Higher Education

, 58:763 | Cite as

Improving leadership in Higher Education institutions: a distributed perspective

  • Jitse D. J. van Ameijde
  • Patrick C. Nelson
  • Jon Billsberry
  • Nathalie van Meurs


This paper reports on a qualitative study exploring how distributed patterns of leadership manifest themselves in project teams within a Higher Education institution. The emphasis is on both the ‘what’ and the ‘how’ of distributed leadership, thus providing an account of the nature of distributed leadership in higher education and the factors which were found to enhance and inhibit its occurrence and effectiveness. The findings are presented in a model of distributed leadership which seeks to provide an integrative account and a framework for further study. The conclusions focus on both the theoretical implications for the study of distributed leadership and the practical implications for HE institutions wishing to promote effective leadership.


Leadership Distributed Project teams Higher education Qualitative 


  1. Bennett, N., Harvey, J. A., Wise, C., & Woods, P. A. (2003). Desk study review of distributed leadership. Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.Google Scholar
  2. Bergquist, W. H. (1992). The Four Cultures of the Academy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Birnbaum, R. (1988). How colleges work: The cybernetics of academic organization and leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  4. Birnbaum, R. (2000a). Management fads in higher education: Where they come from, what they do, why they fail. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  5. Birnbaum, R. (2000b). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 1–16. doi:10.2307/2649279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings, and future directions. Academy of Management Review, 20, 343–378. doi:10.2307/258850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, M. H., & Hosking, D. M. (1986). Distributed leadership and skilled performance as successful organization in social movements. Human Relations, 39, 65–79. doi:10.1177/001872678603900104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative review. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 729–769. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burke, C. S., Stagl, K. C., Klein, C., Goodwin, G. F., Salas, E., & Halpin, M. (2006). What type of leadership behaviors are functional in teams? A meta-analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 288–307. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chandler, J., Barry, J., & Clark, H. (2002). Stressing academe: The wear and tear of the new public management. Human Relations, 55, 1051–1069. doi:10.1177/0018726702055009019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Conger, J. A. (1998). Qualitative research as the cornerstone methodology for understanding leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 9, 107–121. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90044-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cummings, T. G., & Worley, C. G. (2004). Organization development and change. OH: South-Western.Google Scholar
  13. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2004). Leadership capacity in teams. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 857–880. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.09.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Day, D. V., Gronn, P., & Salas, E. (2006). Leadership in team-based organizations: On the threshold of a new era. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 211–216. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deem, R. (1998). ‘New Managerialism’ and higher education: The management of performances and cultures in universities in the United Kingdom. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 8, 47–70. doi:10.1080/0962021980020014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Elkins, T., & Keller, R. T. (2003). Leadership in research & development organizations: A literature review and conceptual framework. The Leadership Quarterly, 14, 587–606. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00053-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ensley, M. D., Hmieleski, K. M., & Pearce, C. L. (2006). The importance of vertical and shared leadership within new venture top management teams: Implications for the performance of startups. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 217–231. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Feyerherm, A. E. (1994). Leadership in collaboration: A longitudinal study of two interorganizational rule-making groups. The Leadership Quarterly, 5, 253–270. doi:10.1016/1048-9843(94)90016-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gibb, C. A. (1954). Leadership. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 877–917). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  20. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 423–451. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gumport, P. J. (2000). Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education, 39, 67–91. doi:10.1023/A:1003859026301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huisman, J., & Currie, J. (2004). Accountability in higher education: Bridge over troubled water? Higher Education, 48, 529–551. doi:10.1023/B:HIGH.0000046725.16936.4c.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kezar, A., & Eckel, P. D. (2002). The effect of institutional culture culture on change strategies in higher education: Universal principles or culturally responsive concepts? The Journal of Higher Education, 73, 435–460. doi:10.1353/jhe.2002.0038.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  25. Locke, E. A. (2003). Leadership: Starting at the top. In C. L. Pearce & J. A. Conger (Eds.), Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership (pp. 271–284). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Lueddeke, G. R. (1999). Toward a constructivist framework for guiding change and innovation in higher education. The Journal of Higher Education, 70, 235–260. doi:10.2307/2649196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mehra, A., Smith, B. R., Dixon, A. L., & Robertson, B. (2006). Distributed leadership in teams: The network of leadership perceptions and team performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 232–245. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Meindl, J. R., Ehrlich, S. B., & Dukerich, J. M. (1985). The romance of leadership. Administrative Science Quarterly, 30, 78–102. doi:10.2307/2392813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Middlehurst, R. (1997). Reinventing higher education: The leadership challenge. Quality in Higher Education, 3, 183–198. doi:10.1080/1353832970030208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Morgeson, F. P., & DeRue, D. S. (2006). Event criticality, urgency, and duration: Understanding how events disrupt teams and influence team leader intervention. The Leadership Quarterly, 17, 271–287. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.02.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Parker, M., & Jary, D. (1995). The McUniversity: Organization, management, and academic subjectivity. Organization, 2, 319–338. doi:10.1177/135050849522013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pearce, C. L. (2004). The future of leadership: Combining vertical and shared leadership to transform knowledge work. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 47–57.Google Scholar
  33. Pearce, C. L., & Conger, J. A. (2003). Shared leadership: Reframing the hows and whys of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Pearce, C. L., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (2002). Vertical versus shared leadership as predictors of the effectiveness of change management teams: An examination of aversive, directive, transactional, transformational, and empowering leader behaviors. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6, 172–197. doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.2.172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pettigrew, A. M. (1990). Longitudinal field research on change: Theory and practice. Organization Science, 3, 267–292. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.3.267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pinto, M. B., Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1993). Antecedents and consequences of project team cross-functional cooperation. Management Science, 39, 1281–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rost, J. C. (1993). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  38. Smaling, A. (1992). Varieties of methodological intersubjectivity: Relations with qualitative and quantitative research and with objectivity. Quality & Quantity, 26, 169–180. doi:10.1007/BF02273552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Educational Researcher, 30, 23–28. doi:10.3102/0013189X030003023.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36, 3–34. doi:10.1080/0022027032000106726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thamhain, H. J. (2004). Linkages of project environment to performance: Lessons for team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 533–544. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Yukl, G. (2002). Leadership in organizations (5th ed.). New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jitse D. J. van Ameijde
    • 1
  • Patrick C. Nelson
    • 1
  • Jon Billsberry
    • 2
  • Nathalie van Meurs
    • 3
  1. 1.Human Resources DivisionThe Open UniversityMilton KeynesUK
  2. 2.Faculty for Business, Environment and SocietyCoventry UniversityCoventryUK
  3. 3.Middlesex University Business SchoolHendon, LondonUK

Personalised recommendations