Distributive leadership

Distributive leadership differentiates itself from charismatic leadership as

it does not only focus on the personal qualities, roles, functions of a single
individual. Distributive leadership, also called shared leadership, focuses
on the collective and systematic social processes, emerging from
interaction of a number of actors. It is not something one individual does
to a group of others but rather a group activity that works within as well as
through group bonds (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003). As stated in
the distribution theory, no one individual can make all decision as
decisions are emergent, and come from a number of areas which cannot
be known to only one person (Hutchins, 1995). According to Hatcher
(2005), distributive leadership creates an organizational culture in which
leadership is regarded as knowledge, leading to the idea that nowadays
we need leaders with knowledge and expertise. For instance, in a business
organization nowadays, more knowledge is required in order to stay
competitive on the market than it was before, hence, not only one
manager can handle the decision-making process but it has to be a
collective operation.
Shared leadership is a dynamic and interactive
leadership process and its core objective is to lead the individuals towards
achievement of the collective goal. Unlike the traditional leadership
process, distributive leadership does not appoint one single leader but
entails broad power-sharing among a set of individuals (Pearce, Manz &
Sims Jr., 2009).
Advantages and disadvantages
Historically speaking, leadership has been centralized around one single
individual who holds all the power and authority, who inspires, commands
and controls followers. This paradigm has been reinforced globally through
media coverage of prominent leaders in the course of history. Nonetheless,
in the ever changing circumstances of today, the information and
knowledge overflow and the quick pace of technological development, it is
not possible anymore for one mind to grasp everything. Shared leadership
conveys exactly this message: in certain environments, it is more efficient
to distribute power in the form of knowledge among a group of individuals,
who can rise to the occasion in a given situation without being formally
appointed as leaders, and afterwards step back, allowing others to share
the leadership (Pearce, Manz & Sims Jr., 2009). This form of leadership is
quite advantageous for the competitiveness of different companies in the
growing market economy. Senior staff for example does not have that
much time on their hands for market research decisions, hence,
distributing the tasks among knowledgeable subordinates will guarantee
better results. Furthermore, nowadays leadership decisions call for a
quicker temp: there is no time to waste on bottom-to-top discussions. This
is why the power of decision making has to be distributed in a more
horizontal manner which will ensure faster response in times of crisis, for
instance.
Shared leadership also inevitably spurs discussion which generally leads to
out-of-the-box ideas, innovation and improved relationship within the

working place. In an environment where power is distributed, individuals

have the opportunity to open themselves and create freely as there is no
borderline restricting their power (Pearce, Manz & Sims Jr., 2009).
Additionally, this collaborative leadership process can be useful in
situations of transitioning power from one leader to another without
disrupting the working process.
Nonetheless, distributed leadership can lead to a chaotic environment.
People are mostly used to having a single designated leader who gives all
the orders and according to whose rules followers should act. Without a
clear leading figure, chaos and disorder may arise, leading to a counterproductive environment. Confusion can be caused by conflicting opinions
among the co-leaders, possible unhealthy competition, or also by high
dependence on only one of the distributive leaders (Corey, Corey &
Callanan, 2011). In a business organization for instance, employees may
choose to share work projects with the leaders that support their point of
view, resulting in a bias within the organization. Additionally, this may lead
to lack of attention to detail, neglecting of certain projects and
subsequently, low work quality. Furthermore, a financial disadvantage of
this leadership model is the increase in costs when having more than one
assigned leader. In order to promote equality within the staff, companies
need to keep equal and fair salaries which may cause financial issues.
Today, distributed leadership is mostly used in different education
institutions. A suitable environment for this leadership variation would be
institutions of higher education where knowledge is definitely treated as
form of power. What is more, nowadays not only university staff but also
students have to be much more involved in the decision-making processes
of education, hence, shared leadership with the involvement of student
figures, such as associations and unions, can greatly contribute to the
development of the education systems in many countries. Moreover,
having in mind the growing number of entrepreneurial organizations, this
model may find its place in many start-up business ventures where
discussion and quick thinking is of high demand.