Connected+leading+for+connected+knowing

Download a PDF of this page **Connected leading for connected knowing: A distributed leadership perspective for community engagement ** Lorilee Sandmann, Professor, University of Georgia [sandmann@uga.edu]

Jia Liang, doctoral student, University of Georgia [gliang09@uga.edu]


 * Keywords:** Distributed leadership, higher education, multiplicity of actors, Carnegie Community Engagement classification


 * Conference track:** Contexts and methods: Theoretical and conceptual frameworks, research designs, and methodological issues


 * Format:** Research/Scholarly paper

American higher education’s efforts for the public good through community engagement depend on leadership (Weerts & Sandmann, 2008). Because of their resources, roles, decision ‐ making authority, and imputed trust, executive leaders are positioned to significantly affect community engagement development (Sandmann & Plater, 2009). Nevertheless, studies suggest grassroots and collective leadership can better advance community engagement (Kezar, Gallant, & Lester, 2012; Plater, 2011). Research on distribution of leadership in the K ‐ 12 context shows positive effects on aspects such as student outcomes and school culture (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2007; Spillane, 2006). However, little is known about the phenomenon in higher education.
 * Summary**

We conjecture that distributed leadership warrants consideration and application as a conceptual framework for leadership in decentralized organizations like higher education institutions. Distributed leadership’s differentiation between numerical and concertive action (Gronn, 2000) and three indicators – the multiplicity of actors, leadership roles, and leadership behaviors (Robinson, 2009) – provide a promising tool for understanding interactions, networks, and the nature and patterns of distribution of leadership in community engagement.

The researchers examined responses to three selected foundational questions in the Carnegie Community Engagement Classification application framework (CFAT, 2010). With institutional permission, we acquired 224 successful Carnegie applications from the 2008 and 2010 rounds, through the New England Resource Center for Higher Education (NERCHE). First, the data suggest that leadership practice is multilayered, involving formal and informal leaders. Second, the data reveal primarily rhetorical leadership practices at the executive level, such as delivering public speeches and serving on boards and committees. Last, the data indicate that the executive leadership employs substantive strategies of financial support, personnel policy, strategic planning, and structural configuration for integrating community engagement into various operational aspects of the institution.

The foundation of distributed leadership – that people lead when and where they have expertise – makes sense in community ‐ engaged leadership, where //how// leadership activities are enacted matters.Future inquiry is needed on the relationships among accountability structures and patterns of community ‐ engagement leadership, leaders’ morality and positionality, and leadership succession and community engagement’s implementation and advancement.

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2008). //Community engagement.// Stanford, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/descriptions/community_engagement.php.
 * References**

Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. (2010). Classification for community engagement: 2010 documentation reporting form. Stanford, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://classifications.carnegiefoundation.org/downloads/2010-Documentation-Reporting-Form-PREVIEW-v2.pdf.

Gronn, P. (2000). Distributed properties: A new architecture for leadership. //Educational Management and Administration, 28//(3), 317–338.

Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: Who needs it? //School Leadership and Management, 23//(3), 267–290.

Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). //Sustainable leadership//. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass//.//

Harris, A. (2005). Leading or misleading? Distributed leadership and school improvement. //Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37//(3), 255–265.

Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. //Journal of Educational Administration, 46//(2), 172–188.

Kezar, A., Gallant, T. B., & Lester, J. (2012). Everyday people making a difference on college campuses: The tempered grassroots leadership tactics of faculty and staff. //Studies in Higher Education, 36//(2), 129–151.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2009). //Distributed leadership according to the evidence.// Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributed leadership to make schools smarter. //Leadership and Policy, 6//(1), 37–67.

Plater, W. M. (2011). Collective leadership for engagement: Reclaiming the public purpose of higher education. In J. Saltmarsh & M. Hartley (Eds.), //“To serve a larger purpose”: Engagement for democracy and the transformation of higher education// (pp. 102–129). Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.

Robinson, V. M. J. (2009). Fit for purpose: An educationally relevant account of distributed leadership. In A. Harris (Ed.), //Distributed leadership: Different perspectives// (pp. 219–240).The Netherlands: Springer Netherlands.

Sandman, L. R., & Plater, W. M. (2009). Leading the engaged institution. In L. R. Sandmann, C. H. Thornton, & A. J. Jaeger (Eds.), //Institutionalizing community engagement in higher education: The first wave of Carnegie classified institutions// (pp. 13–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P. (2006). //Distributed leadership.// San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Sherer, J., & Coldren, A. F. (2004). Distributing leadership. In M. Coles & G. Southworth (Eds.), //Developing leadership: Creating the schools of// //tomorrow// (pp. 37–49). New York, NY: Open University.

van Ameijde, J. D. J., Nelson, P. C., Billsberry, J., & van Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership in higher education institutions: A distributed perspective. //Higher Education, 58//(6), 763–779.

Weerts, D. J., & Sandmann, L. R. (2008). Building a two-way street: Challenges and opportunities for community engagement at research universities. //Review of Higher Education, 352//(1), 73–106.


 * To access materials from this session please click on the file link(s) below:**

include component="comments" page="Connected leading for connected knowing" limit="50"