Gavin Brown
Think about the last time a key decision stalled because it had to travel up the chain to one person. Or picture a manager who's become the single point of contact for every problem, every question, every call. It's exhausting for them — and it slows everyone else down.
That dynamic is exactly what distributed leadership is designed to address. Not by eliminating formal authority, but by expanding where leadership actually happens.
Distributed leadership is a concept that's grown considerably in both research and practice. A 2018 systematic review published in Educational Management Administration & Leadership found that distributed leadership has been the most studied leadership model in educational research since the year 2000. Its principles have since spread well beyond schools — into healthcare, business, and organizational development more broadly.
So what does distributed leadership actually mean, and how do you make it work?
What Distributed Leadership Actually Means
At its core, distributed leadership is the idea that leadership isn't a position — it's a practice. It shifts decision-making authority and responsibility across an organization rather than concentrating it in a single person at the top.
As Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) put it, distributed leadership is "leadership that is shared within, between and across organizations." The emphasis is on interactions over individual actions, and on influence being widely shared rather than tightly controlled.
That doesn't mean hierarchy disappears. Formal leaders still matter enormously. But their role changes. Instead of being the person with all the answers, they become the person who builds the conditions for others to lead well.
A 2022 piece from MIT Sloan Management Review describes the shift through four key capabilities: relating, sensemaking, visioning, and inventing. Organizations that develop these capabilities across teams — not just at the executive level — tend to be more agile when disruption hits.
Four Ways Distributed Leadership Shows Up in Practice
Distributed leadership doesn't look the same in every organization. Research by Hulsbos et al. (2025) identifies four distinct manifestations, shaped by two variables: whether the leadership focus is fixed or emergent, and whether team coordination is structural or relational.
In plain terms, that breaks down like this:
Formally assigned, structured teams — a working group with a clear mandate on a specific objective. Think a cross-functional team tasked with a digital rollout. Progress is monitored, goals are set, accountability is clear. This requires a more transactional approach from the formal leader.
Structurally embedded teams with a broad scope — teams that carry ongoing responsibility for a range of issues, not just one. These require honest, trust-based communication. The ability to give and receive direct feedback without it feeling like a power play is essential.
Spontaneous, relationship-driven collaboration — two people notice a problem and start working on it together, driven by shared interest rather than a formal mandate. The formal leader's job here is to make space for it: protecting time, providing resources, and not letting bureaucracy snuff it out.
Informal leadership with fixed objectives — similar to the above, but matured into something with clearer goals and organizational reach. It starts bottom-up but eventually shapes how the broader team operates.
Each type asks something different from formal leaders — which is why there's no single playbook for distributed leadership. The approach has to fit the situation.
What the Evidence Says About Distributed Leadership?
The research on outcomes is genuinely encouraging — when distributed leadership is implemented well.
The Annenberg Distributed Leadership Project, a large-scale intervention across Philadelphia schools, produced statistically significant results compared to control schools: stronger team functioning, higher trust levels, better teacher satisfaction, and more opportunities for member learning (Supovitz & Riggan, 2012). The project ran for over a decade and was replicated across more than 40 schools in three separate districts.
Beyond education, a 2021 study in the International Journal of Educational Research Open — drawing on TALIS data from 34 countries — found that distributed leadership significantly predicts the frequency with which teachers engage in innovative practices. Separate research by García Torres (2018, 2019) found consistent positive correlations between distributed leadership and job satisfaction across schools in both Singapore and the United States.
The pattern across studies points in a consistent direction: sharing leadership meaningfully tends to increase engagement, reduce burnout, and improve outcomes. But the word "meaningfully" is doing a lot of work in that sentence.
Two Misconceptions About Distributed Leadership
The first is the assumption that distributed leadership means everyone leads. It doesn't.
As Harris and DeFlaminis (2016) make this clear. Distributed leadership means that those best equipped or positioned to lead in a given situation do so. The emphasis is on "certain" people, not "all" people. Distributing leadership carelessly like placing responsibility in the wrong hands, or without adequate support can cause real harm. The same research literature that documents distributed leadership's benefits also documents its failures.
The second misconception is that there's a blueprint to follow. Any standardized prescription for distributed leadership should be avoided, the same authors argue. What works depends on the specific context, the people involved, the existing trust levels, and the structural conditions already in place. Organizations that try to roll out a framework without attending to those factors tend to end up with distributed responsibility but no real distributed leadership.
What It Actually Takes to Get Distributed Leadership Right
Depending on the type of leadership being distributed, that might mean acting as a coach, a facilitator, a sensemaker, or a coordinator.
What stays constant is the need for trust. Defining roles and responsibilities matters too: people need to know what decisions they can make independently, what requires collaboration, and when they need to escalate. Without that structure, distributed leadership can create confusion and accountability gaps that undermine the whole effort.
The most durable version of this model isn't built overnight. It starts with small, deliberate steps — giving employees ownership of specific initiatives, involving teams in real decisions, and being honest when something isn't working.
When done well, distributed leadership helps building an organization that doesn't depend on any single person to function. That's a more resilient place to be — for the leader and for everyone else.
