They exist in all schools - supervisors and team coordinators - those employees who have neither personnel responsibilities nor formal management powers, but who nevertheless act as leaders to their peers. In a school context, these are functions such as team coordinators and various types of supervisors. In daycare, it is especially the so-called professional lighthouses. The common denominator is that they act as leaders by exerting influence on the "doings" of their peers in relation to task performance. We can call these employees organizational resource persons. But the role is not without its challenges. What challenges can arise when resource persons need to influence colleagues? And how can you as a formal manager support your resource persons so they thrive and succeed in the role? You can learn more about this here.
The article provides a number of suggestions on what you need to be aware of in order to support resource persons (supervisors and team coordinators) to succeed in their role. Among other things, we point out the importance of systematically working to ensure the resource persons' mandate and legitimacy through clear role descriptions. This will ensure that everyone in the workplace has the same "picture" of what the resource persons must succeed with and why their functions are important for the overall task solution. It's crucial that the rationale for their 'frontline' positions with extraordinary powers to influence the performance of colleagues is clear to everyone if resource persons are to succeed in their role.
Distributed leadership - an old phenomenon with renewed attention
Resource people such as supervisors and team coordinators often play a crucial role in leading meetings and "pushing" the culture towards collegial reflection. They are characterized by the fact that they act in a hybrid role, where they perform "normal" work tasks, while at the same time contributing to tasks that would traditionally be on the manager's desk. In their own way, these resource people act as the link between strategic decisions and day-to-day tasks.
When management makes use of such resource people in order to ensure the best possible solution to the core task, it is called distributed leadership. The phenomenon is old and well-known, with management literature using the term as far back as the 1970s. In an international context, distributed leadership has also been studied by several researchers (see e.g. Harris, 2008; Elmore, 2000; Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2001). In a Danish context, interest in distributed leadership has grown after the Danish Leadership Commission (2018) identified distributed leadership as one of several tools that could contribute to better public leadership. This has also been reflected in the publication of Danish books on the subject. These include the books Ledelse gennem organisatoriske ressourcepersoner (Andersen, 2018), Gør en forskel med distribueret ledelse (Harris, 2019) and most recently Distributed leadership in the public sector (Kjeldsen, Qvick, Jønsson, & Andersen, 2020).
However, distributed leadership is not just a term for the use of resource people - the phenomenon covers more than that. Broadly speaking, it refers to a form of organization and management where structures and culture strive to ensure that development comes from below, from the middle and from the top at the same time (Nielsen, 2017). The central message of distributed leadership is that formal management must share the overall task of both operations and development through the involvement of employees in decision-making processes, development initiatives and the like, where employees' knowledge, skills or competencies can contribute to the organization succeeding even better with its overall task solution. This activation of employees can take several different forms. As described above, it can be done through formalized appointments of resource persons such as team coordinators or various supervisors. However, employees can also act in these roles without necessarily having a "title" attached to them, but rather contributing to sub-elements of an overall task on their own initiative when they see the need for it. Finally, employees can also contribute jointly via teams, project and working groups or various informal committees and forums, where they contribute to qualifying the task solution based on the subject and professional knowledge they each possess.
As consultants, we often face the question: "Isn't distributed leadership just the same as delegated leadership?". It isn't. When you as a manager assign a task to a resource person, we talk about delegated management. In this case, the employee is given full responsibility for the task and therefore also pronounced freedom to solve it. On the other hand, when you involve a resource person in solving a specific task that is outside the resource person's "normal" task portfolio, we talk about distributed leadership. It may well be that the resource person solves the vast majority of the task, but to a greater or lesser extent, it is done in a way where you are continuously "in the loop" - for example, by providing sparring and feedback on the task solution. In other words, it's a situation where you "share" the (management) task.
And this distinction is important. Because resource persons act in a hybrid role, where on the one hand they are hierarchically equal to their subordinate colleagues, but on the other hand they act in an advanced position where they must meet organizational expectations without an associated management mandate. This is why it is important that you as a manager are aware of how you can support the resource person to succeed under these conditions.
JOIN OUR COURSE
Build wellbeing and trust despite the distance
The "Managing Virtual and Hybrid Work Communities" course gives you the essential tools to increase productivity and well-being through remote management.
This is a course for those who work in management and want to know how to achieve strategic goals as an individual or organization through virtual collaboration.
Why use resource people?
Much of the research on distributed leadership comes from the education sector (Harris, 2008), and as consultants, we also find that many schools make use of resource persons such as different supervisors or team coordinators. But what are the specific benefits of this?
Research suggests that the use of resource persons can create value in three different ways (Kjeldsen et al., 2020). Firstly, it can contribute to organizational learning when employees' knowledge, competencies and skills are brought into play, and it is not necessarily the formal management that sits at the table in, for example, decision-making processes on specific operational and development issues. For example, we see how distributed leadership contributes to organizational learning in the Danish primary school through professional learning communities.
Secondly, the research suggests that there can be a motivational aspect to contributing to tasks that go beyond normal work tasks. Specifically, the research shows that the appointment as a resource person can support employees' sense of autonomy, which in turn can support job satisfaction and well-being. Furthermore, the function as a resource person can also be worth pursuing because it can serve as a "training ground" for management talents who want to try out the management role in a kind of "apprenticeship" before taking the plunge into an actual management job.
Thirdly, research suggests that distributed leadership offers coordination benefits, which is especially true in organizations that solve complex tasks. This also applies to the education sector, where resource persons often act as the glue that ensures that strategic management decisions are connected to and translated into daily practice.
Finally, the use of resource persons in conjunction with a generally inclusive and coaching leadership style in formal management can be a cure for overburdened formal management, which can otherwise risk becoming an inappropriate bottleneck that unnecessarily delays decisions (Nielsen, 2017). However, it also requires courage on the part of formal management to "hand over" some of the mandate and decision-making authority that is usually on the manager's desk. Here, research suggests that the top management of an organization plays a crucial role. For example, a Danish study has shown that when HR managers feel that they have little organizational support for taking risks, they stick to their tasks and are less likely to make use of resource people (Ledelseskommissionen, 2017). In other words, a classic zero-defect culture can be pure poison if an organization wants to make use of resource people. This also underlines our point that well-functioning distributed leadership can be seen as an offshoot of a (learning and trust-based) culture where development comes from below, from the middle and from the top at the same time.
Aligned expectations are crucial for the collaboration between manager and resource person
Unfortunately, as consultants, we often find that the use of resource persons can be challenging in one way or another. This can be in the relationship between the formal manager and the resource person due to unclear expectations. But it can also be in the relationship between the resource person and other employees.
Research points to the importance of distributed leadership being aligned if it is to create value (Kjeldsen et al., 2020). Specifically, this means that the formal manager and the resource person have a uniform perception of a number of issues related to the solution of the individual task or the fulfillment of the specific function.
One tool for this alignment of expectations is what Anne Mette Kjeldsen and Lotte Bøgh Andersen describe in this issue as the 5R model, which involves the manager and the resource person agreeing on the direction, results, framework, scope and role distribution according to the specific task that the resource person is to solve or the function that the resource person is to fulfill (Kjeldsen et al., 2020).
Pitfalls in the relationship between the resource person and other colleagues
As mentioned, there can also be a number of pitfalls that arise in the relationship between the resource person and other colleagues. These pitfalls can manifest themselves in many different ways.
One of the biggest challenges is that the resource person may face resistance from peers who don't want to be managed by a colleague at the same level. Here, the resource person may risk being met with a "you-don't-control-us" mentality or perhaps even risk being labeled as the manager's extended arm, a drainpipe for trickle-down management or other patronizing stigmas (Andersen, 2018).
For example, when a team coordinator contributes to the development of the learning community, including work on team goals, ground rules, meeting formats and the like, which is typically part of a team coordinator's role, the culture of equality that typically characterizes schools is challenged. And this can greatly challenge the ability to succeed as a resource person. The flip side of the school world's dominant discourse on equality and shared values (what Lise Tingleff Nielsen (2013) calls "family culture" in her PhD thesis) is that neither colleagues nor managers like to direct, instruct or reprimand colleagues. If you have a team that is also challenged in its collaboration, with more or less pronounced conflicts between team members, this resistance is only exacerbated.
For resource persons such as team coordinators, dilemmas often arise. A dilemma can be the desire to be loyal to the strategic direction set by management (for a team coordinator, this could be about strengthening inclusion and developing as a professional learning community) on the one hand, and on the other hand, also being loyal to the community of colleagues when they express concerns about increasing work pressure as a result of management's initiatives. The same dilemmas can arise when balancing the financial calculations that management expects the resource person to help meet, while on the other hand, colleagues are on their heels when, for example, savings and efficiency improvements affect professional quality. In other words, resource persons easily end up with one foot in each camp, where they have to succeed in a "both-and" function with a pronounced dual loyalty to their own manager and their colleagues (Andersen, 2018).
This dual loyalty can sometimes lead to paralysis. Consider a team coordinator who has been given clear expectations from management about new initiatives to be implemented, knowing that these initiatives will, for a period of time, take a toll on team members. How do you act as a team coordinator when you subsequently sit at the team meeting and present "the new path", while at the same time being expected to be collegially responsive to your colleagues' descriptions of busyness, unrest in 8.B and their metal fatigue over yet another round of "hot air" from the administration?
In the same way, ACT, inclusion, reading and math counselors can also experience challenges when they try to influence the work of their peers and in doing so hit the wall for the much-vaunted melody that praises methodological freedom. The supervisor's good advice may be dismissed with a "that method doesn't really suit me!". In other words, it can both challenge the relationship and trigger a certain resistance when a colleague has to instruct and guide other colleagues in a changed pedagogical practice.
These examples illustrate why many supervisors and team coordinators describe it as difficult to succeed in the role of resource person. Since the role of a resource person does not come with management rights, it means that the resource person often has to leverage their personal relationships, their reputation and trust within the organization, and their ability to argue their case to succeed in situations like the one above. This in itself can be personally draining. At the same time, the worry of a reprimand from management can also lurk in the back of your mind if the resource person doesn't succeed with the task at hand. And what do you do then? Should you as a resource person tell your boss in order to get support for the necessary decisions, if this in turn has consequences for your sense of belonging to the collegial community? Or should you "give the long line" and trust that your colleagues will follow suit over time (Qvick, 2021)?
Three keys to working with resource persons
Especially initially, many resource persons experience that they are neither managers nor employees, but something in between in an organizational no-man's land where they feel like neither bird nor fish. And where they are unsure when it's time for them or the formal manager to step in - especially when it comes to correcting colleagues' behavior.
A prerequisite for team coordinators to be able to step up is that management continuously sets clear and distinct goals for the work, which according to Viviane Robinson (2015) is a fundamental management skill. But what should you as formal management focus on in addition to setting a clear direction for the school's development? Here, we would like to point out specific factors that you as a management team can keep in mind when supporting resource persons such as team coordinators and supervisors to succeed in their role.
- Clear role and task descriptions: Team coordinators, supervisors and managers who take on a form of leadership - without formal power - need a high degree of precision in their role expectations. The key questions here are: What do I need to succeed in my role? Distributed leadership is based on the premise that resource people are given a clear mandate and job description that their colleagues know and understand. A clear role is the foundation for "stepping up" and taking on tasks where it's legitimate to act as a meeting leader, expert or facilitator in limited and well-defined areas. When selecting/recruiting employees for special functions, it is important to determine whether they have the right relational, communicative and/or professional skills - and not least whether they are motivated to take on a function where they will occasionally act in a special colleague relationship. Much like when you select employees who could be included in management talent programs.
- Adapt authority: To avoid resistance from other employees to being guided, processed or met, resource persons need to master two complementary positions that they must be able to balance between depending on the situation. On the one hand, they need to bring expert knowledge and personal authority to the table, and on the other hand, they need to be curious, supportive and facilitative. They need to both understand and disrupt. Although the role and task description is clear, many are unsure how to fulfill the role using complementary positions as the one who takes charge and the one who facilitates and coaches colleagues (as a team or individual). This dual position requires the ability to continuously "go meta" on the process and negotiate goals and means. This ability must be trained. For this, management must help along the way with authorization. In schools with a pronounced "culture of equality", challenges can arise when colleagues without stars on their shoulders exercise a form of process management and guidance. Therefore, it is crucial that the resource person is "authorized" from above, so that colleagues are aware that this person is "the one" in relation to a defined task, and that this also entails an associated mandate to act in an advanced position.
- Courage to step up to the plate: People who are assigned a special function often underestimate what it takes for them to exercise process management and "push their colleagues" without having formal management powers. When we as consultants train resource persons, the identity challenge for team coordinators and professional supervisors is at least as important as concrete methods and tools. The identity challenge means that people experience uncertainty and hesitation when it comes to stepping up and taking on the role fully. To help the person step into the role, it's useful to work on the "inside" rather than just the tools part, which is emphasized in many formal training programs/education for e.g. team coordinators. As a leader, you need to support the courage and willingness to take on the role and fill it with the right amount of personal authority. To ensure that individuals are not left alone with their uncertainty in the role, it works well to have a common forum for team coordinators, supervisors and similar functions where they can discuss dilemmas, share knowledge and tools. Hearing about what colleagues are doing often gives new courage and inspiration for your own practice.
The above review of the alignment of expectations between formal manager and resource person, as well as the formal manager's role in supporting the resource person to succeed when collegial friction arises, indicates that distributed leadership is anything but "sit-back leadership". On the contrary, it takes courage to relinquish decision-making authority, just as it takes strength to intervene when the function is not being performed appropriately or, conversely, when colleagues on the same level are hindering the resource person's ability to succeed.
Distributed leadership is therefore essentially a cultural shift from a top-down and centralized leadership approach to a flatter and more informal form of leadership that relies on a more sophisticated and complex notion that "good leadership" does not depend on the number of stars on the shoulders, but rather on knowledge, skills and competencies in relation to a defined task. From an organizational perspective, distributed leadership implies a shift from a focus on the leadership role to a focus on the leadership activity. And from a development perspective, distributed leadership implies a shift from leadership development to management development, where leadership is something that can potentially be done by everyone, and which basically emerges when people together "produce" direction, coordination and commitment towards certain goals.
References
Andersen, F. B. (Ed.) (2018). Leadership through organizational resources. Frederiksberg: Samfundslitteratur.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, D.C.: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Harris, A. (2008). Distributed leadership: According to the evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 172-188.
Harris, A. (2019). Making a Difference with Distributed Leadership: Perspectives, Practice and Potential. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Kjeldsen, A. M., Qvick, C. N., Jønsson T., & Andersen L. B. (2020). Distributed leadership in the public sector. Copenhagen: Djøf Forlag.
The Leadership Commission (2017). Public managers and leadership in 2017: Comprehensive reporting from the Danish Leadership Commission's questionnaire survey. Copenhagen: Ledelseskommissionen.
The Leadership Commission (2018). Putting citizens first: Leadership in the public sector with a focus on operational development. Copenhagen: Ledelseskommissionen.
Nielsen, K. M. (2017). Distributed leadership: The answer to increased complexity and workload? Ledelse i Morgen, 21(1), 7-9 .
Nielsen, L. T. (2013). The dynamic stability of teamwork: A cultural-historical analysis of teachers' learning in teams. PhD dissertation. Copenhagen: Forlaget UCC.
Qvick, C. (2021). Get a handle on key employees' informal responsibilities. Mm.dk. Localized on February 10, 2021 at: https://www.mm.dk/artikel/faa-styr-paa-noeglemedarbejdernes-uformelle-ansvar
Robinson, V. (2015). Learner-centered leadership. Frederikshavn: Dafolo.
Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Research News and Comment, 30, 23-28.
