Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence

The school leadership field is particularly susceptible to new leadership terms that are temporarily popular, only to be quickly supplemented with more fashionable ideas or theories. The field is replete with different labels for leadership, even though it is clear that leadership does not take on a different meaning simply because a new word is put in front of it. In a recent synthesis of research on the impact of leadership on student learning outcomes the need to be sceptical about the ‘leadership by adjective’ literature was highlighted (Leithwood et al. 2006: 8). Yet this literature continues to flourish and grow. While some of this writing offers interesting, new perspectives on leadership, much of it is not well grounded in research evidence. The empirical base underpinning many of the new ideas or theories in leadership is either weak or non-existent. As a consequence, many contemporary and popular leadership ideas exist without the benefit of any empirical substantiation.