BENCHMARKING DISTRIBUTED LEADERSHIP IN A DIVISION OF STUDENT AFFAIRS by DANIEL SCOTT EASTON B.A., University of Denver, 2007 M.A., University of Kansas, 2010 A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of the University of Colorado in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education Leadership for Educational Equity Program 2018
ii 2018 DANIEL SCOTT EASTON ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iii This dissertation for the Doctor of Education degree by Daniel Scott Easton has been approved for the Leadership for Educational Equity Program by Cindy Stevenson, Chair Rodney Blunck Connie Fulmer Date: May 12 2018
iv Easton, Daniel Scott (Ed.D, Leadership for Educational Equity) Benchmarking Distributed Leadership in a Division of Student Affairs These s directed by Senior Instructor Cindy Stevenson ABSTRACT Higher education continues to face evolving challenges relate d to educating students and engaging in research. These challenges include ch anging funding models, increasing demands for service and accountability for student outcomes, and increasing scrutiny from stakeholders. One way to address these challenges is by study ing the role of leaders and leadership in achieving the mission of higher education institutions and addressing these challenges Distributed L eadership is an understudied theory in higher education. However, the complexity and structure of highe r education lends itself to the applicability of Distributed L eadership to higher education. This study uses a Distributed Leadership benchmarking tool to determine what leadership practices and activities are occurring in a Div ision of Student Affairs wi thin a large, public University. The results of this framework indicate areas w h ere staff perceive they are able to effectively engage in Distributed L eadership and where they perceive they are less able to engage in Distributed L eadership. The results also support the use of this f ramework in future research on Distributed L eadership. Recommendations to improve leadership practice in this Division of Student Affairs and future research in the field of Distributed L eadership are also provided. The form and content of this abstract are approved. I recommend its publication Approved: Cindy Stevenson
v TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 5 Theoretical Foundations of Dis tributed Leadership ................................ ................................ ................. 5 Distributed Leadership as a Normative Framework ................................ ................................ ................. 8 Positional Leaders in Distributed Leadership ................................ ................................ ........................... 9 Theoretical Criticisms of Distributed Leadership ................................ ................................ .................... 11 Practical Criticisms of Distributed Leadership ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Distributed Leadership in Higher Education ................................ ................................ ........................... 18 Outcomes Associated with Distributed Leadership ................................ ................................ ................ 19 Factors to Consider in Applying Distributed Leadership ................................ ................................ ......... 21 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 23 III. METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 27 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 27 Ethical Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 28 Study Design and Data Collection ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 28 Analysis Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 31 Reliability and Validity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 32 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 33 IV DATA ANALYSIS ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 34
vi Respondent Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 34 Pr oject Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 36 Distributed Leadership Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 38 ANOVA Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 39 Correlations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 45 Qualitative Resp onses ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 46 V RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS ................................ ................................ ............................. 51 Implications for Future Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 51 Implications for the Division of Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ...................... 53 Recommendations for the Division of Student Affairs ................................ ................................ ........... 55 58 APPENDIX A 61 B Western University, Division of Student Affairs Organizational Chart. .. 62 C Survey Instrument. D 73 E 74 F Number of Responses to Survey Questions. 75
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Higher education continues to face new challenges that require new approaches to educating public scrutiny, dealing with continuous change, inadequate administrative processes and finding and 2014, p. 384,). Additionally, there are pressures to find alternative funding sources, increased demand for value from students an d government, increased litigation, increased demand for knowledge and participation in higher education, increased competition from private education providers, and a more diverse student body (Jones, 2014; Jones & Harvey, 2017; Jones et al., 2017). With increased scrutiny from the government, higher education leaders become 2014, p. 388). In this environment, knowledge is increa singly commodified, tension develops between the academic and non academic staff, and higher education becomes more bureaucratic (Ameijde, Nelson, Billsberry, & Meurs, 2009). These rapid changes in policies and funding have also opened up questions about what constitutes effective leadership in higher education (Floyd & Fung 2017). These increased demands have led higher education leaders to adapt management d 2014b, p. 603). When management strategies from the private sector are adapted to higher education institutions, they are ir limitations, presented either as complex or 2000, p. 2). These strategies are then applied incompletely without considering the specific context of higher education and ultimately abandoned when they fail (Birnbaum, 2000). These strategies fail to work
2 because they are usually out of date by the time they reach the higher education sector and many of the assumptions beh ind those strategies no longer apply in a knowle dge economy (Hempsall, 2014). Western University (WU ) is a large public university facing many of the same challenges in higher education broadly and its own specific challenges WU is an R1 Carnegie classified university, indicating a significant fo cus on research (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, n.d). It houses both undergraduate and graduate arts, sciences, and professional programs (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, n.d.). There are roughly 26,000 undergraduate and 5,000 graduate students who attend WU (Graduate school, n.d.). Students are primarily enrolled full time and the institution is selective in its admissions process (The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Ed ucation, n.d.). First year students are required to live on campus, so there is a large population of students who live in campus residence halls. WU is a predominately white university, with 72% of students identifying as white (Student Success, 2014). Table 1 Campus Climate Results by race (Student Success, 2014) Hispanic students make up 10% of student respondents, Asian Americ an made up 5% and the remaining 13% identify as multi racial, Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, or unknown (Student Success, 2014). The most recent campus climate survey indicated a broad difference between how students of color experience the campus c ompared to white students (Student Success, 2014). See Table 1 for differences in student perceptions of campus based on their racial identity. These results led to a number of initiatives focused on improving the campus climate for African American stud ents and s tudents ov erall. Another social issue WU is facing is related to sexual Overall African American Asian American Hispanic Native American Hawaiian/ Pacific Islander International White Welcome 84% 65% 81% 81% 72% 87% 85% 86% Valued 73% 52% 73% 68% 71% 74% 79% 74% Supported 76% 63% 73% 74% 75% 83% 78% 76%
3 assault. In the most recent sexual misconduct survey, 28% of undergraduate women, 6% of undergraduate men, 10% of graduate women, and 2% of graduate men reported being the victim of some form of sexual m isconduct while a student at WU (Student Success, 2016). These global and local issues create complex challenges at WU that span across multiple arenas and responsibilities, a nd there are no clear solutions or answers to them. hancellor named three str ategic priorities for the institution in January priorities were developed to address many financial and social issues present on the campus. The Chancellor recently pro posed these initiatives to combine three previous strategic prio rities and a previous vision statement. While WU is a public universi from the state government (Budget and Fiscal Planning, 2016). With higher education only becoming more complex, WU must find additional sources of funding while addressing complex social and educational issue s in a com munity of diverse learners. One way to approach addressing the challenges found in higher education br oadly and specifically at WU is by studying the role of leaders and leadership in navigating them. Traditional approaches to understanding le adership have focused on the study of the characteristics and behaviors of individual leaders (Bolden & Petrov, 2014). However, a singular focus on individual leaders is insufficient because it fails to capture the context and environment in which leaders hip takes place (Bolden & Petrov, 2014; Jones et al., 2014b). Wheatley (1999) argues that understanding the system as the focus on individual leaders was sufficient in understanding leadership, 2009, p. 257). While leadership is needed in this educational environment, that leadership must be distributed across all levels (Hartley,
4 2010). A Distributed L eadership analytical framework is a promising approach to studying leadership because it includes in its stud y the role wider constituents play in the leadership of organizations (Bolden et al., 2009). When practiced, a Distributed L eadership framework enables an organization to operate within a constantly changing environment and has been proposed as an alternative to traditional leadership theories and management strategies (Bento, 2011). Distributed leadership provides a way to combat the challenges facing higher education and the pressures to manage higher education like a private sector business (Ame ijde et al., 2009). To understand leadership through this lens, 2011, p. 18 ). This study will use a Distributed L eadership framework to understand the perceptions of Distributed L eadership activity in the Di vision of Student Affairs at WU It will specifica lly answer the question: eade rship practices are found in a Division of Student A important from both a research and practitioner persp ective. From a research perspective, it adds to a limited body of literature about the application of Distributed L eadership in higher education. The field of leadership studies in higher education continues to focus on a lea d ership, which does not include Distributed L eadership (Jones et al., 2017, p. 198). As such, additio nal research into how Distributed L eadership can be applied to higher education adds to a growing body of knowledg e. The Division of Student Affairs that is the focus of this study will benefit from this study because it will provide specific insights into what leadership activities are present and how leadership can be enabled more fully througho ut the organization.
5 CHAPTER II LITERATURE RERVIEW Theoretical Foundations of Distributed Leadership This stu dy used a Distributed L eadership theoretical framework to e xplore how staff members in the Division of Student Af fairs perceive the presence of D i stributed L eadership practices in their work environment While there are mu ltiple definitions and uses of D istribu ted L eadership as a framework (Mayrowetz, 2008), there are th ree primary characteristics of Distributed L eadership: that leadership is an emergent property of a group, that it opens u p the boundaries of leadership and that expertise is found at many levels (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003). Underpinning Distributed L eadership are 2 principles 2009, p. 766). It is characterized by empowerment, accountability, and decis ion making partnership (Kezar, 2012). These values call people and see ley, 1999, p. 9). Distributed L eadership focuses on the mechanisms throug h which 2009, p. 765). It emphasizes the interdependence of people throughout the organization and the ways they enact leadership (Kezar, 2012). T he theoretical foundatio n of Distributed L eadership is activity theory 2004, p. 5). In tionship with s, 2004, p. 5 6). Distributed L eadership and division of labour to build lea 2014b, p. 605). In this way, D istribut ed L eadership bridges the gap between individual leadership behaviors and the culture and structure of the
6 organization (Gronn, 2002). It can be viewed as sitting on a leadership c ont inuum, on which one side is Distributed L eadership and the other is focused leadership (Gronn, 2009). In focused leadership theories, the unit of analysis in studying leadership is the individual leader (Gronn, 2002). Trait or behavior focused leadership theories fall on the focused leadership side of the spectru m. The unit of analysis under Distributed L eadership is the organization as a whole (Gron n, 2002). Gronn (2002) frames Distributed L s of multiple In his framework, Gronn (2002) ar gues there are three types of concertive action; Spontaneous Collaboration, Intuitive Working Relat ions, and Institutionalized Practices. Spontaneous Collaborations are those in which individuals with different skills or expertise come together, pool their expertise, take some form of action, and then disband (G ronn, 2002). In higher education an exa mple of this type of concertive effort are task forces or committees charged with addressing a specific challenge or developing recommendations for the organization as a whole. Typically, after the charge of that committee is met, the group disbands or a new committee is formed. Intuitive working relations are those in which there is task alignment between different individuals that results in a sustained relationship between those groups (Gronn, 2002). This can take the form of a working relationship be tween a gender and sexuality center and a student cultural center where they support marginalized students who are under served by a university community not structured to meet their needs. Institutionalized practices are those in which different group pa rtnerships are formalized into programs and built into the structure of the organization (Gronn, 2002). In higher education, this type of action is seen in the implementation of living and learning communities in residence halls. In these programs, there is a formalized partnership between faculty members and professional residence life staff to implement a curriculum that spans the classroom and living environment. Gronn (2009) argues that using Distributed L eadership as a framework does not fully encom pass leadership study and that a
7 a significant role in the organization at exist in an organization (Gronn, 2009). These patterns of relationships are of the relationships and patterns connected to the communities in which the schools exist, the educational background of its teachers, state law, and all other relevant relationships within that district. This leadership practice is distinct from the lead ership found in a small private business or a religiously affiliated university since the patterns of relationships are different in these organizations. What makes leadership happen in this framework is the pattern of relationships. By defining leadersh ip as the pattern of relationships, Gronn (2009) argues that the leadership field can move away from qualified leadership styles (such as servant, transformational, and strategic) because the study of leadership is no longer about style, but the nature of relationships within an organization. By attuning to the relationships that enable leadership, response to change (Wheatley, 1999, p. 85). Spillane, Halvers on, and Diamond (2007) also frame the unit of analysis for Distributed L eadership as the study of leadership acti vity as opposed to studying individual leader s Leadership activity is defined as the relationship and interactions between organizational lea ders, followers, and the situation as they occur over time (Spillane et al., 2007). This is different than situational leadership theories, which argue that the best leadership action is defined by the situation. Rather, the situation both affects and is affected by its relationship to the behaviors and beliefs of leaders and followers (Spillane et al., 2007). Given the same situation, effective leadership action may be different depending on the culture, background, and relationships between leaders and follows, but these actions would still be described as leadership activity. Furthermore, leaders and followers are able to affect and change
8 their situation over time as they enact leadership tasks (Spillane et al., 2007). The Spillane et al. (2007) fra acquisition, allocation, co ordination, and use of the social, material, and cultural resources necessary to establish the conditions for the possibility of teachin activities are broadly defined as any actions that enable schools to achieve the core tasks of teaching and learning. These activities range between macro tasks, such as the creation of a vision, and mi cro tasks, such as calling a concerned parent. While this provides for a descriptive way to identify leadership, Spilla ne et al. (2007) argue that it is important to study how these tasks are enacted. Tasks, ranging from the macro to the micro, mutually interact with each other and can support or detract from one another (Spillane et al., 2007), so understanding their relationship is key to understanding effective leadership practice. Distributed Leadership as a Normative Framework Spillane et al. (2007) eadership frameworks are d escriptive in their framing of Distributed L eadership. They do not make a claim that leadership ought to be distributed in a particular way, but rather that the study of leadership activity should focus on the activities and relationships among people in the organization (Gronn, 2002; Spillane et al., 2007). Woo ds and Gronn (2009) argue that Distributed L rchers have developed framework s to promote normative uses of Distributed L eadership theory. Thorpe, Gold, and Lawler (2011) offer a conceptual framework t o describe a normative form of Distributed Leadership. In this framework, Distributed L eadership pr actices are split into four quadrants based on two dimensions: whether leadership actions are aligned or misaligned with the broader organization al goals and whether leadership actions are planned or emergent (Thorpe et al., 2011). They propose that the m ost effective forms of D istributed L eadership are those that are aligned with the broader context of the organization, but can either be emergent or
9 planned (Thorpe et al. 2011). While not describing Distributed L eadership specifically, Wheatley (1999) a rgues that when a vision for an organization is clear, people at all levels can take action that align s with or the organization. Drath et al. (2008) propose an alternative framework to the study of Distributed L eadership that moves away from the tripod analysis of leaders, followers, and the s ituation. In their framework, Distributed L eadership can be studied more effectively by looking at the presence of Direction, Alignment, and Commitment (shorte ned to DAC) throughout the organization (Drath et. al., 2008). The leadership culture of an organization (defined as the individual leadership beliefs, leadership practices, and collective leadership beliefs) affect s and is affected by the DAC of an organ ization (Dr ath et. al., 2008). Effective D istributed L eadership is normative in this case since effective leadership is defined by actions that promote DAC. In this framework, the core question for the study of effective leadership is what beliefs and p ractices in a specific organization lead to DAC, and ultimately the long term goals of the organization (Drat h et. al., 2008). W hether Distributed L eadership is used in a descriptive or normative way depends on the research question being asked. Research ers should be clear as to how they are using this framework in order to clarify the intent of their study. Positional Leaders in Distributed Leadership Even though the unit of analysis in Distributed L eadership is the organization, positional lea ders still play a significant role in the organization. Positional leaders are those that are in positions of authority based on the structure of the organization. First, positional leaders play a significant role in managing boundaries when distributing leadership and designing teams (Ameijde et al., 2009 ). Since Distributed L eadership seeks to elevate diverse expertise at multiple levels of the organization (Ameijde et al., 2009), organizational boundaries must be fluid and team s will change based on t he l eadership task at hand. P ositional leader s above those groups must work to ensure that the teams remain focused on the ir leadershi p activities and that boundaries are managed in a way that minimizes redundancy in
10 the organization. Liang and Sandmann ( 2015) argue that the positional leader trends in the organization, establish institutional identity, garner public and private investment, and engage the broader community. Since Distributed L eadership has guidance and direction, following the contours of expertise in an organization, made coherent through a common 2006, p. 250), it is clear that someone in the organization must set the vision and contours of the organization to form a comm on culture. Vision in this case is similar to how Wheatley outcome (p. 55). Setting the vision is a role that positional leaders play given their pl acement in the bureaucracy of the organization. F or Distributed L eadership to be effective, at some point there must be convergence between emergent leadership and positional leadership (Kezar, 2012). When formal leaders do not play a role in managing wh o is engaged in leadership activities in an organ ization, informal leaders tend to encourage leadership in others who are popular, as opposed to those who are most effective (Timperley, 2005). To w ork with positional leaders in Distributed L eadership, followers must look for opportunities to make positional leaders aware of thei r initiative, and manage upward to create congruence between the goals of positional leaders and themselves (Keza r, 2012). To support this convergence, having a desig nated boundary spanner that can communicate upwards to positional leaders is important for the success of a leadership initiative that emerges from lower levels (Timperley, 2005). Bolden, Petrov, and Gosling (2008) argue that leadership in higher educatio n is ultimately a hybrid between individual istic and collective approaches as opposed to a purely Distributed L eadership approach However, this cre ates a false dichotomy between Distributed L eadership and the importance of positional leaders D istribute d L eadership does not claim that individuals do not engage in leadership practices in a n organization or that positional leadership does not matter. P lanful Distributed L eadership is not likely w ithout positional leaders involvement, progress monitoring by positional
11 leaders, and act ive encouragement from positional lea ders (Leithwood et al., 2007). Distributed L eadership, instead of minimizing the role of positional leaders rather requires it for its success. However, the role they play is more akin t o facilitators who bring out the potential of an organization, as opposed to acting as top down managers Theoretical Criticisms of Distribut ed Leadership The criticisms of Distributed L eadership can be broadly separated between theoretical and practica l criticisms. Theoretical critici sms are based on the theory of Distributed L eadership, while practical criticisms a re based on the application of Distributed L eadership in organizations. The first theoretical criticism of Distributed L eadership is that the phra uses that have not been critically analyzed (Mayrowetz, 2008). To define Distributed L eadership, researchers need to s tart with a clear grounding of Distributed L eadership within the historical precedents o f leadership study (Young, 2009). If researchers do not connect Distributed L eadership to the historical roots of leadership theory, it is easy for research to be used in ways that are not supported by the broader leadership field (Young, 2009). Furtherm ore, res earchers who study Distributed Leadership have not connected Distributed L eadership to other concurrently developed leadership theories, isolating it from the broader field (Young, 2009). Without a clear definition of Distributed L eadership, resea rch on t he impact Distributed L eadership has on school improvement or leadership development will not be conclusive (Mayrowetz, 2008). Mayrowetz (2008) identifies four common uses of Distributed Leadership: Distributed L eadership as a lens for looking at leadership a ctivity, as a method to promote democracy in schools, as a method for in creasing effectiveness, and as a method for building leadership capacity. These multiple ne, 2008, p. 32). Bolden, Gosling and Petrov (2009) argue that Distributed L eadership has been used descriptively, analytical ly
12 t al., 2009, p. 272). The analytic framework is helpful since it focuses on the temporal dynamic of leadership including changes in actions over time, changes in the broader organizational context, and how leadership occurs outside of hierarchical struct ures (Bolden et al., 2 009). As a rhetorical device, Distributed L eadership is useful as a way to empower organizations and set a cultural tone for the organization (Bolden et al., 2009). Fitzsimons, James, and Denyer (2011) created a framework which desc ribes fou r approaches to the study of Distributed L eadership: the relational entity approach, the relational structural approach, the relational processua l approach, and the relational systemic approach. A study using the relational entity framework would focus on how leadership is distributed among individuals in an organization (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). The relational structural approach focuses on the Distributed L eadership activities of networks of individuals in an organization (Fitzsimons et al., 2 011). A relational processual study would focus on the development of relationships that lead to leadership activities over time (Fitzsimons et al. 2011). Lastly, a relational systemic study would analyze the role organizational culture and structure pl ays in the enactment of leadership activities (Fitzsimons et al., 2011). Fitzsimons et al. (2011) ultimately argue that, unl ess researchers clearly define Distributed L used in research, researchers need to clearly identify how they are defining and framing Distributed L eadership in their study so as to avoid theoretica l confusion. This study took an analytical rel ational structural approach to Distributed L eadership since it studied the leadership activities that individuals engage with through projects and networks with the intenti on of using the perceptions of Distributed L eadership to increase organizational effectiveness. Another criticism is that Distributed L eadership does not effectively promote democracy in the economic purposes of educ ation at the cost of its social purposes (Young, 2009, p. 381). As
13 educational institutions are driven by governments to be more entrepreneurial, educators must enact leadership that promotes democracy in educational systems. Democracy in educational sys tems is grounded in three elements: self governance, protection from arbitrary power, and legitimacy grounded in consent (Woods & Gronn, 2009). By promoting democracy, educational leaders create educational systems that allow communities to be involved in how their sc hools are run and set up protections for minority groups (Woods & Gronn, 2009). While Distributed L eadership does provide some level of empowerment throughout an organ ization, it is not sufficient for establishing democracy in schools because it does not criticize the pr ivileging of economic agendas in education (Woods & Gronn, 20 09; Young, 2009). Distributed L instrumentally fulfills the need for efficiency and entrepren eurialism, but without exploring changes in 2011, p. 22 ). This is not to say that Distributed L eadership is incompatible wi th democratic values; rather it is that the democratic values vital to education d o not naturally follow from a Distributed L eadership framework. Without criticizi ng current educational policy, Distributed L eadership can be used to promote economic educational agendas (Young, 2009). This is partially because the motivation to include diverse perspectives and prov ide autonomy to individuals in Distributed L eadership is for the instrumental purpose of achieving the In contrast, d emocratic leadership seeks to include diverse perspectives and provide aut onomy out of an ethical commitment to the inherent value of individuals (Woods, 2004). As such, depending on the values of positional leaders or the ends of the organization, Distributed L eadership can be used to further current educational policies that disempower communities and privileges economic outcomes over social outcomes To address this concern, practitioners ne ed to ensure that their use of Distributed L eadership practices is also in alignment with democratic principles that place inheren t value on all individuals and the social purposes of education
14 Distributed L eadership is also criticized for not attending to the nature of power in 2010, p. 354). Previous r esearch on Distributed L eadership shows how leadership may be distributed to others, but 2011, p. 22). This is a key issue that the Distributed L eadership field must attend to because influence comes from multiple levels in Distributed L eadership (Youngs, 2009). Since influen ce comes from multiple levels, Distributed L eadership by its very nature is political (Youngs, 2009). Individualistic theories of leadership may discuss t he nature of power in terms of traits or behaviors to navigate organizations, but political power is not vital to the enactment of the theory. Navigating power dynamics is made more difficult because of the plurality of missions, changing contexts, and di versity of leadership and management roles presen t in higher education (Floyd & Fund, 2017). This makes it difficult for those in positions of authority to mentor or empower others in the organization since those in power have the ability to hold indivi duals accountable for their work (Floyd & Fund, 2017). Additionally, c onflicting leadership styles among academics and managers, and the value systems and identities that come from those individuals, leads to conflict and crossed lines of authority (Floyd & Fung, 2017). Wi thout attending to this issue, Distributed L eadership will not have a lasting impact on the educational leader ship field (Corrigan, 2013), nor our understanding of how influence occurs i n organizations (Youngs, 2009). Sewerin and Homb erg (2017) addressed the tensions between different power sources in higher education by helping individuals develop a more complex understandi ng of power and leadership in the organization. In their study, they conceptualized leadership in higher educati on as having four prim ary leadership logics that each have their own leadership practices, assumptions, values, beliefs, and rules (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017). When originally asked about leadership, academics and leaders in higher education held a dualisti c view of leadership (academic vs. management), which created resistance to leadership development because the development provided tended to favor one view of le adership
15 over the other (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017). By engaging staff and faculty in conversat ions about the d ifferent leadership logics, staff and faculty were able to see these logics as less threatening and increase openness to collaboration (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017). Since higher education requires multiple leadership logics to adapt to the mu ltiple missions and changing context of higher education, there will always be tension between different leadership logics (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017). B y increasing the appreciation for other leadership logics these tensions can be decreased (Sewerin & Ho mberg, 2017 ). In this way, Distributed L eadership can accept the power dynamics of the organization and help different stakeholders wit h different leadership logics work together (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017). Practical Criticisms of Distributed Leadership When analyzing the structures of educational institutions, the theoretical criticism concerning power becomes a practica l concern for practitioners of Distributed L eadership. There is an emergent contradiction between current changes that centralize aspects of education and other changes intended to empower leaders within schools (Hatcher, 2005). According to Hatcher (2005) (p. 256) In hierarchical institutions, like higher educational institutions, authority carries significant weight in setting the vision and activities of the organization. Distributed L eadership maintains a hierarchical structure in edu cation where those in pos itions of authority maintain their power (Kezar head or principal in a vulnerable position because of the lack of direct control over certain acti (Harris, 2008, p. 260 ). In doing so, Distributed L eadership does not address asymmetry in power, which will limit understanding of how others in the organization influence each other (Hartley, 2010). Since accountability for the success of the in stitution is still given to those in positional authority, there will be limits to how much power is distributed (Corrigan, 2013). Distributed L eadership can also lead those in
16 positions of authority to sabotage change efforts that emerge in other areas o f the organization since these changes can result in redundancy of their position or threaten their power (Bjork and Blas, 2009). Change initiatives, without an exploration of how power is distributed, are only successful then with the support of those in positions of authority who are accountable for them (Bolden et al., 2009; Kezar, 2012). In this way, power is only distributed to leaders within the organization who align with positional leaders (Hatcher 2005), w hich inhibits the potential of Distribu ted L eadership to empower leaders at all levels in an organization. An addition al practical criticism is that Distributed L a driver for organizational change is incompatible in organizations where accountabilit y is determined by administrative position (Liang & Sandmann, 2014). Influence in distributed leadership is dispersed and informal, which may not be possible in current educational structures that value positional au thority (Harris, 2008). Since Distribu ted L eadership does not provide clarity about how power is distributed, current hierarchical educational structures will continue to value position over expertise. In addition to the hierarchical nature of higher education actin g as a barrier to implement ing Distributed L eadership, et al., 2009, p. 260). Furthermore, while Distributed L eadership al models of Petrov, 2009, p. 300). There is also not enough information to connect Distributed L eadership practices to d esired school outcomes. While Distr ibuted L 2009, p. 378). Mayrowetz (2008) argue s that
17 as a theoretical foundation, activity theory has not been connected to school i mprovement or leadership d evelopment. The complexity of Distributed L eadership in educational institutions may also mean that demonstrating a direct relationship between Distributed L eadership and student outcomes may not be possible (Hartl ey, 2010). Eve n proponents of D istrib uted L eadership argue that, while there is evidence to suggest a relationship between Distributed L eadership and positive school outcomes, the r elationship is unclear and there needs to be further research (Harris, 2008; Harris & Spi llane, 2008). This criticism will be addressed later in this literature review when the outc omes currently associated with Distributed L eadership are discussed but this criticism should ultimately be read as a call to do further research in this arena. A last practical critic ism of Distributed L eadership is that the theory does not provide sufficient guidance to be useful and that there are significan t risks to the organization if Distributed L eadership is implemented poorly. Theoreticall y, there is an opportunity for D istrib uted L eadership to change relationships between employees and their organizations in a way that allows for increased participation in leadership at multiple levels in the organization, but there is not enough research on how to do th is (Jones et al., 2014b ). If Distributed L eadership is implemented poorly, it can lead to conflicting priorities, boundaries can become too amorphous, and incoherence in the organization can develop n et al., 2009, p. 267). Without knowing how widely leadership ought to be distributed, who distributes l eadership, and how it is done, Distributed L eadership is not a useful framework for practitioners (Storey, 2004). Distributing leadership will not be effective unless the theory also answers what is being distributed, who distributes it how it is distributed, where and when it is distributed, and why it is distributed (Bolden & Petrov 2014). A lack of understanding of how to distribute leadership is
18 distributed is key to whether Distributed L eadership leads to improved outcomes (Leithwood et al., 2007). This understanding of how leadership shoul d be distributed is under studied and needs further research (Bolden et al., 2009). Distributed Leadership in Higher Education Distributed L eadership is an appropriate framework to use in higher education because the values built into Distributed L eader ship align well with the structure and culture of higher education. Pearce and Barkus (2004) argue that sha red leadership, which includes Distributed L eadership, is more appropriate in environments where workers are interdependent on each other, creativi ty is needed, and the tasks at hand are complex. These are all characteristics of high er education. Hempsall (2014) found that leaders in higher education want a distributed leadership that focuses on building strong relationships throughout the organiza tion, creating a vision for the organization, and engaging stakeholders in that vision. Di stributed L eadership creates opportunities for the organization to benefit from the expertise of members at multiple levels and increases the realization that people in the organization are interdependent with each other (Harris, 2008). Building connections like this are world of education the work of leadership w ill require diverse types of expertise and forms of 2008, p. 31,). Beckmann (2017) framed the chara cteristics needed to implement Distributed L eadership in higher education as having the ability to create organizational con ditions for learning, the capacity to engage with existing knowledge about learning, and mod eling authenticity. Since no single leader can respond effectively to the complexity of higher education, a distributed framework that actively invites more types of expertise and leadership is needed. In organizations that strive to benefit from multip le cultures and identities, Distributed L eadership creates the potential to capitalize on the benefits of a diverse commun ity (Yeung, Lee, & Yue, 2006).
19 Outcomes Ass ociated with Distributed Leadership Assessing the impact of Distributed L eadership is difficult because the theory requires an educa tion has continued to focus on positional or leader centered theories and research (Jones et al., 2017), so there is limited research on the use of Distributed L eadership in higher education. Furthermore, in types of work that are interdependent, creative, and complex, organi zations with dominant individual leaders performed more poorly than organizations that dispersed leadership among multiple members (Pearce & Barkus, 2004). Since organizational problems cannot be understood in isolation, solutions cannot come from a singl e individual (Wheatley, 1999). Rather, multiple elements of the system must be a part of the solution (Wheatley, 1999). Many of the studies about the effectiveness of Distributed L eadership have been done in primary and secondary educational settings. T he outcomes of those studies are not presented in order to draw direct comparisons to higher education since the educational context of higher education is significantly different than that of primary and secondary education. Given the limited study of D istributed L eadership in higher education, but p hilosophical alignment between D is tributed L eader ship and higher education, the following outcomes indicate the potential benefits of applying this framework to higher education. The research about the benefits of Distributed L eadership falls within three types: a type that attempts to dr aw a direct connection between Distributed L eadership and school outcom es, a type that indicates that Distributed L eadership is a characteristic of improving schools, an d a type that focuses on how Distributed L eadership improves aspects of the organization that ultimately impact organizational outcomes (Harris, 2008). The m ost cited positive outcomes of D istrib uted L eadership in schools are that it improves responsivene ss to students, staff, and funding agencies, increases transparency of organizational finances, increases managerial convenience in the form of delegation, and improves teamwork and communication (Bold en et al., 2009). Distributed L eadership has also been shown to
20 increase organizational performance (Harris, 2008), increase teacher morale and self effic acy (Harris, 2005), and improve student efficacy and motivation (Harris, 2008) Timperley (2005) found that Distributed L eadership in schools was associate d with an increased sense of responsibility for their work by teachers and increased professional and intellectual capital of teachers. The use of a Distributed L eadership framewor k in a teaching collaboration at an Australian higher education instituti on led to improvements in stude nt satisfaction with their course and faculty self perception s of efficacy (Jones, 2014). This approach also led to a more collective sense of responsibility in a higher education setting and improved partnerships between faculty and administration (Jones, 2014). In a partnership to create a new course for professi onal students, a Distributed L eadership approach led to increased leadership capacity in both academic and administrative leader s (Jones et al., 2017). The use of a Distributed L eadership framework to improve a first year experience program at an Australi an higher education institution led to improved sense of community among faculty and staff and increased retention of low socio economic status students (Jones et al., 2017). Unfortunately, none of the cases that used a Distributed L eadership framework in higher education were done t hrough a research lens, so the findings cannot be generalized. Howeve r, their results indicate that Distributed L eadership may be useful in higher education. Since Distributed L eadership encourages increased involvement and i nterdependence of members of the organization, it decreases the likelihood of errors in decision making, increases access to different types of expertise, creates organizational trust, and increases organizational commitment (Gronn, 2002). This also makes the organization less likely to be de stabilized by internal or external changes because the vision, knowledge, and expertise of the organization is built into the organization as whole, as opposed to being centered on a specific leader (Harris, 2005). I nstead of creating a list of hat everyone is accountable for
21 (Wheatley 1999, p. 129). This has the potential for increasing the power of people throughout the organization, but can also weaken the power of administrative management (W oods & Gronn, 2009). However, Distributed L ip from those in leadership functions, to build leadership capacity in others, and to monitor the leadership work of those others, providing constructive feedback 2007, p. 63). As such mean that administrative leaders do not play an import ant function in organizations that utilize Distributed L eadership; rather it requires them to shift the ir role in the organization. While n ot speaking specifically about Distributed L eadership, Wheatley (1999) describes this type of shift in leadership to be more about bringing out the potential in others by building strong relationships with them. This i s important to consider because as reliance on teams has increased, dissatisfact ion with leader centered models of leadership has grown (Ameijde et al., 2009). Factors to Consider in Applying Distributed Leadership Using the outcomes ass ociated with Distributed L eadership to justify its use needs to be tempered since the context and culture of an organization plays a defining role in how leadership is distributed (Jones, 2014). There is no set model of how to distribute leadership that can be blindl y applied to all settings since the leadership behaviors that distribute leadership will be dependent on the context of the organization. The success of D istributed L eadership is dependent on how it is distributed (Harris, 2008; Leithwood et al., 2007 ). Timperley (2005) argues that, while leadership is almost always distributed on some level in an organization, how it is distributed will determine the effectiveness of that distribution. Even if Distributed L eadership is utilized, tensions between collegi ality and managerialism, autonomy and collective engagement, academic and administrative authority, and stability and change will remain (Bolden et al., 2008). However, by building capacity and trust within the organization, Distributed L eadership allows all levels of the organization to better navigate those
22 tensions (Sewerin & Homberg, 2017) For Distributed L eadership to take root, four conditions must exist: formal leaders must create cultural an d structural opportunities for Distributed L eadership to occur, formal leaders must plan how they will utilize the leadership capacity of others, there must be a change from relationships being defined as leader follower to more collegial relationships, and there must be trust between people in the organization (Harris, 2008). Whether teachers accept leadership roles no t only depends on the relationship between teachers and principals, but also whether teachers were encoura ged to take on leadership roles and whether opportunities for leadership capacity buildi ng was present (Leithwood et al., 2007). Additionally, teachers have to identify themselves and recognize each othe r as leaders in the school for Distributed L eadership to take hold (Ameijde et al., 2009). In addition to creating the conditions needed to distribute leadership, positional leaders must also invest in the leadership skill development of followers (Ameijde et al., 2009). Formal leaders also cultivate Distributed L eadership when they show support for leaders throughout the organization, expla in their own decisions, give leaders the autonomy to take action (Leithwood et al., 2007), allocate resources to support initiatives, and formalize initiatives into the organizational structure (Liang & Sandmann, 2015). Tight congruence between organizati onal values, organizational norms, and behaviors of teachers was linked with school improvement and made it more likely that teachers take on leadership responsibility (Harris, 2008). The external conditions that allow a group to ut ilize D istri buted L eadership include support from community members and support from positional leaders (Ameijde et al., 2009). Within the organization Distributed L eadership is able to be utilized when there is a clearly defined goal, internal support for the goal, define d responsi bilities, internal expertise, appropriate group size, and group autonomy (Ameijde et al., 2009). As the group works towards its goals, it must continue to provide updates on progress to positional leaders, tailor its message to the receiver, and involve key individuals in the information it provides (Ameijde et al., 2009). Internally, the group must commit to share informat ion with each other, provide feedback to each other, coordinate activities, practice
23 inclusivity, and adapt as the environme nt changes (Ameijde et al., 2009). In addition, Distributed L eadership is nurtured when collaborative structures are established, when the number of people working on the collaboration is appropriate, and power is exercised through expertise, not positio nal power (Leithwood et al., 2007). Specifically in higher education, how financial resources are distributed and who controls financial resources plays a significant role in the leadership capacity of followers (Gosling et al., 20 09). This supports Hemp conceptualized needs to occur at all levels since employees at all levels must identify as leaders in Distributed Leadership areful consideration of the leadership capacity of those who are being granted leadership since their competence will affect the success of an initiative (Harris, 2008). Finally, how leadership is distributed must also be carefully planned (Harris, 2008) and there should be alignment between the vision of organizational leaders and the initiatives of their followers (Kezar, 2012). All of the factors discussed need to be considered by positional lead ers if they choose to follow a Distributed L eadership fra mework since this will d etermine the method and success of distributin g leadership. Conceptual Framework ng and Teaching Program was formed in order to fund projects intended to build leadership capacity (Jones et al., 2014b, p. 6 07). Four of the programs used a Distributed L eadership framework (Jones et al., 2014b). Participants in those projects were inte rviewed a bout their characterization of Distributed L eadership during their project and the pra ctices they engaged in to distribute leadership (Jones et al., 2014b). These reflections iden tified five values that underpin a Distributed L e adership framework : a focus on influence instead of power, encouragement of autonomy, support for input from all levels, collective identity, and commitment to reflective change (Jones et al., 2014b). These reflections also identified five inputs required to achieve Distri buted
24 L professional development to allow for shared leadership, allocated resources to encourage collaboration, and establishment of processes that enable en gagement in leadership (Jones et al., Table 2 : Action Self Enabling Reflective tool for Distributed Leadership (Jones et al., 2014 b ) (Jones et al., 2014b, p. 61 0). The first part of this framework is a tool created t o help organizations benchmark Distributed L e adership by mapping four dimensions of Distributed L eadership onto specific actions that support Distributed L eadership (Jones et al., 2014b). This new m atrix was named the Action Self Enabling R eflective Tool (ASERT), found in Table 2 (Jones et al., 2014b). This matrix maps the values that enable the development of Distributed L eadership with the criteria needed to enable D istributed L eadership while ill ustrating specific actions that lead to Distributed L eadership in a higher education setting (Jones et al., 2014b). The second part of the ASERT tool is a series of reflection ques tions that leaders are asked in order to help them identify how they can co ntinue to distribute leadership in their Dimensions and Values to Enable Development of Distributed Leadership Criteria for distributed leadership Context. Trust Culture. Respect Change. Recognition Relationships. Collaboration People are Involved Expertise of individuals is used to inform decisions Individuals participate in decision making All levels and functions have input into policy development Expertise of individuals contributes to collective decision making Processes are Supportive Informal leadership is recognized Decentralised group engage in decision making All levels and functions have input into policy implementation Communi ties of practice are modelled Professional Development is Provided Distributed leadership is used to build leadership capacity Mentoring for distributed leadership is provided Leaders at all levels proactively encourage distributed leadership Collaboration is facilitated Resources are Available Space, time, and finance for collaboration are available Leadership contribution is recognised and rewarded Flexibility is built into infrastructure and systems Opportunities for regular networking are provided
25 organization (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012) By engaging multiple leaders in different ar eas of the organization with a Distributed L eaders hip framework, the tool allows Distributed L eadership to be context dependent while still grounded in theory. The four criteria needed for Distributed L eadership to occur are People are Involved, Processes are Supportive, Prof essional Development and Resources and Available. are Involved the model that are involved from design to implementati on of a program (Jones Harvey, Lefoe, & Ryland, 2014b, p. 20 upportive refers to the support of formal leader s for leadership initiatives (Jones et al., 2014b ). essional Development focuses on the need for Distributed L eadership training before an initiative begins and mentoring throughout the project (Jones et al. 2014b ). inclu des the need for an initiative to have the financial resources needed for the initiative to be implemented the time needed to complete the project and recognition of individuals Jones et al., 2014b ). The four values that enable Distributed L eadership are a Context of Trust, Culture of R espect, Change Process and Collaborative R elationshi ps (Jones et al., 2014b ). The Context of T rust dimension addresses the need to develop a culture that trusts the expertise that individuals bri ng to an organization (Jon es et al., 2014b ). Culture of R espect is defined as respecting and centering expertise in deci sion making (Jones et al., 2014b ). The Change Recognition condition relates to commitment that change needs to happen in an organizati on from a broad cross section of the o rganization (Jones et al., 2014b). The Collaborative R elationships dimension addresses the need for the creation of intentional space that facilitates ice, formal meetings, and networking opportunit 2014b, p. 21 ). As a tool that measures Distributed L eadership in higher education, the ASERT matrix is a conceptual framework that can be used to benchmark the current state of Distributed L eadership in an
26 organization. With its focus on activity, it is a practical framework that directly links to the theoretical foundations of Distributed L eadership. For the purpose s of this study, the second part of the ASERT, which is the reflective to ol to plan how an organization wants to continue to distribute leadership was not completed The scope of this st udy is focused on benchmarking Distributed L eadership activities currently present in an organization.
27 CHAPTER II I METHOD This study used a quantitative survey design method to study the per ceived Distributed L ea dership practices in the Division of Student Affairs at WU It was a site based study that use d a survey validated by Jones et al. (2014a ) that was buil t to benchmark the presenc e of Distributed L eadership practices in higher education institutions. There are 5 stages to im plementing a survey: 1. Design Survey P rocess, 2. Develop Questions, 3. Test and Train, 4. Col lect Data, and 5. Analyze Data (Office of Q uality Improvement, 2010). This section focuses on the first three steps of this process. Since the unit of analysis for Distributed L eadership is the organization as a whole (Gronn, 2009), a survey that measu res leadership practices throughout the organization i s needed. By administering the survey to multiple levels within the organiza tion, insight into leadership throughout the organization was gained. Furthermore, since Distributed L eadership activity will be different based on the context of the organization, a survey tha t focuses on one site capture s the context of that one organization. Participants The survey was administered to professional staff members in the Division of Student A ffairs at Western University The sample include d all professional exempt staff me mbers within the Division of Student Affairs that work in departments that report to either an Associate or Assistant Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs. At the time this survey was administered, t h e Division of Student Affairs was led by the Vice Chancel lor for Student Affairs, who supervised two Associate Vice Chancellors and one Assistant Vice C hancellor Under the Associate a nd Assistant Vice Chancellor were multiple student services departments. See Appendix B for an organizational chart of the WU D ivision of Student Affairs at the time the survey was administered There were vast differences in both the number of professional staff within these individual departments as well as in the educational and professional backgrounds of departmental staff. Offices range d from student advocacy centers, to housing, to health
28 care; indicating a diverse range of services and intended outcomes. Most p rofessional staff members in the Division of Student Affa irs possess ed s in a field related to their office, but many possess ed advanced or professional degrees as w ell. The D ivision also included a large population of medical professionals, psychiatrists, and counselors. Ethical Considerations I was actively involved in the data collection an d analysis of this study and have a previous relationship to this study site. The executive leadership of this organization requested to be provided the aggregate results of the survey. T his created a number of ethical dilemmas that need ed to be addressed before commencing the study First, the individuals who participate d in the survey may share information that they did not want others in the organization to know. This cre ated an ethical obligation to inform the participants that execut ive leaders would be informed about the overall results of this study. This disclosure also include d a statement that the survey is anonymous and that individu al results would not be shared See Appendi x A for the invitation that was e mailed to study pa rticipants. The results would only be reported in aggregate and a single survey link was used to ensure that results were kept anonymous. The study participants were informed how the in formation would be used and who would have access to the conclusions of the study. Because of my previous relationship with WU, precautions were taken during the data analysis phase to ensure that any of my personal biases were mitigated by partnering with Dr. Courtney Donovan to confirm that the analysis matched the findi ngs. Study Design and Data Collection The survey used in this study was a 24 question measure that used a five point Likert scale to ask about the presence of the values and conditions of Distributed L eadership. A copy of the survey is found in Appe ndix C. It asked general questions about who initiated the program or project respondents used guide their responses. A t the end of the survey, it asked for their overall impressions of whether Distributed L eadership is present in the organization. B y a sking this question their overall impression of
29 the presence of Distributed L eadership was measured against thei r perceptions of the values and conditions of Distributed L eadership. The only identifyin g information the survey asked for was th eir self ide ntified role as an Entry level professional, Mid level professional, Director or Executive Director professional, or H ealth professional. In doing so, the results measured how staff at multiple levels within the organization perceive d the presence of Dist ributed L eader ship. These classifications were selection. Respondents self identified which group they belong ed in based on their relative placement in the organization and sa lev chart and who tend to focus on one aspect o professionals that supervise entry level professionals or were responsible for multiple components of a professionals respo nsible for the functioning of either a single or multiple department s professionals who pos sess ed a license to treat mental or medical health needs. There were respondents who did not answer eve ry question in the survey. Respondents were not required to answer any specific question in order to submit their response since there was a concern that they may provide non authentic responses if required to answer all questions. When someone did not compl ete a specific ques tion their responses from other question s were included See Appendix F for the number of responses to each questio n. If enough respondents had not answer ed specific questions, the ability to analyze specific facets of D istribut ed L eadership could have been negatively impacted. However, enough respondents answered each question so none of them were excluded from the analysis Since the survey was adapted from a survey used to measure Distributed L eadership in an Australian higher edu cation institutions some of the language was adapted to the language of US higher educ ation institutions. O ne question was removed be cause it asked about the use of a s ervice that is
30 not present at this study site. Some of the language in the surve y was language commonly used in the student affairs field, but not all members of the organ ization have a student affairs background. There fore, c ognitive interviews were conducted with other professionals to measure if the survey language produced responses that measure d what it was intended to measure. Cognitive interviews and other survey pilots allow search instruments, asses the degrees of observer bias, frame questions, collect background information, and adapt research procedures (Creswell, 2007). The purpose of cognitive interviews is to find sources of error in a survey ive processes respondents use to answer [the survey] Kinzie, Gieser, 2012). Cognitive interviews test the ability of res pondents to understand judge, and respond to a survey question (Haeger et al., 2012). A verbal probing method of cognitive inter viewing was used during which follow up que stions were asked after the subject answered each question in order to ascertain additional information about how they interpret ed and answer ed the questions on the survey (Haeger et al., 2012). Since the survey organized staff into one of four classifications, a cognitive interview with someone who met the criteria from each classification was conducted for a total of four interviews By contacting professionals from di fferent backgrounds, t he language of the survey was tested to determine if it lead s to answers relevant to the survey regardless of professional background Cognitive interviews were conducted with a Resident Director, an Associate Director of Student Con duct, a Director of Housing an d Diversity, and a Mental Health counselor. After cognit ive interviews were comp lete d appropriate edits were made to t he survey and the survey was subject to an expert review process by Dr. Courtney Do novan. The purpos e of this expert review was to gain insight from an expert in the research field about survey structure, wording, flow, and congrue nce between what the survey said and what it was intende d to measure. Dr. Donovan also provide d insig ht into whether the sur vey met the standards needed to qualify as research.
31 On July 26, 2017, an e mail was sent to exempt professional staff within the Division of Student Affairs inviting them to participate in the survey. The Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs sent an e mail to employees in the Division of Student Affairs encouraging them to participate in the survey as a way to improve leadership practice. A reminder to complete the survey was sent out on August 7, 2017 and August 15, 20 17. The content of the first invitat ion e mail can be found in Appendix A. The survey was administered through the Qualtrics survey system and was kept open for three weeks to provide sufficient time for participants to complete the survey. This time frame is ideal since most staff members take vacation during June and offices are preparing for first year student ori entation in late August. Analysis Plan The researc eadership are present in a higher education D ivis ion of Student A brok en down into eight sub sections four based on the values that enable Distributed L eader ship and four based on the conditions that enable Distributed L eadership. Using descriptive statisti cs, t he presence of t he four values and four conditions of Distributed L eadership were analyzed by creating mean scores. Relations hips between mean scores were measured using correlations to p rovide insight into how closely related the four values, four condi tions, and overall presence of Distr ibuted L eadership were Fina lly, using one way ANOVA, mean scores were compared for the four employee classifications who initiated the projects, the office that initiated the project, and the extent the project promoted the mission of the organization The null hypothesis was that there would be no differences between any of these groups The alternative hypothesis was that there would be a difference between these groups, but since this was an e xplorator y study no specific outcomes were predicted
32 R eliability and Validity To measure reliability a cross groups, was applied the consis tency of responses and had a goal of 80% to establish the survey as reliable. Th e researchers who developed the original version of the survey used in this study took many steps in order t o establish its validity The first step in the development of the original survey was accomplished by analyzing refle ctions from leaders who used a Distributed L eadership framework as part of a project team (Jones et al., 2014a ) This led to the development of the ASERT conceptual framework descri bed earlier (Jones et al., 2014a ). From this framework, an initial survey was developed and piloted at five universities after which the qu estions were refined based on the feedback from the pi lot survey (Jones et al., 2014a ). The survey was then sent to 47 higher education institutions in Australia and 175 responses wer e submitted (Jones et al., 2014a ). When the survey was sent out, it was initially sent to senior leaders and others who participated in leadership projects (Jones et al., 2014a). Participants were encouraged to se nd the survey to others who had participated in similar projects to increase the response rate (Jones et al., 201 4a). This multi step process indicates that the survey has construct validity since multiple processes wer e used to ground the survey in Distributed L eadership theory and confirm that the su rvey measured the construct of Distributed L eadership. For a sur vey to be valid, it must consistently measure what it is intending to measure. The original survey the survey was appropr p.14 ) indicating that there was a relationship between the results of the survey an d the presence of D istr ibuted L eadership practices. Since this survey was built to help an organiza tion benchmark the presence of D istri buted L eadership practices within that organization, the sp ecific results of the survey were not intended to be generalized to a broader population outside of the organiz ation being studied. T he original survey was sent to 47 different higher education instituti ons in order to test if the mea sure described the presence of Distributed L eadership
33 practices (Jones et al., 2014a). Since the measure was shown to have internal validity and construct validity, it is appropriate to use the measure in other organizations and can be used as a benchmarking framework for understanding the presence of D istributed L eadership at WU Limitations The pri mary limitation of this study was that it asked for employee per ceptions about the presence of Distributed L eade rship p ractices. The study did not include an observational element in order to gauge the presence of Distributed L eadership practices from an external perspective. behavio rs. Further more, the use of a survey limited the depth of response that study participants were able to provide in t heir answers about leadership within the organization. As a site based study, the results of this study will not be generalizable to other institutions. Another limitation of this study was that it was only be administered electronically. While all staff members who received this survey were expected to use their institutional e mail address to communicate, members of the organization ma y have had varying levels of comfort using their e mail to navigate to this survey After the survey was closed to additional responses an additional limitation was identified The response rate for this survey was 15%. These results provide d a sense of the perceptions of D istri buted L eadership in the Division of Student Affairs but the response rate is low en ough to still be considered a limitation of this study.
34 CHAPTER I V DATA ANALYSIS The ASERT Distributed Leadership survey was sent to professional exempt staff members in the Division of Student Affairs at Western University In total, the survey was sent to 624 employees. While 232 participants opened the survey and answered some questions, only 94 participants submitted the survey. Since submission of the survey was how participant s consented to participate in the survey, only those 94 responses were considered for analysis. S ince no specific questions required an answer, the number of responses to specific questions varied See A ppendix F for the num ber of responses to each question Respondent Characteristics The survey was taken by a wide variety of Student A ffairs professionals who work ed at different levels in the organization and in different offices. Participant s self sele cted which option best described their place and role within the organization (Table 3 ). This information was important for understanding Distributed Leadership in the Division because Distributed L eadership encourages leadership at all levels of the orga nization (Ameijde et al., 2009) A plurality of respondents (44) i dentified themselves as being Table 3 Which descriptor best describes y our professional status in the Division of S t udent A ffairs? loyees, indicating that they were level professionals or are responsible for multiple, though not all, components of a one respondents identified as Directo r or Executive Director, who were Role N Percent Director or Executive Director 21 22.3 Mid Level 44 46.8 Entry Level 21 22.3 Health Employee 8 8.5 Total 94 100
35 s who base of a depa made up another 21 of the responses. Only eight Health professionals completed the survey. These were mental or medical h Given the structure of offices and roles in the Division of Student Affairs (see Appendix B), it was not surprising that Mid level professionals had the highest number of responses to the survey since departments may ha The survey aske d participants to identify the office in which they worked It only provided five options based on the different departmental sizes : Housing Services, Health Center, Student Union, Recreation Center and I do not work for one of those offices The four specific offices identified were considered auxiliaries in the D ivision. See Table 4 They employ ed a large number of Table 4 Which of the following offices do you currently work for? professional staff members under the leadership of their director or executive director. The total number of professional staff who do not work in these auxiliaries was similar to the number of employees in any individual auxiliary, so these employees were grouped to gether in order to provide a similar representation in the sample and to provide a higher level of anonymity in the survey. The highest number of response s came from staff members who did not work in the auxiliaries, with 36 responses followed by 33 resp onses from employees who work ed in Housing Services. Twelve Office Frequency Percent Housing Services 33 35.1 Health Center 12 12.8 Student Union 9 9.6 Recreation Center 4 4.3 I do not work for one of those offices 36 38.3 Total 94 100.0
36 respondents wo rk ed in the Health Center nine work ed in the Student Union and four work ed in the R ecreation Center. A cross tabulation (Table 5 ) of these two questions show ed some differences in the number of responses of professional staff levels within the specific departments. For example, in Housing Ser vices, 66% of respondents were Mid l evel professionals, while 66% of responses from the Health Center were from E ntry lev el professionals. Table 5 Comparison of Respondent Roles and Office s in which they are employed Project Characteristics Survey respondents were asked to answer the survey based on their experience working on a pr oject or initiative within the Division of Student A ffairs. They were not asked to identify the project, but were instructed to answer the questions based on their experience with that project. When asked about which type of employee began the initiative (Table 6 ), respondents indicated that 25.5% were initiated by eit her a Director or Executive Director level employee, while 32% began by a Vice Chancellor or Associate /Assistant Vice Chancellor Projects initiated by Mid level employees made up 28.7% of the responses while 8.5% were star t ed by either Entry level or Health professionals. This question also source as well. Four respondents said the project was initiated by an Other Three of the se four stated that the question was either not applicable or that the y did not know the employee type who initiated the program, while one resp onse stat ed the initiative was started by Housing Services Health Center Student Union Recreation Center Other Total Director or Executive Director 7 0 1 0 13 21 Mid Level 22 1 4 3 14 44 Entry Level 4 3 4 1 9 21 Health Employee 0 8 0 0 0 8 Total 33 12 9 4 36 94
37 Table 6 Which employee type initiated the project? Role Frequency Percent Vice Chancellor level 13 13.8 Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor level 17 18.1 Director or Executive Director level 24 25.5 Mid level 27 28.7 Entry level 6 6.4 Health Professional 2 2.1 Other 4 4.3 Missing 1 1.1 Total 94 100.0 When asked about where the i nitiative came from (Table 7 ), the respondents stated 63.8% originate d from a department within the Division of Student Affairs, while 25.5% originated from an individua l staff member and 3.2% originated from a student. Seven of the respondents stated that the initiative ori ginated from an Othe r source. Of those responses, two stated that they have not particip ated in a D ivision al initiative, two stated it originated from the Division of Student Affairs, one said they did not know where it originated from, and one stated it originated from stude nts, staff, an d faculty Table 7 Where did the initiative originate? Frequency Percent A department within Student A ffairs 60 63.8 Individual staff member 24 25.5 Other 7 7.4 A student 3 3.2 Total 94 100.0 When asked about the extent to which the initiative implemented a policy or process related to the mission of the Divisi on of Student Affairs (Table 8 ), 62.8% of respondents stated that the initiative Completely or To a Great Extent implemented a policy or process related to the mission of the
38 Division of Student Affairs. The remaining proportion of respondents ( 35.2% ) stated that the initiative they worked on was only Somewhat, Very Little, or Not at all A ffairs. Th e remaining 2.1% of respondents did not answer the question. It is imp ortant to conside r that over one third mission of Student A ffairs. Distributed L eadership is intended to engage all people in an organization in the mission of the organization (Spillane et al., 2007). Since survey respondents were asked to answer the questions based on their work with a project within the Division of Student Affairs that is a large percentage of employees working on projects only omewhat related to the mission of the Division of Student Affairs. There are a number of reasons these sta ff may not believe their work was related to the mission of the Division. This could be because there were a large number of projects being worked on not related to the mission, a misunderstanding of the scope of the mission, or a disengagement of staff members from the mission. Table 8 To what extent did the initiative aim to imp lement a D ivisional policy/process related to the mission of Student Affairs? Frequency Percent Not at all 1 1.1 Very Little 6 6.4 Somewhat 26 27.7 To a Great Extent 44 46.8 Completely 15 16.0 Missing 2 2.1 Total 94 100.0 Distributed Leadership Results The qu estions from this survey were mapped onto particular areas of the ASERT conceptual framework and grouped together to assess the presence of the con ditions and values that enable D istribute d L eadership. Mean scores were created based on the results of the questions connected to each value and condition for Distributed L eaders hip in addition to an Overall Distributed Leadership
39 mean score (Table 9 ). Distributed Leadershi p, which had a mean score of 3.12. T he mean scores for these variables ranged from 2.96 (Resources are Available) to 3.73 (Processes are Suppo rtive). All of these scores were in the range that employees gene each of these con ditions and values are present in the Division of Student Affairs. The highest scores belonged to the Processes are Supportive (3.73), People are Involved (3.65), and Collaborati ve Relationship (3.33) value while the lowest scores were Resources are Available (2.96), Professional Development (3.06), and Culture of Respect (3.16). Table 9 Mean Scores of Values and Conditions for Distributed Leadership N Mean Std. Deviation Overall Distributed Leadership 94 3.29 .76 Perception of Distributed Leadership 90 3.12 .98 People are Involved 92 3.65 .86 Professional Development 94 3.06 .81 Resources and Available 93 2.96 1.10 Context of Trust 92 3.30 .80 Culture of Respect 93 3.16 .81 Change Recognition 92 3.29 .88 Collaborative Relationships 94 3.33 .79 Processes Are Supportive 93 3.73 .81 ANOVA Results One way ANOVA was performed to compare mean scores between groups for respondent and project characteristics. Overall results indicate d that there was not a diffe rence between groups except in limited circumstances relating to the position of employees who initiated the project Employee Place in Organization To answer the question of whether a there was a significant difference between the mean scores provided on the s urvey based on the placement of the employee in the organization a one way ANOVA was conducted with the Overall Distributed Leadership, People are Involved, Processes are
40 Supportive, Professional Development, Resources are Available, Cont ext of Trust, Culture of Respect, and Colla borative Relationships values and conditions ANOVA showed that there was no significant difference among mean scores for the following condition s and values for Distributed L eadership based on the employees place in the organization: Overall Distributed Leadership, People are Involved, Professional Development, Resources are Available, Context of Trust, Culture of Respect, and Collaborative Relationships. A main effect was found for Employee type on Processes are Supportive, F (4, 93)=3, p =.05. The assumption of homogeneity of variance and independence was met for this group. The assumption of n ormality was not met by the Mid level and E ntry level group s, but was met by the Executive Director/Director a nd Health Professionals group s. The sample size was large enough that ANOVA is Health Professionals and the three other groups Entry l evel Professionals t (93) = 3.00, p =.04, d =1.04, Mid l evel Professionals t (93)=3.00, p =.03, d =.96, and Director/Executive Director Professionals t (93) = 3.00, p =.03, d =.99. This indicated that Health Prof essionals in the Division of Student Affairs were significantly less likely to believe that processes are supportive of them engaging in Distributed L eadership than the other three groups. emplo yees to engage in projects, correct stakeholders are involved in the implementation of the project, and employees are given decision making authority. Office Worked Respondents were asked what office they worked for in the Division of Student Affairs to determine if this made a d ifference in the perception of Distributed L eadership. The five answers respondents could select in this qu es Recreation Cent ANOVA showed no significant differences in any o f the conditions or values for Distributed L e adership for these groups This showed
41 that the office in which the respondent worked did not affect respondents Leadership. Source of the Initiative Survey respondents were asked about the source of the project or program they worked on in order to determine if the source of the program ha d an effect on the presence of Distributed L ea d epartment with in respondents not a consistent theme among the responses in that group ANOVA showed no significant difference between any of the sourc es of the project in an y of the conditions or values for D istributed L eadership. This showed that the source of the initiative did not impact the presence of Distributed L eadership. Promot ion of the Divisional Mission Respondents were asked the extent to which the project promoted the mission of the Division of Student Affairs. They test fo r normality, so that response was not included in the analysis of variance. ANOVA did not show any significant differences in the presence o f the values and conditions of Dis tributed L eadership based on the extent that the projec t supported the mission of the Division of Student Affairs. Since Distributed L eadership is intended to promote programs that support the mission of the organization (Spillane et al., 2007), positiona l leaders should conside r how to focus their support on programs that further achieve the mission of the organization. Employee Level who Initiated Project Survey respondents were asked the position of the employee who initiated the project they worked o n in order to determine if there was a di fference in the perceptions of Distributed L eadership based on the position of the per son who initiated the project in the hierarchy of the organization.
42 Respondents could select one of seven option s Vice Chancellor, Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor, Director/Executive Director, evel, Entry Level, Health Professional, and Other. Only two respondents stated that Health Professionals initiated the project, which was a too small number of responses to include in the analysis of variance. Under so me of the conditions and values ANOVA as well It is responses are not included in ANOVA. AN OVA showed no significant difference among the mean scores of these groups related to Overall Distributed Leadership, Professional Development, Resources are Available Context of Trust, and Collaborative Relationships. ANOVA did show significan t differences in the scores related to People are Involved, Processes are Supportive, Culture of Respect, and Change Recognition A main effect was found for the e mployee who initiated the project on People are Involved, F(5, 87) = 4, p = .05. The assumption of homogeneity of variance and independence were met for this variable. The assumption of normality was met for the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor, Director/Executive Director level, and Mid Level, but not for the Vice Chancellor and Entry Level g roup. ANOVA is robust against this violations due to the large sample size of the survey. There were not enough responses to include the Other differences were fo und between the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and evel employees t (87) = 4.00, p = .01, d = 0.95) and the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and Entry level employees t (87) = 4.00 p = .03, d = 1.10). This indicates that if the projec t was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor mean scores concerning People are Involved would be higher than if the initiative came from a Mid l evel or Entry Level employee. Since the condition is rel ated to having the correct stakeholders involved in planning a project and the use of expertise in decision m aking, this difference indicated that Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellors are better able to involve the correct stakeholders in projects and trus
43 A main effect was also found for the Employee type who initiated the project on Processes are Supportive, F(6, 90)=5, p =.05. The assumption for homogeneity of variance and independence was met. The a ssumption of normality was met for the Vice Chancellor group, Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor group, Director/Executive Director group, level group, and Other group. There was not enough information to include the Health Professional group in this ANOVA. The Entry level group was not normally distributed. ANOVA was robu st against this violation of normality due to the scores of th e Vice Chancellor group and the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor group t (90)=4.00, p =.02, d =1.11, the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor group and level group t (90)=4.00, p =.002, d =1.14, and the Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and En try Level group t (90)=4.00, p =.08, d =1.19. This indicates that if the initiative was started at the Vice C hancellor level, respondents were more likely to see that p rocess es are supportive to engage in Distributed L eadership than if it was started by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor. These results also show that if the initiative was started by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor respondents were more likely to feel that processes are supportive to engage in leadership than if the project starte d by an Entry level professional or Mid level professional. The condition Processes are Supportive encouraged to participate in leadership projects, that correct stakeholders are involved in the implementation of the p roject and that decision making authority is given to the group working on the project. These results show ed that when the project was initiated by an Associate and Assistant Vice chancellor, groups felt more supported to participate in the project, empowered to make decisions and that the right stakeholders were involved in the project than if it was initiated by an Entry level or Mid level employee. Additionally, if the project was initiated by a Vice Chancellor, the mean scores for this condition were higher than if the project was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor.
44 A main effect on the value Culture of Respect was found based on the level of the employee who initiated the program, F(6, 90)=5, p=.05. The assumption of homogen eity of variance and independence was met by this variable. The assumption of normality was met by the Vice Chancellor group, Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor group, the Director/Executive Director group, level group, and Entry level group but was not met by the Other group. ANOVA is robust against the violation due to the sample size of the survey. There was not enough responses to include Health professionals were found between Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and level employees t (90)=5.00, p =.05, d =.88 and Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and level employees t (90)=5.00, p =.05, d =1.25. This indicates that if the project was initiated b y an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor, respondents scores related to a Culture of respect were higher than if the project was ini tiated by a Mid level or Entry level professional. The value Culture of Respect is related to employees feel empowerment to make decisions, recognition for their contribution and the presence of leader ship mentoring Therefore when an Associate or Assistant Vice Chancellor initiated the project, respondents were more likely to feel empowered and recognized than if the project was initiated by a Mid level or Entry l evel employee. A main effect was found for the Employee level who initiated the project on Change Recognition F(6, 87)=4, p =.05. The assumption of normality was met by the Vice Chancellor Associa te/Assistant Vice Chancellor group, Director/Executive Director group, and level group. This assumption was not met by the Entry level group. There was not enough responses to include the Health Professional and Other groups. ANOVA is rob ust against the violation of found between Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor and Director /Executive Director level t (87)=4.00, p =.02, d =.90, and As sociate/As sistant Vice Chancellor and Mid level employees t (87)=4.00, p =.04 d =.87. This indicates that when the program was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor,
45 respondents mean scores related to Change Recognition were significantly high er than if the project was initiated by a Director /Executive Director or Mid level empl oyee. The Change Recognition value relates to the involvement of a ll relevant staff, their ability to have input into a project, and encouragement to engage in leadersh ip across organizational lines. As such, these results indicate that relevant stakeholders were more likely to be involved and encouraged to work together when the project was init iated by an Associate/ Assistant Vice Chancellor than if it was initiated by a Director /Executive Director or Mid level employee. Correlations Correlations among the nine variables in this study were conducted to determine if each of the values and conditions needed to implement Distributed L eadership were related to one another (Appendix D). All variables were, at the very least, moderately positively correlated to one another. The weakest relationship found was a .54 moderate positive relationship between People are Inv olved and Resource s are Available and Processes are Supportive had a moderate positive relationship of .56. The next weakest relationship was a moderate positive .58 relationship between Resources are Available and People are Involved. St rong positive relationships existed between Collaborative Relationships and Overall Distributed Leadership, Overall Distributed Leadership (.92), followed closely by a .91 relationship between and Context of Trust All of these relationships were significant at the .01 level. Overall Distributed Leadership the mean score for helps to understan t answer about their perception of D istribu ted L eaderships is related to the ir overall mean score of all the questions that measure values and conditions of Distributed Leadership There was a .75 strong positive relationship between respondents verall Distributed Leadership o n this survey and their e rception of
46 Dist ributed L eaders hip. eadership had the strongest relationships with the Professional Development Overall Distributed Leadership score. This indicates that the perceptions of Professional Development (.76 strong positive relationship) and Overall Distributed Leadership (.75 strong positive relationship) were more strongly related to how these staff perceive the presence of Distributed L ea dership than the other values and conditions of Distributed Leadership Qualitative Responses and dev eloping future initiatives for Student A framed as a way to improve future projects, the responses it invited were focused on what needed im provement, as opposed to what was already going well. Of the 94 total r esponses to the survey, 41 provided responses to this question. The following themes were discovered upon review of the qualitative feedback. Support from Positional Leaders The most challenging aspect of engaging in leadership according to these respo ndents was getting the support of positional leaders. They identified that, for an initiative to be successful, the support of leaders from multiple le vels of the organization is vital. Respondents made comments such ng upper initiatives have to be driven provided feedback on times when positional leaders interfered with leadership because they did not support the project. This included statements such approach appeared collaborative, the formal leadership ended up making their own decisions, despite highest levels of universit y adminis eadership framework, positional leaders are responsible for setting the vision for the organization so that members of the organization
47 are aware of what projects and initiatives f it within organizational goals and vision This is not to say that formal leaders should blindl y support all employee projects, rather it places a responsibility on positional leaders to be knowledgeable of the work being done and to guide it towards th e priorities of the D ivision by providing t he resources needed for projects that do meet those goals. For these respondents getting traction on projects was difficult indicating a need for positional leaders to be aware of projects and providing the needed su pport earlier on while at the same time communicating what projects do n ot align with the vision. Communication from Positional Leaders Respondents expressed a strong desire for increased communication from positional leaders in the organization. The ty pes of communication they desired varied based on the responses. Some respondents wanted a clearer v ision of the priorities in the D ivision, recognition of the work accomplished, and information about how decisions are made. Respondents made statements s uch as would be nice to describe why the the purpose and goals of initiatives, as well as clearer information as to why areas/depts./individuals are t they received recognition for successful completion of projects or initiatives noting that they want ed lo oking for, but these comments illustrate d tha t m any of these respondents felt like they were ope rating in a space where it was not clear if their work was supported by positional leaders or if their work fit within the mission of Student A ffairs. While the majority of
48 responses showed employees believe d their work supported the vision, these statements indicate d they want ed reassurance from positional leaders that their perception was accurate This connects t o the conceptual framework for Distributed L eadership because, for employees to engage in lead ership, they need to know that their work supports the mission by positional leaders in order for processes to be supportive of Distributed L eadership. Shared Responsibilities Respondents also indicated that more opportuni ties for cross collaborations wi thin the D ivision and increased decision making authority throughout the organization would improve future projects and initiatives. ination [sic] across SA silos and up and down the lead committees cess of future programs in the D ivision. They would like a these that autho rity in terms of the initiative. eadership calls on positional leaders to grant decision making authority to every level in the organization and these comments indicate d that these respondents felt that, when they work ed on projects, th ey were not empowered to make decisions. Furthermore, they want ed more people to be involved in decision making and felt that there needs to be more opportunities for employees to work together. The ability to work together across departments would make t respondent. The conceptual framework for D istribu ted Leaderships states that,
49 for Distributed L eadership to be effective, all stakeholders particularly those with relevant expertise should be involved in the development and implementation of a project or program (Jones et al., 2014b) Furthermore, Distributed L eadership must be supported by a Context of Trust and Culture of Respect where expertis e and exp erience are the driver s f or decisions, sition in the organization. For that trust and respect to exist, employees must be given decision making authority in the programs they work on. Positional leaders, then, need to be mindful of how they use cross collaborations and support the decisions of those groups. If positional leaders do not know if they can support the they should be wary of having those employees work on those initiatives. Balancing the need for leadership and time The last theme relates to the lack of a particular resource time. Respondents felt that, while they want to engage in these projects and initiatives, balancing those demands with their daily tasks or finding ways to ma ke these pr ograms sustainable was challenging One respondent becomes a burd jects to be projec the staff that creates them leaves ime is not just about the initial time needed to complete the project, but also about devoting employee time down the line so that the completed project can be sustained Resources in higher education, including time, a re always limite d. P ositional leaders s hould selectively give support to projects that they predict can be provided the appropriate ti me required for completion and sustainability The conceptual framework for Distributed L eadership specifically cites the availability o f resources as a key ingredient for successful leadership. Without the ability to simply increase reso urces, positional leadership should be transparent about the limits of resources early in the project so employees do not feel they lose their support la ter on.
51 CHAPTER V RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Implications for Future Research Base d on the findings of this study the re are implications for further use of this conceptual framework and survey in future research and implications for understanding the state of D istributed L eadership in the Division of Student Affairs at WU From a research perspective, the first implication for this survey and conceptual framework is that the questions asked on the survey are correlated to the respondents ions of Distributed L eadership. The correlation between the respondents Perception of Distributed Leadership verall Distributed Leadership indicating a strong relationship between th e values and conditions measured in this survey and the respondents explicit perceptions of Distributed L eadership. The cor L eadership and the specific values or conditions of Distributed Leadership ranged from .54 ( People are Involved and Process ar e Supportive ( Profe ven the lowest correlation was still a moderately strong co L eadership an d the values and conditions of Distributed L eadership. Since this meas ure has been tested in limited circumstances, these correlations support the validity of this survey as a measure of this Distributed Leadership conceptual fra mework Fur the r research would provide additional insight into whether this survey measures the conceptual framework and Distributed Leadership. While these survey results indicat e that the survey measures the conceptual framework for Distributed L eadership, the qualitative feedback from survey respondents indicated that this conceptual framework ma y not encomp ass an important condition for Distributed L eadership. One of the primary themes of the qualitative feedback was the importance of communication from positional leaders in order to engage in Distributed L eadership. Clear communication about t he vision and direction (or the lack thereof) was key to the The role of positional leaders in Distributed
52 L eadership is to provide direction and vision for the organization and empower people in the organization to work towa rds that vision (Ameijde et al., 2009; Liang & Sandmann, 20 15). I n both the res ults of this survey and the definition of Distributed L eadership, communication from positional leaders is key to successful leadership. However, the conceptual framework used in this study does not explicitly include communication from positional leaders as a necessary condition for D istributed L eadership. To further improve this conceptual framework, researchers should consider adding a criteria of communication from positio nal leaders or integrate that communication into one of the markers in the framework itself. The differences between the mea n scores of particular values and conditions of Distributed Leadership and the themes of the qualitativ e feedback also provide insi ght into improving future research using this conceptual framework. The conditions for Distributed L eadership that received the lowest overall mean scores on the survey were Professional Development (3.06) and Resources are Available (2.96). However, the qualitative responses revealed no themes r elated to making professional development available and only one theme related to the availability of resources. Respondents identified the need for more time to balance the demands of le ade rship on project s with the expectations of their everyday work. This indicates that, while the respondents answered questions about professional develop ment and resources with lower scores than other values and conditions, they generally identified that t he most important factors needed for them to engage i n leadership were related to support and communication from positio nal leaders and building collaborative relationships. While there could be many reasons for this discrepancy, it warrants further resea rch into whether certain values or conditions of Distributed L eadership in this conceptual framework are more important to the perception of Distributed L eadership than others. The conceptual framework treats these portant they are to supporting Distributed L eadership ; however these results indicate that conditions related to trusting people in the
53 organization, support from positional leaders and building relationships throughout the organization m ay be more important than the availability of professional development or resources. This study also supports the need for more research into Distributed L eadership in higher education contexts. Few studies have researched th e applicability or presence of Distributed L eadership in higher education settings, though this theory has been heavily researched in the K 12 educational sector (Jones et al., 2017) This particular study focused on the presenc e of Distributed L eadership in a spe cific division with in a single higher education institution, so its results are highly dependent on the context of this organization. Applying this conceptual framework and survey in future research, either more broadly in higher education or using it within specific organi zations to assess the ir leadersh ip culture, would help further determine the v alidity and reliability of this survey and woul d provide clarity into whether Distributed L eadership is a useful way to understand effective leadership practice within higher edu cation. Implications for the Division of Student Affairs The overall mean score for Distributed Leadership in the Division of Student A ffairs was 3.29. On the Likert scale for this surve y, this indicates that staff in the D ivis ion of Student A ffairs believe that for partic ular values and conditions for Distributed L eadership ranged from 2.96 to 3.73, which i ndicates that staff generally believe that the val ues and conditio ns that enable D istributed L as well While the lowest scores were in the conditions Professional Development and Resources are Available, the qualitative feedback focused on the need for support and communication from positional leaders. However, Process es are Supportive had the highest mean score (3.73) indicating that, even if staff feel this is the most present condition in th is D ivision, knowing whether the project is sup ported by positional leaders is c engage in leade rship. This
54 shows that, within this concept ual framework, some aspects of Distributed L eadership ar e mor e important than others. This was also supported by the ANOVA results that showed differences in Distributed Leadership activities depending on w ho init iated the project If the project was initiated by an Assistant/Associate Vice Chancellor, the mean sc ores for People are Involved or Processes are Supportive were higher than if the project or program was ini tiated by an Entry level or Mid level professional. This shows that programs started b y staff in lower levels of the D hie rarchy are less likely to ha ve the right content experts, support from positional leaders and empowerment to make decisions Furthermore, if the project was initiated by an Assistant/Associate Vice Chancellor, there were higher scores in the values of C ulture of Respect and than if the project was initiated by a Mid level employee. Mean scores in the value of Culture of Respect were also higher when the project was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor than if a n En try Level emp loyee initiated the project. T he scores for were significantly higher if the project was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor than if it w as initiated by a Director/Executive Director. Overall, this indica tes that people involved in these projects were more likely to have their expertise validated, decision making supported, and relevant stakeholders involved if the project was initiated by an Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor While ANOVA did not show a difference across most of the groups in this analysis, where there were differences the results indicate d that a project initiated by someone in higher leadership positions would have an increased presence of Distributed L eadership. The professional leve l of the respon dent, the office within Student A ffairs that initiated the program, the source of the initiative, and the extent to which the project supported the mission of Student Affairs showed no difference in the perceived presence of Distributed L ead ership. Overall, any d ifferences among groups were dependent on the positionality of the individual who started the initiative, indicating the power that positional leaders play in promoting Distributed L eadership in this organization. This shows that po sitional lead ers are effective
55 at promoting Distributed L eadership for projects they personally initiate and that projects started at lo wer levels in the organization do not receive the same support However, it also makes the presence of Distributed L eadership in projects dependent on positional leader support, which can ultimately deter other leadership initiatives from staff who may not have the same access to positio nal leaders as others. Within D istribut ed L eadership, a difference in the presence of Distributed L eadership based upon the extent to which the project promotes the mission of the organization is expected since programs are meant to be im plemented based on the extent to which they promote the mission of the organization (Spillane et al. 2007) Since there was no difference among projects based on the extent that the proje ct promoted the mission of the D ivision, but that there were differences based on the positionality of the person implementing the program, these results show that the position of the person, not the mission of the organization, has the largest effect on whether people feel empowered to engage in leadership activities in this organization. Recommendations for the Division of Student Affairs The first recommendat ion for the Division of Student A ffairs is to build onto the current state of Distributed L eadership The overall results show ed that, while staff do not feel they are disem powered from doing leadership, Distributed L to imp rove Distributed L eadership would be to focus on the areas of the conceptual framework that had the lowest overall mean scores Professional Development and Resources are Available A focus on Professional Development would include setting up mentoring opportunities among staff at multiple levels in the organization with a focus on finding ways for staff at all levels to engage in leadership. Professional Develop also includes providing opportunities for more collaboration across the Di vision These areas are also closely related to making resources available for Distributed L eadersh ip. This would include providing space and time for collaboration to occur and allowing there to be flexibility in how employ ees spend time within their co llaborations. One of the major themes of the
56 qualitative feedback was an increased desire for shared responsibilities and collaborations, so a focus o n developing collaborations aligns wi th an identified need from employees. Recognizing and rewarding suc cess is al so key to communicating to the D ivision what types of leadership is valued. Developing leadership in these arenas is less about simply providing increased financial support for professional development or the program and more about f ocusing on s hifting the culture of professional development and how time is spent in collaboration with othe r departments in the Division. Another strategy for d eveloping the overall state of Distributed L eadership would be to focus on the qualitative feedback provid ed by the employees. The most consistent feedback focused on the need for clear communication from positional le aders about the vision for the D ivision and whether particular projects or programs a re supported by the vision of the organization Increased communication would help staff determine whether they want to proceed with a particular project or initiative. As stated earlier, the conceptual framework does not necessarily account for the need for clear communication about vision and suppo rt from positional leadership, even tho ugh this is a key component of Distributed L eadership (Ameijde et al., 2009; Liang & Sandmann, 2015). Means scores for Distributed Leadership were higher when the project was initiated by positional leaders in the Di vision. Presumably, these projects are support ed by these leaders, which means employees throughout the organization are given the authority and resources to complete the se project s ANOVA showed that the extent that the project promoted the mission of t he organization did not affect the presence of Distributed L eadership. This puts a responsibility on positional leaders throughout the organization to be mindful of wha t projects and programs they support. It is important that these projects support the overall mission and vis ion of the organization since Distributed L eadership is focused specifically on empowering people to work towards the vision of the organization. If increased Distributed Leadership continues to be driven by positionality, not missi on, the organization will struggle to develop the leadership capacity of employees at all levels. Additionally, empowering leadership through cross collaborations can act as a check on
57 having too many new programs or initiatives occurring at once (which m ay not be sustainable for the organization) as opposed to encouraging each individual in the organization to pursue personal leadership interests. These recommendations have focused promote Distributed L eadership within the Division of Student Affairs, but not necessarily how to achieve these changes. All of these changes are cultural in nature, which makes them difficult to implement since culture cha nge happens slowly In a study intended to promote Distributed L eadership in a higher education setting, Beckmann (2017) laid out a number of actions that can be taken by positional leaders to promote Distributed L eadership. These strategies included continual communication from positional leaders about goals and outcomes, carefully selecting credible individuals to lead projects, showing active enthusiasm for projects, asking for insight and feedback from across the organization, and helping build professional networks both across departmental and positi onal lines (Beckmann, 2017). The respondents to this survey stated they needed increased communication and support from positional leaders to build networks and engage in projects, which aligns with Jones, Lefoe, Harve y, and Ryland (2012) created the Action Self Enabling Reflective Tool (ASERT) for Distributed Leadership (See Appendix E). This tool is used to build the reflective capaci ty of faculty and staff before and after collaborating on a project. M embers of the group use this tool to plan how they want to distribute leadership, reflect on what worked in terms of Distributed L eadership and what could be improved for future initiatives (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012). By empowering participants to reflect on these conditions and values, ASERT promotes dialogu e and a culture of D istributed L eadership at multiple levels, not just as a directive from positional leaders. This series of reflective questions help s employees identify what actions were or will be taken that enabled leadership, what actions would i mprove specific conditions for D is tributed L eadership, and what ideas
58 that would improve leadership practice in future projects (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland 201 2). This information is only useful to the extent that information is shared and implemented, but it at least encourages reflective leadership practice at all levels This require s that positional leaders encourage and reward the use of reflective practice in l eadership to incentivize the use of reflective practice This will develop the leadership capacity of employees by encouraging them to reflect on their experience as The Action Self Enabling Reflective Tool for Distributed Leadership is one form this reflection could take, but it could be modified to mee t the needs of WU To start creating a culture of Distributed L eadership requires that employees and positional leaders take the time to reflect about w hether leadership is distributed in their work and ways they can continue to empower leadership in their organization. Ultimately, the se results support the power of positional le aders in this organization in promoting leadership throughout the Division o f Student Affairs. To continue to develop leadership, there must be increased communication to the organization about the mission and priorities of the Division and opportunities for staff at all levels to be empowered to participate in collaborative proj ects and initiatives where expertise drives decision making. Employees should be encouraged to build relationships across professional levels and organizational lines. Promoting reflective leadership practice encourages staff to make meaning of their acc omplishments and to recognize how they can develop their own leadership capacities. These actions will continue to develop the capacity for employees to engage in leadership and engage staff at all levels in the mission of the Division of Student Affairs.
59 REFERENCES Ameijde, J., Nelson, P., Billsberry, J., & Meurs, N. (2009). Improving leadership in higher education institutions: a distributed perspective. Higher Education 58 (6), 763 779. Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. (2003). Dis tributed Leadership Nottingham: National College of School Leadership. Bento, F. (2011). A discussion about power relations and the concept of distributed leadership in higher education institutions. The Open Education Journal, 4 (1), 17 23. Birnbaum, R. (2000). The life cycle of academic management fads. The Journal of Higher Education, 71 (1), 1 16. Bjork, L. & Blas, J. (2009). The micropolitics of school district decentralization. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 21 (3), 19 5 208. Bolden, R. & Petrov, G. (2014). Hybrid configurations of leadership in higher education employer engagement. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36 (4), 408 417. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., Gosling, J. (2008). Tensions in higher educat ion leadership: towards a multi level model of leadership practice. Higher Education Quarterly 62 (4), 358 376. Bolden, R., Petrov, G., & Gosling, J. (2009). Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leaders hip, 37 (2), 257 277. Budget and Fiscal Planning. (2016). How is wu funded?. Retrieved from http://www.wu.edu/bfp/budget/funded/ Corrigan, J. (2013). Distributed leadership: rhetoric or reality?. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 35 (1), 66 71. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Division of Student Affairs (2017). Student Affairs Official Organizational Chart. R etrieved from: http://www.wu.edu/chancellor/sites/default/files/attached files/2017_01 12_vcsa_org_chart.pdf Drath, W.H., McCauley, C.D., Palus alignment, commitment: toward a more integrative ontology of leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 19 (6), 635 653. Fitzsimons, D., James, K., & Denyer, D. (2011). Alternative approach es for studying shared and distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews 13 (3), 313 328. Gosling, J., Bolden, R., & Petrov, G. (2009). Distributed l eadership in higher education: W hat does it accomplish. Leadership, 5 (3), 299 310 Graduate School. (n.d.) Graduate students at a glance. Retrieved from http://www.wu.edu/graduateschool/about us/graduate students glance Gronn, P. (2002). Distribut ed leadership as a unit of analysis. The Leadership Quarterly 13 (4), 423 451. Gronn, P. (2009). Leadership configurations. Leadership, 5 (3), 381 394.
60 Haeger, H., Lambert, A., Kinzie, J., & Gieser, J. (2012). Using cognitive interviews to improve surv ey instruments. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Center for Postsecondary Research. Retrieved from: http://cpr.indiana.edu/uploads/AIR2012%20Cognitive%20Interviews.pdf Harris, A. (2005). Op ed. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37 (3), 255 265. Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: according to the evidence. Journal of Education Administration, 46 (2), 172 188. Harris, A., & Spillane, J. (2008). Distributed leader ship through the looking glass. Management in Education, 22 (1), 31 34. Hartley, D. (2010). The management of education and the social theory of the firm: from distributed leadership to collaborative community. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 42 (4), 345 361. Hatcher, R. (2009). The distribution of leadership and power in schools. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 26 (2), 253 267. Hempsall, K. (2014). Developing leadership in higher education: Perspectives from the usa, th e uk, and australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 36 (4), 383 394. Jones, S. (2014). Distributed leadership: a critical analysis. Leadership, 10 (2), 129 141. Jones, S., Hadgraft, R., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014a). E vidence based benchmarking framework for a distributed leadership approach to capacity building in learning and teaching. Sydney, Australia: Office for Learning and Teaching, Department of Education. Jones, S. & Harvey, M. (2017). A distributed leadersh ip change process model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39 (2), 126 139. Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2012). Lessons learnt: identifying synergies in distributed leadership projects. Sydney, Au stralia: Office for Teaching and Learning Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014b). Synthesising theory and practice: distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 42 (5), 603 619. Jones, S., Harvey, M., Hamilton, J., Bevacqua, J., Egea, K., & McKenzie, J. (2017). Demonstrating the impact of a distributed leadership approach in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39 (2), 197 211 Jones, S., Lefoe, G., Harv ey, M., & Ryland, K. (2012). Distributed leadership: a collaborative framework for academics, executives, and professionals in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 34 (1), 67 78. Kezar, A. (2012). Bottom up/top down lead ership: contradiction or hidden phenomenon. The Journal of Higher Education, 83 (5), 725 760. Liang, J. & Sandmann, L. (2015). Leadership for community engagement a distributed leadership perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement 19 (1), 35 64.
61 Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., Strauss, T., Sacks, R., Memon, N., & Yashkina, A. (2007). Distributing leadership to make schools smarter: taking the ego out of the system. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 6 (1), 37 67. Mayrowetz, D. (2008) Making sense of distributed leadership: exploring multiples usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44 (3), 424 435. Pearce, C. & Barkus, B. (2004). The future of leadership: combining vertical and shared leadership t o transform knowledge work. Academy of Management, 18 (1), 47 59. Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2004). Towards a theory of leadership practice: a distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36 (1), 3 34. Storey, A. (2004). The problem of distributed leadership in schools. School Leadership & Management 24 (3), 249 265. Office of the Chancellor. (n.d.). Strategic Plan. Retrieved from http://www.wu.edu/chancellor/s trategic plan Student Success (2014). Undergraduate student social climate survey Retrieved from http://www.wu.edu/studentsuccess/campus climat e/undergraduate student social climate survey Student Success (2016). Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.wu.edu/studentsuccess/sexual misconduct/phase2 fact sheet The Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (n.d.). Western University Retrieved from http://carnegieclassifications.iu.edu/lookup/view_institution.ph p Thorpe, R., Gold, J, & Lawler, J. (2011). Locating distributed leadership. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13 (3), 239 250. Timperley, H. (2005). Distributed leadership: developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 3 7 (4), 395 420. Wheatley, M. (1999). Leadership and the new science: discovering order in a chaotic world. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler Publishers. Woods, P. (2004). Democratic leadership: drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. Inter national Journal of Leadership in Education, 7 (1), 3 26. Woods, P. & Gronn, P. (2009). Nurturing democracy. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37 (4), 430 451. Yeung, S., Lee, Y., & Yue K. (2006). Multicultural leadership, sustainable total school environment. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 5 (2), 121 131. Youngs, H. (2009). (Un)critical times? Situating distributed leadership in the field. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41 (4), 377 389.
62 APPENDIX A Invitation to Participate in the Study Dear WU Student Affairs employee: I am inviting you to participate in a research study of leadership practices in student affairs. As the challenges facing students and higher education grow, the leadership capacit y of student affairs professionals must be developed. Using a distributed leadership framework, this study will add to a growing body of literature that can be used to improve leadership practices at all levels in higher education and specifically in the Division of Student Affairs at Western University This survey will ask you to identify a project or initiative you have participated in and answer questions based on your experience working on that project or initiative. To participate in this study, p lease complete the survey found at the link: https://ucdenver.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6A7NHO2onwAF7Eh T his anonymous survey is estimated to take about 5 minutes to complete. The survey is voluntary and consent to participate will be communicated through your survey submission. For your responses to be considered in the study, the survey must be completed by August 15, 2017. There are no foreseeable risks or discomforts if you participate in this project. Your responses will only be recorded if you submit your answers at the end of the survey and you are not required to answer any specific questions. This study is bei ng conducted as part of my candidacy for an EdD in the Leadership for Educational Equity program at the University of Colorado, Denver. This survey is being hosted through a Qualtrics account controlled by the UCD School of Education and Human Development and the survey does not ask for identifying information. As an anonymous survey, I am not able to track who completes the survey. If you complete the survey, but receive a reminder to complete it, please ignore that reminder to avoid duplicate results. This research has been approved by the University of Colorado Denver Institutional Review Board. If you have any questions about your rights as a subject/participant in this research, or if you feel you have been placed at risk, contact Dr. Kent Seidel at Kent.Seidel@ucdenver.edu The data obtained from this study will be used to provide feedback about how the Division of Student Affairs enables or inhibits leadership and provide feedback about how to improve leadership capacities. Aggregate results will be provided to the Executive Committee and to staff interested in the results of this study. If you have any questions about this survey, please e mail me at Daniel.email@example.com Sincerely, Daniel Easton
63 APPENDIX B Western University Division of Student Affairs Organizational Chart Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Associate Vice Chancellor Assistant Dean of Students Victim Support Student Support Judicial Affairs Student and Family Programs Women's Center Veteran's Services Gender and Sexuality center Student Diversity Center Associate Vice Chancellor Budget and Operations Student Union Housing Services Environmental Services Recreation Center Student Clubs Health Center Counseling Center Director of Assessment Assistant Vice Chancellor Legal Services Career Services Student Government
64 APPENDIX C Survey Instrument Distributed Leadership in Student Affairs Participation in this study is voluntary. If you start the survey, but decide not to submit the survey, your results will not be used. If you start the survey, but do not complete it, please use the same computer to complete the survey that you used to start the survey. Submission of the survey will be considered your consent to participate. The survey is anonymous and cannot be linked back to specific responses. Only aggregate data will be reported as part of this research project. If you h ave any questions or concerns about this study please contact me at Daniel.Easton@u cdenver.edu or at (555) 555 1234 This survey is going to ask you about your perceptions of "Distributed Leadership" practices. Distributed leadership includes the follow ing parameters (Jones et al., 2014b) : A context of trust and respect for the expertise of all staff Recognition that change occurs through ongoing cycles Provision for professional development and resources to support collaboration Cycles between reflection and action for improvement In answering the questions about distributed leadership, please apply these criteria to the overall project. End of Block: Default Question Block Start of Block: Block 1 Please identify one project or initiative you participated in with other employees in the Student Affairs D ivision and use your experience with that project or initiative to answer the remaining questions on this survey. Any type of initiative (division w ide, departmental, inter departmental) can be used for this survey. Some examples of projects or initiatives could be divisional task forces, department committees, or an event you helped plan.
6 5 Which descriptor best describes you r professional status in the Division of Student A ffairs? Director or Executive Director Employees who are responsible for the functioning of an entire department or multiple departments Mid Level Employees who supervise other employees or are responsible for multiple, though not all, components of a department's mission Entry Level Employees wh o form the base of a department 's organizational chart and tend to focus on one aspect of a department's mission Health Employee Employees who possess a license or certification to t reat mental and medical health needs To what extent did the initiative aim to implement a divisional policy/process related to the mission of Student Affairs. Not at all Very Little Somewhat To a Great Extent Completely Not Applicable Did the init iative originate from: A department within Student A ffairs Individual staff member Faculty member A externally funded grant A student Other ________________________________________________
66 Which employee type initiated the project? Vice Chancellor level Associate/Assistant Vice Chancellor level Director or Executive Director Level Mid Level Entry Level Health Professional Other ________________________________________________ Which of the following offices do you currently wo rk for? Housing Services Health Center Student Union Recreation Center I do not work for one of those offices End of Block: Block 1 Start of Block: Block 2
67 To what extent: Not at all Very Little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable did employees in the initiative self select to participate? were decisions regarding the initiative shared between employees and formal leaders? were professional or academic staff with expertise relevant to the initiative involved?
68 T o what extent Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable did the initiative involve professional staff responsible for this area of the mission? were those who designed the initiative involved in the implementation of the initiative? was there shared responsibility for the successful outcome of the initiative?
69 To what extent: Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not Applicable did formal leaders support the initiative? has participation in this initiative in creased your engagement in the Student A ffairs mission? was there collaboration between professional staff during this initiative? In what way: Decrease Greatly Decrease Remain the Same Increase Increase Greatly did collaboration change over the life of the initiative?
70 To what extent was collaboration encouraged: Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable through communities of practices? by holding formal meetings? between staff members across departments? by other networking opportunities? through collaboration with other professionals who worked on similar projects? through collaboration with professional organizations? End of Block: Block 2 Start of Block: Block 3 For your reference, distributed leadership includes the following parameters (Jones et al., 2014b) : A context of trust and respect for the expertise of all staff Recognition that change occurs through ongoing cycles Provision for professional development and resources to support collaboration Cycles be tween reflection and action for improvement
71 To what extent Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable were formal leaders provided training in distributed leadership? was mentoring available for participants in the initiative? was group collaboration facilitated by formal leaders? did the initiative aim to use a distributed leadership approach? did this initiative build lea dership ability to achieve the Student A ffairs mission? did you use a distributed leadership approach in the initiative?
72 To what extent: Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable was participation in this initiative formally acknowledged in work responsibilities? was participation in this initiative officially recognized for career development purposes? was finance (either internal or external) allocated to enable participation in this project? was sufficient time provided to successfully complete the project? were participants provided recognition for the accomplishments of the initiative? End of Block: Block 3 Start of Block: Block 4 What changes would you make to designing and dev eloping future initiatives for Student A ffairs based on your experience? ________________________________________________________________
73 Distributed leadership has been described in this survey as including (Jones et al., 2014b) : A context of trust and respect for the expertise of all staff Recognition that change occurs through ongoing cycles Provision for professional development and resources to support collaboration Cycles between reflection and action for improvement Given this description, to what extent do you believe that the initiative you used to respond to this survey accords with this description: Not at all Very little Somewhat To a great extent Completely Not applicable End of Block: Block 4 Start of Block: Block 5 By clicking the "Next" button, you will submit your answers to the survey. If you are ready to submit your answers, please click the next button. If you are n ot ready to submit your responses or wish to submit later, please use the same computer to submit your responses. End of Block: Block 5
74 APPENDIX D 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1. Perception of Distributed Leadership __ 2. Overall Distributed Leadership .751 ** __ 3. People are Involved .542 ** .805 ** __ 4. Processes are Supportive .542 ** .830 ** .742 ** __ 5. Professional Development .759 ** .923 ** .633 ** .626 ** __ 6. Resources are Available .611 ** .841 ** .557 ** .556 ** .763 ** __ 7. Context of Trust .705 ** .906 ** .673 ** .705 ** .813 ** .823 ** __ 8. Culture of Respect .679 ** .906 ** .731 ** .803 ** .789 ** .742 ** .715 ** __ 9. Change Recognition .674 ** .897 ** .742 ** .703 ** .772 ** .798 ** .907 ** .741 ** __ 10. Collaborative Relationships .619 ** .917 ** .722 ** .741 ** .894 ** .761 ** .746 ** .777 ** .696 ** __ **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2 tailed).
75 APPENDIX E Action Self Enabling Reflective Process for Distributed Leadership (Jones, Lefoe, Harvey, & Ryland, 2012) Step Reflection on practice Reflective Prompts 1 Where is a distributed leadership approach to be enabled? Institute wide focus, or particular section, group, program, or project 2 Which Criterion for distributed leadership will be the focus? Which of the four criteria will provide the initial focus for this project? 3 Which Dimension and values in relation to the chosen criteria? Which of the four dimensions will provide the initial focus for this project? 4 Reflect on current action What is the extent to which the identified action item occurs currently? 5 Reflection for further action What action could be taken to identify existing opportunities? What action could be taken to identify new opportunities? What action could be taken to generate new opportunities? What action should be taken to ensure new opportunities are sustainable? 6 Reflection to ensure integrated, concerted, supportive action How does the proposed action arising from these reflective prompts affect the other criteria and dimensions? What change is needed in the other four criteria to ensure that the proposed action is implemented? 7 Identify a plan of activity to achieve the desired action outcome What action needs to be taken? Is there a preferred sequence? Who needs to be involved in action? What time period is involved? Is there need for training/facilitation in reflective processes? What finance is needed? 8 Reflect on the outcomes of the action taken in terms of the desired action outcomes What worked well? What needs improvement? Who else should be involved? What changes are needed in future actions? 9 Adjust the reflective process as needed to flexibly accommodate the specific institutional context and culture What difficulties has the process of reflection encountered that is related to the specific institutional context? Do these difficulties warrant a change to the process?
76 APPENDIX F Numbe r of Responses to Survey Questions Questions Responses Which descriptor best describes yo ur professional status in this Division of Student A ffairs? 94 To what extent did the initiative aim to implement a divisional policy/process related to the mission of Student Affairs 92 Did the initiative originate from Selected Choice 94 Which employee type initiated the project? 93 Which of the following offices do you currently work for? 94 To what extent did employees in the initiative self select to participate? 89 To what extent were decisions regarding the initiative shared between employees and formal leaders? 91 To what extent were professional or academic staff with expertise relevant to the initiative involved? 88 To what extent did the initiative involve professional staff responsible fo r this area of the mission? 91 To what extent were those who designed the initiative involved in the implementation of the initiative? 89 To what extent was there shared responsibility for the successful outcome of the initiative? 89 To what extent did formal leaders support the initiative? 92 To what extent has participation in this initiative in creased your engagement in the Student A ffairs mission. 90 To what extent was there collaboration between professional staff during the initiative? 89 In what way did collaboration change over the life of the initiative? 93 To what extent was collaboration encouraged through communication of practice? 77 To what extent was collaboration encouraged by holding formal meetings? 90 To what extent was collaboration encouraged between staff members across departments? 91 To what extent was collaboration encouraged by other networking opportunities? 81 To what extent was collaboration encouraged through collaboration with other professionals who worked on similar projects? 91 To what extent was collaboration encouraged through collaboration with professional organizations? 83 To what extent were formal leaders provided training in distributed leadership? 78 To what extent was mentoring available for participants in this initiative? 83 To what extent was group collaboration facilitated by formal leaders? 88 To what extent did the initiative use a distributed leadership approach? 85 To what extent did you use a distributed leadership approach in the initiative? 82 To what extent did this initiative build lea dership ability to achieve the Student A ffairs mission? 88 To what extent was participation in this initiative formally acknowledged in work responsibilities? 91 To what extent was participation in this initiative officially recognized for career development purposes? 87 To what extent was finance (either internal or external) allocated to enable participation in this project? 85 To what extent was sufficient time provided to successfully complete the project? 87 To what extent were participants provided recognition for the accomplishments of the initiative? 85 To what extent do you believe that the initiative you used to respond to this survey accords with this description (of distributed leadership)? 90