Leadership That Multiplies: Why Shared Leadership Isn’t Optional

"The greatest challenge of leadership is not getting people to follow you. It's getting them to lead with you."

A new principal walks into a struggling school, eager to make a difference. Knowing that shared leadership is important, she quickly sets up a system of building-level teams. Each department and grade level is represented. She calls it the “Building Leadership Team” and meets with them monthly to go over district updates, strategic initiatives, and expectations.

At first glance, it looks like distributed leadership. But in practice, the principal does most of the talking. She presents the information, assigns a few tasks, and expects the team members to deliver the same message to their colleagues.

It’s a classic case of hierarchy disguised as collaboration.

There’s no space for the team to analyze data, surface concerns, or co-create solutions. They’re not leading—they’re relaying. Instead of being empowered, these teachers become little more than messengers. And their colleagues see right through it.

Setting up a structure of teams isn’t the same as creating a culture of shared leadership. Distributed leadership isn’t about distributing tasks—it’s about distributing ownership. That kind of leadership requires modeling, trust, and shared learning—not just cascading directives through a chain of command.

We’ve talked about the what and the how of school leadership. But here’s the truth: no leader can move a school forward alone. The most effective school improvement efforts don’t just involve teacher leadership—they depend on it. The research is clear: the more leadership is shared, the more schools improve.

I once coached a principal who told me, “I want my leadership team to have ownership and lead their departments the same way I lead the school.” But in their meetings, she dominated the conversation, made all the decisions, and left little room for reflection or collaboration. Her team wasn’t resisting leadership—they just hadn’t experienced it. Once we restructured those meetings to model shared leadership—goal setting, joint planning, facilitation—the shift in her team’s ownership was immediate. They didn’t just comply—they committed.

Research-Backed Leadership Claim: Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins’ research outlines seven claims about successful school leadership. One of the strongest?

“School leadership has a greater influence when it is widely distributed.”

This includes both formal and informal roles and emphasizes that how leadership is distributed matters just as much as whether it is.

Distributed = Shared: The literature often uses “distributed leadership” and “shared leadership” interchangeably. But don’t be fooled—this isn’t about delegation. It’s about intentionally developing others to lead beside you, not beneath you.

Why It Matters:

• Empowers teachers to use their voice, talents, and expertise to drive improvement.

• Builds leadership capacity, preparing future school leaders from within.

• Moves people from compliance to commitment—a key shift for true change.

The Building Leadership Team (BLT) as Model: One of the best places to start? Your Building Leadership Team. But here’s the key: it must model the kind of collaboration and distributed leadership you expect from your teacher teams.

What that looks like:

• Shared agenda setting

• Rotating facilitation

• Joint analysis of school-wide data

• Norms that promote inquiry, not just updates

Avoid the Pitfall:

One of the worst things a leader can do is run a top-down, ineffective leadership team—and then expect teacher leaders to do it better with their grade-level or content teams.

How are you modeling distributed leadership for your team—and what’s one shift you could make to deepen their ownership?