Curriculum, learning and society investigating practice

American Educational Research Association

Investigating School Leadership Practice: A Distributed Perspective
Author(s): James P. Spillane, Richard Halverson, John B. Diamond
Source: Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No. 3 (Apr., 2001), pp. 23-28
Published by: American Educational Research Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594470
Accessed: 30/05/2010 07:36
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aera.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

American Educational Research Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend

access to Educational Researcher.

http://www.jstor.org

Research

Newsi
and

Comment

Investigating School
Leadership Practice:
A Distributed
Perspective
by JamesP. Spillane,RichardHalverson,andJohn B. Diamond

Whilethereis an expansiveliteratureabout
what school structures,programs, and
processesare necessaryfor instructional

change, we know less about how these
changes are undertakenor enacted by
schoolleadersin theirdailywork.To study
school leadershipwe must attendto leadershippracticeratherthanchieflyor exclusivelyto school structures,programs,and
designs.An in-depthanalysisof the practice of schoolleadersis necessaryto render
an accountof howschoolleadershipworks.
Knowingwhatleadersdo is one thing,but
without a rich understandingof how and
of leadwhythey do it, our understanding
is
it
To
is
do
insufthat,
ership incomplete.
ficientto simplyobserveschoolleadership
in actionandgeneratethickdescriptionsof
the observedpractice.We need to observe
from within a conceptualframework.In

our opinion, the prevailingframeworkof
individualagency, focused on positional
leaderssuchasprincipals,is inadequatebecause leadershipis not just a function of
what these leadersknow and do. Hence,
our intent in this paperis to framean explorationof how leadersthink and act by
developing a distributedperspectiveon
leadershippractice.
The Distributed LeadershipStudy, a
study we are currently conducting in
Chicago, uses the distributedframework
outlinedin thispaperto framea programof
researchthatexaminesthe practiceof leadschoolsworking
ershipin urbanelementary
to changemathematics,science,and literacyinstruction(seehttp://www.letus.org/
dls/index.htm). This 4-yearlongitudinal
study, funded by the National Science
Foundationandthe SpencerFoundation,is
designedto makethe "blackbox"of leadershippracticemore transparentthrough
an in-depthanalysisof leadershippractice.
This researchidentifiesthe tasks, actors,

actions,and interactionsof school leadership as they unfold togetherin the daily
life of schools. The researchprograminvolves in-depth observationsand interviews with formal and informal leaders
and classroomteachersas well as a social
networkanalysisin schoolsin the Chicago
metropolitanarea.We outlinethe distributed frameworkbelow, beginningwith a
brief reviewof the theoreticalunderpinnings for this work--distributed cognition and activitytheory--which we then
use to re-approachthe subjectof leadership practice.Next we develop our distributedtheoryof leadershiparoundfour
ideas:leadershiptasksand functions,task
enactment,socialdistributionof taskenactment, and situationaldistributionof
task enactment.Our centralargumentis
that school leadershipis best understood
as a distributedpractice,stretched
overthe
school'ssocialand situationalcontexts.
Theoretical Roots
To developour distributedtheoryof leadership practice,we appropriateconcepts
fromdistributedcognitionandactivitytheory that underscorehow social context is
an integral component, not just a container,forintelligentactivity.Investigating
purposefulactivityin its "naturalhabitat"

is essentialfor the studyof humancognition (Hutchins, 1995a, 1995b; Leont'ev,
1981; Pea, 1993). An individual'scognition cannot be understoodmerely as a
functionof mentalcapacitybecausesensemakingis enabled(andconstrained)by the
situationin which it takesplace (Resnick,
1991). The interdependenceof the individual and the environmentshows how
humanactivityas distributedin the interactiveweb of actors,artifacts,and the situation is the appropriateunit of analysis
forstudyingpractice.Cognitionis distrib-

uted throughthe environments'material
and culturalartifactsand through other
peoplein collaborativeeffortsto complete
complextasks(Latour,1987; Pea, 1993).
For example, Hutchins (1995a) documentshow the taskof landinga planecan
be bestunderstoodthroughinvestigating
a
unit of analysisthatincludesthe pilot, the
manufactured
tools,andthe socialcontext.
In thiscase,the toolsandsocialcontextare
not merely"aides"to the pilot'scognition

but ratheressentialfeaturesof a composite.
Similarly,tools such as calculatorsenable
studentsto completecomputational
tasksin
waysthatwouldbe distinctlydifferentif the
wereabsent(Pea,1993).In these
calculators
cases,cognitiveactivityis "stretchedover"
actorsandartifacts.Hence,humanactivity
is bestunderstoodby consideringbothartifactsand actorstogetherthroughcyclesof
taskcompletionbecausetheartifacts
andactors are essentiallyintertwinedin action
contexts(Lave,1988).
In additionto materialtools, action is
distributedacrosslanguage,theoriesof action, and interpretiveschema,providing
the "mediationalmeans"that enableand
transformintelligentsocialactivity(Brown
& Duguid, 1991; Leont'ev,1975, 1981;
Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991). These
materialand culturalartifactsformidentifiableaspectsof the "sociocultural"

context
as products of particularsocial and culturalsituations(Vygotsky,1978;Wertsch,
1991). Actors develop common understandingsanddrawon cultural,social,and
historicalnormsin orderto thinkand act.
Thus, even when a particularcognitive
taskis undertakenby an individualapparently in solo,the individualrelieson a varietyof socioculturalartifactssuchascomputationalmethodsand languagethat are
social in origin (Wertsch, 1991). How-

23
APRIL
2001

ever,a focus on the distributednatureof tice. The school improvementliterature
the contextof actionmay lead us to over- identifiesseveralfunctionsthatarethought
look the traditionalimportanceof indi- essentialfor instructionalleadership,invidualagencyand judgmentin the study cludingconstructingandsellingan instrucof leadership.Maintainingthe tensionbe- tionalvision;buildingnormsof trust,coltween agencyand distributionpressesus laboration,andacademicpress;supporting
to acknowledgesthatwhileindividualcog- teacher development; and monitoring
nition is distributedin the materialand instructionand innovation(Firestone&
social situation, some intelligentactivity Corbett,1988; Heller& Firestone,1995;
maybe distributedmorethan otherintel- Purkey& Smith, 1983; Sheppard,1996).
Approachingan analysisof school leaderligentactivity(Perkins,1996).

shippracticethroughtheseleadershipfuncFraming a Study of Leading
tions ratherthanthe workof formalor inPractice: A Distributed
formalleadersis essentialwhen one adopts
Perspective
a distributedleadershipperspective.
In keepingwith the theoreticalunderpinMacro functions, however,becauseof
nings outlined above we develop a per- theirrelativelylargegrainsize,limit access
spectiveon leadingpracticethatattendsto to the practice of leadership.To access
leaders'thinkingand actionin situ. Lead- leadershippracticewe must identify and
ershipinvolvesthe identification,acquisi- analyzethe tasksthatcontributeto the extion, allocation,coordination,and use of ecutionof macrofunctions.For example,
the social,material,and culturalresources understandinga leadershipfunction like
necessaryto establishthe conditions for "constructinga schoolvision"involvesthe
the possibilityof teaching and learning. identificationand analysisof many shortThis definition supports a transforma- termor microtasks.It is essentialto identionalperspectiveon leadership,defining tify thesemicrotasksbecauseit is through
it as the "abilityto empowerothers"with studyingthe executionof these tasksthat
the purposeof bringingabout a "major we canbeginto analyzethe howas distinct
change in form, nature,and function of from the what of school leadership.The
some phenomenon"(Bennis & Nanus, macrofunctionof buildingnormsof col1985;Burns,1978; Leithwood,Begley,& laborationwithin the school may involve
Cousins, 1994). It also allows us to con- microtaskssuch as creatingopportunities
sider the managerialdimensionsof lead- in the school day for teachersto work toership involved with maintaining the gether,aswellascreatingin-serviceopporconditionsnecessaryto help an organiza- tunities for teachers(Goldring& Rallis,
tion achievecurrentgoals(Cuban,1988). 1993). Similarly,microtaskssuchasclassanddistinguishing

sumconcernedwithde- roomobservations
Here,we arespecifically
mative
and
formative
evaluation
can
a
distributed
framehelp
veloping
leadership
workforthinkingaboutleadershipasprac- realizethe macrofunctionsof supporting
tice as it relatesto the transformationof teacherdevelopmentand monitoringinteaching and learning.By taking leader- struction(Little& Bird, 1987).
A centralobjectiveof the Distributed
ship practicein a school as the unit of
Leadership
Study is to understandthe
rather
than

an
individualleader,
analysis,
our distributedtheory of leadershipfo- links amongthe macrofunctionsand the
cuses on how leadershippracticeis dis- microtasksof schoolleadershipandto extributedamongboth positionaland infor- ploretheirrelationsto instructionand instructionalchange.Forexample,at one of
mal leaders.
our studysites,Carsonelementaryschool,
Macro Functionsand LeadershipTasks the school'sadministrationusesstandardOur distributedperspectiveon leadership ized test scoresand a breakdownof stuis groundedin activityratherthanin posi- dent performancein particularskill areas
tion or role. Hence, we beginwith a con- to focusinstructionalimprovementefforts
siderationof the tasksaroundwhichschool on specificstudent learningneeds. This
leadersorganizetheirpractice,considering analysisof studentperformance,used for
both the large-scaleorganizationaltasks teacherdevelopmentand monitoringin(macrofunctions)as well as the day-to-day structionalinnovation,involvesa number
work (microtasks)that areessentialfor an of interdependenttasks, including the
understandingof school leadershipprac- schedulingand administrationof student
2I

EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER

tests,analysisand interpretationof test results, identificationof instructionalneeds
and prioritiesbasedon test data analysis,

and disseminationof strategiesto address
thoseneeds.Eachof theseleadershiptasks
canbe furtherbrokeninto othersub-tasks.
Leadershipfunctionsand microtasksprovide a frameworkfor analyzingpractice
that enablesus to attendto the dailywork
of schoolleaderswithoutlosingsightof the
big picture.Pursuinga task-centeredapproach,groundedin the functionsof leadershipwithin the school, offers a means
of accessingthe distributionof leadership
practice.
Enacting LeadershipTasks
To investigateleadershippracticeit is necessaryto move beyond an analysisof the
microtasksandto exploretheirenactment.
Analyzingleadershippracticeinvolvesunhow schoolleadersdefine,prederstanding
sent, and carryout these micro tasks,exploring how they interactwith others in
the process.It has to do with what school
leadersdo, the moves they make, as they
execute micro tasks in their daily work.
Inattentionto workpracticesis commonplace(Wellman,1995, cited in Suchman,
1995), especiallyleadershipand management practicesin schools (Hallinger &
Heck, 1998;Heck & Hallinger,1999)and
other organizations(Eccles & Nohria,
1992).This inattentionto leadershippractice is surprisingconsideringthat theways
in whichschool leadersenact leadership
tasksmaybe whatis mostimportantwhen
it comes to influencingwhat teachersdo
(Blas6 & Kirby, 1993; Lambert, 1995;
Smylie& Hart 1999).
To exploretaskenactment,it is importantto distinguishbetween"espousedtheories"of practiceor "canonicalpractice"
on the one hand, and "theoriesin use"
or "non-canonicalpractice"on the other
& Schon,1974;Brown& Duguid,
(Arygris
1991). Organizationalpoliciescan reflect
idealor desiredwaysof enactingtasks(espoused theories or canonical practice)
ratherthanwhatpeopleactuallydo (theories in use or non-canonical practice).
Hence, espoused practices,while often
readily accessible, serve as insufficient
guides to leadershippractice,suggesting
thatan investigationof leadershippractice
must involveboth observingpracticeas it
unfoldsandaskingpractitionersaboutthe
observedpractice.Forexample,Orr(1996)

showshow the espousedtheories(training
manuals, troubleshooting guides, and
decision-trees)of a copy-machinerepair
organizationtell a fundamentallydifferent, morerationallyorderedstoryof work
than the emergent,discretionarywork of
the repairtechnicians.He found that repairworkerssupplementespousedpracticeswith a rich,sharedculturallibraryof
case storiesused to diagnoseand resolve
problems. Theories of practice that are
found in formalaccounts,officialpolicies,
and job descriptionsare often abstracted
fromday-to-daypractice,providingoverly
rationalizedportrayalsof idealpracticein
which the challengesand uncertaintiesof
unfoldingactionaresmoothedoverin the
telling (Brown& Duguid, 1991; Weick,
1979). To gaininsighton leadershippractice, we need to understanda taskas it unfoldsfromthe perspectiveand throughthe
"theoriesin use"of the practitioner.And
we needto understandthe knowledge,expertise,and skillsthat the leadersbringto
the executionof the task.
A Distributed Perspectiveon Leading
Practice
The conceptual underpinningsfor our
worksuggeststhatstudyingthe enactment
of leadershiptasksbecomesmore complicated if human activity is not simply a
functionof individualskillandknowledge
but stretchedoverpeopleandthe situation.
Enactingleadershiptasksis often distributedacrossmultipleleadersin a school,including principals, assistant principals,
curriculumspecialists,readingor Title I
teachers,and classroomteachers.Our ongoing researchin 13 Chicagoelementary
schoolssuggeststhatthe executionof leadershiptasksis oftendistributed
amongmulleaders.
Recall
the
efforts
tiple
by Carsonelementaryschool's administrationto use
test scoresto focus instructionalimprovement effortson specificstudent learning
needs, and the varioustasks involved in
thateffort.Considerthe tasksof analyzing
and interpretingstudent test resultsand
identifyinginstructionalneedsandpriorities basedon this dataanalysis.The execution of thesetasksinvolvesthreeleadersat
Carson-Ms. Roland (the school counselor),Dr. Johnson(the schoolprincipal),
and Ms. Brown (the assistantprincipal),
each of whom bringsdifferentskills and
knowledge. Ms. Roland has substantial
knowledgeof the exam data and how to

interpretit. Dr. Johnson sharesmuch of
this knowledgebut also has a rich understanding of the school's overall instructional program,which she has playedan
integralrole in building over the past 5
school
years.Finally,asa formerelementary
teacherwith morethan20 yearsof experience, Ms. Brownbringsher knowledgeof
classroompracticeto the task. Working
together, these leaders study the "item
analysis"for each gradelevel, identifying
languageartsand mathematicsskills students have difficulty with, and crafting
a professionaldevelopmentprogramdesignedto helpteachersrevisetheirpractice
and addressthese needs. The leadership
tasksin this exampleareco-enactedby the
threeleaders.
The collectivepropertiesof the groupof
leadersworkingtogetherto enacta particulartask,as in the aboveexample,lead to
the evolutionof a leadershippracticethat
is potentiallymorethanthe sumof eachindividual'spractice.Consequently,to understandthe knowledgeneededfor leadershippracticein thesesituations,one hasto
move beyond an analysisof individual
knowledgeandconsiderwhattheseleaders
know and do together.Dependingon the
particularleadershiptask, school leaders'
knowledgeand expertisemay be best exploredat the groupor collectivelevelrather
thanat the individualleaderlevel.
In anotherschoolin ourstudythe principal and the languagearts coordinator
meetwith individualteacherseachquarter
to discussthe teachers'instructionalplans
in mathandlanguagearts.Thesetwo leaders each bring differentknowledge and
skills to these tasks.The principalbrings
her knowledgeof the district'saccountabilitymeasuresaroundmathand literacy
and also draws on her backgroundas a
math science coordinatorat her former
school. The language arts coordinator
bringsher knowledgeof literacycontent
and instructionalstrategiesas well as a familiaritywith the readingseries she recentlyorderedfor the school.Considering
theseleaders'collectiveknowledgeenables
an understandingof leadershippractice
thatwould not havebeenpossibleif either
leaderwere consideredalone. Leadership
practiceis co-enactedby thesetwo leaders
whose different areas of expertise and
in constitutknowledgeareinterdependent
ing the practice.In this example,the practice of leadingis "stretched
over"(Rogoff,

1990) the workof the two leaders.Hence,
the leading practice is "in between"
(Salomon & Perkins, 1998) their interdependent practices.The interplay between the practicesof multiple leadersis
essentialto understandinghow leadership
is stretchedoveractors.
Even when school leaderswork sepain pursuitof a
ratelybut interdependently
common goal, leadershippracticecan be
stretched across the practice of two or
moreleaders.Considerby wayof example
the work of teacherevaluationat another
school in our study. At this school the
principaland assistantprincipalwork together on the task of evaluatinginstruction, which they see as a criticaltool in
theireffortsto forgeinstructionalchange.
The assistantprincipal,who maintainsa
friendlyand supportiverelationshipwith
teachers,visits classroomsfrequentlyand
engages in formativeevaluationby providing regularfeedbackto teacherson instructionalissues.He talksto teachersprior
to his observationto determineareasof
focus,observestheirclassroominstruction,
and follows up with a post-observation
conversation.The principal,on the other
hand, functionsmoreas an authorityfigure havinga much more formalrelationship with her staff, who refer to her as
"Doctor."Sheengagesin summativeevaluation,visitingclassroomsone to twotimes
per yearand makingfinaldeterminations
aboutthe qualityof teachers'instructional
practices.The assistantprincipalshareshis
learningwith the principal,and the two
use theircollectiveobservationsto develop
a richunderstanding
of teachers'practices.
This separatebut interdependentpractice
allowsthe principalto avoidmakingjudgements based on the "horse and pony"
showsthatshe feelsarean ineffectivebasis
forevaluatingteachers.Workingseparately
but interdependently,these two leaders
co-constructa practiceof leadinginstructional change through the evaluationof
teachingpractice.Whiletheyhavea shared
goal, they practiceseparatelybut interdependently. This practice of leading instructional change through the teacher
evaluationprocessis stretchedacrossthe
separatebut interdependentworkof these
two leaders.
LeadershipPracticeand Leadership
Tools
Leadershippracticeis situatedin an environmentsaturatedwith artifactsthat repAPRIL
2001125

resentin reifiedformsthe problem-solving
initiativesof previoushumanaction.Artifactsand tools areexternalizedrepresentations of ideasand intentionsusedby practitioners in their practice (c.f. Norman,
1988). Ratherthan treatingmaterialartifacts, tools (e.g., curricularframeworks,
teacherobservationprotocols, etc.), and
organizationalstructuresas backdropfor
leaders'practice,we see them as defining
componentsof thatpractice.The material
situation does not simply "affect"what
school leadersdo, it is constitutiveof their
practices.
In our researchwork, we often find it
difficultto talk about leadershippractice
without referenceto tools, artifacts,and
organizationalstructuresof varioussorts.
To illuminate how situation might be
constitutiveof leadershippracticeconsider
teachersupervisionprotocols,whichmany
local school systemsmandatefor summative evaluations.Understandingthe practice of teacherevaluationinvolvesexploring the mediational propertiesof these
evaluationprotocols. Consider two very
different evaluation protocols. Imagine
"ProtocolA" consistingof a checklistof
generic teaching processes of the sort
identified by the "process-product"researchtradition,including items such as
wait time and teachers'use of praise.In
contrast "Protocol B" is subject-matter
specific,including,for example,items on
mathematicsteaching such as "how the
classroomtask representeddoing mathematics,"and "howstudentswererequired
to justifytheirmathematicalideas."These
formsdrawobservers'
attentiontowarddifferent aspects of the teaching situation,
therebyresultingin potentiallydifferent
kindsof teacherevaluationpractice.Leaders may negotiatewith forms in orderto
identifythe aspectsof practicethey see fit
to note, but the point stillremainsthatthe
formsact as a definingelementof the observationpractice.The formor protocolis
not simply an accessoryor aide that the
leaderuses to executethe evaluationtask
in a priorimanner;rather,it is a defining
elementof the leadershippractice.
Similarto designedartifacts,leadership
practiceis stretchedover organizational
A distributedperspective
structures.
presses
us to considerorganizationalstructureas
more than a vesselfor leadershipactivity
and morethan accessoriesthat leadersuse
to execute a particulartask using some
21 EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER

predetermined
strategyor practice.Forexample,the prevailing"egg-carton"
organization of schoolsisolatesteachersin their
classrooms(Lortie,1975). Such individualized and privatized arrangementsfor
teachers'workcontributeto definingleadershippractice,notsimplyhurdlesexternal
to thatpracticethatleadersmustovercome
in order to enact a particulartask using
somepredetermined
practice.In proposing
that organizationalstructuresare constitutiveof leadershippracticewe arenot arguing that they determinethat practice.
Schoolleadersareanotherconstitutingelementbecausetheynotice,apprehend,and
useorganizational
structuresin a varietyof
structuresconways.While organizational
stituteschoolleaders'activity,it is alsothe
case that these structuresare createdand
recreatedby the actionsof leadersandotherswho work in schools. For example,in
one Chicago elementary school in our
study, which had been characterizedby
limited dialogue among teachers and
mostly privatizedclassroompractice,the
principalestablishedbreakfastmeetingsin
orderto createa forumfor teachersto exchangeideasaboutinstruction.Overtime
this opportunityfor dialoguecontributed
to breakingdowntheschool's"egg-carton"
structure,creatingnewstructuresthatsupportedpeercommunicationand information sharing, arrangementsthat in turn
contributedto redefiningleadershippracticeatthe school.In thiscase,leaders'practice both redefinedandwas definedby organizationalstructure.Froma distributed
perspective,organizationalarrangements
areconstitutiveof leadershippractice,not
simplyancillary.
Leadersdo not work directly on the
world; their actions in and on the world
aremediatedby artifacts,tools, and structuresof varioussort.Hence, investigations
of leadership practice must investigate
leaders,to useJim Wertsch'swords,"actwithmediationalmeans"
ingin conjunction
(1991, p. 33). Leadership
practiceis a product of the interactionof leadersand tools
ofvarioussorts.
Leading Practice and Teaching
Practice
While the distributedleadershipframeworkaddressesthe practiceof schoolleadershipin general,our concernhereis with
leadershipfor instruction.Hence, if we are
to explicaterelationsbetweenleadingprac-

ticeandinstructional
practiceit is necessary
to groundoureffortsin a framework
forexamininginstruction.Sucha taskis complicatedby a numberof factors.First,classroom instructionis a vast, complex,and
multidimensionalpracticeincluding the
questionsteacherspose for students,the
materialsteachersuse,thewaysstudentsinteractwith eachotherandthe teacher,and
classroommanagement.Viewing instruction asa multidimensional
practicesuggests
severalpathwaysfor thinkingabout relations betweenleadershipand instructional
innovation.Schoolleaderscan engagein a
varietyof instructional
leadershiptasksthat
students
might target
(e.g., parents,disciteachers
pline),
(e.g., evaluation,professional development),and materials(e.g.,
curriculumdevelopment,technologicalresources).Second, althoughmost elementary teachers do not have well-defined
subject-matterspecializationsand do not
work in situationswhere organizational
arrangements(e.g., departmentalstructures) directly support subject-matter
identities,subjectmatteris an important
context for their practice (Stodolsky,
1988). Hence, leaderslead instructionin
particularschool subjectsand the subject
mattersin such work.
Just as a leadershipperspectivethat focuseson individualcapacityis insufficient
for understandingpractice,instructionis
bestunderstoodas constitutedin the interactionof teacher,students,and materialwhat Cohen and Ball (1998) termthe instructionalunit. Teachers'intellectualresources(e.g.,subject-matter
knowledge)influencehow they understandand respond
to materialsandstudents.Students'experiences, understandings,dispositions,and
commitmentsinfluencewhattheymakeof
teacherdirectionand materials.Materials
includingbooks,curricula,aswellasthe intellectual tasks that structureclassroom
workmediateteacherand studentinteractions.Eachelementis mutuallyconstitutive
of instruction.Takingup the issue of instructionalimprovement,Cohen and Ball
arguethat"thecapacityto produceworthwhile and substantiallearning-is a function of the interactionamongelementsof
the instructional
unit,not thesoleprovince
of anysingleelement"(1998, p. 5). In this
view,instructionalcapacitydoesnot reside
only in improvingteacherknowledgeor
bettereducationalmaterials.

This interactiveconceptualization
of instruction and instructionalcapacityhas
implicationsfor instructionalinnovation
and effortsto lead that innovation.First,
while interveningon any one element of
the instructionalunit canpotentiallyaffect
other elements,these other elementsalso
mediate such interventions. Thus, new
curricularmaterialscan potentiallyinfluence teachersand students,but their potentialto effectchangein instructionis also
dependent on the teachersand students
who use the materials.Second, effortsto
improveinstructionthattargetmoreinteractions among more elementsof the instructionalunit maybe moreeffective.
Conclusion
In this articlewe havearguedfor scholarship that investigatesleadershippractice;
specifically,the practiceof leading classroominstruction.We articulateda distributedperspective,groundedin activitytheory and distributedcognition, to frame
suchinvestigations.In ourscheme,leadershippracticeis not simplya functionof an
individualleader'sability,skill, charisma,
and cognition. While individualleaders
and theirattributesdo matterin constitutingleadershippractice,theyarenot allthat
matters.Otherschoolleadersandfollowers
alsomatterin thattheyhelpdefineleading
practice.Further,thesituationsurrounding
leaders'practice-materialartifacts,tools,
language,andso forth-is alsoa constituting elementof thatpracticeandnot simply
an appendage.Leadershippractice(both
thinking and activity) emerges in and
throughthe interactionof leaders,followers, and situation.Attendingto situation
as something more than a containerfor
leaders'practice,we arguethat socioculturalcontext is a constitutiveelement of
leadershippractice,fundamentally
shaping
its form. In our distributedview, leadership practiceis constitutedin the interaction of leadersandtheirsocialandmaterial
situations.
The distributedleadershipperspective
developed here has implications for researchon school leadershipand effortsto
improvethe practiceof leadership.With
respectto empiricalresearchon leadership,
it offers a theoreticallygroundedframework for studying day-to-dayleadership
of practice
practice,enablinginvestigations
to go beyonddocumentinglists of strate-

gies thatleadersusein theirwork.In other
words,it framesinquiryinto leadershipactivityso thatwe can move beyondleaders'
and teachers'accountsto developmoreinof leadershipas a
tegrativeunderstandings
practice.A distributedperspectivealsosuggeststhat leadershipactivityat the levelof
the school,ratherthanat the levelof an individualleader,is the appropriateunit for
studyingleadershippractice.To studyleadershippracticewe need to studyleadersin
actionwith a varietyof mediationalmeans.
Further,focusingeitherexclusivelyon one
or moreformalleadersor on teacherleaders is unlikelyto generaterobustinsights
into schoolleadershippractice.
The distributedperspectivealsosuggests
ways of thinking about interveningto
changeschool leadershippractice.Rather
than proposingto develop,articulate,and
disseminatea context-neutral,
task-generic
templatefor the movesthatleadersshould
make, it arguesfor the developmentof
rich theoreticalknowledgefrom practice
that is context sensitiveand taskspecific.
Some may wonder about the wisdom of
developinganother theory of leadership
consideringthat the value of leadership
theoriesto practicearein doubt (Holmes
& Whynne, 1989; Willower,1980). But,
theorycan haveverypracticalapplication
becauseit canoffernewperspectives
on familiaractivity,therebyenablingreflection
and informingaction (Hughes & Busch,
1991). In thisview,the distributedleadershipperspective
providesa framethathelps
researchersbuild evocativecasesthat can
be usedto help practitionersinterpretand
think about their ongoing leadership
practice. By making the "blackbox" of
school leadershippracticemore transparent throughthe generationof richknowledge about how leadersthink and act to
changeinstruction,a distributedperspectivecanhelpleadersidentifydimensionsof
their practice,articulaterelationsamong
thesedimensions,and thinkaboutchanging theirpractice.The distributedperspective, and the empiricalworkthatmightbe
generatedfrom researchusing this frame,
offers a tool for helping leadersto think
about and reflecton theirpractice,rather
than an abstractionthat providesa blueprint for that practice(Argyris& Schon,
1974; Hoy, 1996; Schon, 1983).
Finally,the distributedperspectivealso
suggeststhatinterveningto improveschool

leadershipbyfocusingexclusivelyor chiefly
on buildingthe knowledgeof an individualformalleaderin a schoolmaynot be the
most optimalor most effectiveuse of resources.If expertiseis distributed,then the
school ratherthan the individualleader
unitforthinkmaybe themostappropriate
about
the
of
exdevelopment leadership
ing
In
reformers
also
addition,
pertise.
might
thinkabouthow the tools theydesignrepresentexpertisefor leadership,enablingor
constrainingleadershipactivity.
NOTE

Workon thispaperwassupported
by the
DistributedLeadership
Project,whichis funded

by research
grantsfromtheNationalScience
Foundation(REC-9873583)and the Spencer
Foundation(200000039). NorthwesternUniversity'sSchoolof Educationand SocialPolicy
and Institute for Policy Researchalso supportedwork on this paper.All inquiriesabout
this researchprojectshouldbe directedto the
JamesSpillane,at
study'sPrincipalInvestigator,
NorthwesternUniversity,2115 North Campus
Drive,Evanston,IL60208-2615orj-spillane@
northwestern.edu.All opinions and conclu-

sionsexpressed
inthispaperarethoseof theauthorsanddonotnecessarily
reflecttheviewsof
orinstitution.
Foradditional
anyfunding
agency
informationaboutthe projectand otherpapers
visit our website: http://www.letus.org/
dls/index.htm
REFERENCES
Argyris,C., & Schon, D. A. (1974). Theoryin
practice:Increasingprofessionaleffectiveness.
SanFrancisco:Jossey-Bass.
Bennis,W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders:The
takingcharge.New York:Harper
strategiesfor

& Row.
Brown,J. S., & Duguid, P. (1991). Organiza-

of practice:
tionallearning
andcommunities
Towarda unifiedview of working,learning
andinnovation.Organizational
Science,2(1),
40-57.
Burns,J. M. (1978). Leadership.New York:
Harper& Row.
Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1998). Instruction,capacity,and improvement.
[CPREResearchReportSeries,RR-42]. Philadelphia:
Universityof Pennsylvania,CPRE.
Cuban, L. (1988). Themanagerialimperative
and thepracticeof leadershipin schools.Albany:StateUniversityof New YorkPress.
Eccles,R. G., & Nohria,N. (1992). Beyondthe
theessence
hype:Rediscovering
ofmanagement.
Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool Press.
Firestone,W. A., & Corbett, H. D. (1988).
Organizationalchange.In N. Boyan (Ed.),
Handbookof research
on educationaladminAPRIL200

127

istration(pp. 321-340). White Plains,NY:
Longman.
Hallinger,P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal'scontributionto schooleffectiveness:1980-1995. SchoolEffectiveness
and SchoolImprovement,
9, 157-191.
Heck, R. H., & Hallinger, P. (1999). Next
generationmethodsfor the studyof leadershipandschoolimprovement.In J. Murphy
& K. Louis, Handbookof educationaladministration(pp. 141-162). New York:
Longman.
Holmes, M., & Whynne, E. A. (1989). Making theschoolan effectivecommunity:
Beliefi,
practice,6&theoryin schooladministration.
London:The FalmerPress.
Hoy, W. K. (1996). Scienceand theoryin the
practiceof ed administration:A pragmatic
perspective. Educational Administration
32(3), 366-378.
Quarterly,
Hughes,M., & Busch,T. (1991). Theoryand
researchas catalystsfor change. In W. W.
Walker,R. Farquhar,& M. Hughes (Eds.),
in acAdvancingeducation:Schoolleadership
tion (pp. 86-124). London: The Falmer
Press.
Hutchins,E. (1995a). How a cockpitremembers its speed. Cognitive Science, 19(3),
265-288.
Hutchins, E. (1995b). Cognitionin the wild.
Cambridge,MA:MIT Press.

2001

Latour,B. (1987). Sciencein action:How tofollow scientistsand engineersthroughsociety.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Lave,J. (1988). Situatinglearningin communitiesof practice.In L. Resnick,S. Levine&
L. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectivesof socially
sharedcognition(pp. 63-82). Washington,
DC: AmericanPsychologicalAssociation.
Leithwood,K., Begley,P. T., & Cousins,J. B.
(1994). Developingexpertleadership
for futureschools.London:The FalmerPress.
Leont'ev,A. N. (1975). Activity,consciousness
andpersonality(M. J. Hall, Trans.).Englewood Cliffs,NJ: PrenticeHall.
Leont'ev,A. N. (1981). Problemsof thedevelopmentof themind.Moscow:Progress.
Orr, V. (1996). Talkingabout machines:An
ofa modernjob. Collection on
ethnography
Technology and Work. Ithaca, NY: ILR
Press.
Pea, R. D. (1993). Practicesof distributedintelligenceand designsfor education.In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributedcognition:Psychologicaland educational considerations
(pp. 47-87). New York:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Perkins,D. N. (1996). Person-plus:A distributed view of thinking and learning.In G.
Salomon (Ed.), Distributedcognition:Psyandeducationalconsiderations
(pp.
chological
88-110). New York:CambridgeUniversity
Press.

AERA

Election

Purkey,S. C., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. ElementarySchool
Journal,83(4), 427-452.
in thinking:
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship
in
social
context.
New
Cognitivedevelopment
York:OxfordUniversityPress.
Resnick,L. (1991). Sharedcognition:Thinking
as socialpractice.In L. Resnick,J. Levine,&
S. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectiveson socially
sharedcognition(pp. 1-20). Washington,
DC: AmericanPsychological
Association.
Sheppard,B. (1996). Exploringthe transformationalnatureof instructionalleadership.
TheAlbertaJournalofEducationalResearch,
XLII(4),325-344.
Suchman, L. A. (1995). Representationsof
work. Communications
of theACM, 38(9),
56-64.
Stodolsky, S. (1988). The subject matters.
Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress.
Vygotsky,L. S. (1978).Mind in society:Thedevelopmentof higherpsychological
processes.
Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Weick,K. E. (1979). Thesocialpsychology
oforganizing.New York:McGraw-Hill,
Wertsch,J. (1991). Voicesofthe mind:A socioculturalapproachto mediatedaction.Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress.
Willower,D. J. (1980). Contemporaryissues
Edin theoryin educationaladministration.
ucationalAdministrationQuarterly,16(3),
1-25.

Results

Deborah Loewenberg Ball, Universityof Michigan
Member-at-Large:
DivisionalVice Presidents (to assume office in 2002):
DivisionA:
Patrick B. Forsyth, OklahomaState University
DivisionC:
Patricia Alexander, Universityof Maryland
DivisionD:
Rebecca Zwick, Universityof California,Santa Barbara
DivisionE:
KathrynWentzel, Universityof Maryland
DivisionI:
Marcia Mentkowski, AlvernoCollege
DivisionJ:
Janet L. Lawrence, Universityof Michigan
DivisionK:
Pamela Grossman, StanfordUniversity
DivisionL:
Catherine Marshall, Universityof NorthCarolina,
Chapel Hill
DivisionalSecretaries (to assume office in 2002, unless otherwise noted):
DivisionA*:
Gary M. Crow, Universityof Utah
DivisionB:
Beverly E. Cross, Universityof Wisconsin,Milwaukee
DivisionF:
Kate Rousmaniere, MiamiUniversity(Ohio)
DivisionG:
WilliamTate, Dallas PublicSchools
Division H:
Ray Fenton, Anchorage,Alaska School District
President-Elect
Robert Linn
Universityof Colorado, Boulder

2811EDUCATIONALRESEARCHER

All four proposed bylaw changes were approved.
*Termbegins in 2003