C ONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

9.1.1

There is no DL model as a benchmark

In section 2.5, my scan of 21 national and international DL projects in teaching and learning (including DUU) revealed only one feature in common—the involvement of the ADU (except for one university), yet theoretical conceptions of DL do not refer to the need for distributive leaders to be trained and supported. This absence suggests that either these conceptions are unintentionally excluding reference to those in informal roles, or the conceptions are insufficiently developed to warrant practical suggestions for informal distributive leaders. My scan shows there is no DL model in HE using informal leaders at the coalface that has been verified as effective by empirical evidence. This research raises the question whether bench-marking is possible. However, given the diverse contexts in which DL has been applied in universities (as outlined in section 2.5), it is questionable whether it is possible or even desirable to develop one model of DL. Even the individual faculty and school contexts at DUU were highly variable, as revealed by the demographic data of the interviewees (see 3.1.3 and 3.1.4). Instead, it is more practical for a university to develop a model of change that is unique to its own context (Kezar, 2001), regardless of whether or not it is labelled DL.

9.1.2

DL is a 'high risk' strategy

9.1.2.1 When no-one is in charge

Numerous interviewees labelled the DL model at DUU as a 'high risk' strategy, yet most argued simultaneously for and against using a modified DL model in the future by identifying its advantages and disadvantages. For example, they appreciated that the model respected school champions' autonomy and allowed each school to implement CRA in its own way. However at the same time, they acknowledged that this led to an important disadvantage: that different and often erroneous interpretations of CRA and inconsistent and/or superficial implementation could occur. Timperley confirms this possible negative consequence: 'distributing leadership over more people is a risky business [emphasis added] and may result in the greater distribution of incompetence' (2005, p. 417). Most interviewees advocated for someone in charge, either at school/faculty or institutional level; that is, there needed to be top-down authority to ensure compliance, rather than relying just on

the distributive leaders' influence. According to the school champions, most Heads had heavy workloads and had no time to support them in implementing CRA or ensure compliance with the policy and effective assessment practice. Because there was nobody in charge, there was no ongoing monitoring of adherence to timelines from the implementation plan, or systematic accumulation of data to inform the subsequent government audit. The latter led to a frantic rush by Heads to find out what schools had done before the audit team arrived.

The DL model at DUU, though flawed in design with nobody in charge, proved to be an opportunity for the school champions to exhibit a range of leadership behaviours (see 8.3.1). It also led to nine actively taking on more leadership roles (see 8.3.2), thus allowing them to 'exert agency during the process [of implementation]' (Tian et al., 2016, p. 151). A positive implication is that even a flawed, 'high risk' DL strategy or model offers opportunities to those who seek to take advantage of them, and therefore has the potential to act as a leadership development catalyst for those in informal roles. A negative implication of DL as a 'high risk' strategy is that, if it is not at least marginally successful, it is unlikely to be used again by institutions. Further, those involved in a failed DL model could suffer damage to their academic reputations by association and be reluctant to be involved in subsequent similar institutional change initiatives.

9.1.2.1 When relying on informal distributive leaders to have influence

The other flaws that rendered the DL model high risk were the selection and induction of the school champions (informal distributive leaders). In the absence of selection criteria, with only a broad statement to guide them and tight timelines, Heads selected school champions using ask and don't ask strategies. This led to their appointment at academic levels ranging from A to C, with differing

credibility in the eyes of academic staff. There was also huge variability in the number of staff (from 4 to 110) and campuses (1-4) that the school champions were to support, whether they were full- or part- time, or had any formally allocated time to carry out the role. Only eight self-selected. Just as selection was rushed, so too was induction. Those school champions who sought help or accepted offers of help from the ADU, achieved far more than those who did not. The high risk DL strategy of relying only on the school champions achieved some change across DUU (see 7.5.2).The main implication is that with nobody in charge, the success or failure of the DL model rested wholly on the school champions. A second implication is that schools with large numbers of staff and multiple campuses should have had more school champions to distribute the workload of supporting implementation. Had induction been more thorough and carried out in several sessions, perhaps school champions would have had more influence, and implementation of CRA would have been more effective.

9.1.4

Labels for change agents are identity badges with consequences

Research on labels for change agents working at the coalface in universities is absent from the HE change literature. My research fills this gap, revealing that the label, school champion, was borrowed uncritically from management discourse as I demonstrated in section 2.6.3 with a scan of selected journals (1966-2014). Interviews revealed that the label, as an identity badge (Grant et al., 2014), 'packaged' the school champions in a way they primarily thought was unprofessional (Havelock & Zlotolow, 1995), and led to various consequences in terms of treatment by their peers. The mixed messages of high and low status (heroic and juvenile) connoted by the label, mattered to most school champions. The majority of interviewees renounced the label as one that disempowered the school champions and thus was unsuitable for them, personally and professionally. The main implication of this research is that to avoid possible unintended and negative consequences such as emotional or professional harm, labels need to be acceptable to change agents in academe. To achieve this, labels need to be trialled before they are conferred so they are embraced rather than renounced, and fit the project's purpose.

9.1.5

DL is distribution of influence

As I pointed out in section 2.4.3, there are disagreements in the literature about what is distributed (such as power, influence, authority, accountability), but no acknowledgement that these informal distributive leaders may have other academic powers that make them effective change agents. The conceptual framework I developed for this study (see 8.4) of faculty/school leadership contexts (emperor, wheelwright and cat herder) interacting with one or more of four academic powers (positional, collegial, expert, referent), is a first step towards a possible 'unifying theoretical

foundation and treatment of power ... required for [DL] to have a lasting impact on the ... conduct of educational research and practice' (Corrigan, 2013, p. 66). For the CRA project at DUU, the

framework helps to account for how distributive leaders at the coalface have to rely on one or more of the academic powers to influence their colleagues to implement changes. If they are able to borrow positional power, because of strong support from the HoS, then they potentially have more influence and can be more effective. In terms of what is distributed, my research suggests that it has to be influence, and this requires a distributive leader to have more than just collegial power. In the literature, the idea of influence is a very old one. When Nash suggested that 'leadership implies influencing change in the conduct of people' (1929, p. 24) as I noted in section 2.3, he was not, in this instance, referring to distributing influence, as the term DL was not in the literature at that time.