Distributed leadership of middle leaders in a Singapore polytechnic

Distributed leadership

Distributed leadership has emerged as an influential concept in educational leadership over the last two decades (Bennett et al., 2003; Hickey et al., 2022). However, considerable ambiguity surrounds its definition and interpretation (Bennett et al., 2003; Lumby, 2017). Scholars have difficulty defining distributed leadership, as related concepts, such as dispersed leadership and shared leadership, are used interchangeably despite their conceptual distinctions (Bolden, 2011; Gosling et al., 2009; Lumby, 2013).

One influential framework is that of Spillane (2006), who conceptualises leadership practice as emerging from interactions among leaders, followers, and situations, drawing on distributed cognition and activity theory. From this perspective, leadership is not vested in formal roles but is constituted through social interactions that shape organisational practice. Distributed leadership is a collective practice enacted through collaboration and interdependence (Spillane, 2006). Spillane (2006) further distinguishes between additive and holistic forms of distributed leadership. The additive form refers to leadership activities performed by multiple individuals independently, in which leadership responsibilities are dispersed across actors without deliberate coordination. In contrast, the holistic form emphasised coordinated and collective leadership, where individuals work interdependently, and their combined efforts generate outcomes that exceed what could be achieved alone.

Harris (2008) provides empirical evidence supporting distributed leadership as a practical and responsive approach. She conceptualises it as broad-based and flexible, involving multiple formal leaders (e.g. heads of department) and informal leaders (e.g. teachers leading project groups). Harris (2008) also highlights that distributed leadership enables multiple individuals to exercise leadership through collaborative interactions, take on responsibilities, and leverage their expertise. This reinforces that distributed leadership is not confined to formal roles but emerges through practice.

Extending these perspectives, Hairon and Goh (2015) empirically examined distributed leadership within Singapore schools and identified four key dimensions of distributed leadership – bounded empowerment, developing leadership, shared decision-making, and collective engagement. These dimensions operationalise distributed leadership by offering a framework for understanding how distributed leadership is enacted in practice.

In summary, these theorisations illuminate varied but interrelated interpretations of distributed leadership, highlighting the need for further research to examine how it is enacted within specific contexts.

Distributed leadership in Singapore's cultural context

Singapore's educational institutions are influenced by Confucian cultural values, shaping distributed leadership in ways that differ from Western democratic and participative models (Hairon and Goh, 2015; Goh et al., 2019). Tan (2024) argues that Singapore's sociocultural values such as meritocracy, strategic pragmatism, respect for authority, and hierarchical dependency shape leadership practices in educational institutions.

Similarly, Ho et al. (2016) contend that Confucian ideology reinforces hierarchical leadership structures, in which distributed leadership is mainly enacted through formally appointed leaders, constraining participation to individuals with recognised authority. Hairon and Goh (2015) further characterise Singapore's distributed leadership as pragmatic and bounded. Although individuals are empowered to participate in decision-making, such empowerment remains constrained by senior leaders’ directives. Consequently, leadership is enacted within defined organisational boundaries rather than through fully autonomous decision-making.

Distributed leadership in higher education

Although studies on distributed leadership in higher education contexts are limited (Floyd and Preston, 2017), the concept has gained increasing attention as a potential leadership approach for improving institutional outcomes (Bolden et al., 2009). Notably, distributed leadership has been explored as an appropriate leadership model, particularly in countries such as Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (Bolden et al., 2009; Harris, 2012; Jones et al., 2014; Lumby, 2003; Youngs, 2017).

Bolden et al. (2009) examined distributed leadership across 12 higher education institutions and identified two forms – devolved and emergent. The devolved form is top-down, originates from hierarchical interactions between leaders and followers, and aims to coordinate efforts with institutional goals. In contrast, the emergent form is bottom-up and involves horizontal influence among leaders across different areas of an institution. Similarly, Gosling et al. (2009) found that stakeholders in higher education institutions could relate distributed leadership to their own lived experiences, though concerns remain about whether it may function rhetorically rather than substantively.

Studies highlight both the potential and limitations of distributed leadership in higher education. Youngs (2017) found that distributed leadership enhances collaboration among wider groups of leaders, leading to effective organisational change and development. However, concerns exist that distributed leadership faces constraints in application due to reluctance to relinquish authority (Jones et al., 2014; Lumby, 2003). These mixed findings highlight the need for further empirical investigation into how distributed leadership is enacted in practice.

Distributed leadership of middle leaders

Despite the growing distributed leadership literature, research focused on middle leaders remains comparatively limited (Harris, 2012; Hickey et al., 2022). Nonetheless, Spillane's (2006) framework positions middle leaders as central actors whose leadership emerges through interactions with followers within specific contexts. Furthermore, the leader-plus aspect acknowledges that leadership responsibilities are distributed across multiple leaders, including middle leaders.

Moreover, Bennett et al.'s (2003) conceptualisation of distributed leadership is highly relevant to middle leaders through three aspects – emergence through interactions, openness of boundaries, and leadership based on expertise. Emergence reflects the dynamic nature of leadership among middle leaders and their lecturers; openness of boundaries refers to the distribution of leadership responsibilities; and leadership based on expertise highlights the specialised knowledge held by middle leaders. These principles reinforce the importance of middle leaders’ specialised knowledge and their contribution to distributed leadership.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that middle leaders enacted distributed leadership in higher education. Marshall (2012) and Cardno (2013) identified this implementation through engaging teams in problem-solving and decision-making, while Lizier et al. (2024) and Thornton et al. (2018) examined how middle leaders distribute responsibilities by delegating tasks and workloads. However, Youngs’ (2017) review revealed that most distributed leadership studies on middle leaders were situated in Western institutions, highlighting limited research within Asian contexts.

Affordances and constraints of distributed leadership

As context influences leadership in general, context also influences how leadership is distributed. Accordingly, the literature identifies both enabling and inhibiting conditions influencing middle leaders’ enactment of distributed leadership, summarised as institutional support, influence dissonance, and individual capacity.

Institutional support is a critical enabler, with senior leaders providing conditions for middle leaders to lead effectively through resource allocation, decentralisation of authority, and access to leadership development opportunities (Jones et al., 2014). Formal appointments similarly enhance middle leaders’ capacity by conferring legitimacy, role clarity, and authority within institutional hierarchies (Floyd and Preston, 2017; Lizier et al., 2024).

Influence dissonance refers to the gap between the influence required for effective leadership and the actual influence middle leaders possess, contingent upon senior leaders’ willingness to share decision-making power (Floyd and Preston, 2017; Lumby, 2013) and middle leaders’ ability to negotiate staff cooperation (Ho et al., 2021). This tension is illustrated by Thompson and Wolstencroft (2015), who found that middle leaders experienced constraints in their roles, including limited decision-making power and a lack of support from senior leaders.

Lastly, distributed leadership requires middle leaders to possess individual capacity. Bryman (2007) argues that middle leaders require a wide range of competencies spanning institutional (strategic vision and advocacy), personal (decision-making and task allocation), and team dimensions (motivation and collegiality). Likewise, Corbett (2023) conceptualises this capacity in three categories, including conceptual skills to strategise and manage change, interpersonal skills to motivate and communicate effectively with staff, and technical skills in planning and organising. To strengthen middle leaders’ capacity, targeted professional development, sustained engagement in communities of practice, and structured cross-functional collaboration are frequently advocated as mechanisms for capability enhancement (Jones et al., 2014).

In summary, distributed leadership enactment by middle leaders is shaped by the interplay among institutional support, formal appointments, delegation of power, and individual capacity. While current scholarship offers valuable insights, there remains a notable gap in the exploration of middle leaders’ lived experiences, particularly within higher education and non-Western settings. Although the Singapore education system has been characterised as a hybrid decentralised–centralised model (Ng, 2017), its educational institutions are also shaped by broader sociocultural and institutional norms commonly observed across many Asian contexts, such as an emphasis on collective responsibility, professional legitimacy, and respect for formal organisational structures. These norms may influence how distributed leadership is interpreted, negotiated, and enacted within polytechnic settings. Taken together, this gap hinders a more holistic understanding of how distributed leadership is practised by middle leaders across diverse educational contexts, particularly in Asia.

Accordingly, this study addresses the following research objectives. First, it aims to examine middle leaders’ perceptions of how they enact distributed leadership within a higher education setting. Second, it seeks to explore perceived affordances and constraints shaping middle leaders’ enactment of distributed leadership within a higher education setting.

Perceived enactments of distributed leadership

The findings indicate that most Course leaders did not explicitly identify with the term ‘distributed leadership’. Nonetheless, their leadership practices reflected key principles and enactments of distributed leadership, as evidenced by their actions and approaches. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis of middle leaders’ perceptions of their leadership practices:

Bounded Empowerment

Course leaders empowered others in curriculum matters through allocating roles and appointments. However, this empowerment was granted to selected lecturers who held limited authority.

Participant quotations were selected as illustrative exemplars.

Perceptions on enabling and inhibiting factors of distributed leadership

Course Leaders identified a range of conditions that shaped their enactment of distributed leadership. These included domain and pedagogical proficiency, stakeholder relationships, and operational knowledge, alongside challenges related to insufficient leadership preparation, complex stakeholder management, and extensive administrative demands. Collectively, these conditions framed the context within which distributed leadership is enacted by middle leaders in a higher education setting.

Bounded Empowerment

The findings identified three aspects of bounded empowerment among middle leaders. First, middle leaders relied primarily on informal rather than formal leadership appointments. While senior leaders held authority over official institutional appointments, middle leaders possessed limited institutional power, restricting them to exercising leadership within programme-level boundaries. Although both involve multiple individuals in leadership practices (Harris, 2013), the concentration of authority at senior levels meant that middle leaders were constrained by limited authority, reflecting the influence of high power distance within hierarchical educational institutions that maintained clear distinctions between different leadership levels and limited the extent to which authority could be distributed.

Second, empowerment was bounded insofar as leaders delegated authority but retained the prerogative to intervene when decisions were deemed significant. This extends Hairon and Goh (2015) three forms of boundedness – establishing a clearly defined scope, requiring middle leaders to remain informed, and ensuring that decisions are aligned with institutional goals. This indicates that while middle leaders empowered others to take on leadership roles, they maintained strategic control over key decisions to ensure accountability. Further, while distributed leadership literature distinguishes between devolved and emergent forms (Bolden et al., 2009), the findings in this study predominantly reflected a devolved and bounded form of distributed leadership, where leadership responsibilities were distributed within hierarchical and programme-level parameters rather than emerging organically across institutional boundaries.

Third, expertise served as a key consideration for distributed leadership. Middle leaders were appointed to leadership positions based on their demonstrated domain expertise, with competency as a prerequisite for leadership roles. Similarly, they empowered lecturers based on demonstrated specialised knowledge and skills. This approach aligns with the literature, which advocates that effective distributed leadership is contingent upon individuals in leadership roles possessing the requisite expertise to manage their responsibilities (Harris, 2012; Spillane, 2006).

Developing leadership

The findings demonstrate that middle leaders contributed to developing leadership through delegating responsibilities, facilitating collaboration, and fostering trust. These practices reflect Harris's (2012) argument that principals develop leadership capacity in others through three aspects – relinquishment of power and authority, shift from leadership as position to leadership as interaction, and fostering of reciprocal trust. Thus, this study extends existing literature by showing that middle leaders similarly engage in leadership development as a component of their distributed leadership practice.

Moreover, the findings offer a nuanced perspective on middle leaders’ roles in developing leadership. Unlike senior leaders, who facilitate leadership development through formal authority and institutional resources (Harris, 2012), middle leaders instead advance leadership development through professional networks and collaborative opportunities within and across institutions. However, this raises concerns that developing leadership may become dependent on middle leaders’ capacity to create relevant leadership opportunities (Jones et al., 2014), potentially resulting in inequitable opportunities across schools.

Notably, middle leaders’ efforts to foster leadership opportunities among lecturers extended to encompass diverse stakeholders, including industry partners. This contrasts with mainstream schools, which are confined within the internal school community (Hairon and Dimmock, 2012). These findings highlight the expansive role of middle leaders in promoting leadership development that transcends institutional boundaries within higher education settings.

Shared decisions

In terms of shared decisions, the findings elucidate how middle leaders operationalise the division of labour, which Gronn (2000) conceptualises as the allocation of institutional work into discrete tasks and responsibilities. This study builds upon Gronn's framework by illustrating how middle leaders implement structured task allocation within their teams, employing strategies such as team formation and role rotation. This approach divided work while ensuring responsibilities were systematically coordinated across interdependent teams. Such coordination aligns with distributed leadership principles, as it allows individuals at various organisational levels to contribute meaningfully (Bolden et al., 2009).

However, shared decision-making was confined within individual diploma programmes, with limited cross-programme or cross-school involvement. While this does not indicate a deficiency in middle leaders’ practices, it reflects structural conditions that shape shared decisions and raises questions about middle leaders’ ability to enact distributed leadership across institutional boundaries.

Collective engagement

Middle leaders fostered collective engagement among lecturers through structured routines, including regular team meetings and group discussions. Their practices encouraged collaboration, sharing of ideas, and alignment with broader institutional objectives. The deployment of both small group and whole team approaches enabled middle leaders to tailor engagement to specific tasks. Small group strategies were utilised for deeper, subject-focused discussions, facilitating detailed feedback and engagement. Conversely, whole-team approaches addressed broader issues, built consensus, and aligned staff with institutional policies. This finding aligns with Hairon and Goh (2015) two recommendations for collective engagement – effective rule utilisation and allocation of resources. Rule utilisation involves applying organisational procedures, manifested through systematic use of different meeting configurations to enhance collective engagement. Resource allocation is illustrated through purposeful planning that varies with task size and complexity.

Nevertheless, collective engagement remained limited across different schools within the institution. This could be attributed to their distinct focuses, which presented barriers to broader collaboration. While cross-school collaboration occurred for leadership development or institution-wide initiatives, it remained infrequent. These findings highlight opportunities for higher education institutions to develop strategies that enhance collective engagement across institutional boundaries.

In summary, this study contributes to the literature by challenging assumptions that distributed leadership is incompatible with hierarchical organisational contexts. Distributed leadership is often associated with flatter organisational structures where leadership responsibilities are shared across levels (Spillane, 2006). Conversely, hierarchical institutions are characterised by centralised authority and top-down decision-making that may impede distributed leadership (Harris, 2004; Harris et al., 2022; Lumby, 2017).

However, this study provides empirical evidence that distributed leadership and hierarchical structures can complement each other with appropriate adaptations as demonstrated in similar Asian contexts (Goh et al., 2019). The findings show that middle leaders in a higher education institution enact distributed leadership by empowering lecturers within defined boundaries, engaging them in shared decisions, fostering collective participation, and facilitating leadership development, despite the presence of hierarchical organisational structures. Notably, this nuanced understanding extends distributed leadership scholarship by demonstrating that it can be enacted pragmatically within hierarchical higher education institutions.

Competency Disparity

Middle leaders are expected to possess diverse competencies. However, empirical evidence from this study indicates a sense of unpreparedness for their leadership roles. This indicates a disconnect between the competencies expected of middle leaders and the institutional support available for their role enactment. Such findings complicate the perspectives advanced by Bryman (2007) and Corbett (2023), which associate leadership effectiveness with the possession of competencies.

This finding aligns with literature highlighting the mismatch between the training needs of middle leaders and the preparation provided (Corbett, 2023; Thompson and Wolstencroft, 2015; Thornton et al., 2018). Page (2013) similarly identified three sources of stress among middle leaders, managers in higher education, namely role overload arising from competing demands, interpersonal stress stemming from unprepared managers attempting to negotiate the interdependencies required of their role, and operational stress. These pressures resonate with middle leaders in this study, particularly less experienced ones, where insufficient preparation compounded challenges in aspects associated with distributed leadership, including delegation, developing lecturer capacity, and facilitating shared decision-making.

To address these constraints, educational institutions could adopt continuous professional development encompassing on-the-job development through cross-functional teams, peer interactions including mentoring and networking, and formal structured training programmes addressing specific competencies. This comprehensive approach aligns with international scholars’ call for continuous development (Hairon, 2017; Maddock, 2023; Thornton et al., 2018).

Relational Dynamics

Middle leaders are required to manage complex relational dynamics with multiple stakeholders, creating both collaboration opportunities and tensions. This complexity involves mediating between competing expectations from senior management directives and team advocacy, spanning upward (senior leaders), horizontal (other middle leaders), downward (lecturers), and external (industry partners) relationships (Branson et al., 2015; Lipscombe et al., 2023). This highlights the importance of middle leaders having comprehensive knowledge of key stakeholders to identify and establish appropriate contacts to create leadership development opportunities for lecturers. The study illuminates that middle leaders are expected to extend networks beyond the institution to include external partnerships with industry, underscoring the value of external collaboration in enriching leadership and professional development opportunities.

Although distributed leadership promotes relational approaches (Bolden et al., 2008; Jones et al., 2014), managing multiple relationships can create dilemmas and conflicts that inhibit its enactment, particularly when middle leaders face competing demands from various stakeholders’ expectations. Thus, it is crucial for educational institutions to provide administrative support and balanced workload distribution, enabling middle leaders to focus on strategic relationship cultivation rather than operational burdens (Author, 2017; Jones et al., 2017; Thornton et al., 2018).

Operational Efficiency

Operational efficiency reflects the importance of familiarity with operational information whilst managing substantial administrative responsibilities. Being familiar with operational information enables middle leaders to make informed decisions and provide effective guidance. For example, understanding academic processes and institutional policies allows middle leaders to define the parameters within which lecturers can exercise leadership, thereby facilitating shared decisions and collective engagement. Moreover, the findings emphasise the significance of being updated on policy changes through information-sharing sessions to provide insights into institutional decisions. This aligns with Ho and Ng (2017), who highlight the importance of information exchange in fostering coordinated leadership approaches, particularly in complex educational settings.

However, familiarity with operational information often increased administrative workload, as colleagues frequently delegated additional tasks to Course Leaders as key contacts. They expressed frustration with administrative duties characterised as mundane, repetitive, time-consuming, and overwhelming. The issue is not their lack of ability to manage multifaceted administrative tasks, but rather the accumulation of competing demands, which constrained middle leaders’ capacity to focus on core leadership functions (e.g. relating to curriculum, assessment, and capacity building). This aligns with the literature, which posits that conflicting priorities create tensions that impede the enactment of distributed leadership (Thornton et al., 2018). Given these challenges, it is not surprising that scholars recommend providing institutional support through workload reduction and eliminating unnecessary reporting requirements to enable middle leaders to focus on leadership (Marshall, 2012).

Influence of cultural values on distributed leadership

This study reveals that middle leaders’ enactment of distributed leadership is influenced by Asian cultural values (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012; Hairon & Goh, 2015; Goh et al., 2019; Jones et al., 2014; Tan, 2024), specifically pragmatism, meritocracy, collectivism, and high power distance. The value of pragmatism manifests in how middle leaders focus on effectiveness in their resource allocation (Tan, 2024). Similarly, meritocracy is reflected in how leadership roles are delegated based on demonstrated expertise (Chong, 2014).

Furthermore, the emphasis on leadership development of lecturers exemplifies the value of collectivism, while the coordination of shared decisions demonstrates collegiality. High power distance is evident in how middle leaders retain certain decision-making authority whilst empowering lecturers within defined boundaries. Collectively, these findings contribute to an understanding of how cultural values shape nuanced forms of distributed leadership within different sociocultural settings in the wider international literature.