Distributed leadership in HE

Abstract

Although participatory models of distributed leadership have gained traction across the higher education sector in the UK, it is also the case that forms of exclusion continue to defy aspirations for improving diversity in senior leadership across higher education. This article contends that an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership has, in effect, provided a framework through which ‘cultural cloning’ can thrive, and most importantly where the exclusion of black minority-ethnic academics can be camouflaged as normal business. This article uses ‘cultural cloning’ as a methodological tool to analyse the implications for black minority-ethnic academics against the structures, processes and politics of this participatory model of distributed leadership in higher education. It concludes that in the interests of exclusion and uniformity, an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership in higher education has become a utilitarian scaffold that is both ‘a means to an end’ and ‘an end in itself’.

Keywords

BME academics cultural cloning distributed leadership higher education

Introduction

Since the early 2000s, the higher education (HE) sector has been subject to calls for a shift from ‘control’ models of governance towards more inclusive styles of leadership, such as distributed leadership (Bush, 2013; Hartley, 2010). Distributed leadership comes in many forms (Spillane et al., 2004), and Dowling-Hetherington (2016: 271) describes current distributed leadership strategies as ‘the diffusion of power across an institution…in a collegial management approach’. Gronn (2002) identified two types of distributed leadership. First is aggregated leadership behaviour, where leadership is the outcome of interconnecting initiatives by a variety of people. This article is based on his second type, which Gronn identifies as concertive action from a process of individuals working together and where the leadership collectively generated is more than the sum of its parts. This article recognizes this participatory model of distributed leadership as not providing agency of individuals but instead providing ‘structurally constrained conjoint agency or concerted labour performed by pluralities of interdependent members’ (Gronn, 2002: 450). This article is based on a participatory model of distributed leadership defined as the structuring of formal leadership responsibilities (Hartley, 2010) and as task distribution in a collegiate environment (Robinson, 2008; Spillane, 2006). In this article, this participatory model is conceived as lateral structures of senior leadership positions with inherent democratic characteristics (Woods, 2004), such as the inclusion of difference and a variety of views. For example, in their case study research, Woods and Roberts (2016) found that ‘distributed leadership was felt to be real within the school, and is meaningful in a positive sense for many of the staff’ (2016: 148), but noted there was also an awareness of ways in which this was unequally spread across the school.

In this article, democratic values are aligned closely with liberal values such as equality of treatment and justice (Beecher, 2013). It is, however, necessary to distinguish this concertive action participatory model of distributed leadership from the concept of democratic leadership, which as a form of leadership is dependent on initiative and influence being distributed throughout the organization and which recognizes both individual agency and decision making. According to Woods (2004), decisional rationality is integral to democratic leadership, but not so distributed leadership. This participatory model is also distinctive from a collaborative model, which is defined by Woods and Roberts (2018) as emerging from the perpetual process of complex interactions across the school involving not only school leaders but also teachers, support staff, students and others.

In the emerging debate, the locus of democratic values within this model of distributed leadership in HE has been raised as a cause for concern (Gronn, 2016; Harris and DeFlaminis, 2016; Lumby, 2016; Woods, 2016). Writers (Bolden et al., 2009; Youngs, 2017) have expressed concerns about the realization of key liberal values such as inclusivity and the promotion of equality of opportunity.

Reflecting on the importance of democratic values in participatory models, Kezar (2001), in her study exploring leadership fit, suggests that although this model should, it does not always ensure that a diversity of voices are included. Kezar (2001: 92) argues that those who felt unaligned and excluded fall into four categories:

(i) those with critical perspectives; (ii) people who have an entrepreneurial style and are very goal driven; (iii) people who are more introverted; and (iv) faculty who believed that administrative work should not be defined as leadership. An interesting finding is that women and minorities are disproportionately represented in the first and third groups.

This article recognizes a participatory model based on concertive action, actively brokering, facilitating and supporting the leadership capabilities of those who have been selected for these formal positions (Harris, 2013). Harris, providing an analysis of evidence, argues that under the right conditions these models of distributed leadership enable leaders to strategically utilize available talent to create new teams, essentially giving individuals greater responsibility and thus positively influencing promotion and careers. Harris (2013: 551) suggests that ‘the issue is not one of increasing the numbers of leaders but rather one of increasing leadership quality and capability’ in those selected to participate. This article recognizes the importance of these potential professional benefits, and warns that a participatory model can equally shroud the use and misuse of power and prerogative (Bolden et al., 2009) – to prevent some groups from reaching their full leadership potential.

In 2007, Hartley broached a question that remains unanswered:

If the emergence of distributed leadership is not supported by a powerful theoretical underpinning and evidence-base, then what might be the political considerations which are giving it prominence? (Hartley, 2007: 204)

In recent years, new managerial priorities (e.g. the widening participation agenda, students as paying customers, growing influence of student voice and increased regulation) have resulted in the debate about the potential of participatory models of distributed leadership (Floyd and Fung, 2017; Youngs, 2017) to overcome persistent challenges in the sector. One such development has been the significant increase in the number of black minority-ethnic (BME) students entering HE. Although this is generally perceived as a positive step, the evidence also indicates that levels of achievement and employment for this group continue to lag behind those of other ethnic groups (Havergal, 2016; Winston, 2014). This new and complex environment has contributed to the perception that in seeking effective solutions to improving outcomes for BME students and addressing the lack of diversity in HE leadership, for example, there is a need to include more BME academics in senior leadership positions.

This article uses the concept of ‘cultural cloning’ as a methodological tool to demonstrate how both the marginalization of ethnicity and the justification for exclusion have been framed by an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership. In the absence of a strong theoretical base, this article argues that, dependent upon who may be implementing this strategy, distributional leadership can be employed to propagate division and exclusion. This article also advocates that participatory forms of distributional leadership, wherein diversity and empowerment are enabled, should be more than an aspiration in HE.

The problem of lack of diversity in senior leadership in HE

The lack of representation of (BME) and black Asian minority ethnic (BAME) academics at the top levels of senior management in higher education institutions (HEIs) is a recognized problem. In this article, these two common acronyms are used interchangeably and inclusively as crude cumulative groupings for people of colour. Coco Khan, writing in The Guardian on 17 November 2017, outlines the persistence of the problem in UK universities:

The statistics bear this out. Universities are seeing record numbers of BAME students in attendance but this diversity has not translated to staff, particularly at senior level. The Higher Education Statistics Agency has recorded no black staff as ‘managers, directors and senior officials’ in the last three years. A 2015 report from the Runnymede Trust showed just 0.5% of professors is black…At the highest level, there are just three BAME vice-chancellors in the UK’s top 50 universities…None of them have worked their way up through the traditional academic pipeline. It begs the question: in UK universities, do we have a problem with promoting BAME staff?

Research confirms that barriers continue to hinder the progress of BME academics into senior management positions (Equality Challenge Unit [ECU], 2011, 2012, 2014), and some have linked barriers to notions of cultural deficit (Cramer and Harris, 2015; Pilkington, 2013), recognition of cultural differentiation (Bhopal and Jackson, 2013) and deficient procedures for managing diversity (Arday, 2015; Shilliam, 2015).

In 2002, Essed suggested that in order for diversity management to transcend the level of managing difference among workers at the lower levels of the organization, ‘management itself must represent a diverse body of perspectives and people’ (Essed, 2002: 9). Fast forward to 2016, and Miller writes:

There is…a growing body of research literature which suggests that diversity in higher education has become ‘primarily a matter of documentation, audits and bureaucratic paper trails’ (Bhopal and Jackson, 2013: 2)…The ECU (2011: 46–47) reports that some initiatives have failed due to ‘the absence of resources and authority for the initiative, and sometimes fatigue and apathy towards new initiatives where previous staff experiences tend to be of unsuccessful initiatives that achieved neither substance nor sustainability’. (Miller, 2016: 209)

In relation to the weight given to diversity policies as drivers for change, Ahmed (2007) suggests that the mere existence of policy documents is not necessarily an indication that race equality is being dealt with. By using a lens of cultural cloning to explore structural, procedural and political barriers arising from the implementation of an undemocratic participatory model of distributed leadership, this article contributes a unique perspective to the ongoing debate about institutional racialized operandi and the exclusion of BME academics from senior leadership positions in HE.

Cultural cloning

Cloning is most often recognized as a biological process of reproduction, and the notion of cultural cloning follows a similar definition: ‘the reproduction of sameness’. Essed and Goldberg (2002: 1067) argue that this is a ‘phenomenon deeply engrained in the organisation of contemporary culture, in social life generally, and in the racial, gendered and class structures of society’. While biological cloning has been constrained in its progress, in contrast, cultural cloning – same-kind preference reproducing privilege in terms of race, gender and ethnicity (Essed, 2002) – has not been subjected to the same scrutiny or indignation. The recognition of cultural cloning as established practice in different kinds of organizations has been explored by a number of writers (Essed and Schwab, 2012; Gantrel, 2002; Kendall, 2006), and since 2003 there has been a consensus that an accepted normative preference for sameness should be problematized, whether this may occur as a result of explicit choice or hegemonic consensus.

By utilizing this concept, this article does not seek to dismiss the fact that today’s leadership across the HE sector is more diverse than it was when Essed (2004) published her classic article on cultural cloning among the academic elite. Whilst recognizing that educational leadership today is more inclusive of women, racial-ethnic minorities and disabled people, for example, this article argues that diversity lightly scattered across the sector is far from statistically representative. A premise of this article is that such limited progress does not preclude or negate the influence and impact of homogenizing pressures at a deeper level.

This article argues that a model of distributed leadership with anti-democratic features facilitates a deceptive narrative and provides structures and processes that have sustained ‘a politics of sameness’ across the top flight of HE leadership. Cultural cloning and the politics of sameness in HE is examined through (i) an exploration of practice that embeds loyalty as a feature of vertical and horizontal structures, (ii) an examination of processes that reproduce and present cultural sameness as normal, and (iii) a discussion of how aversion to difference has been normalized as part of a fabric of illiberal values. This analysis of cultural cloning is founded on the assumption that equal treatment and equal opportunity form part of the minimum conditions required for organizational probity in contemporary society (Seward, 2009).

Structure: Scaffold for loyalty using vertical and horizontal structures

Ideally, participatory models of distributed leadership would be strategically designed as horizontal structures that are by and large accepted as democratic (Harris, 2013). Given that formal positions within a participatory model of distributed leadership can signal recognition of professional talent, bestow valuable professional development opportunity and confer authority (Diamond and Spillane, 2016), these roles have become coveted positions across the sector. As a consequence, the democratic nature of these models must be subject to scrutiny (Jones, 2014).

Whilst we recognize the increased use of participatory models of distributed leadership, it is crucial to also recognize that, in HE as with schools, the traditional hierarchical nature of leader authority continues to enjoy recognition and respect across the sector (Woods and Roberts, 2018). Thus, in spite of the impetus to move away from ‘control’ models of governance (Jones, 2014), the continued presence of hierarchical authority in HE has the potential to disrupt the democratic nature of a participatory model by instilling lines of authority and decision making that are in effect contrary to a concertive participatory model of distributed leadership.

This article argues that a participatory model of distributional leadership with a carry-forward of traditional hierarchical authority can result in the coalescing of power – around two anti-democratic features of governance (Jones and Harvey, 2017; Sewerin and Holmberg, 2017): (i) irregular power given to the leader at the very centre of this model; and (ii) lines of loyalty to the leader’s views, biases, preferences and decisions by those appointed to these formal positions. According to Berger and Luckman (1966: 111), legitimacy enables leaders to dictate ‘why things are the way they are’. Beckman (2017) argues that loyalty within an authority-driven model of distributed leadership is established by creating conditions wherein leaders can expect that the meanings, biases and preferences they wish to promote will be upheld by others within this leadership structure.

In other words, when hierarchical authority is retained within participatory structures, this can, in effect, create opportunities for the corruption of the pluralistic characteristics of participatory models of distributed leadership (Sewerin and Holmberg, 2017; Youngs, 2017). With strong elements of hierarchical authority there is the potential for a leader’s priorities, preferences and prejudices to be adopted as policy at the expense of policies based on democracy and pluralism (Youngs, 2017). Therefore, for hierarchical leaders, participatory models of distributed leadership can be attractive – providing a structure of disseminating voices able to re-affirm leaders’ priorities as stable, and importantly, presented as unquestionable collegiate priorities (Beckman, 2017; Youngs, 2017).

Loyalty is a common feature of hierarchical models of governance, and in order to craft loyalty across a participatory model of distributed leadership this article argues that HEIs have fallen foul of two constitutive errors:

‘Loyalty to the leader’ is often considered synonymous with ‘loyalty to the organization’. As a consequence, personalized loyalty (as opposed to a collective of talents) becomes the value that holds this leadership structure together, to the detriment of diversity and democracy.

‘Loyalty to a single message’ is often considered synonymous with ‘an absence of differing voices’. As a consequence, securing membership of a participatory structure becomes erroneously linked to securing sympathetic voices, to the detriment of diversity and democracy.

This article argues that in relation to the lack of progress of BME academics into participatory leadership positions, a carry-forward of hierarchical authority amidst participatory models of distributed leadership has, in effect, provided the means for HEIs to systematically operate an (undemocratic) inclusion and exclusion policy. In seeking and prioritizing loyalty within leadership structures, many HEIs have sought to structure leadership positions so as to secure sympathetic voices rather than seek diversity and pluralism.

Process: Presenting relational sameness as normal

An authentic model of participatory model encompasses discussion, debate, sharing of ideas and collegiate team working focused on finding creative and effective ways of overcoming specific problems or achieving pre-defined goals (Jones, 2014). In order to achieve this, Jones suggests that it is necessary to build the conditions for enabling and facilitating wider participation through democratic processes.

However, research studies as far back as Davidson (1997) and as recently as Cramer and Harris (2015) show that BME employees often find it necessary to downplay aspects of their cultural identity in order to assimilate themselves into intra-organizational environments. Both Ragins (2010) and Wyatt and Silvester (2015) suggest that there is considerable evidence that BME employees are less likely to find powerful or influential mentors and that as a consequence they have less opportunity to establish the required cultural friendships and interactions with individuals who are able and willing to support their promotion to higher-level positions (Miller, 2016).

In effect, they are, owing to social and racial differences, less likely to be seen as a ‘good fit’ into participatory models which are designed to operate through a white cultural lens. The evidence suggests that an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership provides a vehicle for preserving certain comfortable relationships to the exclusion of relationships that may be perceived as more probing.

According to Croce (2014: 307), difference is an existence condition for sameness. He suggests:

Something different to explain and capture…and enable the members of a given group or community to recognize each other.

For both Bourdieu (1998: 9) and Croce (2014: 307), sameness is conditional upon difference. Although Bourdieu’s (1998) classic work was focused on the issues of class, his well-articulated views on the notion of a ‘force of sameness’ provides an opportunity to apply this well-established concept to a contemporary view of racial exclusion. Drawing on Bourdieu’s concept, the argument here is that a ‘force of sameness’ can act as the glue to bind the members of a participatory model of distributed leadership, and enables them to routinely exclude certain individuals on the basis of perceived ‘fit’.

In contemporary HE, an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributional leadership can provide, according to Bourdieu (1998: 9), ‘units based on excluding those groups likely to jeopardize the sameness of their social and political community’. These undemocratic processes (e.g. undemocratic selection) which actively censure difference are designed to build a community of sameness, and recognize those who do not belong to it (Croce, 2014).

Croce’s exploration of how meaning first becomes the exception and then becomes normal can help us to understand how undemocratic interpretations of participatory processes have been able to promote relational hegemonic consensus as ‘normal’. He suggests that organizational structures and processes are all about taking care of the ‘normality’, and the argument here is that a model presented as a participatory model of distributed leadership can give the impression to the workforce that these processes are representative, normal and acceptable. In effect, the emphasis is on designing and implementing processes that can both uphold hegemonic consensus and also be presented as normal and acceptable. In this way, it becomes possible for the (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership to normalize exclusion and celebrate sameness. Schmitt (2005: 13) suggests that:

‘normality’ and ‘sameness’ can be conflated into a cognate phenomenon, as ‘the same’ emerges out of ‘the normal’, while ‘the normal’ is what it is only insofar as it succeeds in indicating what is ‘the same’.

Despite opportunistically conflating hegemonic sameness with normality, (undemocratic) participatory models of distributive leadership are commonly viewed by the HE workforce with some cynicism (Ahmed, 2007; Bhopal and Jackson, 2013). However, it is also secured by shades of defeatism among the workforce (Bophal et al., 2015). This is a persistent problem for BME academics: Bhopal (2018: 166) states, ‘…and I’m not going to shy away from saying it, at these appointment panels – within these processes – there are covert, sometimes overt, nuances of racism’.

Social fabric: An aversion to difference

A common view of liberal values is that it is a feature of democratic settings that seek to accommodate inclusivity and a plurality of views (McSwiney and Cottle, 2017; Salazar, 2016). Processes that promote liberal values are those designed to open up bordered spaces to plural interactions where everyone can contribute and co-exist as members of a democratic political community, and according to Woods and Roberts (2016) and Harris (2007) these describe authentic distributed leadership.

According to Woods, democracy is a key element of distributed leadership wherein democracy is itself ‘dependent on initiatives and influence distributed throughout the organization’ (Woods, 2004: 23). In this way, distributed leadership practice including participatory models, if democratically implemented, can signal clear liberal and pluralistic principles across the organization (Floyd and Fung, 2017). In addition, Floyd and Fung suggest that inclusive goals and pluralist values of the institution become more apparent and established when leadership practice is itself democratic.

Thus, when features of an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership are present, this in effect signals a filtering out of liberal goals from institutional values. In 2003, Knight et al., with reference to institutional values, argued that ‘embedded social and organisational factors often mitigate against even the most well-qualified BME leaders’, and they suggested that future research should examine ways to reduce ‘aversion racism’ in the workplace (Knight et al., 2003: 87). They define ‘aversion racism’ as ‘A subtle but insidious form of prejudice that emerges when people can justify their negative and prejudicious feelings towards BME individuals based on factors other than race’ (Knight et al., 2003: 87–88).

For example, Bhopal (2018) argues that BME academics feel the goal posts are often moved when they apply for jobs or promotion. More recently, Wyatt and Silvester (2015) and Showunmi et al. (2015) show that BME academics experience more difficulty reaching senior leadership positions than do their white counterparts.

This article argues that an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership inspires an organizational scaffold that, in effect, gives legitimacy to the acceptance of illiberal practices – most prominently the rejection of diversity, pluralism and collective decision making (Bhopal et al., 2015; Festekjian et al., 2013). This suggests that an (undemocratic) participatory model can both stem from and at the same time proliferate illiberal values across the organization – securing a social fabric soaked not in the liberal rules that confer recognition of difference and inclusion but one in which the rules prescribe a rejection of difference and an embrace of sameness.

This article warns that undemocratic interpretations of participatory models of distributed leadership in HE can be seen to both inspire and sustain an institutional fabric of illiberal values. It argues that distortion or neglect of liberal values across the fabric of any university must be a cause for concern, and that the link between (undemocratic) participatory models of distributed leadership, discrimination in leadership practice and general diffusion of illiberal values across universities demands further investigation.

Conclusion

This article has explored aspects of an (undemocratic) participatory model of distributed leadership, and argues that cultural cloning is achieved through three anti-distributed leadership features: (i) vertical and horizontal structures that build regime loyalty through an absence of differing voices; (ii) the use of organizational processes to normalize hegemonic sameness as routine leadership practice; and (iii) encouragement of a social fabric soaked in an aversion to difference cascaded to all levels of the organization. Most importantly, this scaffold is entirely flexible, and these three anti-distributed leadership features may be manipulated at a different pace and at different times, as necessary in order to determine clonal outcomes.

Finally, consider Hartley’s (2007: 204) question: ‘If the emergence of distributed leadership is not supported by a powerful theoretical underpinning and evidence-base, then what might be the political considerations which are giving it prominence?’ It is argued that (undemocratic) participatory models of distributed leadership are, in effect, utilitarian scaffolds that can legitimize inclusion and exclusion policies, normalize hegemonic sameness, and reproduce discrimination. This article concludes that, in relation to exclusion and uniformity, (undemocratic) participatory models of distributed leadership in HE have become both ‘a means to an end’ and ‘an end in itself’.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

References

Ahmed

(2007) You end up doing the document rather than doing the doing: Diversity, race and equality and the politics of documentation. Ethnic and Racial Studies 30(4):590–609.

Arday

(2015) Creating space and providing opportunities for BME academics in higher education. In: Alexander

Arday

(eds) Aiming Higher: Race, Inequality and Diversity in the Academy. London: Runnymede Trust.

Beckman

(2017) Leadership through fellowship: Distributed leadership in a professional recognition scheme for university educators. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39(2):155–168.

Beecher

(2013) Democracy is about equity and justice. YourCommonwealth.org. Available at: http://www.yourcommonwealth.org/social-development/democracy-participation/democracy-is-about-equity-and-justice (accessed 20 April 2018).

Berger

Luckman

(1966) The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NYC: Doubleday.

Bhopal

(2018) White Privilege: The Myth of a Post-racial Society. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.

Bhopal

Jackson

(2013) The experiences of black and minority ethnic academics: Multiple identities and career progression. Project report, University of Southampton, UK.

Bhopal

Brown

Jackson

(2015) BME academic flight from UK to overseas higher education: Aspects of marginalisation and exclusion. British Educational Research Journal 42(2):240–257.

Bolden

Petrov

Gosling

(2009) Distributed leadership in higher education: Rhetoric and reality. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(2):257–277.

10.

Bourdieu

(1998) Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

11.

Bush

(2013) Distributed leadership: The model of choice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5):543–544.

12.

Cramer

Harris

(2015) “White-side, strong-side”: A critical examination of race and leadership in Remember the Titans . Howard Journal of Communications 26(2):153–171.

13.

Croce

(2014) Governing through normality: Law and the force of sameness. International Journal of Political Cultural Sociology 28(4):303–323.

14.

Davidson

(1997) The Black and Ethnic Minority Woman Manager: Cracking the Concrete Ceiling. London: SAGE.

15.

Diamond

Spillane

(2016) School leadership and management from a distributed leadership perspective: A 2016 perspective. Management in Education 30(4):147–154.

16.

Dowling-Hetherington

(2016) University change in Ireland: Understanding the ‘what’, the ‘why’ and the ‘how’. Education Management Administration & Leadership 44(2):263–280.

17.

Equality Challenge Unit (2011) The experience of BME staff in higher education in England. Equality Challenge Unit, London.

18.

Equality Challenge Unit (2012) Equality in higher education: Statistical report, Part 1. Equality Challenge Unit, London.

19.

Equality Challenge Unit (2014) Equality in higher education: Statistical report. Equality Challenge Unit, London.

20.

Essed

(2002) Cloning cultural homogeneity while talking diversity: Old wine in new bottles in Dutch work organisations? Transforming Anthropology 11(1):2–12.

21.

Essed

(2004) Cloning amongst professors: Normalities and imagined homogenises. Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 12(2):113–122.

22.

Essed

Goldberg

(2002) Cloning cultures: The social injustice of sameness. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25(6):1066–1082.

23.

Essed

Schwab

(2012) Clones, Fakes and Post Humans: Cultures of Replication. Amsterdam: Brill.

24.

Festekjian

Tram

Murray

Huynh

(2013) I see me the way you see me: The influence of race on interpersonal and intrapersonal leadership perceptions. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies 21(1):102–119.

25.

Floyd

Fung

(2017) Focusing the kaleidoscope: Exploring distributed leadership in an English University. Studies in Higher Education 42(8):1488–1503.

26.

Gantrel

(2002) Contextualizing or cloning? Bringing cultural studies into the (French) classroom. The Journal of Twentieth Century/Contemporary French Studies 6(2):316–326.

27.

Gronn

(2002) Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly 13:423–451.

28.

Gronn

(2016) Fit for purpose no more? Management in Education 30(4):168–172.

29.

Harris

(2007) Distributed leadership: Conceptual confusion and empirical reticence. International Journal of Leadership Education 10:315–325.

30.

Harris

(2013) Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 41(5):545–554.

31.

Harris

DeFlaminis

(2016) Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education 30(4):141–146.

32.

Hartley

(2007) The emergence of distributed leadership in education: Why now? British Journal of Educational Studies 55(2):202–214.

33.

Hartley

(2010) Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership stretch? Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(3):271–285.

34.

Havergal

(2016) BME students are not satisfied. The Times Higher Education Supplement THE, June (2257).

35.

Jones

(2014) Distributed leadership: A critical analysis. Leadership 10(2):129–141.

36.

Jones

Harvey

(2017) A distributed leadership change process model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39(2):126–139.

37.

Kendall

(2006) Understanding White Privilege: Creating Pathways to Authentic Relationships Across Race. New York: Routledge.

38.

Kezar

(2001) Investigating organizational fit in a participatory leadership environment. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 23(1):85–101.

39.

Khan

(2017) Do universities have a problem with promoting their BAME staff? The Guardian, 16 November. Available at: www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/2017/Nov/16 (accessed 23 January 2018).

40.

Knight

Hebl

Foster

Mannix

(2003) Out of role? Out of luck: The influence of race and leadership status on performance appraisals. Journal of Leadership and Organisational Studies 9(3):85–93.

41.

Lumby

(2016) Distributed leadership as fashion or fad. Management in Education 30(4):161–167.

42.

McSwiney

Cottle

(2017) Unintended consequences: One nation and neoliberalism in contemporary Australia. The Journal of Australian Political Economy 79:87–106.

43.

Miller

(2016) White sanction, institutional, group and individual interaction in the promotion and progression of black minority ethnic academics and teachers in England. Power & Education 8(3):205–221.

44.

Pilkington

(2013) The interacting dynamics of institutional racism in higher education. Race, Ethnicity and Education 16(2):225–245.

45.

Ragins

(2010) Diversity and workplace mentoring relationships: A review and positive social capital approach. In: Allen

Eby

(2010) The Blackwell Handbook of Mentoring: A Multiple Perspectives Approach. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

46.

Robinson

VMJ

(2008) Forging the links between distributed leadership and educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration 46(2):241–256.

47.

Salazar

(2016) Normative pluralism. Contemporary Pragmatism 13(4):382–399.

48.

Schmitt

(2005) Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

49.

Seward

(2009) Democratic theory and indices of democratization. In: Beetham

(ed.) Defining and Measuring Democracy. New York: SAGE.

50.

Sewerin

Holmberg

(2017) Contextualising distributed leadership in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development 36(1):1280–1294.

51.

Shilliam

(2015) Black academia: The doors have been opened but the architecture remains the same. In: Alexander

Arday

(eds) Aiming Higher: Race, Inequality and Diversity in the Academy. London: Runnymede Trust.

52.

Showunmi

Atewologun

Bebbington

(2015) Ethnic, gender and class intersections in British women’s leadership experiences. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 44(6):917–935.

53.

Spillane

(2006) Distributed Leadership . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

54.

Spillane

Halverson

Diamond

(2004) Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies 36(1):3–34.

55.

Winston

(2014) Raw deal for BME students? The Times Higher Education Supplement THE, February (2139).

56.

Woods

(2004) Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education 7(1):3–26.

57.

Woods

(2016) Authority, power and distributed leadership. Management in Education 30(4):155–160.

58.

Woods

Roberts

(2016) Distributed leadership and social justice: Images and meanings from across the school landscape. International Journal of Educational Leadership 19(2):138–156.

59.

Woods

Roberts

(2018) Collaborative School Leadership: A Critical Guide. London: SAGE.

60.

Wyatt

Silvester

(2015) Reflections on the labyrinth: Investigating black and minority ethnic leaders’ career experiences. Human Relations 68(8):1243–1269.

61.

Youngs

(2017) A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in HE: Developing an alternative ontology through leadership as practice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 39(2):140–154.