionnaire.
Focus group data was then recorded, transcribed by this researcher, and reviewed by all focus
group participants. Themes that emerged from the data were coded and measured in relation to

45

each of the research questions. This qualitative data that emerged from the open-ended
responses on the anonymous survey, as well as through the focus group discussions that were
digitally recorded, were reviewed and analyzed using the three-step process recommended by
Creswell (2009): (1) data organization; (2) data review including marginal notes and analytical
memos; and (3) detailed analysis through coding. The coding process, also adapted from
Creswell (2009), consisted of (1) the selection and reading of three transcripts while recording
marginal (column) notes; (2) code development, including listing of major topics, assigning
codes to topics, assigning categories to codes, and performing analysis relative to the
significance of categories and codes vis-à-vis the research questions, (3) using the analysis to
determine most significant themes, and (4) selecting appropriate comments and narrative from
the focus group discussions that were illustrative of the thematically coded data. Significant and
recurring themes were further developed and organized in order to identify and understand
participants’ perceptions of principal practices that teachers believe contribute to distributed
leadership in a middle school and examined the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts to enact
and support a distributed leadership model in a school.
Survey analysis. Data collected from the anonymous questionnaire included a
combination of statements to which respondents noted their agreement or disagreement on a
five-point Likert scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree) to four statements and responded to
six open-ended questions that asked participants to share their perspectives regarding ways in
which distributed leadership positively or negatively impacts a school community, and the
degree to which principals serve a role in the development and sustainability of a distributed
leadership model. Results from the questionnaire were compiled to see the extent to which
survey respondents agreed or disagreed with a distributed leadership model in a school.

46

Trustworthiness was increased through the use of descriptive statistics, used to describe
the fundamental aspects of the data in a study, which increases the likelihood that discrepant or
unusual findings may be further understood by other data collected. This may be evident when
seeking to comprehend the extent to which teachers believe that distributed leadership is
important to a school’s culture. The use of multiple focus groups (Kidd & Parshall, 2000)
enhanced the credibility of the study particularly as it became evident that the focus group
discussions shared similarities that could not be attributed to any one focus group. Analysis of
these data items provided knowledge of the participants’ understanding of the concept of
distributed leadership and allowed this researcher to use this information to plan for the focus
group discussions. Data obtained from the questionnaires included information regarding the
participants’ experiences with teacher leadership and distributed leadership and indicated the
degree to which individual teachers felt prepared and ready to lead. Further, analysis of the
responses to the items on the questionnaire provided a clear understanding of the respondents’
initial understanding of the topic of distributed leadership, and the ways in which the respondents
have been affected by distributed leadership in a school. Finally, teachers’ individual responses
were analyzed for correlation with participant responses in the focus groups.
Thematic coding. Qualitative research consists of data collection and analysis taking
place simultaneously in order that the data, initially collected, informs the following phase of
data collection by using revelations that emerge to refine subsequent questions (Merriam, 1998).
Responses to the open ended questions on the questionnaire served as the talking points for the
focus group discussions. These initial points were representative of themes that served as the
basis for the thematic mapping that evolved as the focus group data were transcribed. Descriptive
codes are codes that involve subtle interpretation or reliance on the context of the research.

47

According to Miles and Huberman (1994), descriptive codes can be developed before data
collection, during data collection, or during the analysis. In this study, descriptive codes were
used in the preliminary phase of analysis during the initial review of the transcribed data. During
this stage in the analysis process, the researcher used words or phrases to describe or summarize
portions of the data. Each group session was audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded
thematically. As recommended by Creswell (2009), the coding process was repeated and
clarified as both broad and subtle themes emerged.
The ongoing process of coding allowed different themes to emerge that were compared to
information gathered through the questionnaire and group discussions. The codes with which
this researcher began were based on the original questions. The themes were then considered in
relation to each of the research questions. To accomplish this, this researcher created a
spreadsheet that consisted of columns containing key words and phrases and rows identifying the
patterns of thought that emerged from the questions. Individual responses were noted on the
spreadsheet and categorized into themes (Creswell, 2009) that emerged throughout the
conversations, which ultimately formed the basis for the coding process.
Focus group interviews were carefully transcribed from audiotapes and reviewed by me
for accuracy. These focus group transcripts were hand-coded in order to understand the ways in
which teacher responses reflected their thinking on the aspects of distributed leadership being
researched. Coding by hand allowed the researcher to become physically involved with the data,
touching pages, sorting sheets of notes, grouping notes, counting pages dedicated to various
concepts (Klenke, 2008), and connecting ideas using Excel spreadsheets. Codes were developed
to identify relevant and recurring themes that evolved regarding the ways in which teachers
defined and understood distributed leadership, principal practices that influenced distributed

48

leadership, and teacher perceptions relative to the benefits and drawbacks of a distributed
leadership model in a middle school community. As I collected and analyzed the data and note
emerging themes, codes were added to reflect those patterns. Once each piece was coded,
findings were shared across the other data sources in order to triangulate data and inform further
collection.
Review of reflective notes. The reflective notes served as a reminder of the key points
that emerged in each of the focus groups and provided a context for subsequent focus group
discussions. This researcher synthesized the ideas gathered in the discussions by using written
notes to allow for reflection regarding ideas that were emerging. The review of these notes was
critical at this stage of the research process. “Memos not only capture your analytic thinking
about your data, but also facilitate such thinking, stimulating analytical insights” (Maxwell,
2005, p. 96).
Data analysis summary. Data was triangulated and consisted of three data streams
including the following:
• Anonymous Questionnaires
• Focus group interviews
• Reflective note-taking by this researcher
As themes from the data emerged, this researcher reflected upon the benefits to be gained
for the entire school community, including the principal, as a result of the building
principal having conducted this research. It was the intent of this researcher to add depth
and perspective to the current body of literature as it related to teacher perception of
principal practices that positively or negatively influence distributed leadership in a
school, while further understanding the benefits and drawbacks of such principal

49

practices to support a distributed leadership model.

Limitations

As with any research methodology, the qualitative analysis approach has limitations with
regard to internal validity, external validity, and reliability. As this researcher also serves as the
principal of the school in which the research is being conducted, there is a potential threat to both
the internal and external validity of the research. The threat to internal validity may result from
my leadership position in the building, which could potentially influence teacher responses.
Teachers provided the data regarding their perceptions of principal practices (this researcher’s
practices) and the benefits and drawbacks of distributed leadership, a topic that is known by the
faculty to be an interest of the researcher. Given this researcher’s role as principal at the school
and thereby, the primary evaluator and supervisor of the teachers, they may have been hesitant to
provide honest responses to the questions asked—in fear of being negatively impacted by the
supervision and evaluation process in which they are contractually required to participate. If
teachers were hesitant to share openly and honestly in fear that their thoughts and ideas would be
held against them, accurate data may not be collected. Should this occur, the data may
inaccurately portray their thoughts and feelings and instead reveal information that the teachers
believe their supervisor (this researcher and principal of the school) wanted to hear. In order to
minimize this to the best of my abilities, as noted previously, this researcher was certain to
emphasize to teachers that they may speak candidly with no fear of reprisal. That said, teachers
may have not been entirely honest. Themes that emerged from focus group data were then
compared to data from the anonymous questionnaires in an effort to determine the extent to
which focus group responses may have diverged from answers provided on questionnaires.

50

External validity may have been impacted and is therefore a potential limitation due to
the researcher’s prior knowledge of the participants and their roles in the building. As the
supervisor and evaluator of the participants, the findings of the study, as realized by me, may not
be transferrable to or relevant in other situations. This threat involves “experimenter bias” where
“the researcher affects participants’ behavior because of previous knowledge of the participants”
(Gay & Airasian, 2003, p. 366). Due to the situation that is unique to LMS and the teaching
faculty, the findings of the study may be less relevant to other situations. Much of this could be
dependent on how well teacher perceptions coincided with the literature. Focus group
participants were given an opportunity to review all notes and minutes taken of the sessions in
order to ensure that the information collected closely matched their recollections of the
discussions. This member-checking allowed participants to see how well they thought I captured
what they had shared.
Caution with instrumentation needed to be taken as it related to “observer bias.” Gay and
Airasian (2003) suggested, “[T]he situation may be ‘seen’ differently than it would have been
through the eyes of a different researcher” (p. 213). Because this researcher had already formed
a positive opinion regarding the role of distributed leadership in a school setting, prior to
working with the focus groups and likely may not have been as open minded as she would have
been had she never researched the concept before. This researcher had also established
relationships with the participants prior to the research study, which may be considered a source
of bias when thinking about the context used by the researcher to interpret the data.
Merriam (1998) suggested several strategies to improve the internal validity of a
qualitative study, including: triangulation of multiple data sources; having the participants review
the data for accuracy; spending an appropriate amount of time studying a phenomenon; and

51

clarifying the researcher’s biases at the outset of the study (pp. 202–205). This researcher
utilized these strategies with the goal of reducing or eliminating the threats to internal validity
described earlier.
Triangulation of data sources (anonymous questionnaires, focus group interviews, and
reflective note-taking) was conducted in order to provide a multitude of ways to better
understand the mindsets of the participants and provided the researcher with an opportunity to
immediately reflect on discussions while they were fresh in my mind. This was an important
strategy as this researcher consistently used this practice as a way to process information quietly
and independently. When many sources of data are consistent and in agreement with one
another, the level of confidence in the findings increases. Another strategy that was used to
improve the internal validity included checking participants’ agreement with the collected data
by allowing them to review transcripts for accuracy in portraying their perceptions and attitudes.
This researcher was cognizant of her dual role as researcher and principal, and took steps to
mitigate its effect.
Validity
Merriam (1998) discussed the extent to which the question of external validity in
qualitative research is a bone of contention among social scientists. She explained that many see
generalization as impossible with this methodology, and others promoted the use of sampling
procedures or multiple cases in order to bring some measure of external validity and therefore
she contends its somewhat complex and ambiguous nature, yet valid nonetheless. Member-
checking was used to check participants’ agreement with the collected data by allowing them to
review transcripts for accuracy in portraying their perceptions and attitudes. This research was
focused on understanding the practices and structures used by principals to employ distributed

52

leadership in a middle school. Due to the unique conditions of this research study, the
participants and their experiences may not be representative of the opinions of other teachers and
other schools. However, the detailed description of the participants’ perspectives allowed others
to decide whether or not the context of this study aligned with their own experiences and
therefore offered the kind of reflective thinking that may inform their understanding of
distributed leadership and possibly affect their professional work.
The selection of the study’s participants should also be considered as a factor in judging
external validity. Because the teachers volunteered to take part in this research study, it is likely
that they had an interest in learning about distributed leadership and sought to influence this
research. The motivation teachers have for participating in such a project may have an effect on
the findings, which poses a challenge for applying these findings to other situations. The
detailed description that is representative of demonstrated, high quality, qualitative research
however, helped alleviate this potential issue. Detailed description also alleviated this potential
for selection-effect bias.

Reliability
The intent of this study included the triangulation of data to contribute to an accurate
representation of the faculty participants’ thoughts and feelings about the questions raised
regarding distributed leadership. This researcher compared and contrasted all data in order to
better establish how closely the responses of the teachers corresponded with one another through
inter-rater reliability. Inter-rater reliability is reliant on the ability of the participating individuals
to be consistent. It ensured agreement between the participants and me. The agreement of
multiple data sources ultimately strengthened the level of certainty in the findings.

53

During the past five years, since this researcher first became principal of Lydon Middle
School, teachers had become accustomed to providing feedback regarding their experiences at
LMS through anonymous surveys and in small group and individual settings. One example of
this occurs each school year when this researcher conducts personal interviews at the beginning,
middle, and end of the school year in order to listen to faculty concerns, questions, ideas, and
accomplishments, with the goal of taking action to further support their work. Each year,
anonymous mid- and end-of-year surveys are distributed via e-mail to all faculty and school
families—the results of which are published in family and faculty memos. This researcher
consistently works with teachers during small and large group curriculum meetings to discuss the
inner workings of those teams, particularly during times of discord, when team members
experience difficulty with decision making or consensus building. Finally, teacher
representatives from the teachers’ union leadership team consistently bring questions and
concerns to this researcher’s attention in order to dispel rumors, discuss teacher concerns, receive
clarity on budget and other issues with the goal of responding to teacher concerns. Many of the
interactions with teachers consisted of discussions that occurred in the hallways, teachers’
lounge, faculty meetings, and in this researcher’s office. For these reasons, this researcher
remains hopeful that the faculty continued to provide honest feedback during and following the
duration of this study, as they have consistently shared both “warm” and “cool” feedback over
the past five years.
Reliability in research is concerned with the replication of results. Because this research
study was performed in a particular setting with unique participants, it was not possible to attain
the reliability that is commonly understood in experimental research. Merriam suggests that
rather than consider qualitative research in this traditional way, its reliability should be more of

54

an internal measure whereby the findings of the study are judged as reasonable given the data:
“The question then is not whether findings will be found again but whether the results are
consistent with the data collected” (p. 206). It remains this researcher’s hope and expectation to
supply educators and others with a complete description of the ways in which the study was
conducted in order to provide the information necessary to initiate and execute a similar study in
their own unique setting.

Protection of Human Subjects
Participants were informed and reminded throughout the duration of the study that there
would be no monetary or other incentives given to them for their participation. They were
assured that while there were no incentives, there were also no repercussions as a result of not
participating in the study. It was expected that the intrinsic satisfaction potentially gained that
often motivates participation in a project such as this would be sufficient, given that this was a
project that aimed to further educators’ understanding of effective school practices.
The data instruments used in the study included anonymous questionnaires, focus group
interviews and my own reflective note-taking. The note-taking was completed by me in my
office immediately following each of the focus group sessions and provided this researcher with
an opportunity to reflect upon both individual contributions to the discussion, as well as general
themes and questions that emerged from the entire group. So often people do not take the time
to reflect on what we see and hear and therefore, struggle to make sense of the data. By
embracing this opportunity, this researcher was better able to make sense of the data. The data
received from the questionnaires was used to “triangulate” (Merriam, 1998, p. 204) the data by
comparing responses to the data obtained through the focus groups and through secondary data

55

that had been collected during the past seven months of the school year at curriculum, faculty,
and department meetings.
Focus group participants agreed to participate by providing consent that provided
permission for this researcher to use their comments, questions, and actions in the published
research study. The participants were provided with a pseudonym to ensure confidentiality. The
data collected from the anonymous questionnaires, focus group interviews and secondary data
sources remained confidential. This researcher did not, at any time, reveal participant identity in
published sources and the research study remains absent of any kind of personally identifiable
information. As a result, this researcher was the only person who will have the ability to use the
personal and confidential information of the participants and their activity throughout the study.
Audio-taped recordings, meeting minutes, and reflective notes have been stored in a secured
cloud-based storage service. This researcher’s laptop and iPad served as the only means of
technology used throughout the duration of the study. The participants were not in any kind of
danger throughout the study as questionnaires, focus group discussions, and use of secondary
data are understood to be acceptable school practice at a study site. Creswell (2009) stated that
all participants will be offered access to a draft of any publication or communication that arises
as a result of this research. Finally, this researcher has successfully completed the National
Institute of Health’s (NIH) online course entitled, “Protecting Human Research Subjects” that is
offered through the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board (IRB). This research
project remains in full compliance with Northeastern University's Institutional Review Board
(IRB) policies following an IRB review.

56

Conclusion
Little empirical research has been conducted regarding teachers’ perceptions of the
practices of school principals that positively or negatively influence distributed leadership in a
school. This researcher was interested in learning more about teachers’ perceptions of the ways
in which those practices positively or negatively influence a distributed leadership model.
Further, this study sought to identify the benefits and drawbacks of those principal practices, as
perceived by the teachers. Data collected through an anonymous questionnaire, focus groups,
and reflective note-taking informed this study and formed the foundation from which the study’s
findings were generated and understood.
It was the hope and expectation of this researcher to better understand teachers’
perceptions of principal practices that positively or negatively influence distributed leadership in
a school community, while also understanding the benefits and drawbacks of such practices. In
doing so, educators are more likely to improve upon current practice. It is this researcher’s belief
that principals need to provide teachers with leadership opportunities and resources to lead the
way. In doing so, schools will be better equipped to meet the demands placed upon them. If
schools secure the limitless possibilities inherent in distributed leadership, they will substantially
increase the ability to meet their responsibilities to our children.
Chapter IV: Research Findings
Reporting of the Findings and Analysis
In this chapter, findings that emerged from the analysis of survey and focus group data
are presented in response to each research question. The chapter begins with a description of the
study’s context, and includes a description of the study’s participants. The findings are then
organized and presented with the goal of answering the following two research questions:

57

1. What practices, in which the principal engages, do teachers perceive as having a
positive or negative influence on distributed leadership?
2. What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to
enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school?
Relevant survey responses and corresponding focus group data will be reported as they relate to
each research question. Findings from focus group discussions will be demonstrated with
comments illustrative of emergent themes that were generated from the data (Massey, 2011).
Table 1 illustrates the relationship between the two research questions and the questions asked in
both the anonymous questionnaire and the focus groups.

58

Table 1
Relationship of survey questions and focus group questions to research question 1.
RQ1 What practices in which the principal engages do teachers perceive as having a positive or
negative influence on distributed leadership?
Survey Question Focus Group Question
SQ7: What can school administrators do to
promote distributed leadership amongst
teachers?
FGQ4: What factors might encourage or support
teachers in taking on leadership roles in their
school? What additional supports, if any, would
be helpful to teachers?
SQ5: Based on your experience and knowledge,
what resources are needed in order for teachers
to participate in distributed leadership?
FGQ3: Why do you think teachers assume
leadership roles in a school?
what obstacles might exist that could interfere
with teacher interest in practicing distributed
leadership?
FGQ6 What obstacles might discourage or
prevent teachers from taking on leadership roles
in their school?
SQ8: What obstacles may interfere with
opportunities for teachers to participate in
distributed leadership? Please be specific and
where possible, provide one or more examples.
FGQ11: Would you like to elaborate on
anything that we’ve discussed, or are there other
ideas on this topic that have occurred to you that
you would like to share?
RQ2 What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to enact and
support a distributed leadership model in a school?
teachers?
school? What additional supports, if any, would
be helpful to teachers?
what resources are needed in order for teachers
to participate in distributed leadership?
FGQ8: What difficulties do you think might
result from having teachers participate in
distributed leadership? What measures do you
think could be taken to remove or minimize such
obstacles?
what obstacles might exist that could interfere
with teacher interest in practicing distributed
leadership?
FGQ10: What do you think are the benefits of
distributed leadership?
FGQ11: What do you think are the drawbacks of
SQ10: What do you believe are the drawbacks
of distributed leadership? Please be specific and
anything that we’ve discussed, or are there other
ideas on this topic that have occurred to you that
you would like to share?

59

Study Context
The purpose of this research study was to develop an understanding of the ways in which
a principal’s practices influence distributed leadership from the vantage point of teachers in a
suburban middle school comprised of students in grades 5 and 6. The research examined
specific administrative practices in which a principal engages that teachers perceive as having
either a positive or negative influence on distributed leadership. In addition, this research
investigated teacher perception of the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to enact
and support a distributed leadership model in a school. This researcher’s interest in distributed
leadership has emerged over the last decade, as policies, mandates, and increased budget
constraints have strained our school community, as administrators, teachers, and students are
now required to do significantly more with fewer and fewer resources. Teachers are under
significant pressure to perform, as student achievement has become a very public measure of
teacher effectiveness. While this pressure in and of itself may not necessarily be a negative thing,
it has an impact on the climate and culture of the school.
Data
Survey. The survey response rate was 75% of the total population of teachers at Lydon
Middle School, or 57 out of 75 professional faculty members. Due to its anonymity, it is
uncertain who among the faculty was represented in the survey. However, the response rate is
indicative of a wide cross-section of faculty, as 36 teachers at Lydon Middle School are regular
education team teachers, who either teach grade 5 or grade 6 English Language Arts and Social
Studies, or Math and Science. The remaining faculty consists of special educators, special
subject teachers (art, music, physical education, health), specialists (curriculum coordinators,
speech and language pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, school nurse), and

60

administrators. The high response rate drawn from the total population suggests that the sample
included a diverse representation of the school’s professional faculty.
Focus groups. Focus groups were formed following the dissemination of the survey and
the collection of the survey results. Of the 57 survey respondents, 23 volunteered to serve as
participants in one of three focus groups. Each of the faculty who expressed interest in
participating in a focus group was given an opportunity to do so. Each of the focus groups was
heterogeneous, representing a cross-section of team teachers, special education teachers, special
subject teachers including physical education teachers and specialists consisting of the school’s
speech and language pathologist and the school nurse.
Interested teachers’ responses resulted in the participation of 7 to 8 faculty members per
focus group. The participant profile shown in Table 2 demonstrates that respondents’
demographics matched the school’s demographics in terms of gender (85% female), ethnicity
(91% Caucasian), age (between 23 and 74) and years of teaching experience (average 20 years).
The high response rate and the favorable comparison of the sample’s demographics to the
population of potential participants decreased the potential for non-response bias (Cook, Health,
& Thompson, 2000). Focus group participants included regular and special education teachers,
adjustment counselors, assistant principals, one school nurse, and one speech and language
pathologist. Participating faculty included two males and 21 females, ranging in age from 29 to
60 years of age. Their span of total years teaching ranged from six to forty years, while years
teaching at Lydon Middle School ranged from three years to forty years. Among the
participants, 22 held master’s degrees and one held a bachelor’s degree. Table 2 illustrates the
study participant demographics.

61

Table 2
Study participants.
Gender
Male
Female
2
21
Role
Administrator
Classroom Teacher
Special Education Teacher
Specialist
Other
2
13
3
4
1
Education Level
Bachelor’s
Master’s
1
22
Years of Teaching Experience
<5
5–10
11–20
>20
0
6
11
6
Years of Teaching at LMS
<5
5–10
11–20
>20
1
12
9
2
Research Question 1: Findings and Analysis
The first research question sought to identify practices in which the principal engages that
teachers perceived as having a positive or negative influence on distributed leadership in a
school:
What practices in which the principal engages do teachers perceive as having a positive
or negative influence on distributed leadership?
In an effort to address this question, the research utilized data from an anonymous
questionnaire to create a springboard for the focus group discussions. These data provided a
context for the discussions and served to further develop the ideas shared in the survey. Focus

62

group participants shared their perceptions regarding what they believed to be factors that helped
or hindered distributed leadership in a school. Focus group questions were developed from the
ideas shared in the survey data. Table 3 illustrates the relationship between the first research
question and the questions asked in the survey and further developed in the focus groups.
Table 3
RQ1 What practices, in which the principal engages do teachers perceive as having a positive or
negative influence on distributed leadership?
Survey Question Focus Group Question
teachers?
FGQ4: What factors might encourage or
support teachers in taking on leadership roles
in their school? What additional supports, if
any, would be helpful to teachers?
SQ5: Based on your experience and
knowledge, what resources are needed in order
for teachers to participate in distributed
leadership?
FGQ3: Why do you think teachers assume
leadership roles in a school?
knowledge, what obstacles might exist that
could interfere with teacher interest in
practicing distributed leadership?
FGQ6 What obstacles might discourage or
prevent teachers from taking on leadership
roles in their school?
where possible, provide one or more
examples.
anything that we’ve discussed, or are there
other ideas on this topic that have occurred to
you that you would like to share?
The section that follows identifies the practices in which a principal engages that teachers
perceived as having a positive or negative influence on distributed leadership in a school.
Themes that emerged from the anonymous survey and focus groups will be presented first,
followed by narrative comments that outline and further explain ways in which survey
respondents and focus group participants identified and discussed those practices.

63

Teachers responding to the survey identified several key themes related to principal
support that influenced their decisions to participate. Among the themes included the following:
(1) recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts, (2) providing compensation to teachers for
leadership work beyond the contractual school day, (3) providing time, resources, and class
scheduling support, (4) empowering teachers through the words and actions of school and district
leaders, (5) providing open and honest communication, and (6) ensuring that the mission and
vision of the school are well understood by all members of the school community. Teachers
perceived that these practices made either a positive or negative difference when deciding
whether or not to get involved in distributed leadership.
Principal support. The survey and focus group data demonstrated that teachers perceive
principal support to be one of the most important factors in their decisions to participate in
distributed leadership. Without this support, teachers reported that they were less likely to make
commitments to lead their colleagues or engage in leadership initiatives, as they relied on the
principal to provide opportunities for them. They reported that these opportunities resulted in
them feeling increasingly connected to the school community. Comments including the
following represented respondents’ overall reports of feeling that being involved in leadership
opportunities strengthens teachers’ connections to a school community and therefore, benefits
the entire school community:
Administration needs to give people opportunity and space to take on leadership roles.
Giving teachers the idea that they have power in a school to make decisions increases
their connection and responsibility to reach goals.
Comments such as these demonstrate the need for administrators to trust and empower their
faculty to assume leadership positions in a school. Along these lines, another focus group

64

participant stated,
…if the climate is one in which they know their decisions will be trusted and listened to,
like Katherine with her Student Voice, the people that worked with her—it is a huge
undertaking, but a great idea. She must have felt that the administration was supportive
of her idea and she felt trusted and therefore she took those steps to put the Student Voice
together and followed through with the idea.
Upon hearing this, another participant shared, “The benefits are leadership would not just be
from the top of the organization. Everyone would have the opportunity to participate and it
would be leadership from within. It would be empowering to individuals.” One survey
respondent had a similar thought, “I think distributive leadership would empower the school
community. People would take more ownership and get more actively involved.” The idea that
the principal directly influences teachers’ feelings of self-worth was pervasive in participants’
responses.
Recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts. Survey respondents and focus group
participants shared ideas that focused on the belief that recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts
fosters teacher leadership. Comments focused on the importance of the leader knowing and
recognizing the strengths of her/his teachers. One focus group participant noted,
I think if the leader knows the strengths of the person that is very important and they can
tap into those strengths. It can be just letting the person know that they are really strong
in this area and that you really need their help. A tap on the shoulder. I need your help
and I see this as your strength. I’m having difficulty doing whatever it is or I need some
input. Can you help me? And build on that person’s strength. It’s just like with our
students. That builds up people’s self-esteem and confidence in themselves and then they

65

feel needed and valued. I think that people in general want to feel needed so I think that
is an important piece.
This participant’s comment is illustrative of others like her, who provided specific examples of
ways in which they were personally affected by the invitation of a leader to participate in a
leadership activity. Another participant shared, “Sometimes just being asked is what makes the
difference. Teachers need to be asked because they want to feel wanted and needed and
accepted. They can always say no.” Focus group participants agreed that being recognized by
leaders was very important to them and shared specific examples of ways in which they had been
directly impacted by leaders who believed in them. An example of this was evident in the
following comment:
Even with the faculty meetings this year, with the workshops, we were able to teach one
another using our strengths. We were more productive because we could do more and we
were able to choose one area we wanted to study. We were learning things and we were
doing things that we needed to do.
Principals who recognize teachers in formal and informal ways, including publicly
recognizing individual teachers and teams of teachers during faculty meetings, or through written
notes left in teacher mailboxes, positively influence their teachers. These small, yet significant
gestures encourage teacher leadership and confirm the work being accomplished by teachers.
These notions that simple acts of kindness have an influence on distributed leadership were noted
in the anonymous questionnaire and further discussed in the focus groups. One teacher
respondent shared, “I think something that we already do are those little things…When you all
[administrators] stop by our classrooms, and then sometimes we get a little note after your visit,
it really feels good. The little drops in the bucket. It is nice to hear it.” Another suggested, “Just

66

like we do with students. We share their strengths with them.” It is also important that principals
recognize that their support needs to come in the form of sometimes advising teachers not to get
involved, whether due to personal situations, either at home or professionally. In other words,
because principal support influences teachers’ decisions to become involved in teacher
leadership in significant ways, when they acknowledge that teacher participation may need to
wait, their actions are appreciated by teachers.
Further, participants communicated that they were more inclined to assume leadership
roles when personally invited by school leaders to get involved, than they would have been if a
large-scale invitation was sent either verbally or electronically to the entire school community.
One participant stated, “Sometimes just being asked is what makes the difference. Teachers
need to be asked because they want to feel wanted and needed and accepted. They can always
say no.” Upon hearing this, another participant added, “I think it would help if administration
reached out to staff members and approached them one-on-one. That personal touch goes a long
way for boosting teacher confidence.” In other words, rather than sending an impersonal e-mail
blast to the entire school community, these personal invitations were widely viewed by focus
group participants as having an even greater impact on teachers’ decisions to get involved than
being offered monetary compensation. One focus group participant shared, “Provide
compensation—maybe in the form of Professional Development Points (PDPs). If that is not
possible, a simple invitation by the principal to share my practice with my colleagues gives me
the confidence I need to participate in a leadership capacity.”
Comments including the following in Table 4 are evidence that teachers at LMS felt that
being valued made them more likely to share in the school’s leadership.

67

Table 4
Recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts.

• That is a great word—being valued. Yes that's it. Being valued is so important. In some
jobs you never get that. That is what’s so special about being a teacher.
• Gives the teacher a sense of pride in herself and therefore is motivated to lead because
she is appreciated.
• Sometimes just being asked to lead is what makes the difference. Teachers need to be
asked because they want to feel wanted and needed and accepted…
• Create a school culture where teachers feel like their ideas are valuable and can be
shared…The Character Education Committee has been positively received and
administration has been eager to hear progress and offer support when necessary.
This theme regarding teachers’ desire to be recognized for their work, positively influenced their
decisions to assume leadership roles within the school community. The idea was initially
introduced in the survey’s open-ended responses and included the following comment,
“Administrators may recognize strengths that teachers have—they could ask the teacher to share
this strength.” Another survey respondent noted, “In addition, we need administration (especially
the principal) to encourage teachers and students alike. Everyone needs to be recognized for the
amazing work!” This sentiment continued throughout the focus group discussions as participants
consistently responded that teachers feel valued and appreciated when recognized by
administrators and teaching colleagues. One focus group participant shared the idea that job
satisfaction increases as a consequence of feeling valued and appreciated. Another teacher
participant stated, “I believe benefits to distributed leadership are a boost in morale and people
feeling valued by administration.” These opinions validated the notion that being recognized
makes teachers feel valued and appreciated.
Empowering teachers through the words and actions of school and district leaders.
It became apparent in the focus groups that when teachers are empowered by administrators to

68

lead, they view themselves in a different light. One focus group participant noted, “When you
empower a teacher to be a leader they see their role in the building very differently.” Survey
comments included, “Let teachers know that you see something in them that would promote
leadership.” Another suggested, “Invitations—open ended and individual—specific to
acknowledge good work in the area needed. I think it would help if administration reached out
to staff members and approached them one-on-one. That personal touch goes a long way for
boosting teacher confidence.” When asked what school administrators can do to promote
distributed leadership, teachers expressed thoughts including the following,
Create the framework and make sure everyone understands what distributive leadership is
and everyone’s role in the process. Make goals and expectations very clear. Provide
follow through and take a task to completion.
It seems evident that teachers need to have the requisite information to make well-informed
decisions regarding whether or not to become involved, while keeping in mind the school and
district goals towards which they are aiming. As one teacher noted, “I think we need to start out
small with some very achievable goals that we can reach together. Perhaps a group of teachers
working together to establish something for the new building and then move on to more complex
tasks.” The idea of setting small, measurable goals, before moving on to larger goals, appeared to
be feasible, according to this teacher. Another teacher stated, “Listen to the pulse of the
community, understand staff and be able to solicit help from people with particular talents,
follow up and follow through, keep goals simple and clear and limited, provide relevance to
school improvement.” Considerable attention was placed on setting and attaining goals.
When asked what factors encourage or support leadership involvement, one participant
described the leader’s influence on teachers, indicating that, “becom[ing] excited and energized

69

by the leader . . . [they] want to do more and more because of that.” One survey respondent
shared that, “Let[ting] teachers know that you see something in them that would promote
leadership,” while another cited the importance of mutual respect and the importance of leaders
encouraging faculty to share professional strengths, saying, “[Principals] truly viewing faculty as
colleagues and asking them to assist in solving problems [would promote leadership].”
Providing time, resources, and scheduling support. Among the ideas shared within the
focus group discussions, were those that included providing teachers with the time, direction and
opportunities needed to assume leadership roles in a school environment that is safe and
encouraging of teacher efforts. Survey responses included the following, “Administration needs
to give people opportunity and space to take on leadership roles. Giving teachers the idea that
they have power in a school to make decisions increases their connection and responsibility to
reach goals,” illustrative of the need for teacher autonomy. Other comments represented ways in
which to get involved in short, one-time opportunities. This idea resonated in the following
comment from one participant, “An administrator might begin by offering specific, one-time
opportunities, such as chairing (or co-chairing) a meeting or presenting a workshop.” Indeed,
respondents expressing the need for time far surpassed any other reported needs for support.
Principals, keeping this in mind, need to be consistently aware that the leadership opportunities
that they provide their teachers may be offered on either a large scale or a small scale, depending
on the need.

Along these lines, another participant shared, “Give time during the school day when
possible. [Teachers have] busy lives and work should not be expected after putting in a full day
with students.” Teachers’ desire for time and collaborative opportunities built into the school day
to participate in meaningful leadership work cannot be dismissed, as focus group participants and

70

survey respondents continued to emphatically support the need for more of it. In fact, 51% of
the total number of survey responses cited the need for additional time to do this work.
Similarly, focus group discussions confirmed the need for time, resources and opportunities.
One survey respondent suggested,
Administration needs to give people time, opportunity and space to take on leadership
roles. Giving teachers the idea that they have power in a school to make decisions
increases their connection and responsibility to reach goals. We need an appropriate
space to meet and time to have thoughtful discussions.
This comment was reiterated a few times in other survey comments.
Providing compensation to teachers for leadership work beyond the contractual
school day. Discussion regarding compensation for leadership roles and responsibilities was
minimal in the focus groups when compared to the number of responses related to the need for
compensation reported in the survey. One participant noted, “If given the choice, I vote for
recognition as opposed to stipends because I think sometimes if there is no money in the budget
for stipends, recognition goes a long way. Appreciation for the work that educators do outside of
the classroom. Things like that.” Collectively, these comments that were shared in the focus
group discussions signaled an appreciation for non-monetary compensation.
Survey responses directly noted that teachers strongly consider whether or not they will
get involved in leadership opportunities based on the availability of compensation. This may be
due to the anonymity of the survey or the fact that focus groups provided participants with an
opportunity to reflect further as they discussed it with their colleagues. On the other hand, it may
signal the fact that this researcher serves as the principal of the school, and therefore, participants

71

are less likely to sound too demanding. Table 5 contains survey comments regarding recognition
in the form of compensation.
Table 5
Providing compensation to teachers for leadership work beyond the contractual school day.

• Most definitely, a stipend must accompany this duty.
• Stipends for work, meetings, etc… taking place after or before school day.
• If done outside of the school day, they should be compensated for their
service.
• Stipends would be appreciated. Administrators are compensated for their
leadership. Even a token stipend for the extra work would go a long way to
help morale/participation.
• Time is money. Extra duties equal more money. We are highly trained
professionals and wanting to be compensated for our time is not
wrong/greedy. You pay coaches, you pay band leaders, you pay stipends for
high school clubs. Same should go for us.
• Any leadership role should get pay. Professional development points
towards certification.
• Most definitely, a stipend must accompany this duty.
• Stipends for work, meetings, and tasks that take place after or before school
day.
• If done outside of the school day they should be compensated for their
service.
As noted in Table 5, respondents voiced the importance of and need for a stipend for any time
involved with distributed leadership activities that occurred outside of the school day. This form
of recognition for teacher leadership efforts was also noted in the focus groups, but to a lesser
degree, as noted previously.
Focus group participants were more vocal regarding their preference for human resources
including mentors and advisors who support new teachers in the school district, than they were
for monetary compensation. One focus group participant discussed the importance of her first
year mentor as her colleagues listened intently,

72

Teachers are leaders just by their nature. They don’t realize that—like when I first
started here, Janet (grade 6 teacher mentor) was a great leader. She would give me things
and ask me things and that wasn't her role, but she took it upon herself to do that for me,
and many people do that. You see that when you come in as a new person, you see
things that others don’t see. They do it naturally. I think a lot of them do it naturally.
Following this comment, others in the group discussed their personal experiences when they
participated in distributed leadership practice by either being mentors themselves or by having
mentors. One participant shared her perspective, Mentoring a new teacher and sharing your
ideas helps both the mentor and mentee grow professionally. Some of this work is as simple as
sharing how we do things in the building.” Another participant added, “It is the everyday
interactions with my mentor and my grade level colleagues that make the difference.” During the
discussions, teachers also referenced the influence of technology mentors. One noted the work
of a Curriculum Coordinator:
[Anna] had done such great foundation work in setting up the binders. She’s facilitating
and use of Google Docs, which has been the biggest asset because it allows you to be part
of the meeting. It’s like a virtual meeting. You are getting issues out there before you
attend the meeting and then you're able to be present for the meeting. When you get to
the meeting, you actually have collaborative time. We can then get right to the agenda
and be able to go through our meetings very effectively—even without a leader in our
social studies meetings.
Each comment shared was favorable and reflected the viewpoint that this type of support and
activity is extremely valuable to teachers who are either new to teaching or new to the district.
This study revealed many supports for distributed leadership, but also revealed several

73

impediments. Some of the impediments involved logistical concerns including having the time
and opportunity to meet during the school day. Others included teachers’ personal feelings of
inadequacy and unpreparedness to lead their colleagues. Regardless, obstacles existed that
interfered with teacher interest and involvement in distributed leadership.
Potential obstacles that may interfere with teacher interest and participation in
distributed leadership. Among focus group participants’ feedback related to obstacles of
distributed leadership, included the following themes: (1) it’s not my job, (2) lacking confidence
in the ability to lead, (3) finding the time needed to participate, and (4) frustration regarding past
experiences. These themes were shared in the context of the daily struggle to balance the sheer
number of activities that occur simultaneously in a school, while balancing time spent planning
lessons, assessing student learning, collaborating with colleagues, and communicating with
parents during the school day. Though teachers are interested to become involved in something
that interests them, it can be difficult to do. As one group participant shared,
There are so many things. It can be overwhelming. For me, I would like to sign up for
something that means a lot to me. There is so much that is constantly swirling around in
the school that it can be difficult to sort through.
This idea of navigating through all of these competing interests left some teachers feeling
frustrated.
It’s not my job. One focus group participant added, “I don't know if this makes sense or
not, but when you have a room of 80 people and the decision needs to be made, it needs be made
by a leader.” As suggested by the previous comments, there existed a level of irritation voiced
between the focus group participants as it related to meetings and agenda items that consumed a
significant amount of processing time, when in the end, teachers felt it was the leader’s job to

74

make final decisions that s/he felt were the best decisions to make. Further, the idea that leaders
were compensated for their time while assuming leadership for curriculum and other
responsibilities added to teachers’ impatience, as teachers were often not compensated for their
efforts.
Lacking confidence in the ability to lead. Survey comments indicated that teachers
often lack the confidence needed to be effective in the role of leader. One respondent shared, “I
think the most significant obstacles are confidence and time. I think teachers may not see
themselves as a leader...” Another echoed this sentiment, “Some teachers are unsure about taking
leadership roles. Once administration steps back and teachers see that they can have control in
some decision making, they tend to be more positive and invested in school/district success.”
One survey comment included, “…may think they are not qualified to participate or may be self-
conscious.” Focus group discussions mirrored these survey comments. One participant shared,
“Sometimes, it is a level of confidence that people may not be ready or may not know how to
lead.” These sentiments signaled questions relative to ways in which principals can foster
confidence in those teachers who lack it.
Finding the time needed to participate. The perennial issue of not having enough time
during the day to participate in distributed leadership was noted in the survey data and focus
group discussions. When asked about potential obstacles that interfered with teacher interest and
participation in distributed leadership, one respondent queried,
Time! Increased class size places additional demands on a classroom teacher’s (already
overloaded) schedule. How can you ask people to join committees, take on extra duties,
complete coursework, and deal with a move at the same time they need to devote

75

additional time to planning lessons, preparing material, grading more assignments and
communicating with a greater number of parents?
This sentiment of not having enough time to perform one’s daily teaching duties, and therefore
lacking the time required for additional responsibilities was prevalent in the questionnaire and
the focus groups. One respondent shared additional concerns related to past involvement that
proved futile, “Personal issues, day care, family, already involved in another committee.
Already taking a course for license renewal. Exhausted after 8 hours with 60 students. Feeling
that ideas were shot down in the past, so why bother?” There appeared an overall feeling of
frustration that no matter how much time was spent working on committees and leading school-
related projects, little, if any, progress would likely be made when all was said and done.
Frustration regarding past experiences. This issue related to ideas being “shot down”
or unwelcomed by those in formal leadership roles also emerged in the focus groups. Discussion
regarding teacher efforts that either went unnoticed or were not in alignment or agreement with
the principal’s ideas and therefore, were never implemented revealed feelings of disillusionment
and frustration. One participant noted,
Lack of time inside and outside of school, lack of recognition and the climate in the
school. When I first started teaching, I was given the advice to close my door and just
wait for the administrators to come and find me because they were coming and going all
the time. I think if that is the climate in the building, teachers figure what is the point.
This will pass too. State initiatives too. We had many administrative changes within my
first 10 years of teaching.
Upon hearing this, one participant shared, “They [Teachers unwilling to lead] don't think it will
make a considerable difference.” Another added,

76

If they’re like the old guard, they need to see what is going to work—particularly if they
have worked with many administrators with different ideas and they have put a lot of
time and effort in and it didn't come to fruition so they decide to hang back and wait.
The sentiments voiced regarding teachers’ unwillingness to assume leadership roles in a school
due to past experiences that were viewed as futile because their efforts were either not accepted
and/or went unnoticed by the principal were shared with conviction. No one wants to spend
time, energy and effort on tasks and activities that will either never progress to the next level or
will never be acknowledged by the building leaders. When teachers have negative recollections
of past experience, it becomes increasingly challenging to risk personal pride to become further
involved by volunteering to serve in a leadership capacity.
Research question 1 summary. Survey respondents cited specific ways in which
principal practices either positively or negatively influenced distributed leadership in a school.
Focus group participants expounded upon those ideas and further discussed their perceptions
regarding ways in which these and other principal practices either positively or negatively
influenced teacher participation in distributed leadership. Participants shared personal
experiences in which they had witnessed and been influenced by practices that either helped or
hindered their leadership involvement. Those practices used by principals that teachers
perceived as having a positive influence on distributed leadership included recognizing and
valuing teachers’ efforts, providing compensation to teachers for leadership work beyond the
contractual school day, providing time, resources, and class scheduling support, empowering
teachers through the words and actions of school and district leaders, providing open and honest
communication, and ensuring that the mission and vision of the school are well understood by all
members of the school community. Focus group participants shared thoughts and ideas

77

regarding obstacles that they perceived as being responsible for interfering with teacher interest
and participation in distributed leadership. Among those obstacles included feelings by teachers
that it [distributed leadership] is not their job, lacking confidence in the ability to lead, finding
the time needed to participate, and frustration regarding past experiences.
Research Question 2: Findings and Analysis
What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to
The second research question sought to understand the benefits and drawbacks of the
principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school. Survey data
was analyzed and later used as talking points to guide three focus group discussions. The results
of the discussions further identified ways in which a school principal endorses and supports a
distributed leadership model in a school and provided insight into the benefits and drawbacks of
such a model. Table 6 illustrates the relationship between the second research question, the
survey questions and the focus group questions.

78

Table 6
RQ2 What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to enact and
support a distributed leadership model in a school?
teachers?
school? What additional supports, if any, would be
helpful to teachers?
knowledge, what resources are needed in order
for teachers to participate in distributed
leadership?
FGQ8: What difficulties do you think might result
from having teachers participate in distributed
leadership? What measures do you think could be
taken to remove or minimize such obstacles?
knowledge, what obstacles might exist that
could interfere with teacher interest in
practicing distributed leadership?
FGQ7: What do you think are the benefits of
SQ9: What do you think are the benefits of
FGQ10: What do you think are the drawbacks of
SQ10: What do you believe are the drawbacks
of distributed leadership? Please be specific
and where possible, provide one or more
examples.
FGQ11: Would you like to elaborate on anything
that we’ve discussed, or are there other ideas on
this topic that have occurred to you that you would
like to share?
The section that follows presents the benefits of a principal’s efforts to enact and support
a distributed leadership model in a school. Themes that emerged from the anonymous survey
and focus groups will be presented first, followed by narrative comments that outline and further
explain ways in which survey respondents and focus group participants identified and discussed
those benefits and drawbacks.
Teachers responding to the survey identified several key themes related to the benefits
and drawbacks of a principal’s efforts to support a distributed leadership model. Among the
themes related to benefits include the following: (1) distributed leadership empowers people, (2)
distributed leadership improves collaboration, (3) distributed leadership positively impacts
personal and professional growth, (4) distributed leadership empowers teachers to lead, and (5)

79

distributed leadership increases teachers’ feelings of connectedness to the school community.
Teachers perceive that these benefits of a principal’s efforts significantly contribute to the
success of a distributed leadership model.
Benefits of the principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership
model in a school. Many of the messages communicated by the participants regarding the
benefits of the principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model were clear
and simple, yet each message signified the importance of distributed leadership, such as, “You
cannot be everywhere all the time and this allows you to branch out more.” The benefits initially
shared through the survey data were further explored through the focus group discussions
Distributed leadership empowers people. Survey respondents and focus group
participants noted the appreciation felt when principals and other building leaders delegated
responsibilities to teachers. They expressed feelings of validation when asked for their input into
curriculum and instruction initiatives, new supervision and evaluation protocols, and leadership
initiatives. Teacher comments referenced the importance of feeling valued when given the
permission and encouragement to lead. One focus group participant shared, “I think a major
benefit is the teacher feeling valued and given the ability to accomplish more.” According to
narrative extracted from both survey and focus group data, feeling validated contributed to
teachers’ feelings of empowerment. Additionally, a benefit is the principal expanding her
influence beyond what she can accomplish alone. As an illustration, one focus group participant
shared the following:
When you delegate, when you provide these leadership roles, you are able to reach
further and further out into the community and therefore have the ability to do more—as

80

opposed to holding onto everything yourself and being one person or one administrative
team.
No sooner had one participant finished sharing the perceived benefits when another followed
suit, “By sharing strengths, we can tap into each other because we all have individual skills and
strengths. Definitely connects everyone more. It makes the building seem smaller.” This led to
a discussion regarding the appreciation felt by colleagues when they had the opportunity to
collaborate and share lessons. Typically this collaboration happens in grade level and curriculum
meetings when reviewing student work and assessments, and planning interventions for students
who either need additional supports in the classroom or demonstrate that they are ready for
extensions. It may be that when teachers believe that their contributions matter, they are more
apt to contribute to collaborative opportunities in meaningful ways.
Distributed leadership improves collaboration. Participants in each of the focus
groups enthusiastically endorsed the benefits of the principal’s efforts to enact and support a
distributed leadership model in a school. Many of the messages shared between the participants
were clear and simple, yet each message signified the importance of shared leadership, “You
cannot be everywhere all the time and this allows you to branch out more.” Participants in one
focus group promoted the idea that people working together increases efficiency and
productivity, and articulated the need to set goals and assess progress toward those goals.
According to the participants engaged in two of the three conversations, once learning goals
were identified and time spent during curriculum and other meetings became focused on
achieving those goals and establishing new goals, team members felt more connected with one
another and believed that their work was more purposeful than it had been before the meetings

81

were structured and facilitation was shared. When asked how the schedule impacts professional
practice, one member stated,
The most amazing thing that I can think of would be to reserve one period out of our six-
day cycle that is devoted to this work. Therefore, no out of school time would be
necessary, and students would not need to remember meeting days/times, and would not
need to arrange for rides home. This way everyone could potentially be a part of this
amazing organization.
Survey responses coincided with ideas shared in the focus group discussions, as survey
respondents shared specific examples of ways in which they had either directly been impacted by
or witness to some of the benefits of distributed leadership. Focus group participants believed
that distributing leadership across teams throughout the school resulted in effective, widespread,
collaboration. One teacher stated,
Even with the faculty meetings this year, with the workshops, we were able to teach one
another using our strengths. We were more productive because we could do more and we
were able to choose one area we wanted to study. We were learning things and we were
doing things that we needed to do.
This idea of distributed leadership as evidenced by sharing facilitation at meetings and
contributing to agendas by using Google Docs, and other online means of communication,
provided additional ways to influence the work being accomplished.
Distributed leadership positively impacts personal and professional growth. Another
benefit included the idea that leadership opportunities lead to personal and professional growth.
One teacher noted, “Benefits include a chance for teachers to make change and have your voice
heard. Chance for leadership opportunities contributes to personal and professional growth.” In

82

other words, when teachers are invited to be leaders in a school, they benefit from the personal
satisfaction and confidence that are gained from assuming a leadership role, while also having an
opportunity to effect change. Teachers grow professionally when they lead their colleagues.
The experiences gained by planning and preparing for meetings and by using the leadership
skills necessary to facilitate effectively contribute to an incredible learning process.
Participants voiced appreciation for being part of an organization where leadership is
shared and realized by many members of the school community. When asked to share the
benefits of a principal’s practice to support a distributed leadership model, one teacher noted,
The benefits are leadership would not just be from the top of the organization. Everyone
would have the opportunity to participate and it would be leadership from within. It
would be empowering to individuals. And the leadership would be structured with more
of a level playing field.
Leadership opportunities that span a variety of venues and interests contribute to teacher
involvement and increase the likelihood that shared leadership will be sustained over time.
Distributed leadership empowers teachers to lead. Survey respondents expressed the
view that empowerment leads to long-range teacher investment and focused determination to
take action. Participants shared this belief with the premise that when all members of a
community are invited and encouraged to become involved in the community, there exist no
reasons why some members of the community are in leadership roles and others are not. One
teacher explained, “Teachers have a wide range of strengths and areas of expertise. When asked
to share these strengths, they feel more invested—particularly when their work influences
change.” It appeared evident that when people have opportunities to be involved and they realize

83

the effects that their work has on influencing change, their investment in the school community
increases.
Once given the opportunity to lead, it becomes the teacher’s decision whether or not
he/she is willing to assume a leadership role. According to focus group participants, if teachers
make the decision not to participate in a leadership capacity, that is their choice. It is the
principal’s responsibility to offer leadership opportunities to all teachers. However, if some
choose not to participate, they cannot complain that they were never given the option to do so.
Fullan (2001) contended that cultivating leadership in teachers plays a significant role in creating
effective change and supporting progress over time. He states that “cultivating leaders at many
levels” is crucial if principals aim to create effective change in a school:
An organization cannot flourish—at least, not for long—on the actions of the top leader
alone…To a certain extent, a school leader’s effectiveness in creating a culture of
sustained change will be determined by the leaders he or she leaves behind. (Fullan,
2002, p. 20)
Teachers respond positively when school leaders cultivate a culture that breeds teacher leaders.
One participant’s personal investment with the process of making the change from a traditional
grading system to a standards-based reporting system was viewed positively,
If done properly, everyone has a voice and more gets accomplished because everyone is
working together to achieve a common goal. The move to standards-based assessment
was an example of successful distributed leadership. Although this was a mandate,
people were given an opportunity to shape how it would look in our schools.
Having the freedom to effect change was a benefit voiced by the participants as they felt
their efforts were being validated by the principal and other leaders in the school.

84

Distributed leadership increases teachers’ feelings of connectedness to the school
community. Comments shared in the survey indicated that teachers sought to share knowledge
with their colleagues, particularly when they were observed to possess a particular strength.
When asked how principals can facilitate distributed leadership practices, one teacher indicated,
“Tapping into areas of expertise of teachers and providing support and encouragement of the
teacher.” Being noticed by an administrator for demonstrating an area of strength was repeatedly
mentioned by focus group participants and survey respondents. In addition, the desire to make a
difference in the school community was noted by teachers as having influenced their decisions to
extend themselves beyond the walls of the classroom and influenced their decisions to become
further invested in the school community. One participant pondered,
It could give teachers the feeling of being able to make more of a difference. Would
likely make people more invested in the school community beyond their classrooms. It
would draw on the strengths and talents of a wider pool of potential leaders.
The idea that one teacher has the potential to influence a cadre of teachers was a powerful one
and one that was recognized by other members of the focus groups as being critically important.
Upon hearing this participant’s insight, another teacher added, “It seems that distributed
leadership allows the school to thrive under the guidance of many individuals, each with unique
strengths to contribute.” Conversation continued regarding the need for faculty to connect with
others in the school community, while playing a role in the building of the community. Table 7
contains comments from focus group participants regarding resources needed to participate in

85

Table 7
Resources needed to participate in distributed leadership.
• I think it would help the school feel more like a community rather than specific teams or
teachers or administrators with individual agendas.
• I think that distributed leadership allows for everyone to feel more connected within Lydon,
and to have more of a vital role in building our community.
• I believe teachers have more of a vested interest in the school community/culture if they are
part of the ‘building’ of it. They feel valued.
• I think it is an excellent learning opportunity to be more involved in the school and to work
closely with colleagues that you often do not have much contact.

The sentiments expressed previously indicated a strong level of support for a community that
values teacher involvement, teacher leadership, and teacher collaboration, several of which were
considered to be the direct result of a principal’s practices to enact and support a distributed
leadership model in a school.
The section that follows outlines the drawbacks of a principal’s efforts to enact and
support a distributed leadership model in a school. Themes that emerged from the anonymous
questionnaire and focus group data will be presented, followed by narrative that extends and
further identifies ways in which survey respondents and focus group participants discussed those
drawbacks.
Drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership
model in a school. The number of drawbacks of a principal’s efforts to enact and support a
distributed leadership model in a school were significantly less than the number of benefits,
according to the survey and focus group data. The degree to which survey respondents and focus
group participants identified and discussed the benefits of principal practices was notably more
extensive than any of the discussions involving the drawbacks of such practices. However,
comments made on the anonymous questionnaire and discussions that followed in the focus

86

groups identified some concerns. Dominant themes that emerged from the survey data included
(1) teacher frustration, (2) delayed decision making, (3) interpersonal dynamics, and (4) a sense
of futility.
Teacher frustration. While it is undoubtedly true that teachers enter into the field of
education because they enjoy working with children and seek to have a positive impact on their
lives, it may also be true that teachers are more comfortable and confident in front of their
students than they are in front of their colleagues.
When asked to identify the drawbacks of a distributed leadership model in a school, one
survey respondent shared concerns including the idea that teachers feel overwhelmed by
increasing responsibilities and the degree to which their efforts to fulfill those responsibilities
impact them and the way in which they regard their colleagues. Concerns regarding the idea of
not being on the “same level anymore” were similarly presented by survey respondents and focus
group participants. One survey comment included, “People feel spent. We have large class
sizes. Too many hands in the pot. Teachers may feel that their co-workers who are now teacher
leaders are not on same level anymore.” Other comments emerged from focus group discussions
and consisted of the following:
I think sometimes people may feel discouraged by it [Distributed Leadership] because I
think sometimes people have tried to take on leadership roles and then it doesn’t work out
the way they planned and so they’re like, ‘Oh forget it’ or ‘I'll never do that again.’ Those
are pieces that are tough to get those people back into it if they have worked really hard
on something and it did not work out the way they had thought it would. Sometimes, if
the ideas of workers are vetoed for some reason then people feel what was the point. I
spent all my time doing this and the principal said no, so now they ask, ‘Why bother?’

87

You’re really not heard or listened to. You try to make change and it doesn’t work. The
person is then saying I’m done. That can be another reason why someone is hesitant
because you don't know what that past has been like in another building or in other
districts when they have taken these chances.
There is peer pressure that’s hard to ignore. I am not sure why that is. I have heard
people say that, but there still is the rumor that if you do not have professional status
[tenure], you should not be a mover or a shaker because it will reflect poorly on you.
These related sentiments signal feelings of unease on the part of those teachers who would
otherwise make the decision to get involved, but lack confidence taking that step due to past and
present experiences that contribute to feelings of unease.
Frustration that included working with people who have challenging personalities was
also identified as a drawback, though the degree to which participants’ viewed this obstacle
differed. One participant’s comments was illustrative of a respectful understanding of
personalities and other characteristics of colleagues,
I think people are very passionate about what they believe in and there are people who
have very specific ideas and sometimes can be inflexible with others’ ideas. It is not that
they are wrong but they like things the way they like them and they see no need to change
and that is not wrong, but it can be difficult if you want to move forward.
Another noted,
Too many people involved in the process can make it harder to complete. Yet, if you
don’t offer an open invitation, some people may not accept any decisions made because
they were not part of the process. It can be difficult working with some
dominating/negative personalities.

88

Similar comments were shared in another focus group and included the following:
I hate to say it but there is also the difficult personalities that you need to take into
consideration; those people who pushed back at you because you want to try something
new and you want to be creative and take something on in addition to the daily duties…It
may look poorly on you because you want to get involved. There are some challenges. I
hate to sound negative.
Following this statement, the focus group discussion became increasingly emotional, as
colleagues shared experiences with colleagues who were unwilling to listen to others’ ideas and
who were resistant to taking risks, or questioned the need to change, no matter what that change
entailed. When one comment surfaced in the group, several others followed and were
consequently discussed between the group members. Other participants appeared to be less
tolerant of domineering colleagues and showed a level of impatience, as evident in this comment,
“I think sometimes louder voices overcome the unsung heroes and those quieter voices are not
heard, yet they have a great deal to offer.” Survey responses revealed similar levels of reluctance
to involve too many people in leadership opportunities. One respondent shared,
Too many people involved in the process can make it harder to complete. Yet, if you
don’t offer an open invitation, some people may not accept any decisions made because
they were not part of the process. It can be difficult working with some
dominating/negative personalities.
The notion of working with people who display challenging personalities was a challenge that
was referenced repeatedly in both the survey data and focus group discussions.
Delayed decision-making. Among the drawbacks identified in the survey data and focus
group discussions included feelings of ambiguity regarding the idea that no one person would

89

ultimately be responsible for making the final decision and progress would come to a halt.
Survey comments revealed, “Sometimes with so many hands in the pot, there can be a sense that
no one is in charge. Progress can take a lot longer if final decisions are not made.” One survey
respondent shared,
In order for there to be one fluid vision, there does sometimes need to be an identifiable
‘head.’ ‘Too many cooks in the kitchen’ can lead to difficulty in effective timely decision
making. When difficult decisions need to be made, sometimes they are best made by one
expert source. It definitely will take more time and effort to work with everyone to find a
better way.
One focus group participant similarly shared, “I don't know if this makes sense or not, but when
you have a room of 80 people and the decision needs to be made, it needs to be made by a
leader.” Another stated, “Too much conversation, not enough action. Committees act
independently without regard for overlapping schedules or duties.” The concern raised that
independent teams and committees could unknowingly make decisions that were in conflict with
one another due to the fact that they had not appropriately communicated with one another was
articulated as another drawback. These concerns were voiced by several focus group
participants. Another participant shared, “People ask, ‘Where can I learn? What can I do next to
help? How can I contribute to my school community?’—there is a great deal of uncertainty.” Not
only did participants share concerns regarding the unknown, as it related to distributed
leadership, they also referred to past experiences that proved frustrating.
Interpersonal dynamics. Focus group participants shared specific examples of personal
experiences working in schools or in the corporate world and recalling times when they were
asked for their opinions, only to realize that their opinions did not seem to matter. When one

90

participant reflected on a past experience and shared, “I decided that I was not going to
contribute my ideas because no one seems to be listening to them,” several others nodded their
heads in agreement and extended the conversation, while sharing personal stories of their own,
including times when they had been invited to be part of the decision making process, yet the
invitation appeared to be made in vain, as their decision was never validated. This drawback
clearly made several participants feel hesitant about the value of distributed leadership.
Research question 2 summary. Teachers revealed several benefits and drawbacks of a
principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school, as evident in
the survey responses and focus group discussions. According to teacher participants, among the
greatest benefit for teachers included the idea that distributed leadership empowers people.
Other benefits included the ideas that distributed leadership improves collaboration; distributed
leadership positively impacts personal and professional growth; distributed leadership empowers
teachers to lead; and distributed leadership increases teachers’ feelings of connectedness to the
school community.
According to some focus group participants, benefits also include feelings of validation
when principals are well-informed regarding the involvement of the faculty. Teachers shared
that they seek to be involved with initiatives and activities that interest and motivate them, and
they appreciate when administrators are familiar with that involvement and show interest in the
work being accomplished. One teacher explained:
For me, I would like to sign up for something that means a lot to me. There is so much
that is constantly swirling around in the school that it can be difficult to navigate through.
I think that is important in terms of the administration's leadership to know what teachers
are doing during the school day and after the school day. Sometimes I feel as though

91

administrators do not know all the outside work that I'm doing. As busy as we are, we
need to try to get that information from the teachers. I just think if I'm doing all these
things after school and supporting the mission of the school, then I think it is really
important for administration to know about it.
Several participants in the focus group agreed with this comment and shared ways in which
building leaders have acknowledged their work, including placing handwritten notes in their
mailboxes at school and leaving flowers on their desks following a School Committee or other
presentation. Having knowledge of and appreciation for the leadership efforts of the faculty was
a clear benefit of distributed leadership in a school.
Among the greatest drawbacks included the concern that too many leaders delays the
decision making process and interferes with meaningful progress. Some teachers shared their
discomfort with many individual groups within the school making decisions that have a long-
lasting impact on the community. Comments revealed that these types of decisions are best
made by school leaders who formally hold these positions (i.e., principal or assistant principal),
because they were hired to make important decisions that influence the entire school community.
Other drawbacks included the idea that teachers become frustrated when they feel their opinions
don’t make a difference, and when the interpersonal dynamics of a group are negative or
strained, and the idea that too many leaders have the potential to send conflicting messages to
their teams and this may lead to indecisiveness and the fragmentation of the school’s mission.
Obstacles shared by survey respondents and focus group participants also included
frustration caused by a lack of time to get involved – both during and after the school day, as
family and other personal commitments, along with professional responsibilities including
coursework and requirements related to teacher licensing, conflict with their ability to be

92

involved outside of the classroom. Some participants commented on the scope of possible
activities in which to be involved and shared that they become overwhelmed when trying to “sort
through” the number of clubs and activities. Others noted that their efforts appear to be wasted
because their involvement does not always seem “to make any kind of considerable difference.”
When this occurs, faculty take a back seat and become less inclined to volunteer again.
Summary of Findings
The findings of this study indicate that it is important for principals to consider teachers’
perception of principal practices, which they believe to have a positive or negative influence
on distributed leadership. Teacher perception as it relates to the benefits and drawbacks of a
principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school is important
when considering ways in which to strengthen distributed leadership in a school community.
Survey data indicated that the majority of faculty (95%) who responded to the survey
overwhelmingly believe that it is important for a principal to support teacher participation in
distributed leadership and feel that distributed leadership supports teachers’ professional growth.
The data additionally revealed that teachers strongly support the idea that a school’s culture
needs to include the opportunity for the growth of distributed leadership practices and that these
leadership practices should align with the school’s mission, vision, and goals.
The two research questions were explored through survey and focus group data. The first
research question, “What practices in which the principal engages do teachers perceive as having
a positive or negative influence on distributed leadership?” revealed that teachers appreciate
being recognized by the school principal; seek compensation for their work; need time, resources
and organizational support in order to lead; seek to be empowered by leaders in the building;
seek open and honest communication; and want to understand the mission and vision of the

93

school. Focus group participants shared that principals’ recognition of teachers’ efforts is
paramount and contributes to their decisions to get involved. Other themes that arose from focus
group discussions revealed that teachers learn from effective administrators; teachers need time
to collaborate and lead; and shared leadership is prevalent in a strong school culture.
Themes revealed in the survey and focus group data revealed, as they related to the
second research question included the belief that distributed leadership empowers people;
distributed leadership improves collaboration; distributed leadership positively impacts personal
and professional growth; distributed leadership empowers teachers to lead; and distributed
leadership increases teachers’ feelings of connectedness to the school community. Among the
drawbacks shared in the data included teacher frustration, delayed decision-making,
interpersonal dynamics, and a sense of futility. Obstacles shared that could potentially interfere
with this work included a lack of time both during the school day and outside of the school day,
as scheduling conflicts and family commitments interfere with opportunities to be more
involved; a lack of acknowledgement of teacher participation by administrators; and a lack of
interest in activities and initiatives that faculty deem to be unmotivating.
As evidenced by this study, distributed leadership in a school community contributes to
feelings of appreciation, empowerment, affirmation, and ownership, as faculty members seek to
be part of the decision-making process. Additionally, this leadership model increases a sense of
belonging and connectedness, which allows a large middle school to feel smaller. The
drawbacks include work beyond contractual duties for little to no compensation; feelings of guilt
when faculty are unable to or are uncertain of how to get involved; the time needed to be
involved; and the uncertainty that results from having many leaders in the building.

94

The benefits and drawbacks of a principal’s efforts to enact and support a distributed
leadership model in a school were initially explored through conducting a survey and further
examined through focus group discussions. Themes that came out in the survey data related to
the benefits and drawbacks of such efforts included perspectives regarding a sense of ownership
within the school; the role that trust and confidence play when deciding whether or not to lead;
the implications of working with colleagues who display challenging personalities; the idea that
more is accomplished when leadership is shared; and the question of whether or not progress is
actually made when many people are involved in the decision-making process. Themes elicited
from survey data were further explored in focus group discussions. These discussions illustrated
participants’ points of view in greater depth and detail than would have occurred through
conducting the survey alone. The conversation that developed as a result of having an
opportunity to listen to colleagues and contribute ideas, provided additional perspective to the
respondents’ survey responses. While focus group participants confirmed survey findings,
several additional facets of these themes were revealed in the group discussions. Specifically,
focus group participants placed greater emphasis on time and collegial collaboration than on
monetary compensation when speaking about resources needed to support distributed leadership.
Focus group participants also expressed a greater degree of certainty when discussing the effects
of the principal’s actions when personally inviting faculty to become involved in specific
leadership opportunities. Participants provided specific examples of interactions between
principal and faculty, noting this encouragement as having a lasting impact on their decisions to
become involved in leadership. Finally, respondents and participants shared the drawbacks and
obstacles that sometimes interfered with their decisions to become further involved in the

95

community, specifically personal and professional obligations that take priority at various times
throughout their careers.
Chapter V: Discussion of the Research Findings
In this final chapter, this researcher provides a summary of the study including a recap of
the problem of practice, the statement of significance, the methodology utilized, the findings of
the research, an examination of the findings in relation to the theoretical framework, the review
of the literature, potential limitations, and implications for practice. The goal of this research
included developing an understanding of teachers’ perceptions of principal practices that
teachers believe influence distributed leadership in a middle school, and to examine the benefits
and drawbacks of principal efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a
school. Following a brief overview of the rationale, methodology and summary of key results,
findings are discussed through the lens of distributed leadership theory and relevant scholarly
research. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the practical aspects of the study, including
its limitations and its significance of study in the field, next steps, and concludes with personal
reflections.
Summary of the Problem
Schools throughout the United States face significant challenges to respond swiftly and
appropriately to the demands associated with preparing students for a 21st century education in a
standards-based environment (Elmore, 2004). In order for schools to meet local, state and
national mandates for improved student achievement, school and district personnel are called
upon to work together to ensure that rigorous mandates are met. In order for this task to be
accomplished, leadership roles and responsibilities must be purposefully and consistently
distributed between and among faculty. Elmore described this distribution of leadership in the

96

following way: “Distributed leadership…derives from the fact that large-scale improvement
requires concerted action among people with different areas of expertise and a mutual respect
that stems from an appreciation of the knowledge and skill requirements of different roles” (p.
87). The problem of practice explored in this research is the gap between the concept of
distributed leadership and teachers’ perceptions of this concept when a principal enacts a
distributed leadership model in a school. This research investigated the experiences and insights
of teachers to determine some of the ways in which the practices of a school principal can foster
and support positive outcomes through distributed leadership and sought to identify the benefits
and drawbacks of such efforts.
Questions remain regarding the specific practices in which principals engage that
positively influence teachers and other faculty to assume leadership roles in a school. Further,
there continues to be uncertainty regarding the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the
principals’ efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model. In an effort to address
these questions, this study explored teachers’ perceptions regarding resources needed for
participation in distributed leadership; obstacles that interfered with teacher interest and
participation in distributed leadership; principal practices that promoted distributed leadership;
and the benefits and drawbacks associated with principal practices that influence distributed
leadership in a school.
Distributed leadership is nonexclusive and can be realized through the social interactions
between leaders and followers (Spillane, 2005). Spillane, Halverson, and Diamond (2001)
contend, “In our distributed view, leadership practice is constituted in the interaction of leaders
and their social and material situations” (p. 27). These interactions and situations pave the way
for reflective practice. As referenced earlier, some of the principal practices perceived by

97

teachers to have had a positive influence on distributed leadership, along with the associated
benefits of distributed leadership, have been noted.
A distributed leadership model, as explained by educational researchers, is in response to
the idea that no one person can successfully lead a school, but rather schools should be led using
a collaborative model that involves the participation of school faculty through shared decision-
making (Gronn, 2008). It is this shared decision-making that contributes to a collective effort
aimed at addressing the needs of the school community. Schools are expected to be increasingly
diligent in ensuring that all students learn at high levels and that students’ rate of growth, in
relation to their academic peers, is strong. In order for students to achieve academic success,
principals are called upon to cultivate professional learning communities. As DuFour and Eaker
(1998) contended, “The most promising strategy for sustained, substantive school improvement
is developing the ability of school personnel to function as professional learning communities (p.
xi).” Professional learning communities promote the idea that schools consist of communities of
learners where teachers are actively involved in all aspects of school improvement and where the
belief that professional growth leads to student success is widespread.
Student achievement is assessed in several different ways, and though some of these
assessments are school based, others including MCAS, are created at the state level and are
common in public schools across the state of Massachusetts. In several districts, central office
administrators, principals, and teachers review these academic achievement data [MCAS]
collaboratively and work together to ensure that students’ academic performance is strong and
that their student growth levels are consistent with pre-determined benchmarks. School
principals are called upon to review these assessment data with faculty; discuss instructional
implications; and set goals for improvement. This work requires a team effort shared by many

98

individuals in the school, including teachers, instructional coaches, curriculum coordinators, and
administrators. When people are given a say in policy and responsibility for implementing it,
he/she is more likely to have a vested interest in its success. Teachers seek collaboration and
teacher leadership opportunities, which ultimately result in personal and professional growth.
This distribution of leadership is just one of several ways in which sharing responsibilities has
the potential to inform and strengthen teaching and learning, as teachers share best practices
while working collaboratively to reach individual and team goals. However, teachers, like many
professionals around the world, struggle to work collaboratively with some of their colleagues.
It can also be stated with relative confidence that the roles and responsibilities of the classroom
teacher have dramatically increased over the past several years due to the social, emotional,
behavioral, and academic needs of their students.
Teachers’ perceptions of principal practices at Lydon Middle School were obtained
through the use of an anonymous survey and focus group discussions. These forums for
feedback were created to answer the following research questions:
1. What practices in which the principal engages, do teachers perceive as having a
positive or negative influence on distributed leadership?
2. What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principals’ efforts to
Survey and focus group questions were organized under each of the two research questions. The
goal of this research involved contributing to the body of literature that currently exists, while
identifying principal practices that positively or negatively impact distributed leadership in a
school and examines the benefits and drawbacks of these efforts.

99

Review of the Methodology
This qualitative analysis included the use of anonymous questionnaires and focus groups
that were designed to elicit teacher input regarding distributed leadership. Data from the
questionnaires were analyzed. Focus group data was recorded, transcribed by this researcher, and
reviewed by all focus group participants for the purpose of member checking. Themes that
emerged from the data were coded and measured in relation to each of the research questions.
The online anonymous questionnaire was provided to 57 interested faculty members
using SurveyMonkey, a web-based company that enables users to create their own web-based
surveys (see Appendix A). Results were obtained using data collection and analysis tools
available through the website. Following the analysis of the survey data, focus group questions
were developed using the data results. These questions guided the three focus group discussions,
providing talking points throughout. Focus groups were designed to expand upon the ideas and
opinions shared in the anonymous survey. The small group format provided an environment that
was conducive to high participation levels, with a maximum of eight of faculty members in each
group. The questionnaire data was summarized during the introductory segment of the
discussions. Two iPads were placed at either end of the table at which the participants were
seated to aptly record all comments. Member-checking was used to verify participants’
agreement with the collected data and allowed them to review the transcripts for accuracy.
Triangulation of data sources (anonymous questionnaires, focus group interviews, and
reflective note-taking) ensured validity and reliability as it cross-checked the data, which allowed
the researcher to be more confident in the findings to the extent that each data source
corroborated the other. Triangulation also shed light upon common themes found in different
sources (Creswell, 2007) and strengthened dependability and credibility (Merriam, 1998). Data

100

from each data source were compared and contrasted in order to better establish how teachers’
responses corresponded across the different sources.
Summary of the Findings
The first research question inquired about the specific practices in which the principal
engages that have had either a positive or negative impact on distributed leadership. Teachers
responding to the survey and participating in the focus group discussions identified six themes
that impact their decisions to participate: (1) recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts, (2)
providing compensation to teachers for leadership work beyond the contractual school day, (3)
providing time, resources, and scheduling support, (4) empowering teachers through the words
and actions of school and district leaders, (5) providing open and honest communication, and (6)
ensuring that the mission and vision of the school are well understood by all members of the
school community. Teachers perceive that these practices make a significant difference when
deciding whether or not to get involved in distributed leadership. As discussed in Chapter 2,
research indicates that when leadership is cultivated in teachers and teachers become involved in
the life of the school, teacher investment increases and learning improves. The themes that
emerged from the survey served as the umbrella from which the focus group discussions
occurred.
Recognizing and valuing teachers’ efforts. Understandably, recognition of teacher
efforts served as a resounding theme throughout the study. Teacher comments revealed through
the survey and confirmed by comments made in each of the three focus groups included the
importance of teachers being recognized by district leaders, building administrators, and teaching
colleagues, for the work they do both in and out of the classroom. One focus group participant
commented, “Teachers assume leadership roles in their schools because they become excited and

101

energized by the leader, and want to do more and more because of that.” Another opinion that
was shared by several others included the following,
I think one positive aspect of distributed leadership is it is the principal's job to lead, but
to lead the teachers to take other responsibilities and use their strengths in order to benefit
the whole school and not just within their classrooms. If a principal sees someone's
strength, they are able to lead them and encourage them to take that chance. Sometimes
people may not feel they are ready or they do not know how to go about doing these
kinds of things, and if the principal sees the potential, then he or she should encourage
them to take that chance.
Comments such as this indicated that teachers appreciate being recognized for their work and
seek validation, along with an invitation by administrators to share their expertise with others.
Focus group discussions consistently revealed a strong connection between teacher involvement
in decision-making and positive school culture, as indicated in the following,
I think it is the climate of your building that will improve with more opportunities for
teachers to be involved. Teachers want to be part of the decision-making. If everybody
is on board, then you have a better climate because people have made decisions. It is that
skill piece. We can tap into each other because we all have individual skills and
strengths.
Though the term “distributed leadership” was not referenced specifically, remarks regarding this
type of leadership including teacher involvement, shared decision-making, shared facilitation,
and shared leadership responsibility, were referenced throughout the focus group conversations.
Providing compensation. Study participants considered factors that influenced their
decisions to become further involved in the school community and considered ways in which to

102

balance personal and professional commitments. Study participants shared ways in which
compensation contributed to the decision making process when deciding whether or not they
were willing and able to become involved in teacher leadership opportunities. Comments
including the following indicated that some teachers feel compensation through stipends is a
necessary ingredient for the “extra work” that leadership entails, “Stipends would be appreciated.
Administrators are compensated for their leadership. Even a token stipend for the extra work
would go a long way to help morale/participation.” Other participants stated that compensation
should be provided to faculty involved in leadership that requires time spent beyond the school
day, “Time—if meetings are held after school, then teachers should be compensated. We
shouldn't have school leaders who are being paid to lead and then have others who are doing
their work and not being compensated. This is not good for school culture.” While
compensation was on the forefront of several respondents to the questionnaire, the need for
recognition trumped the need for compensation in the minds of focus group participants, “I put
recognition as opposed to stipends because I think sometimes if there is no money in the budget
for stipends, recognition goes a long way. Appreciation for the work that educators do outside of
the classroom—things like that, is so important to me.” It is this researcher’s assumption that this
kind of sentiment may have been due to the fact that the teachers who volunteered to participate
in the focus groups were active and engaged members of the school community and sought to be
involved, regardless of whether or not pay is attached to their commitments. One of the
overarching findings is that teachers feel a very basic human need to be appreciated for their
work.
Providing time, resources, and scheduling support. Inherent in several of the
references made regarding critical supports for teachers included several that do not cost money,

103

but do require creative thinking and problem solving. Among those needs were time, resources
and organizational support. Study participants communicated repeatedly that time was an
essential component to effective distributed leadership. Survey comments coupled with focus
group statements described the importance of time. In fact, when responding to the survey
question, “Based on your experience and knowledge, what resources are needed in order for
teachers to participate in distributed leadership?” Interestingly, 26 of the 57 respondents shared
that time was necessary. One participant stated: “Time. Teachers should have time during their
workday when they are not with students and do not have to provide coverage and lessons for
their classes when they participate. If done outside of the school day they should be
compensated for their service.”
Resources in the form of training, professional development, and team building was the
next most prevalent viewpoint shared; as evident in the following survey response: “Teachers
need collaboration time, access to new educational ideas, and frequent professional development
in order to participate in distributed leadership. I also think it is important for teachers to have an
understanding of who their colleagues are (e.g., teaching philosophies, strengths, etc.), as well as
a clear idea of the strengths and challenges of the school.” Study participants noted that this work
cannot happen effectively without open lines of communication and a solid understanding of the
mission and vision of the school.
Empowering teachers through the words and actions of school and district leaders.
Study participants were clear that open and honest communication was paramount to
involvement in leadership opportunities within a school. When asked to respond to the survey
question, “What can school administrators do to promote distributed leadership among
teachers?” Among teachers, one respondent commented, “Good communication between

104

teachers and the principal is the most important resource for teachers to participate in distributed
leadership.” Another responded with caution:
It’s good to communicate issues and ask for feedback, but it’s also important to know that
there comes a point where the dialogue ends, a decision is made, and action taken.
Sometimes the dialogue goes on way too long and nothing gets done—we just move on
to the next issue and it too is unresolved. Meetings are long and unproductive. I
constantly think about how my time could be better spent, but those things have to wait
until later—after the school day, after late day meetings, long into the night teachers are
still doing the ‘real’ school work: planning, preparing, grading, communicating with
parents. These tasks result in easily 20–25 hours beyond a 40-hour work week.
When all is said and done, communication needs to be clear and concise. Expectations regarding
next steps need to be decisive, with a comprehensive system of checks and balances that are
communicated by the appropriate leader.
Ensuring that the mission and vision of the school are well understood. Perhaps
nothing is more important than involving teachers and faculty members in the process of creating
the mission and vision of the school. Without a genuine understanding of the direction in which
the school community is heading, teacher frustration will set in. Teachers seek an understanding
of the goals and priorities of the school and this can only be attained if the mission and vision of
the school are clear. One survey respondent shared an example of recent work that had been
accomplished for the Lydon Writing Project, a district priority,
To promote distributed leadership, school administrators should make the teachers part of
the vision. They need to feel part of the goal in order to lead their peers to attain the goal.
For example, in a pod meeting we discussed possible projects to be used for a science

105

writing initiative. As a group we chose a topic, discussed the desired outcome, and how
it would be implemented. Teachers then decided what leadership role they would take to
implement the change.
Teachers take pride in this work and know that work such as this is not accomplished alone. It
requires a significant commitment on the part of all involved; several of whom assume
leadership roles in order to move the project forward.
Overall it is apparent that teachers were forthcoming regarding what they believe may be
necessary resources in order for them to participate in distributed leadership. In addition, they
were equally forthcoming regarding what they perceived to be the benefits and drawbacks of the
principals’ efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school.
Discussion of the Findings in Relationship to the Theoretical Framework of Distributed
Leadership
Distributed leadership theory provided the theoretical lens through which to conduct this
research study. Distributed leadership theory advises that a principal develops leadership within
a school community in order to provide a collegial and collaborative model from which to work.
This study aimed to further understand teacher perception of principal practices that positively or
negatively influence distributed leadership within an organization, while also developing an
understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of distributed leadership.
The teachers and faculty involved in this study informed the research questions by
providing personal insight into the ways in which they have personally experienced leadership
opportunities within a school and what prompted them to get involved in this way. They were
forthcoming with their insights and made connections between past and present experiences.

106

When asked, “What factors might encourage or support teachers in taking on leadership roles in
their school?” one focus group participant shared,
School climate. It will depend on the climate of the building. I remember working in a
building where it was very top-down so when people contributed ideas and other things,
they were shot down, so I decided not to put anything out there because even when
people were asked for their ideas, they were shot down. I think in a climate like that,
people don’t make decisions, but if the climate is one in which they know their decisions
will be trusted and listened to, like Anna with her Student Voice, the people that worked
with her—it is a huge undertaking, but a great idea. She must have felt that the
administration was supportive of her idea and she felt trusted and therefore she took those
steps to put the Student Voice together and followed through with the idea. I think that
climate in the building is huge.
Positive school climates are indicative of environments that encourage members to become
involved in leadership roles. The distributed leadership framework is one in which leadership
practice within the organization is developed and organized in a way that is all inclusive of its
members and promotes interactions between individuals. Copland (2001) suggested that this
model eases the burden on the principal by distributing leadership throughout the organization,
and therefore does not promote the principal as “superhead,” but rather the facilitator of
leadership opportunities (p. 6).
Due to the increasing demands of local, state, and federal educational mandates, policies,
and measures that call for continuous improvement, it has become incumbent upon all members
of a school community to work together to meet those demands. Study participants shared the
toll that this pressure takes on teachers who increasingly feel as though the spotlight is on them,

107

and that expectations are too cumbersome. One participant noted that she feels as though she is
living in “a fish bowl,” because of the transparency of standardized testing and student growth
data that is now available for public perusal. Another referenced the impact that increased
expectations for strong student performance has had on teacher fatigue, despite ongoing budget
cuts,
With oversized classes, additional requirements from the district and state, and the
incredibly high expectations of the staff, many will not feel they have adequate time to
devote to anything other than their teaching.
While it may appear to be an understatement that one leader cannot do this work alone, it appears
that this type of leadership benefits the entire school community, as reported by this survey
respondent:
The benefits are leadership would not just be from the top of the organization. Everyone
would have the opportunity to participate and it would be leadership from within. It
would be empowering to individuals. And the leadership would be structured with more
of a level playing field.
This collective leadership approach opens the door for any and all interested members of the
community to lead.
In order for this to happen effectively, individuals within the organization are called upon
to work together to improve their practice. Sergiovanni (1984) described this work as a
participative approach to leadership. This type of leadership does not imply that everyone in a
group is a leader, but makes available the opportunity for a more collective leadership approach
that is fluid, not static. His idea rang true with one focus group participant who shared, “We can
tap into each other because we all have individual skills and strengths. By sharing the load, it

108

definitely connects everyone more. It makes the building seem smaller.” This comment was
illustrative of other comments including, I think it [Distributed Leadership] is also using people's
strengths to the school's advantage and being able to play those out. Giving people an
opportunity to do things they enjoy.” Distributing leadership throughout an organization is one
model that encourages a shared collaboration that is focused on and committed to the mission
and vision of the school.
Elmore (2000) wrote with specificity as he described issues facing both policy makers
and school leaders as they seek to improve their work: “Schools are being asked by elected
officials—policy leaders, if you will—to do things they are largely unequipped to do. School
leaders are being asked to assume responsibilities they are largely unequipped to assume” (p. 2).
Much of Elmore’s response is a plea for distributed leadership: This shift must begin with a
redefinition of leadership, which moves away from the idea of a role-based perspective toward
one that is distributed. He writes, “Distributed leadership…emerges from an understanding that
large scale improvement requires purposeful action between people with varied areas of
expertise and a mutual respect and understanding that materialize from an appreciation of the
knowledge and skill requirements of different roles and responsibilities” (pp. 35–36).
The framework that is inherent within distributed leadership theory is one in which
leadership practice is viewed as a stream of interactions and activities in which members find
themselves intertwined. Study participants expressed ways in which this participatory form of
leadership has contributed to personal and professional growth, while benefitting the entire
school community. When asked what school administrators can do to promote distributed
leadership among teachers, one survey respondent suggested, “Create the framework and make
sure everyone understands what distributive leadership is and what everyone’s role is in the

109

process. Make goals and expectations very clear. Provide follow through and take a task to
completion.” Another teacher drew on personal observations and experience and advised,
Create a school culture where teachers feel like their ideas are valuable and can be
shared. In my opinion, I feel we have had this with our Student Voice Crews. Teachers
were given the opportunity to organize their crews the way they wanted and collaborate
with colleagues. The Character Education Committee has been positively received and
administration has been eager to hear progress and offer support when necessary.
A great deal of this success could be attributed to the positive interactions between and among
faculty. Through these interactions, teachers have gained the confidence to take the risks
necessary to strengthen and benefit the school community. This type of participatory leadership
encourages interactions between faculty members who seek to share their individual talents to
strengthen the community.
Scribner, Sawyer, Watson, and Myers (2007) furthered the conversation on distributed
leadership and teacher collaboration by revisiting the theory of distributed leadership and
offered, “the distributed leadership perspective helps us to understand how…teacher teams are
embedded in an interactive network of interdependent school activities that collectively
constitute leadership” (p. 68). They promoted the idea that collaboration should be utilized as a
vehicle for principal control, rather than a vehicle used to solve problems by the collective power
of the group: “Collaboration does not necessarily equate with workers becoming more creative
and innovative. In fact the opposite can occur…team performance may also be constrained
when collaborative activity is too tightly bound through standardized organizational expectations
and monitoring” (p. 95). This resembles continued discussion found in the literature about the
very nature of collaboration and warns against the possibility that it may be used for hierarchical

110

purposes. The interactions between leaders, teachers, and all members of the school community
are of significant importance and must remain the focus of distributed leadership.
Focus group participants indicated that teachers perceive that the requisite social
interactions for distributed leadership to work according to distributed leadership theory strongly
influence teachers to either assume or not assume leadership roles. When responding to the
question, “What factors might encourage or support teachers in taking on leadership roles in their
school?” one participant shared,
I think if the leader knows the strengths of the person that is very important and they can
tap into those strengths. It can be just letting the person know that they are really strong
in this area and that you really need their help. A tap on the shoulder. I need your help
and I see this as your strength. I’m having difficulty doing whatever it is or I need some
input. Can you help me? And build on that person’s strength. It’s just like with our
students. That builds up people’s self-esteem and confidence in themselves and then they
feel needed and valued. I think that people in general want to feel needed so I think that
is an important piece.
Another simply noted, “Just being asked by the administration gives you confidence. Sometimes
that is what people need. It is reassurance.” These personal interactions were referenced
repeatedly as positively contributing to a teacher’s decision to lead.
When asked to share obstacles and drawbacks that teachers perceive could interfere with
teacher interest and participation in distributed leadership opportunities through the anonymous
questionnaire, teacher responses varied. Many of the drawbacks articulated in the survey and
discussed in the focus groups included concerns regarding relative to time and the idea that too
many leaders would result in too few decisions being made. Focus group participants were

111

initially tentative to share, yet when one participant voiced a perceived preference for one leader
making the final decision, others contributed to the conversation. The teacher participant stated,
“I'm sure there are some people that would prefer to have a leader and clear guidelines on what
their jobs are rather than being one of the decision makers.” Another cautioned that teachers may
“doubt that administrators will really consider what they are suggesting…fear of whatever they
say being held against them even though it is said that it will not be… the never ending issue of
too many things to do and not enough time…Time to participate.” These real-life obstacles were
further exacerbated by personal uncertainty that is felt by professionals who find themselves far
more confident in their abilities when in the presence of children than when they are with their
adult colleagues. One respondent discussed the reality of fear and self-doubt,
The first obstacle that I think of is facing the temptation to abandon the work. Sometimes
when teachers try new initiatives, they are so quick to declare: ‘well, that didn’t
work.....that was a disaster....forget it.....I don’t have time for that......’ In our classroom,
when a lesson doesn't go well, we don't abandon the standard. We reflect on what we can
improve about the lesson. Teachers need to hear that they can try new initiatives, make
mistakes, and that we want them not to give up. Trying something once is not really
enough. I think the biggest obstacle is developing a “stick-to-it-ness” so that teachers can
find new ways of leadership.
Other respondents cited teachers with negative attitudes, a lack of trust and underlying feeling of
not being valued by the community, as obstacles. Additionally, the stress of everyday realities
including personal issues, day care and family commitments, and professional pressures
including taking courses for license renewal, were noted as drawbacks. An example of this
sentiment can be noted here, “If you don't volunteer, then it may reflect in your summative

112

evaluation. Thus, teachers may feel obligated when their heart is not really into it. Some people
don't like to take on leadership because they’re not that kind of person; otherwise they would go
for administration roles.” Finally, the opinion that “leadership is not my job” was expressed by a
few respondents.
Though distributed leadership theory was not presented to survey respondents or focus
group participants as a vehicle through which to gain information about distributed leadership, it
did provide a lens through which this researcher conducted this research study. It allowed for an
exploration of interactions believed by teachers and faculty to be instrumental to their work in
the classroom and throughout the school community. The principal practices perceived by
teachers to have had either a positive or negative impact on their participation in distributed
leadership, along with the associated benefits and drawbacks, were explored using the lens of
Distributed Leadership Theory. This was accomplished in order to gain a better understanding
of distributed leadership in a school, an understanding that undoubtedly informed this research
study.
The findings of the study are in alignment with distributed leadership theory, the
fundamental principle of which is a participative approach to leadership. This type of leadership
promotes the sharing of leadership functions and roles between and among individual members
of an organization. The study explored teacher perception of principal practices that positively
or negatively influence teachers and other faculty to assume leadership roles in a school.
Additionally, the study investigated the perceived benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s
efforts to enact and support a distributed leadership model in a school. Distributed Leadership
Theory contends that this distribution of leadership can be successfully accomplished after the
identification of clear, observable, and measurable goals. Once these goals are established,

113

distributed leadership can occur, as this type of leadership promotes the interactions between
individuals in an organization. Distributed Leadership Theory, a theory of practice that is
viewed by social and situational aspects, offered the lens through which to reflect upon
leadership, as it related to the experiences of teachers and faculty at Lydon Middle School.
Discussion of the Findings in Relation to the Literature Review
As outlined in Chapter II, the growing demands of public policy and the ever-changing
directives of the educational reform movement have led to numerous scholarly proposals
outlining ways in which to manage these increased pressures, each of which has brought forth
ideas that seek to assist school leaders. The journey from the instructional leadership movement
of the 1980s to the transformational leadership movement that began in the late 1980s and
continued into the early 1990s was followed by teacher leadership initiatives that commenced in
the 1990s and continue to be refined today. These scholarly areas of focus were followed by
research related to distributing leadership in schools, whereby teachers were provided with
opportunities for meaningful collaborative practices through shared leadership. To this effort,
which continues into the present day, has been added research related to organizational learning
and support for professional community in schools. Though these leadership frameworks vary,
the main ingredient of each is shared collaborative leadership: a leadership that is distributive in
nature, and has great potential to positively influence teaching and learning in schools. It is this
distributed leadership approach that served as the foundation of this research study, as it is one
that requires further investigation, particularly as it relates to teacher perception of distributed
leadership in a middle school community.
The most recent research on distributed leadership developed over decades of scholarly
thinking that emerged in the early 1980s and comprises a range of research topics, from a focus

114

on organizational and institutional characteristics as they related to teacher training and teacher
quality to the idea that schools’ goals should be to build upon their community of learners by
working to become a community of teacher leaders (Barth, 2001). Research on teacher
leadership set the groundwork for subsequent studies related to distributed leadership, which
promoted the idea that leadership practice was not to be understood as the product of a leader’s
knowledge and skill, but rather viewed as the interactions between people and their situation.
This research study examined teacher perception of principal practices that positively or
negatively influence distributed leadership, as well as teacher perception of the benefits and
drawbacks of distributed leadership in a school.
Research on organizational leadership, transformational leadership, shared leadership,
teacher leadership, and distributed leadership was reviewed for this study and was organized by
themes that have emerged chronologically. These themes, which have provided another lens
through which to better understand the results of this study, will be discussed in the following
paragraphs as they relate to the study’s findings.
The work of researchers including Judith Warren Little (1882, 1990), Peter Senge (1990,
1993, 2006), Kenneth Leithwood and Doris Jantzi (1990, 1999), Roland Barth (2001), and James
Spillane (2005, 2006) significantly contributed to the body of literature on school leadership.
Little discussed indicators of collaboration that she believed to serve as the foundation of a
successful organization. She noted, “in all schools that staff characterize as highly collegial,
teachers view the principal as an active endorser and participant in collegial work” (p. 337).
Little also noted:
By virtue first of office and then of performance, principals are in a unique position to
establish and maintain the important norms of collegiality and experimentation, and to

115

promote and foster critical practices of talk about practice, observation of practice, joint
work on materials, and teaching each other about teaching. (p. 338)
Survey respondents and focus group participants in this study similarly indicated that the
principal’s actions significantly contributed to their sense of empowerment, confidence and
willingness to get involved in distributed leadership opportunities by sharing their instructional
practices and areas of expertise with one another. In response to the survey question asking what
school administrators can do to promote distributed leadership amongst teachers, one teacher
shared, “Listen to the pulse of the community; understand staff and be able to solicit help from
people with particular talents; follow up and follow through; keep goals simple and clear and
limited; and provide relevance to school improvement.” Principal practices including listening,
seeking to understand, clarifying, tapping into the expertise of teachers, and maintaining focus on
the goals of the school, served as common threads of participants’ discussion throughout the
study.
Peter Senge’s (1990, 1993, 2006) research influenced schools of thought regarding the
building of learning organizations. Senge’s work concentrated on decentralizing the role of
leadership in organizations in order to strengthen the capacity of all people to work productively
toward common goals. In his book, The Fifth Discipline, Senge explained that the ideas
presented “are for destroying the illusion that the world is created of separate, unrelated forces”
(p. 3). He shared the idea that when we can rid ourselves of this illusion, learning organizations
can be built “where people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly
desire, where new and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is
set free, and where people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 3). In other words,
the interconnectedness of humanity needs to be maximized if we are to continue to improve upon

116

what we do and accomplish our goals. Throughout this study, teachers and other faculty
communicated their desire to collaborate with one another, while working toward common goals.
When asked on the survey to share the perceived benefits of distributed leadership, one
respondent shared,
To promote distributed leadership, school administrators should make the teachers part of
the vision. They need to feel part of the goal in order to lead their peers to attain the goal.
For example, in a pod meeting we discussed possible projects to be used for a science
writing initiative. As a group we chose a topic, discussed the desired outcome, and how
it would be implemented. Teachers, then decided what leadership role they would take to
implement the change.
Another noted,
If done properly, everyone has a voice and more gets accomplished because everyone is
working together to achieve a common goal. The move to standards based assessment
was an example of successful distributed leadership. Although this was a mandate,
people were given an opportunity to shape how it would look in our schools.
Senge’s notion of decentralizing the role of leadership in order to build the capacity of those in
the organization came to fruition for this teacher whose experience with one district initiative
proved to be positive and productive, as she believed that the teachers directly influenced the
process and outcome, which was illustrative of a theme that emerged throughout the discussion
whereby teachers seek to be part of the decision making process and appreciate being valued
members of a team theme that emerged throughout the discussions.
Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) continued the leadership conversation as it related to

117

transformational leadership and the development of professional communities in schools.
Leithwood and Jantzi contended that principals play a significant role in shaping the culture of a
school. They believed that cultural change is the most critical element of school reform, that part
of this cultural change is the growth of collegial relationships and further suggested that
principals play a central role, if not a critical role, in shaping this culture. One survey respondent
shared that the benefit of this type of collaboration included, “Creating a community climate all
focused on the same goals: opportunities to meet professional goals and growth; whole school
involvement; and a clear vision.” However, in order for there to be clarity for all members of a
school community, Leithwood and Jantzi advised that school leaders identify and remove those
things in a school culture that may act as obstacles to collaboration. Focus group participants
discussed many of these obstacles, which largely comprised reasons as to why teachers may
choose not to take on leadership roles. As discussed previously, reasons included lack of time
due to planning and preparation of instruction, lack of recognition and compensation, lack of
confidence, family responsibilities including caring for young children and/or elderly parents,
too many goals resulting in too little action and challenging personalities of colleagues. As one
focus group participant shared, “With oversized classes, additional requirements from the district
and state, and the incredibly high expectations of the staff, many faculty will not feel they have
adequate time to devote to anything other than their teaching.” These feeling were widespread
among both survey respondents and focus group participants.
Research on transformational leadership gave way to discussions regarding school
reform, including the work of Michael Fullan (1996, 2000, 2001) and Andy Hargreaves (1991,
1996), each of whom thoughtfully and purposefully discussed the importance of collaborative
cultures in schools, while advocating for effective collaboration within the larger context of

118

school reform by empowering teachers to become involved in this significant effort. They
discussed specific principal leadership behaviors that require collaboration including establishing
a vision for the school; acquiring and providing the necessary resources that support the
opportunities for collaboration; and sharing control and leadership with all by modeling
collaboration (p. 90). This study’s findings align with the thinking of Fullan and Hargreaves, as
they relate to collaboration and shared leadership, as evident in this focus group participant’s
comment, who notes, “It is important to join together and share what it is that we are doing.”
This comment was representative of several others who discussed the importance of working
together with a common purpose to accomplish clear goals that have been established in
collaboration with others. The literature on distributed leadership reveals that teachers who
collaborate under the guidelines of a clear mission, vision, and goals, are more likely to
accomplish those goals and discover the fulfillment that accompanies that success than those
who are unsure and/or lack clarity regarding the mission, vision, and goals.
In the 1990s, Roland Barth (2001) joined the conversation through his focus on teacher
leadership, in which the teacher is viewed as one leader in a community of leaders. This
conversation continues today, the basic tenets of which include the transformation from a
community of learners to a community of leaders. This sharing of leadership as contributing to a
positive school culture was recognized by study participants, as one teacher reflected upon
factors that support distributed leadership in a school:
If the climate is one in which [teachers] know their decisions will be trusted and listened
to, like Anna with her Student Voice, the people that worked with her [teachers]—it is a
huge undertaking, but a great idea. She must have felt that the administration was
supportive of her idea and she felt trusted and therefore she took those steps to put the

119

student voice together and followed through with the idea. I think that climate in the
building is huge.
As this participant’s comment, which is illustrative of a more general theme, demonstrates the
power and influence of school climate on shared leadership. Shared leadership recognizes the
work of all individuals who contribute to leadership practice, regardless of whether or not they
assume formal leadership roles. This view of leadership coincided with distributed leadership
that promotes the fluidity of leadership and moves away from the idea that leadership is
individually fixed and where people within the organization are assigned specific roles that do
not change (Gronn, 2003).
Central to distributed leadership is the capacity to work together to provide leadership
using collaborative measures. This study demonstrated that teachers appreciate principal efforts
to provide opportunities for collaboration and value the outcomes that are realized when teachers
collaborate to set, maintain, and assess common goals that are inherent in a shared vision. Both
survey responses and focus group discussions revealed that teachers need time and resources to
collaborate with colleagues, and appreciate being recognized for their efforts by leaders in the
school and district. Study findings demonstrated that high levels of teacher involvement are a
direct result of a strong school culture, a culture in which trust and positive relationships pave the
way for teacher innovation, creativity, and investment.
Distributed leadership is not viewed as a product of a leader’s knowledge and skill, but is
viewed as the interactions between people and their situation. Findings from the current study
are in line with evidence from the literature reviewed for this study, as research participants
communicated similar messages regarding principal practices that positively and negatively
influence distributed leadership in a school, and discussed common themes related to the benefits

120

and drawbacks associated with those practices. These practices include personal interactions
between building leaders and faculty that are viewed as supportive and empowering.
Faculty reported their appreciation for the opportunity to get involved in the school
community when invited to do so by building leaders. Recognition in the form of compensation,
professional development points, and hand-written notes and verbal acknowledgement at the
building and district levels, provide teachers with the confidence and trust needed to maintain the
strong relationships needed to reach common school goals, while working toward a common
vision. Spillane (2005) explained that distributed leadership practice is viewed as a product of
the interactions of school leaders, followers, and their situation. These interactions inform,
influence, and construct leadership practice. It is through these interactions that building leaders
have the greatest influence upon those they lead.
Validity and Limitations
This research study was limited to one school in one suburban community in Central
Massachusetts, where 57 out of 75 total professional faculty members participated in the
collection of survey data, from which 23 of the 75 members participated in one of the three focus
groups. As a result, specific descriptions regarding the kinds of situations and the types of
interactions in which the principal and building leaders engage with teachers need to be explored
more fully in other settings in order to better understand teacher perception of principal practices
that either positively or negatively impact distributed leadership in a school.
This researcher was specifically interested in exploring practices in which principals
participate that influence teachers’ decisions to engage in distributed leadership opportunities.
Though data were undoubtedly useful in obtaining an understanding of teacher perception,
findings did not generate specific ways in which this could be done. Fullan (2000) discussed the

121

limitations of the research on teacher leadership, shared leadership and distributed leadership in
this way, “The research does not tell educators how to change their own situation to produce
greater collaboration. They can get ideas, directions, insights, but they can never know exactly
how to go about it because such a path is exceedingly complex” (p. 582). The absence of time-
tested approaches leads to continued uncertainty for principals and teacher leaders who seek to
participate in distributed leadership.
The most significant threat to the internal validity of this study is that this researcher also
serves as the principal of the school where the study took place, and serves as the primary
evaluator of the participants in the study. Because of this, the potential for observer effect is
significant. Observer effect or response bias includes the possibility of study participants to alter
their responses in order to provide their supervisor with information they believe their supervisor
hopes to hear. It also signifies that observer bias must be taken into consideration as the
researcher’s personal beliefs regarding the possibilities of distributed leadership in a school may
have altered the data and therefore produced findings that differ from those obtained by a neutral
researcher (Gay & Airasian, 2003).
This researcher used strategies to decrease the possibility of these limitations by
triangulating survey and focus group data, and inviting and encouraging participants to review
the focus group transcripts for accuracy. This researcher also used verbal and written
communication to study participants in order to communicate this researcher’s efforts to obtain
clear, accurate and honest feedback from the survey respondents and focus group participants.
These tasks were accomplished in an effort to maintain focus on the topic of distributed
leadership, while not being affected by the role of the principal as researcher in a study.

122

Conclusion
The findings of this study indicated that a significant number of teacher participants
perceived that distributed leadership positively impacts collegial relationships, teacher
collaboration and school culture. Findings also suggested that when teachers believe that their
contributions matter, they are more apt to contribute to collaborative opportunities in meaningful
ways. Findings indicated that teachers collectively perceived that there are many benefits to
distributed leadership including those mentioned earlier, and acknowledged that while there are
drawbacks, those drawbacks can be remedied by providing teachers with the appropriate
resources needed to participate in distributed leadership; allowing teachers time within the school
day to collaborate with colleagues; and providing teachers with compensation and professional
development points for their work. Though the benefits appeared to outweigh the drawbacks,
principals need to carefully consider ways in which distributed leadership practices are
developed, assessed, and sustained over time. Collective views indicated that principal practices
positively influence distributed leadership when actions include personally inviting individuals to
share areas of expertise; recognizing and celebrating the efforts and accomplishments of faculty;
providing resources including time and compensation for teachers who participate in distributed
leadership; and trusting teachers to make school-wide decisions.
The findings also revealed that teachers realized a strong sense of investment in the
mission and goals of the school when principals invited them to be part of the process and
listened to and acted upon their ideas. Negative impacts of principal practices as they relate to
distributed leadership included teachers feeling conflicted with family responsibilities; concern
regarding having time for professional commitments including coursework required for teacher
licensure; lack of clarity regarding leadership expectations; and working with other teachers who

123

are not committed to working together to achieve a common goal. The findings indicated that
teacher involvement in a school community leads to the development of strong school cultures
and effective collaborative practices. In addition, teachers communicated that pursuing a
distributed leadership model in a school is a worthwhile endeavor. Despite the merit of Fullan’s
(2001) arguments that collaboration is heavily context-bound and cannot simply be lifted from
one setting and repeated successfully in another, it is nonetheless important to investigate
principal practices that teachers perceive to have a positive and/or negative impact on distributed
leadership in a school, while teasing out the benefits and drawbacks that such efforts have on
Significance of the Study
Continued research on principal practices that positively and negatively influence
distributed leadership in a school will further validate the findings of this study and contribute to
the understanding of the topic. Furthermore, teacher perception, as it relates to the benefits and
drawbacks of such practices on distributing leadership in a school community also needs to be
further explored. It is recommended that studies similar to this one be conducted in schools with
varied demographics where distributed leadership is in its initial development and is being used
as a strategy influencing change in a school community. Such studies would further advance the
understanding of the conditions and circumstances under which distributed leadership is proving
to be either effective or ineffective.
Implications for Principals’ Practice
Results noted above indicate that teachers were directly influenced by leaders who
believed in them and entrusted them to lead meaningful efforts. One focus group participant
shared, “I don't know if people [administrators] recognize their strengths, but where you might

124

see a strength, it is important to mention that to a teacher. They might need that little boost and
be able to say no if they cannot do something.” This particular perspective confirmed the belief
that recognition goes a long way toward providing people with the confidence they need to lead
an effort, or demonstrate and understanding when teachers are unable to commit to a leadership
effort—for whatever reason.
Participants also shared that they were more inclined to assume leadership roles when
personally invited by building leaders to get involved, than they would have been if a large-scale
invitation was sent electronically. One participant stated, “Just being asked by the administration
gives you confidence. Sometimes that is what people need. It is reassuring.” Similarly, a survey
respondent shared, “Administrators may recognize strengths…they could ask the teacher to share
this strength.” When asked what school administrators can do to promote distributed leadership
in a school, another respondent shared, “Let teachers know that you see something in them that
would promote leadership.” In other words, rather than receive an impersonal e-mail blast to the
entire school community, these personal invitations and commendations for good work were
widely viewed by focus group participants as having an even greater impact on teachers’
decisions to get involved than being offered monetary compensation.
Teacher participation in shared decision making and distributed leadership practices
requires that a school be purposefully and systematically designed to support authentic
collaboration. In order for authentic collaboration to be successful, additional research is needed
to better understand the characteristics of principals and the strategies used by them to engage
teachers in distributed leadership opportunities. Elmore (2004) stated, “The problem, then, is
how to construct relatively orderly ways for people to engage in activities that have as their
consequence the learning of new ways to think about and do their jobs, and how to put these

125

activities in the context of reward structures that stimulate them to do more of what leads to
large-scale improvement and less of what reinforces the pathologies of the existing structure” (p.
87).
There is little explicit, empirical research that has been conducted to better understand
ways in which principals influence teacher motivation, or what strategies they use when this
motivation is absent. Leithwood and Jantzi (1990) described, “While evidence about the positive
effects of shared, technical, school culture is growing rapidly, very little is known about how
they develop. Furthermore, there has been very little empirical research inquiring directly into
what principals might do to assist such development” (p. 2). Teacher motivation is necessary for
program improvement and principals play a pivotal role in finding ways for teachers to distribute
leadership and participate in meaningful collaboration, which will ultimately shape the school’s
culture.
On June 28, 2011, the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
adopted new regulations for the evaluation of all Massachusetts educators. The regulations apply
to both administrators and teachers throughout the state, as they consist of swift consequences
when the expectations are not met. The stakes are high for principals and teachers to embrace
distributed leadership with the adoption of this new educator evaluation system, which will be in
full implementation in 2014, since the criteria for an exemplary rating carries the expectation of
leadership activities for all educators. Included in the standards is one entitled Professional
Culture (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, 2011). The
Professional Culture Standard is based on the premise that building leaders and teachers promote
the learning and growth of all students through ethical, culturally proficient, skilled, and

126

collaborative practice. Among the six indicators embedded within this standard include the
following indicators:
• Professional Growth: [Teacher] actively pursues professional development and learning
opportunities to improve quality of practice or build the expertise and experience to
assume different instructional and leadership roles.
• Collaboration: [Teacher] collaborates effectively with colleagues on a wide range of
tasks.”
• Decision-making: Becomes involved in school-wide decision making
• Shared responsibility: [Teacher} shares responsibility for the performance of all students
within the school (Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education).
Further investigation is needed to determine how principals can influence the practice of
distributed leadership, as the research base seems to agree that distributed leadership is
beneficial. Research is needed to determine how principals can effectively implement
distributed leadership model, particularly now that it is being mandated in Massachusetts.
Recommendations for Further Research
Further research related to the concept and practice of distributed leadership will support
the findings of this study and strengthen the understanding of this concept. It is recommended
that educators, scholars, and researchers continue to study teachers’ perceptions of principal and
building leaders’ practices that influence distributed leadership in a school, and further the
understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of such practices. Additional research would
continue to advance the understanding of the environments and situations under which
distributed leadership is effective or ineffective as an instrument to effect change. Elmore (2004)
stated, “The problem, then, is how to construct relatively orderly ways for people to engage in

127

activities that have as their consequence the learning of new ways to think about and do their
jobs, and how to put these activities in the context of reward structures that stimulate them to do
more of what leads to large-scale improvement and less of what reinforces the pathologies of the
existing structure” (p. 87). Teacher participation in shared decision-making and distributed
leadership requires that a school be purposefully and systematically designed to support
authentic collaboration.
In order for authentic collaboration to be successful, additional research is needed to
better understand the practices used by principals to engage teachers in distributed leadership, as
there are a multitude of dimensions of distributed leadership that warrant further exploration.
The following questions focus on some of these aspects that this researcher believes would be
beneficial:
• What are the specific kinds of situations and types of interactions between leaders and
followers that should be explored in other settings in order to better understand the
influence of distributed leadership on a school community?
• Does the practice of distributed leadership improve the quality of teachers’ classroom
performance?
• Do teachers who exercise distributed leadership have greater job satisfaction?
• How do colleagues respond when teacher leaders initiate change in a school community?
• How do teachers who attempt to lead respond when they perceive that their efforts are
not effective?
• Do principals who share leadership with teachers have greater job satisfaction?
• How do school reform policies affect the development of distributed leadership practices
in schools?

128

• How does the practice of distributed leadership impact the retention of teachers?
• Does the practice of teacher leadership lead to improved student outcomes?
In addition to the suggestions listed earlier, it is desirable that longitudinal research is
conducted to determine the influence of distributed leadership on student learning when it is
practiced over time as a function of a school’s culture. While it is important to assume good
intentions as those intentions relate to the work of policy makers who are responsible for
establishing educational mandates, it appears that they have neglected to include the voice of the
teacher and understand teachers’ perceptions of principal practices. Additional research on
distributed leadership will help educators and policymakers determine how to promote
distributed leadership with the goal of improving teaching and learning in schools across the
country.

Personal Reflections
My interest in leadership began when I was a young girl growing up in a large, Irish
Catholic family in a suburban community in Central Massachusetts. In fact, I serve as principal
of the middle school that I attended as a student over three decades ago. I am the seventh of ten
children. My mother and father raised each of us to believe that anything is possible when we
persevere and work together to achieve our goals. Conversations at the O’Connor dinner table
were lively and interesting, as my father served as a Justice on the Worcester Superior Court and
on the Massachusetts Supreme Court, while my mother not only cared for the ten of us each day,
but also served as the town social worker, family counselor, foster parent, and prayer partner to
many in the community. My siblings and I were very involved in our school and local
communities; serving as captains of our tennis, football, baseball, soccer, and hockey teams, and
participating in student government throughout our middle and high school years. While I was

129

growing up, I assumed that our family’s involvement in school, church, sports, clubs, activities,
and service organizations was no different than any other family’s involvement. It was not until
I graduated from high school that I realized my upbringing was quite unusual and that many
people never get involved in their communities, for many and varied reasons.
My father often reminded my siblings and me that you can tell a lot more about a person
from the kitchen he or she grew up in, than any school attended or degree received. He really
believed that and made sure his influence was felt throughout each week in our home, in our
community, and on the court. He and my mother stressed the importance of sharing
responsibilities with those around us. The Japanese proverb, “None of us is as smart as all of us”
held true in our home and continues to serve as a mantra in my family. Because of this, I have
become increasingly interested in studying how leadership can be shared, as each one of my
siblings engages in leadership opportunities in their various communities. After all, we were told
when we were young that this was our “calling,” our “responsibility.”
As I reflect on my role as principal of a Lydon Middle School, I realize that I have
learned from my colleagues that perhaps my greatest attribute is that of a listener. I am told that
I listen carefully to those around me and that this listening demonstrates that I care about those
with whom I work and for the students I serve. Some of the examples of ways in which I “bring
people on board,” according to results from mid and end of year faculty and family surveys, is
that I model kind, respectful and responsible behavior when I interact with students, families,
teachers, and community members. According to their comments, I acknowledge people in
public and private ways by genuinely thanking them for their efforts. I care for people, as is
evident when I provide faculty with snacks at faculty meetings, send cards to faculty in times of
joy and sadness, and invite people into my office to relax for a few moments when they are in the

130

midst of (personal or professional) unrest. I ask questions regarding a sick child, an aging
parent, or a college acceptance. I consistently and compassionately reach out to others to offer
support. I have learned throughout my life that by leading through example, others will notice
and many will ultimately follow that lead. I have also learned that by working in collaboration
with others, amazing things happen! Distributed leadership is one vehicle that encourages people
to work together in ways that allow them to share their expertise and feel a sense of renewed
accomplishment. It is critical that principals become actively involved in encouraging teachers
to share leadership in collaborative ways.
The findings of this study indicate that distributed leadership has the potential to
significantly influence teacher leadership practice in a school and positively contribute to school
improvement. The scholarly literature supports the findings and suggests that there are many
benefits to practicing distributed leadership in a school as a strategy for advancement. Teachers
and faculty members who participated in this research study aptly articulated their perceptions of
the ways in which principal practices positively and negatively influence distributed leadership,
and shared the benefits and drawbacks that result from those practices. Data gathered from the
anonymous questionnaire and the focus groups revealed that teachers’ perceptions of distributed
leadership were overwhelmingly positive, and they alleged that both they and the school benefit
from opportunities to practice teacher leadership in a school.
I strongly believe that I greatly benefited from conducting this study. One of the benefits
experienced included the knowledge gained from studying the concept of distributed leadership,
while having the unique opportunity to interact with colleagues regarding a topic that has gained
increasing attention at Lydon Middle School over the past few years. Conversations that
emerged in the focus groups, along with data collected through the anonymous questionnaire

131

provided me with significant insight into teachers’ perceptions regarding the practice and
importance of distributed leadership. In my dual role as principal, I received wonderful
perspective from faculty with whom I interact daily, but with whom I rarely have an opportunity
to discuss leadership to any significant degree. Conducting this study confirmed my beliefs
regarding the importance of distributing leadership in a school community and confirmed my
commitment to cultivating a school environment that encourages teachers to assume leadership
roles and improves the professional culture that exists within the school.

132

References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. The
Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.
Barnard, C. I. (1938). The function of the executive. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Barth, R. (2001). Learning by heart. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Beyea, S. C., & Nicoll, L. H. (2000). Collecting, analyzing, and interpreting focus group data.
Acorn Journal, 71(6), 1278-1283.
Blase, J. (1990). Some negative effects of principals’ control-oriented and protective political
behavior. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 727–753.
Blase, J. (1993). The micropolitics of effective school-based leadership: Teachers’ perspectives.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 29(2), 142–163.
Blase, J. (1997). The micropolitical orientation of facilitative school principals and its effects on
teachers’ sense of empowerment. Journal of Educational Administration, 35(2), 138–
164.
Blase, J., and Blase, J. (1994). Empowering teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Blase, J., and Blase, J. (1999). Principals’ instructional leadership and teacher development:
Teachers’ perspectives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(3), 349–378.
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1982). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary
schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781.
Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.

133

Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: Eight themes
from research on principals. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy,
90, 22.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Copland, M. (2001). The myth of the superprincipal. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 528–532.
Crow, G., Hausman, C., & Scribner, J. (2002). Reshaping the role of the school principal. In J.
Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st
century (1, 189–210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Crow, G., & Pounder, D. (2000). Interdisciplinary teacher teams: Context, design, and process.
Educational Administration Quarterly 36(2), 216–254.
Day, D., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly,
15, 857–880.
Diamond, J. (2007). “Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high
stakes accountability policy and classroom instruction.” Sociology of Education, 80(4),
285–313.
Drucker, P. (1985). Innovation and Entrepreneurship. New York, New York: HarperCollins
Publishers.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for
enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

134

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground. Bloomington, IN: National
Education Service.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington: The Albert
Shanker Institute.
Emihovich, C., & Battaglia, C. (2000). Creating cultures for collaborative inquiry: New
challenges for school leaders. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 3(3),
225–238.
Fullan, M. (2000). The three stories of educational reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(8), 581–584.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M., & Hargreaves, A. (1996). What’s worth fighting for in your school? New York:
Teachers College Press.
Gay, L. R., & Airasian, P. (2003). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and
applications (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Goddard, Y., Goddard, R., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in
public elementary schools. The Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
Gronn, P. (1997). Leading for learning: organizational transformation and the formation of
leaders. Journal of Management Development, 16(4), 274-283.
Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 28(3), 317–338.
Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13(4),
423–451.

135

Gronn, P. & Hamilton, A. (2004). “A bit more life in the leadership”: Co-principalship as
distributed leadership practice. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 3(1), 3–35.
Hallinger, P. (1992). The evolving role of American principals: From managerial to instructional
to transformational leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 30(3), 35–48.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement:
Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership
and Management, 30(2), 95–110.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1996). Reassessing the principal’s role in school effectiveness: A
review of empirical research, 1980–1995. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32(1),
5–44.
Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J.
Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Harris, A. (2003). Teacher leadership as distributed leadership: Heresy, fantasy or possibility?
School Leadership & Management, 23(3), 313–324.
Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leadership through the looking glass. Management
in Education, 22(1), 31–34.
Hart, A. W. (1995). Reconceiving school leadership: Emergent views. The Elementary School
Journal, 96(1), 9–28.
Klenke, K. (2008). Qualitative Research in the Study of Leadership. Bingley WA, UK: Emerald
Group Publishing.
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Successful school
leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. NCSL/Dept for Education &

136

Skills, University of Nottingham.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help
reform school cultures. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Canadian
Association for Curriculum Studies, 2–45.
Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning
in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243–276.
Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (1999). The relative effects of principal and teacher sources of
leadership on student engagement with school. Educational Administration Quarterly,
35, 679–706.
Little, J. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school
success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325–340.
Little, J. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers’ professional
relations. The Teachers College Record, 91(4), 509–536.
Marks, H., & Louis, K. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capacity for organizational
learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 707–750.
Marks, H., & Printy, S. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of
transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,
39(3), 370–397.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education (2nd ed.).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

137

Murphy, J., Smylie, M., Mayrowetz, D., & Seashore-Louis, K. (2009). The role of the principal
in fostering the development of distributed leadership. School Leadership and
Management, 29(2), 181–214.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187–226.
Rosenholtz, S., Bassler, O., & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational conditions of teacher
learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 91–104.
Sandholtz, J., & Scribner, S. (2006). The paradox of administrative control in fostering teacher
professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22(8), 1104–1117.
Sawyer, J. M. (2005). A Case Study of Teacher Leadership as a Strategy for Implementing
Change. (Doctoral dissertation). Boston College, Newton, Massachusetts.
Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and
distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67–100.
Senge, P. M. (1990/2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
New York: Currency Doubleday.
Senge, P. (1993). Transforming the practice of management. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 4(1), 5–32.
Sergiovanni, T. (1984). Leadership and excellence in schooling. Educational Leadership (41)5,
4–13.

138

Smylie, M., Conley, S., & Marks, H. (2002). Building leadership into the roles of teachers. In J.
Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st
century (Vol. 1, pp. 162–188). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Spillane, J. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. [San Francisco, California] Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J., Camburn, E., & Pareja, A. (2007). Taking a distributed perspective to the school
principal’s workday. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6(1), 103–125.
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30(3), 23–28.
Spillane, J., & Healey, K. (2008). Conceptualizing school leadership and management from a
distributed perspective: An exploration of some study operations and measures. The
Elementary School Journal, 111(2), 1–41.
Spillane, J., & Orlina, E. (2005). Investigating leadership practice: Exploring the entailments of
taking a distributed perspective. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4, 157–176.
Spillane, J., & Zuberi, A. (2009). Designing and piloting a leadership daily practice log: Using
logs to study the practice of leadership. Education Administration Quarterly, 45, 375–
423.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001). Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational
Administration, 39(4), 308–331.
Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of
leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217–247.

139

Appendix A
Confidential Questionnaire—Survey Monkey
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. Your input will provide me with an
opportunity to learn more about your perceptions and ideas regarding distributed leadership at
SMS. Please read each question carefully and respond openly and honestly.
Thank you for your time!
________________________________________________________________________
What is distributed leadership?
Distributing leadership in a school community provides an opportunity for teachers to influence
meaningful collaborative practices through shared leadership. Spillane (2005) explains that
distributed leadership is a perspective - a conceptual or diagnostic tool for thinking about school
leadership. It is not a detailed outline for effective leadership, nor a description for how school
leadership should be exercised. This type of leadership focuses on what people do and how and
why they do it. Using a distributed leadership framework, leadership practice is viewed as a
product of the interactions of school leaders, followers, and their situation. Leadership practice is
not viewed as a product of a leader's knowledge and skill, but is rather viewed as the interactions
between people and their situation. It is through these interactions, rather than actions, that
leadership practice is understood, as these interactions inform, influence, and construct
leadership practice.
1. The building principal supports teachers’ participation in distributed leadership practices at
SMS.
___ Strongly agree
___Agree
___Somewhat agree
___Disagree
___Strongly disagree
2. Distributed leadership supports teachers’ professional growth.
a) Strongly agree b) Agree c) Somewhat agree d) Disagree e) Strongly disagree
3. The school’s culture is conducive for the growth of distributed leadership practices.
4. Distributed leadership practices align with our school goals.

140

Please answer the following and where possible, provide specific examples.
1. Based on your experience and knowledge, what resources are in place at SMS for teachers to
participate in distributed leadership?
2. Based on your experience and knowledge, what obstacles exist at SMS that interfere with
teachers who may be interested in practicing distributed leadership?
3. What does the principal do to promote distributed leadership amongst teachers? Please be
specific and where possible, provide one or more examples.
4. What does the principal do to impede distributed leadership among teachers? Please be
specific and where possible, provide one or more examples.
5. What do you believe are the benefits of distributed leadership? Please be specific and where
possible, provide one or more examples.
6. What do you believe are the drawbacks of distributed leadership? Please be specific and where
possible, provide one or more examples.

141

Appendix B
Focus Group Discussion Questions and Protocol
Introduction:
• This is a conversation to discuss some of your ideas about the topic of distributed
leadership.
• I’d like to remind you that what we discuss is totally confidential and will not be used for
any other purpose than to inform this study. I am interested in learning about what
teachers think and feel about principal practices that influence distributed leadership, and
I encourage you to be as open and honest as possible. There are no “right” or “wrong”
answers, and there is no expectation regarding “how much” you should know or say
about this topic.
• Throughout our conversation, please feel free to refer back to questions in order to
elaborate upon or revise your comments.
• Do you have any questions before we begin?
1) If someone asked you what distributed leadership means, what would you tell them?
2) How would you respond to someone who said to you “It’s the principal’s job to lead, and
the teachers’ job to teach?”
3) Why do you think teachers assume leadership roles in their school?
4) What factors might encourage or support teachers in taking on leadership roles in their
school? What additional supports, if any, would be helpful to teachers?
5) Why do you think teachers choose not to take on leadership roles in their school?
6) What obstacles might discourage or prevent teachers from taking on leadership roles in
their school?
7) What benefits do you think might come from teacher participation in distributed
leadership practices?
8) What difficulties do you think might result from having teachers participate in distributed
leadership? What measures do you think could be taken to remove or minimize such
obstacles?
9) What do you think are the benefits of distributed leadership?

142

10) What do you think are the drawbacks of distributed leadership?
11) Would you like to elaborate on anything that we’ve discussed, or are there other ideas on
this topic that have occurred to you that you would like to share?

143

Appendix C
Letter of Consent
Northeastern University, College of Professional Studies
Primary Investigator: Dr. Nena Stracuzzi
Doctoral Candidate: Jane O. Lizotte
Title of Project: A Qualitative Analysis of Distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective on
Principal Leadership Effectiveness
Dear Colleagues:
You are invited to participate in a research study because you are currently teaching at Sherwood
Middle School. Jane O. Lizotte, a doctoral candidate at Northeastern University, is responsible
for this study, which is designed to investigate ways in which teachers perceive the school
principal’s actions on distributed leadership at Sherwood Middle School. Jane is available in
person, by phone (508-841-8675), and via e-mail (jlizotte@shrewsbury.k12.ma.us) at any time if
you would like to further discuss the details of this study. If you have any concerns that you are
not comfortable addressing with Jane, you may contact the chairman of the researcher’s study,
Dr. Nena Stracuzzi, at Northeastern University via e-mail at n.stracuzzi@neu.edu or by
telephone (617-435-6189). Superintendent of Shrewsbury Public Schools, Dr. Joseph Sawyer,
has given Jane permission to conduct this study at Sherwood Middle School.
You have the option to participate in either an online anonymous questionnaire or in both an
online anonymous questionnaire and in a focus group interview. Teachers will complete the
online survey either at home or at school; whichever is preferable to you. However, the survey
may not be completed during teaching times of the day. Jane will be available by phone, through
e-mail, or in person to offer technical or other support in the event you have a question. The
survey will take approximately 15 minutes to complete. The focus group discussion will consist
of one, one-hour session and will occur primarily during the school day. The session will run
from 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. Each of the sessions will be recorded on audiotape and minutes will
be taken by one of the assistant principals at Sherwood Middle School. A laptop or iPAD will be
used to take comprehensive notes during the sessions. Each of the two assistant principals who
currently serve in leadership positions at the school has expressed interest in participating in the
focus groups. One assistant principal will take thorough minutes of the sessions. This form of
recording is a common practice at Sherwood Middle School. Though the minutes from the
sessions will not be used as data for the study, the minutes will be given to each of the
participants for member checking and inter-rater reliability. Neither assistant principal will serve
as a participant in the focus groups. Each of these administrators has recently moved from the
classroom and into administration and therefore, has current and relevant teaching experiences at
the middle level. By involving them in this way, I will be better able to gauge the clarity of the
questions, as well as their effectiveness in eliciting faculty responses that will include
information on the preferred themes drawn from the initial questionnaire. Interested faculty will
be served breakfast before the start of each of the focus group sessions. The notes and audio-

144

tapes taken from the focus group discussions will be kept in a locked safe in my home office for
five years, after which time they will be destroyed.
Please know that your participation in this study is entirely voluntary and there will be no
remuneration provided to the volunteer participants. Your decision to participate or not
participate will not influence Jane’s evaluation and/or perception of your performance in any
way, per the supervision and evaluation practices outlined in the collective bargaining
agreement. Teacher responses will be kept in confidence and individual teachers’ roles at
Sherwood Middle School will not be changed as a result of the comments you share during the
focus group discussions. You will not be asked to identify your colleagues by name or provide
descriptions of them that would indicate their identity in any way. In addition, if for any reason
you would like to withdraw from the focus group, you may do so at any time and without
penalty. If there are questions on the anonymous questionnaire that you cannot or would prefer
not to answer, that is perfectly fine.
It is important to understand there is sometimes risk involved when participating in research
studies, including this one. Although minimal and unanticipated, there may be a slight risk for
emotional or psychological discomfort that may arise when being interviewed and having those
interviews recorded by audiotape and/or by being observed and having those observations noted
and/or recorded by audiotape. Please know that Jane will make a concerted effort to minimize
any anxiety or distress by providing opportunities to review the meeting minutes and the
transcripts of focus group interviews in order to ensure that your responses were accurately
captured and your intent was understood by Jane throughout the study.
If you choose to participate in this study, you are asked to sign a form of consent indicating your
interest and your understanding of the purpose of the study, along with your understanding of the
voluntary nature of the survey and focus group discussions, and the expectations of you as a
participant. The consent form is attached for your reference.
Results of this study will be readily available to all participants and will be shared by Jane O.
Lizotte in her doctoral dissertation under the title noted above.
Please sign and return this letter indicating your interest in participating in one or both
portions of the study. In order to participate in a focus group, you must also complete the
anonymous survey.
I am interested in participating in the following:
 anonymous survey only
 survey and focus group
 I am not interested in participating in this study
Name (please print): _________________________________ Date: ___________

145

Teacher signature: _________________________________________
Return to the Sherwood Middle School Main Office or mail to:
Jane O. Lizotte at Sherwood Middle School, 30 Sherwood Avenue, Shrewsbury, MA 01545.
Email: jlizotte@shrewsbury.k12.ma.us
Phone: 508-841-8675

146

Appendix D
Focus Group Discussion Guide
Project Title: A Qualitative Analysis of Distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective on
 Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group discussion. Your contribution is
truly appreciated.
 I am conducting a research study that focuses on distributed leadership practices in a
middle school. The results of this study will be used in my final report to my advisors at
Northeastern University.
 We are meeting together to discuss principal practices that you perceive as having a
positive and/or negative impact on distributed leadership, as well as your perception of
the benefits and drawbacks of a distributed leadership model.
 As I wrote in the confidential questionnaire, distributing leadership in a school
community provides an opportunity for teachers to influence meaningful collaborative
practices through shared leadership. This type of leadership focuses on what people do
and how and why they do it. Leadership practice is not viewed as a product of a leader's
knowledge and skill, but is rather viewed as the interactions between people and their
situation. It is through these interactions, rather than through actions, that leadership
practice is understood, as these interactions inform, influence, and construct leadership
practice.
 I will serve as the facilitator for the discussion. I encourage each of you to actively
participate in the discussion and be open and honest with your comments and questions.
 Our discussion will be 60 minutes in length.
 We will meet in the Media Center from 7:30 a.m.–8:30 a.m. for the next session as well.
 Before we begin our conversation this morning, kindly refer to the consent form that is in
front of you. We will read the consent form together before we begin. If you are in
agreement with the terms and conditions provided on the form, we will continue with our
discussion. If you are not in agreement, you do not have to participate and you will be
excused with no consequence to you. (The consent form will be read aloud. Questions
can be asked at this time.)
 Teacher participants will be provided with the consent form at the focus group session.
 You may also stop your participation and be excused at any time. Please indicate your
intent by saying, “I need to return to my classroom.”
 Today’s session will begin with a review of the data received from the confidential
questionnaire. I will continue by asking theme-based questions and comments that arose
from the survey. Please stop me at any time during our discussion if you need
clarification.
 During the final 10 minutes of the session, I will summarize what has been discussed and
you will be encouraged to make additional comments.
 Agenda
o Welcome

147

o Describe purpose of the focus group
o Identify goals of the group
o Discuss scheduled meeting timeline
o Define distributed leadership
o Share research questions
o Discuss group norms
o Share survey results.
o Ask questions based on survey results (i.e. How would you respond to someone
who said to you, “The administration is looking to relinquish some of their
responsibilities by suggesting that teachers participate in distributed leadership
opportunities?”
and “Based on your experience with assuming leadership responsibilities, would
you recommend that other teachers take on leadership roles within a school? Why or
why not?”)
o Questions will include:
 Open-ended questions
 Follow-up questions
 Probing questions
 Prompted questions
o Summarize comments
o Invite participants to share final thoughts
o Thank participants for their participation and conclude session.

148

Appendix E
Northeastern University, Department of: College of Professional Studies
Name of Investigator(s): Dr. Nena Stracuzzi, Jane O. Lizotte
Title of Project: A Qualitative Analysis of Distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective on
Request to Participate in Research
We would like to invite you to take part in a research project. The purpose of this research is to
develop an understanding of teacher perspectives of principal practices that teachers believe
contribute to distributed leadership in a middle school. This research will also examine the
benefits and drawbacks of distributed leadership.
We are asking you to take part in this second part of the study because you are a middle school
teacher and you completed the Part I online questionnaire. You must be at least 18 years old to
be in this research project.
The focus group will take place in the school’s Media Center and will take about one hour.
During this time, you will be answering questions and commenting on distributed leadership.
The focus group will be audio-recorded for transcription and analysis purposes only. You will
also be invited to review the transcript of the focus group to help ensure accuracy and
clarification of content.
There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts to you for taking part in this study. As it is a
research study, there will be no effect on your standing as a faculty member nor will any
information collected in the study affect your personal performance review.
There are no direct benefits to you for participating in the study. However, your answers
may help us to learn more about ways in which teachers believe a principal influences distributed
leadership in a middle school community.
Your part in this study will be handled in a confidential manner. Any reports or publications
based on this research will use only group data and will not identify you, the school or any
individual as being of this project. All audio-recordings will be destroyed following transcription
and analysis.
The decision to participate in this research project is up to you. You do not have to
participate and you can refuse to answer any question. Even if you begin the study, you may
withdraw at any time. If you do not participate or if you decide to quit, you will not lose any
rights, benefits, or services that you would otherwise have as an employee of the school.

149

You will not be paid for your participation in this study. Light breakfast refreshments will be
provided.
If you have any questions about this study, please feel free to contact Jane O. Lizotte, the
person mainly responsible for the research at 774-275-4038 or lizotte.j@husky.neu.edu. You can
also contact Dr. Nena Stracuzzi, the Principal Investigator overseeing the research
n.stracuzzi@neu.edu.
If you have any questions about your rights in this research, you may contact Nan C. Regina,
Director, Human Subject Research Protection, 960 Renaissance Park, Northeastern University,
Boston, MA 02115. Tel: 617.373.4588, Email: irb@neu.edu. You may call anonymously if you
wish.
You may keep this form for yourself.
Thank you.
Jane O. Lizotte

150

Appendix F
Dr. Joseph M. Sawyer
Superintendent of Schools
100 Maple Avenue
Shrewsbury, Massachusetts 01545
April 8, 2012
Dear Dr. Sawyer:
As I continue my doctoral program at Northeastern University, I am looking for your permission
to conduct a research study with the faculty at Sherwood Middle School. This study is an
important part of the research process and is scheduled to be conducted during the months of
May and June, 2012. Your permission to complete this study is essential to obtaining the
approval I need from the Northeastern University Institutional Review Board.
The research study is entitled, “A Qualitative Analysis of Distributed Leadership and Teacher
Perspective on Principal Leadership Effectiveness.” The problem of practice being investigated
includes analyzing the practices, actions, and structures that cultivate the practice of distributed
leadership in a large middle school community in order to better understand how a principal can
best engage teachers using a distributed leadership model. As you know, expectations for schools
have increased in recent years - to the point where schools are expected to ensure that all
students are learning at high levels. This is a complex task that requires leadership beyond that
provided by the principal. At Sherwood Middle School, a distributed leadership model is
emerging, yet it is uncertain what is influencing and sustaining the development of this model.
This study hopes to answer the questions, “What principal practices do teachers perceive as
having a positive or negative impact on distributed leadership at Sherwood Middle School?” and
“What do teachers perceive as the benefits and drawbacks of the principal’s efforts to enact and
support a distributed leadership model in her school?”
Data collection will begin with an anonymous, online survey that will be given to the teaching
faculty at Sherwood Middle School. This will be accomplished through Survey Monkey, the on-
line survey tool that is often used in our school district. The survey will take approximately 15
minutes to complete and faculty will be asked to do this during a preparation period or outside of
the school day. This will not be done when teachers are scheduled to be teaching students. The
survey results will be analyzed by me and will be used as a springboard for further discussion.
This discussion will take place in the form of two focus groups. These groups will consist of 5-6
teachers per group; each of whom will have volunteered to participate in the study.
Focus group discussions will follow the collection and analysis of the survey data. Focus group
participants will be selected according to the content area and/or special subject they teach, as I
believe it is important to have a cross-section of faculty represented in each of the groups. I will
balance the number of team content teachers with art, music, physical education, and foreign
language teachers. If the interest level is high and more than 12 teachers of varying content

151

levels volunteer to participate, I will select teachers who represent different age groups, levels of
experience teaching in the public schools, and specialty content area. Focus group discussions
will occur during a two week time frame from 7:30 a.m. – 8:30 a.m. and will occur in the Media
Center at SMS. Breakfast consisting of bagels, fresh fruit, juice and coffee will be served just
prior to the focus group sessions. A focus group discussion guide will be used during each
session– the content of which will include themes and questions that emerge from the survey
data. These questions will focus primarily on teachers’ perspectives of distributed leadership
practices at Sherwood Middle School. The focus group discussions will be recorded by hand and
audiotape by me. The assistant principals are not serving as focus group participants, yet each
will serve in an advisory capacity for one of the two focus groups. Meeting minutes will be sent
to all participants following the sessions for purposes of member checking. Member-checking
will be used to verify participants’ agreement with the collected data by allowing them to review
transcripts for accuracy in portraying their perceptions and attitudes. Participant names and the
name of the school will be coded for confidentiality. Audiotapes and notes will be kept in locked
storage in my home and destroyed after five years.
Although minimal and unanticipated, there may be a slight risk for emotional or psychological
discomfort for the teacher participants. This could potentially arise as a result of being
interviewed and having those interviews recorded by audiotape and/or by being observed and
having those observations noted and/or recorded by audiotape. I will make a concerted effort to
minimize any anxiety or discomfort by providing opportunities to review the minutes and the
transcripts of focus group discussions in order to ensure that responses are accurately captured
and participant intent is understood by me throughout the study. Participants will also be
reminded before each session begins that their comments and questions will remain confidential
at all times and they will remain anonymous. Teachers will be assured that they can withdraw
from the study at any time with no recourse and will be told that information gained from the
study will not be used in any way that could negatively impact their role in the school or in their
professional evaluations. The voluntary and confidential nature of participation will be
emphasized in order to alleviate any concerns the faculty may experience because of the dual
role of the researcher and as the principal of the school (and therefore the supervisor of the
faculty). Teachers will be provided with instructions directing them to a consent form that will
allow them to express their interest in the questionnaire and the focus groups (see attachment).
This will be accomplished via e-mail. Interested participants will sign the attached consent form
signifying their awareness and approval of the study.
Attached please find a draft of the informed consent form for your review. Teachers will only be
allowed to participate if they sign the consent form. I am also attaching certification granted to
me from the National Institutes of Health that I have completed the necessary training in
“Protecting Human Research Participants.”
Please contact me if you would like additional information regarding my research study. I look
forward to sharing my learning with you in the weeks and months ahead.
Respectfully,
Jane O. Lizotte

153

Appendix H
May, 2012
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your time and attention during today’s faculty meeting. We accomplished
many important tasks and this could not have been done without your ongoing commitment to
improving our school community. This message serves as a reminder to those of you in
attendance at the meeting, and an invitation to those of you who were unable to attend today’s
meeting, to participate in an on-line anonymous questionnaire that focuses on distributed
leadership practices at SMS. The link to the survey is provided here: (post Survey Monkey link
here). Included at the beginning of the questionnaire is a definition of distributed leadership as
well as a rationale for the study being conducted. Please read this information carefully before
taking the survey.
As I explained during our faculty meeting and through conversations with you over the
past couple of years, I am in the process of participating in a research study at Northeastern
University and am seeking your help. The first portion of the study includes the completion of an
anonymous questionnaire. The second portion of the study involves participating in one of two
focus groups. I am hoping that 5-6 teachers will participate in each of the focus groups. You do
NOT need to commit to participating in a focus group in order to complete the questionnaire, but
you do need to complete the questionnaire in order to participate in a focus group.
Please know that you have the right not to participate and if you choose to participate,
you may stop your participation at any time and without penalty. I also want you to know that
whether or not you choose to participate in this study will have no impact on your school-
standing or in any future evaluation of your performance, per the supervision and evaluation
practices outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, you will not be
adversely affected as a result of choosing not to participate, nor will there be any consequences
for speaking your mind should you choose to participate in the study. In fact, it is my expectation
that participants will speak openly and candidly, and this expectation will be reinforced through
all verbal and/or written communication that is provided to the participants. Given the
researcher’s dual role of building principal and primary researcher of the study, it is imperative
that you know and understand this information.
Please let me know if I can answer any questions for you.
Thank you for your continued understanding as I make my way through this exciting, yet
challenging, process!
Respectfully,
Jane

154

Appendix I
May, 2012
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your time and attention during today’s faculty meeting. We accomplished
many important tasks and this could not have been done without your ongoing commitment to
improving our school community. This message serves as a reminder to those of you in
attendance at the meeting, and an invitation to those of you who were unable to attend today’s
meeting, to participate in an on-line questionnaire that focuses on distributed leadership
practices. The link to the survey is provided here:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/distributedleadership. Included at the beginning of the
questionnaire is a definition of distributed leadership as well as a rationale for the study being
conducted. Please read this information carefully before taking the survey.
As I explained during our faculty meeting and through conversations with you over the
past couple of years, I am in the process of completing the Doctor of Education program at
Northeastern University and I am conducting a research study. The first portion of the study
includes the completion of an on-line questionnaire. The second portion of the study involves
participating in one of two focus groups. I am hoping that 5-6 teachers will participate in each of
the focus groups. You do NOT need to commit to participating in a focus group in order to
complete the questionnaire, but you do need to complete the questionnaire in order to participate
in a focus group. If you are interested in participating in the focus group, please send me an e-
mail at jlizotte@shrewsbury.k12.ma.us by June ___.
Please know that you have the right not to participate and if you choose to participate,
you may stop your participation at any time and without penalty. I also want you to know that
whether or not you choose to participate in this study will have no impact on your school-
standing or in any future evaluation of your performance, per the supervision and evaluation
practices outlined in the collective bargaining agreement. In other words, you will not be
adversely affected as a result of choosing not to participate, nor will there be any consequences
for sharing your thoughts and ideas should you choose to participate in the study. Given the
researcher’s dual role of building principal and primary researcher of the study, it is imperative
that you know and understand this information.
Please let me know if I can answer any questions for you.
Thank you for your continued understanding as I make my way through this exciting, yet
challenging, process!
Respectfully,
Jane

155

Appendix J
June, 2012
Dear Colleagues,
This serves as a reminder of our recent conversation regarding the questionnaire that I
have invited you to complete as part of the research study that I am conducting for the Doctor of
Education program at Northeastern University in which I am currently involved. The survey link
that you can use if you are interested in completing the questionnaire can be accessed at
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/distributedleadership. If you are interested in participating in
the study by completing the questionnaire, please do so by June __________. Kindly read and
review the initial portion of the questionnaire carefully, as this includes some important
information regarding the study.
The second portion of the study includes a request for participation in one of two focus
groups. This involvement will require one hour of your participation in a focus group discussion
on distributed leadership. If this is of interest to you, please e-mail me at
jlizotte@shrewsbury.k12.ma.us by June ________. Some of you have previously communicated
your interest to me, but please confirm through e-mail. If I receive more than 12 responses
indicating interest in participating in a focus group, a lottery system will be used to select
participants. This would be a good news story for me! If this is the case, I will contact you by
June _______ to update you on the selection process and inform you whether or not you were
chosen for a focus group.
Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to working with you on this
project.
Respectfully,
Jane

Appendix K
June 8, 2012
Dear Colleagues,
Thank you for your interest and involvement in the research study that I am conducting
as part of the requirements for the Doctor of Education program at Northeastern University! As
of today, I have received 34 returned surveys. Your participation is truly appreciated. I value
your insight regarding distributed leadership in a middle school and I know that I will learn from
you throughout this important process. As a reminder, the link to the questionnaire can be
accessed at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/distributedleadership. You will notice that an
unsigned consent form will appear as the first page of the online questionnaire. Completion of
the online survey questionnaire will imply consent. Additionally, if you have indicated an
interest in participating in one of two focus groups, a separate unsigned consent form will be
used to confirm consent for participation in the Focus Group. I will provide copies of the focus
group consent form for participants and will review the form and answer all questions prior to
beginning the focus group sessions. Thank you to Deb R., Erin H., Cathy B., Janet D., Gloria D.,
Lorry D., and Lucy M. for participating in this morning’s focus group!
Please know that I am extremely grateful to you for taking time out of your busy work
and home schedules to assist me with this study.
Respectfully,
Jane

THESIS 2:Ex A Qualitative Analysis of distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective of Principal Leadership Effectiveness

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to THESIS 2:Ex A Qualitative Analysis of distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective of Principal Leadership Effectiveness

More from Azreen5520

Recently uploaded

THESIS 2:Ex A Qualitative Analysis of distributed Leadership and Teacher Perspective of Principal Leadership Effectiveness