28 ZENG, Xiuzhen, TONG, Wanting & LI, Yaxin. Understanding Distributed Leadership and Insights for Chinese Educational Institutions in the Context of Digital Transformation: A Literature Review. Quality in Sport. 2022;8(1):28-38. eISSN 2450-3118. DOI http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/QS.2022.08.01.003 https://apcz.umk.pl/QS/article/view/40873 The journal has had 20 points in Ministry of Education and Science of Poland parametric evaluation. Annex to the announcement of the Minister of Education and Science of December 21, 2021. No. 32582. Has a Journal's Unique Identifier: 201398. Scientific disciplines assigned: Economics and finance (Field of social sciences); Management and Quality Sciences (Field of social sciences). Punkty Ministerialne z 2019 - aktualny rok 20 punktów. Załącznik do komunikatu Ministra Edukacji i Nauki z dnia 21 grudnia 2021 r. Lp. 32582. Posiada Unikatowy Identyfikator Czasopisma: 201398. Przypisane dyscypliny naukowe: Ekonomia i finanse (Dziedzina nauk społecznych); Nauki o zarządzaniu i jakości (Dziedzina nauk społecznych). © The Authors 2022; This article is published with open access at Licensee Open Journal Systems of Nicolaus Copernicus University in Torun, Poland Open Access. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author (s) and source are credited. This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non commercial license Share alike. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) which permits unrestricted, non commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper. Received: 14.10.2021. Revised: 19.11.2022. Accepted: 19.11.2022. Understanding Distributed Leadership and Insights for Chinese Educational Institutions in the Context of Digital Transformation: A Literature Review Dr. Xiuzhen Zeng UNESCO-UNEVOC Center, Shenzhen Polytechnic, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2815-6990 zengxiuzeng@szpt.edu.cn Ms. Wanting Tong* https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-6485 ting@szpt.edu.cn TVET Research Institute, Shenzhen Polytechnic, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China Dr. Yaxin Li TVET Research Institute, Shenzhen Polytechnic, Shenzhen City, Guangdong Province, China https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1483-3762 liyaxin@szpt.edu.cn *Corresponding author Abstract When education across all levels, is no exception for meeting the needs of industry 4.0 and the new demand of digital economy and society, distributed leadership is an effective reform strategy on organization transition for digital transformation. 174 articles related to distributed leadership were selected from eight core-international journals in the field of educational leadership and management with average h-index of 45, and 64 articles with the keywords of distributed leadership published in the CSSCI and core journals were found. The 248 articles in total were reviewed for analysis with three aspects (research themes and theories; research methodology and analytical methods; discovery and revelation) which were synthesized from the systematic conceptual framework of literature review by Hallinger (2013,2014), the research conclusion frameworks by Bennett et al. (2003) and Tian et al. (2016). The literature review was conducted on four aspects (who, why, what and how) for knowing which most scholars are concerned and for informing educational institutions with insights on distributed leadership for future development. Keywords: distributed leadership, literature review, digital transformation 1. Background: Distributed leadership in TVET for digital transformation 1.1 Context: Educational institutions are driven by digital technologies for digital transformation. - Digital technologies drive educational transformation for digital transformation Human society is stepping onto a new historical stage in which emerging digital technologies have become the major driving power of productivity. With urgency and intensity, it is important to transform the economy, society, governance, and environment to meet the needs of Industry 4.0 and the new demands of the digital economy and society. Education across all levels, as one of the most significant sectors within society, is not an exception for sustaining societal operations (ILO, 2020; ITU, 2021). - Digital technologies drive the transitions in on-demand skills for the future world of work Today’s workplaces have witnessed more extensive use of digital technologies, and digital transformation is literally reshaping our world of work. Digital skills and competencies are in greater demand than ever before, and these technical skills are fundamental to our digital economy and society (Didier, 2022). Most of today’s jobs require, at a minimum, basic digital skills. As a natural result, the growing trend is that job requirements include advanced digital technologies, which has led to profound changes in labor markets and new business opportunities. - Educational institutions play a main role in supplying talent for digital transformation Educational institutions play the main role in helping youth and adults develop in-demand skills for utilization in the digital economy and future occupations while supporting inclusive and sustainable economic growth. In the future, http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/QS.2022.08.01.003 https://apcz.umk.pl/QS/article/view/40873 https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2815-6990 mailto:zengxiuzeng@szpt.edu.cn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4289-6485 mailto:ting@szpt.edu.cn https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1483-3762 mailto:liyaxin@szpt.edu.cn 29 educational institutions should be aware of innovating and developing digital needs to more effectively supply talent for the labor market (Sgarzi, 2021). 1.2 Rationale: Capacity building for leadership is crucial for digital transformation courses offered in educational institutions. - Keyphrase: digital transformation is transformation Digital transformation is a process; it is not a destination for the upgrade of technologies (ILO, 2020). During the evolution of digital transformation, though digital technology could augment impacts, it was merely one factor of successful digital transformation. Successful digital transformation goes beyond technology adoption. Instead, it is implemented to focus on transforming an organization, industry, or ecosystem with cultural, organizational, and operational changes applied to the multiplier impact of technology. - Capacity building in educational institutions is central to digital transformation It is commonly believed that digital transformation is more about talent, as talent is the key to transforming mindset, organization, culture, methodology, and business modes for an organization, industry, or ecosystem in the process of digital transformation. Educational institutions closely integrate with labor markets, and this is indicative of the relationship between the quality and relevance of the supply of talent. In such a manner, it is essential for institution leaders, program directors, teachers, and staff who lead, integrate, and implement transformation to be qualified in, and possess a high-quality capacity for, digital transformation. - The transition of an organization is critical for digital transformation. In 2021 digital transformation report by Digital Competency Centre (Mckinsey-Beijing), it was pointed out that digital transformation involves three major areas; namely business transformation, technological transformation, and organizational transformation (Li et al., 2021). Among them, organizational transformation refers to profound changes in the organizational structure, operation mechanism, talent cultivation, and organizational culture. Successful organizational transformation is a top-down reform. It requires top management to clarify goals and establish performance frameworks; namely to become the brain guiding the direction of transformation actions. That is, to form representations for transformation initiatives and financial indicators; namely to become the eyes that see the impact of business transformation and to establish consistent concepts of change, management, and behaviors throughout the organization. That is, to become the heart leading the top-down reform in the organization. It’s evident that organizational transformation has an important impact on business transformation and technological transformation and that organizational transformation is the foundation and key to organization-wide reform (Didier, 2022). 1.3 Distributed leadership is a reform strategy for the transition of an organization. It has been nearly 20 years since the concept of distributed leadership was introduced, and today it has become familiar to everyone(Gronn, 2002; Spillane et al., 2004a). In China, this concept has been gradually promoted and used in a diversity of fields(Zhang, 2011；Wang et al., 2019). Distributed leadership, as a strategy of organizational reform, has even been introduced into foreign education policies at all levels(Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016； Cowie et al., 2011 ； Modeste et al., 2018；Pak & Desimone, 2019; Printy & Liu, 2021; Sibanda, 2017). This has been an excellent example to show people’s recognition regarding the positive role of distributed leadership in organizational reform. However, as indicated by Hallinger and Bryant (2013), language barriers have hindered the popularization of relevant theoretical knowledge and research on sustainable development in numerous countries and brought failures in conducting a smooth, international dialogue in academics. It has the following characteristics. On the one hand, the ignorance of relevant local development (advanced or lagging) has limited the possibility of discussion by colleagues at home and abroad to promote improvement. On the other hand, advanced theoretical research from overseas cannot be flexibly used for reference, and the detours that foreign counterparts have employed are often repeated. When it comes to content, the focus of relevant domestic research has been on simple conceptual analyses and theoretical commentary (Ji, 2019; Zhao & Chen, 2018; Liu & Chen, 2017; Liu, 2020), while most foreign research is empirical（Baloglu, 2012; Cherkowski & Brown, 2014; Gedik & Bellibas, 2015; Göksoy, 2015; Harkin & Healy, 2013; Lefoe et al., 2013; Liang & Sandmann,2015; Modeste et al., 2022; O'Donovan,2015;Purcell, 2014; Shear et al., 2014 ）. It can be seen from this comparison that China has obviously not integrated itself nor participated in the formal international academic dialogue related to distributed leadership. Therefore, by summarizing and reviewing foreign research on distributed leadership, and with a comparison in the development status of domestic research on this topic, this paper advances suggestions for the future development of distributed leadership research efficacy in China. 2. Methodology This paper adopts the method of systematic literature review proposed by Hallinger and Bryant (2013), and selects literature from the following aspects based on the local academic characteristics in China: First, we selected eight core-international journals in the field of educational leadership and management: Educational Administration Quarterly (EAQ), Journal of Educational Administration (JEA), School Effectiveness and School Improvement (SESI), Educational Management Administration and Leadership (EMAL), International Journal of Leadership in Education (IJLE), International Journal of Educational Management (IJEM) and Leadership and Policy in Schools (LPS), and School Leadership and Management (SLAM). These journals focus on published English research on educational leadership and management from around the world and adopt a blind review process. Additional reasons for the selection of these eight journals include: their average h-index remains at 45, they are broadly representative, and their articles with international viewpoints are indicative of leading theoretical and empirical knowledge in 30 educational leadership and management（Hallinger & Bryant, 2013）. A review in this paper of these articles from the aforementioned journals uncovers the importance of distributed leadership during 23 years, from 1999 to 2022. This time interval was chosen, because it encompasses all development periods during the concept of distributed leadership, from its rise to its most recent developments（Gronn, 2000）. A total of 174 articles related to distributed leadership have been encountered from the eight international core journals. Second, 186 articles with titles related to distributed leadership have been attained in the educational resource literature database of ERIC from 1999 to 2022. Part of the 186 articles overlap with the above-mentioned articles from the eight core international journals, but we believe that a supplementary search from the ERIC database can further ensure that pertinent articles related to distributed leadership will not be overlooked in the literature review of this paper. Third, articles published in the CSSCI and other core journals have been searched for through the CNKI platform. By searching with the keywords of distributed leadership and setting the date on November 5th, 2022, a total of 64 papers published in the CSSCI and core journals have been found. This method was used to uncover the most important and pertinent articles related to the topic of distributed leadership in China. Drawing on the systematic conceptual framework of literature review by Hallinger (2013, 2014) and combined with the research conclusion framework by Bennett et al. (2003) and Tian et al. (2016), this paper was used to show the analyses of this literature from the following aspects: (1) Research themes and theories (2) Research methodology and analytical methods (3) Discovery and revelation 3. Findings When referring to or understanding distributed leadership, it’s easy to think of relevant concepts of leadership, such as shared leadership, collective leadership, collaborative leadership, and co-leadership. The background of these concepts is the social context of the emphasis on decentralization and the increasingly intensive accountability in the 1980s （Holloway et al., 2018; Liu, 2021; OECD，1979; Zepke, 2007). As explained by Olson (1979), it is usually because of the interests of a few people in the organization or the existence of coercion or other special means, that all individuals in the group act in accordance with common interests. Therefore, the original reason for these leadership concepts is simply that they serve as practical tools used for the increasing workload of leaders. It is generally believed that credit for the highlights of distributed leadership apart from many similar concepts and its good reputation in the field of educational leadership should be given to Peter Gronn and James Spillane for their contributions at the beginning of this century(Mayrowetz, 2008a). Distributed leadership has even been considered to encompass all similar concepts and gradually replace them(Bolden, 2011). In detail, there are two groups of distributed leadership(Bolden, 2011): One adheres to a prescriptive-normative paradigm and the belief is that distributed leadership is an effective way to improve the effectiveness of the leadership process and participation. For these scholars, the key question is how to distribute leadership for maximum benefit. The other group espouses a descriptive-analytical paradigm. This group argues that distributed leadership only provides an analytical framework through which we can assess or explain distributed or undistributed leadership styles. These scholars strongly hold the view that leadership may in some cases be shared or democratic, but the existence of distribution is not a necessary or sufficient condition. Distributed leadership cannot replace other types of leadership, and distribution itself is not related to more effective leadership. However, to this day, it is still difficult to sum up what distributed leadership is in a few sentences. This paper intends to conduct a literature review on the four aspects of distributed leadership, namely the who, why, what, and how about which most scholars are concerned and then inform eductiona institutions about how relevant scholars research distributed leadership. 3.1 Who – a research perspective The most innovative element of distributed leadership compared to previous concepts and research on leadership is that the research object of leadership is different from that of the previous concepts. In the past, leadership-related research has focused more on the individual characteristics and/or commonalities of leaders and less on what leaders do. The research object of leadership was limited to leaders who were appointed to official lead positions and assigned tasks. Spillane (2006) fundamentally changes the analysis unit of leadership - from people to practice(Amels et al., 2021; Belliabas et al., 2021; Bolden, 2011; Hartley, 2010; Thien & Chan, 2022; Timperley, 2005；Vuori, 2019). The concept of leader-plus proposed by Spillane and Orlina (2005) further vividly clarified that the kind of research object should be involved in the study of leadership practices by Spillane et al. (2004). Leadership practice or leadership task are the interaction effects between multiple leaders and their followers. It’s not enough to understand such an effect with an additive model, such as 1+1=2. Its real effect must be understood in a multiplicative model; that is the effect must be understood as the collective perception and influence of a group of leaders. When understanding or studying leadership from the perspective of distribution, some scholars are more inclined to agree with what Spillane said - the most appropriate analysis unit for leadership practice should be the entire school or leadership activities at the school level, rather than a single leader or a group of leaders(Al-Harthi & Al-Mahdy, 2017;Amels et al., 2020; Arar & Taysum, 2019；Avissar et al., 2018；Badenhorst & Radile, 2018；Bagwell, 2019； Dampson et al., 2017; Hashem, 2022; du Plessis & Heystek, 2020). It is often referred to as the practice-centric model. In addition, the hybrid model by Gronn (2002, 2003) emphasizes that individual leaders are as important as collective leaders and they coexist, which opens up new directions for distributed leadership research that mainly takes the entire 31 school or school level as the unit of analysis. Basically, research based on Gronn’s mixed model can be viewed from the following three different perspectives or dimensions. The first dimension is to see the big from the small and to study distributed leadership from a smaller unit of analysis. Melville, Jones, & Campbell (2014) took a science subject group in a secondary school as the unit of analysis for relevant research. The analysis unit can also be a group of teachers in a school (Vuori, 2019). For example, Bouwmans, Runhaar, Wesselink, & Mulder (2019) studied which behaviors in the curriculum design team of a vocational education and training (VET) school would affect distributed leadership within the team committed to promoting education innovation. The second dimension is to focus on how a certain group of people distributes leadership. Du Plessis & Eberlein (2018) studied the role of departmental leaders in teachers’ professional development from the perspective of distributed leadership; some studies also focused on how the principal distributed leadership( Klar, 2012a; Klar, 2012b). The third dimension is to understand the situation of distributed leadership in an entire school from the cognitive perspective of a select group. Some people conduct research from the perspective of teachers(Al-Harthi & Al-Mahdy, 2017; Kılıçoğlu, 2018; Miškolci, 2017; Miškolci et al., 2016; Modeste et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2018), and some understand distributed leadership from the perspective of leading teachers, such as subject leaders(Dampson & Frempong, 2018；Hawkes et al., 2017; Heikka et al., 2021; Liu, et al, 2021; Tahir et al., 2016). Sibanda (2018), Bellibas & Liu (2018) and Alsaeedi & Male (2013) conducted research on distributed leadership from the perspective of principals. There are also comparative studies of the implementation of distributed leadership in diverse groups. For example, Blitz & Modeste (2015) conducted a comparative study on the views of teachers and school leaders on distributed leadership; they also performed comparative research on the same group in various regions(Wallace, 2002). They even conducted feminism-featured research on distributed leadership from the perspective of female leaders(Alyami & Floyd, 2019). 3.2 Why - reasons to carry out distributed leadership The simplest reason for the necessity to carry out distributed leadership is that it can produce certain effects and functions. Mayrowetz (2008) found in his study that distributed leadership has four functions: to provide theoretical perspectives, improve efficiency and effectiveness, and enhance ability and democracy. Current relevant research primarily focuses on the first three functions, and each function has been further developed in depth and breadth. First, distributed leadership has the function to provide a theoretical perspective for the study of leadership activities. The current research situation is as Harley (2010) described, that people carry out the reform/change of distributed leadership due to its social regulation. In other words, the reason for people’s implementation of distributed leadership or in-school research on whether distributed leadership exists is that everyone does it. The purpose is not for real change, but what is certain is that distributed leadership has begun to occupy a position in international discourse, and to a certain extent, it has adversely affected the relevant policies of governments at all levels. Some governments have begun to adopt relevant strategies(Abrahamsen & Aas, 2016). In general, research on distributed leadership, as mentioned above, is divided into two paradigms - a prescriptive-normative paradigm and a descriptive-analytical paradigm. Research based on a prescriptive-normative paradigm has us consider, by default, distributed leadership as the best and most effective method. Therefore, it typically focuses on using distributed leadership as a theoretical framework to verify whether there is distributed leadership in an organization and the extent to which distributed leadership has been developed( Aldaihani, 2019; Aldaihani, 2020; Arar & Taysum, 2020; Avissar et al., 2018; Bøe & Hognestad, 2017; Berjaoui & Karami-Akkary, 2019；Jones & Harvey, 2017; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016; Sewerin & Holmberg, 2017; Sharma et al., 2017;Youngs, 2017). Research based on a descriptive-analytical paradigm only use distributed leadership as an analytic framework. Before the selection of distributed leadership as an analytic framework, it is not necessary to consider that the existence of distribution is a requisite or even sufficient condition. However, most research results show, although distributed leadership does not directly affect student achievements nor performance, that they produce indirect influences and bring about measurable positive effects(Bellibas & Liu, 2018; Blitz & Modeste, 2015; Chitpin, 2020; Dampson & Frempong, 2018; du Plessis & Eberlein, 2018; du Plessis & Heystek, 2019; Floyd & Preston, 2018; García Torres, 2018; Malin & Hackmann, 2017; Lumby, 2019; Ross et al. , 2016; Tapio et al., 2019; Tian & Risku, 2019; Wan et al., 2018; Wieczorek & Lear, 2018; Zuckerman et al., 2018). Second, distributed leadership has functions to improve efficiency and effectiveness. Before analyzing the reasons for such functions, it’s necessary to understand what leadership is or to further understand what school leadership is. Our rationale is the identification, acquisition, distribution, coordination, and use of necessary social, material, and cultural resources to create teaching conditions(Spillane et al., 2004a). After the distribution strategy is incorporated into the process of identifying, acquiring, distributing, coordinating, and using social material and cultural resources, the most direct effects are that the workload of leadership is shared to a certain degree, and at the same time, it allows more people who are in unofficial leadership positions, but who have professional skills and resources, to participate in leadership activities. The resultant synergy allows for greater efficiency and efficacy. It can further confirm the reasons that most of the research based on a descriptive-analytical paradigm can be utilized to finally verify the positive benefits of distributed leadership(Alyami & Floyd, 2019; Arar & Taysum, 2019; Bagwell, 2019; Bouwmans et al., 2019; Brown et al., 2019; Bush & Ng, 2019; Heikka et al., 2019; Katewa & Heystek, 2019; Liu, 2020; Mayrowetz, 2008; Pak & Desimone, 2019; Vuori, 2019; Zala-Mezö et al,, 2019). Third, it has the function to improve capabilities. Distributed leadership has increasingly come to our attention, primarily because of the verification of growing research that, as a method or strategy, it can improve the performance of an entire school(Jones et al., 2014; Melville et al., 2014; Özdemir & Demircioğlu, 2015; Thien et al., 2021). As an 32 agency, distributed leadership can improve the ability of individuals, thus improving an entire school. This is a positive cycle because improved schools will affect their internal individuals. Specifically, as shown by the study of Özdemir & Demircioğlu (2015), distributed leadership is directly related to teachers’ organizational commitments and psychological contracts. Or as an agency, it can give individuals at work corresponding feelings of ownership (autonomy), empowerment, self-efficacy, and well-being. Fundamentally, these improve individuals’ willingness to participate in leadership activities and at the same time, provide opportunities for individuals to participate in leadership activities(Bagwell, 2019; Bouwmans et al., 2019; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016; Leithwood et al., 2008; Scribner et al., 2007; Seong & Ho, 2012; Supovitz & Tognatta, 2013; Tian et al., 2016; Tian & Risku, 2019). 3.3 What and how - What is distributed leadership research about and how is such research performed? Much of the current research on distributed leadership focuses on assessing/validating the impact or effectiveness of distributed leadership(Berjaoui & karami-Akkary, 2020; Carbone et al., 2017; Liljenberg, 2015; Jones et al., 2017; Kelley & Dikkers, 2016; Rikkerink et al., 2016; Sales et al., 2017; Sharma et al., 2017; Yuen et al., 2016). More specifically, some studies focus on how to gain more support from working leaders and more participation from followers(Jones et al., 2014; Melville et al., 2014), what the factors that hinder or promote distributed leadership are, determine the collective participation of teachers, state how to empower teachers, declare how to increase trust in an organization, or how to effectively use school resources, such as equipment or tools(Beckmann, 2017; Hairon & Goh, 2015;Harris & DeFlaminis, 2016; Klar, et al., 2016; Liljenberg, 2015; Modeste & Kelley, 2020; Özdemir & Demircioğlu, 2015; Tubin & Pinyan-Weiss, 2015; Zala-Mezo et al., 2020). However, as mentioned by Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond (2004), the research challenge in understanding leadership practices lies in reconstructing the connection between school leadership macro-functions and micro-tasks through observation and interviews. As can be seen from these research findings, most studies do not meaningfully understand the difference between macro-functions and micro-tasks, or they may even mix up the two concepts. In fact, a leadership task can be either macroscopic or microscopic. Macro leadership tasks can be understood as the macro-functions of school leadership, and micro leadership tasks can be considered micro-tasks. Generally speaking, micro-tasks can be included in macro-functions. For example, building a school vision is a macro-function. To achieve this macro-function, it is necessary to complete tasks, such as formulating a draft, arranging staff meetings to discuss and finish the draft, and draft revision. It may take months or even years to complete these micro-tasks in order to achieve the desired macro-functions. Macro functions of significance, that are identified and offered at an early stage, can serve as a framework for analyzing leadership tasks（Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond，2014）:  building and promoting teaching visions  developing and managing a school culture conducive to discussions on core teaching techniques to build trust, collaboration, and norms of scholarly publishing  acquiring and allocating resources, including materials, time, support, and compensation  individually and collectively supporting the growth and development of teachers  providing teaching and innovating summative or formative supervision  building a teaching atmosphere that is not dominated by disciplines The above analytic framework of macro-functions provides a more in-depth direction for future research, and it is also more conducive to the evaluation, verification, and subsequent reference and application of distributed leadership research. In addition, whether it is the practice-centric model of Spillane et al. (2004) or the hybrid model of Gronn (2002, 2003), they take the entire school or school level as the unit of analysis. That is to say, Spillane starts from an analysis of the totality, while Gronn starts from an analysis of the individual to further analyze the entirety. Very few studies effectively pay attention to the feelings and participatory process of individuals. Simultaneously, Woods (2016) fills this gap. He stated that the placement of the authority relationship in relation to individual members within an organization is dynamic. In other words, in the same organization, an individual may have strong authority in some respects, while coincidentally possessing weak authority in other respects. 4. Insights In contrast to overseas research, domestic research on distributed leadership is still at the simple conceptual analysis stage, and it lacks relevant empirical research. The following insights have been obtained from the research findings of the above-cited international journals relating to the four aspects of who, why, what, and how. Moreover, new research directions have been provided for future domestic research on distributed leadership. They include the following: (1) There is a shortage of empirical research based on the practice-centric model of Spillane et al. (2004) and that of the hybrid model of Gronn (2002). Distributed leadership should be taken as the research framework to show the development of distributed leadership in domestic schools. (2) The feelings of individuals, participation process, and dynamic changes in distributed leadership and the improvement of individuals’ capabilities should be more closely investigated, because individuals, as the agents of distributed leadership, play a key role in the overall improvement of scholastic and academic performance within distributed leadership. (3) Domestic research has gained greater attention and been based on a prescriptive-normative paradigm, which by default has been used to consider distributed leadership as the best and most effective way to conduct simple conceptual analysis, manage corresponding research, and generate practical, localized empirical research. Therefore, it is 33 recommended to conduct more empirical research based on a descriptive-analytical paradigm. (4) The macro-functions brought about by distributed leadership should be taken as the research framework to conduct further analysis and research on the premise of clarifying macro-functions and micro-tasks. Acknowledgements This study was funded by Shenzhen Philosophy and Social Science Planning Project The Research on Construction and Practice of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Curriculum System in Higher Vocational Colleges (Project Number: SZ2021C024), and the Education Department of Guangdong Province in the 13th Five-Year Plan on Education and Science - the Special Project of Philosophy and Social Science in Higher Education Research on the Innovation of the Construction System of an Integrated City with Industry and Education in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (Project Number: No. : 2019GXJK244)), with financial sponsorship by Chinese Vocational Education Research Institute in New Era, Shenzhen Polytechnic (Project Number: SZ22B41). References Abrahamsen, H., & Aas, M. (2016). School leadership for the future: heroic or distributed? Translating international discourses in Norwegian policy documents. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2016.1092426 Al-Harthi, A. S. A., & Al-Mahdy, Y. F. H. (2017). Distributed leadership and school effectiveness in Egypt and Oman: an exploratory study. International Journal of Educational Management, 31(6), 801–813. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2016-0132 Aldaihani, S. G. (2019). Distributed leadership applications in high schools in the State of Kuwait from teachers’ viewpoints. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 00(00), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562096 Aldaihani, S.G. (2020).Distributed leadership applications in high schools in the State of Kuwait from teachers’ viewpoints, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23:3, 355-370, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2018.1562096 Amels, J., Krüger, M. L., Suhre, C. J., & van Veen, K. (2020). The effects of distributed leadership and inquiry-based work on primary teachers’ capacity to change: testing a model, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31:3, 468-485, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2020.1746363 Amels, J., Krüger, M. L., Suhre, C. J., & van Veen, K. (2021). The relationship between primary school leaders’ utilization of distributed leadership and teachers’ capacity to change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(5), 732–749. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220915921 Alsaeedi, F., & Male, T. (2013). Transformational Leadership and Globalization: Attitudes of School Principals in Kuwait. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 41(5), 640–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213488588 Alyami, R., & Floyd, A. (2019). Female school leaders’ perceptions and experiences of decentralisation and distributed leadership in the tatweer system in Saudi Arabia. Education Sciences, 9(1). https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci9010025 Arar, K., & Taysum, A. (2019). From hierarchical leadership to a mark of distributed leadership by whole school inquiry in partnership with Higher Education Institutions: comparing the Arab education in Israel with the education system in England. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 00(00), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591513 Arar, K.& Taysum, A. (2020). From hierarchical leadership to a mark of distributed leadership by whole school inquiry in partnership with Higher Education Institutions: comparing the Arab education in Israel with the education system in England, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23:6, 755-774, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1591513 Avissar, I., Alkaher, I., & Gan, D. (2018). The role of distributed leadership in mainstreaming environmental sustainability into campus life in an Israeli teaching college: A case study. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education, 19(3), 518–546. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE-07-2017-0105 Badenhorst, J. W., & Radile, R. S. (2018). Poor Performance at TVET Colleges: Conceptualising a Distributed Instructional Leadership Approach as a Solution. Africa Education Review, 15(3), 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2017.1352452 Bagwell, J. (2019). Exploring the Leadership Practices of Elementary School Principals through a Distributed Leadership Framework: A Case Study. Educational Leadership and Administration: Teaching and Program Development, 30, 83–103. Baloglu, N. (2012). Relations between Value-Based Leadership and Distributed Leadership: A Casual Research on School Principles' Behaviors. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 12(2), 1375-1378. Beckmann, E. A. (2017). Leadership through fellowship: distributed leadership in a professional recognition scheme for university educators. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276663 Bellibas, M. S., & Liu, Y. (2018). The effects of principals’ perceived instructional and distributed leadership practices on their perceptions of school climate. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2016.1147608 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562096 https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1746363 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220915921 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591513 34 Bellibaş, M.S., Gümüş, S. & Liu, Y. (2021) Does school leadership matter for teachers’ classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality, School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32:3, 387-412, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119 Bennett N, Wise C, Woods PA, et al. (2003) Distributed Leadership: A Desk Study. Nottingham: NCSL. Berger PL and Luckmann T (1991) The Social Construction ofReality. Penguin Books: London. Berjaoui, R. R., & Karami-Akkary, R. (2019). Distributed Leadership as a Path to Organizational Commitment: The Case of a Lebanese School. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 0(0), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637900 Berjaoui, R.R. & Karami-Akkary, R. (2020) Distributed Leadership as a Path to Organizational Commitment: The Case of a Lebanese School, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19:4, 610-624, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2019.1637900 Blitz, M. H., & Modeste, M. (2015). The Differences Across Distributed Leadership Practices by School Position According to the Comprehensive Assessment of Leadership for Learning (CALL). Leadership and Policy in Schools, 14(3), 341–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2015.1024328 Bøe, M., & Hognestad, K. (2017). Directing and facilitating distributed pedagogical leadership: best practices in early childhood education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 20(2), 133–148. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1059488 Bolden, R. (2011). Distributed Leadership in Organizations: A Review of Theory and Research. International Journal of Management Reviews, 13, 251–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00306.x Bouwmans, M., Runhaar, P., Wesselink, R., & Mulder, M. (2019). Towards distributed leadership in vocational education and training schools: The interplay between formal leaders and team members. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(4), 555–571. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745877 Brown, M., McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., Hood, S., Burns, D., & Kurum, G. (2019). Evaluating the impact of distributed culturally responsive leadership in a disadvantaged rural primary school in Ireland. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(3), 457–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217739360 Bush, T., & Ng, A. Y. M. (2019). Distributed leadership and the Malaysia Education Blueprint: From prescription to partial school-based enactment in a highly centralised context. Journal of Educational Administration, 57(3), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2018-0206 Carbone, A., Evans, J., Ross, B., Drew, S., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., … Ye, J. (2017). Assessing distributed leadership for learning and teaching quality: a multi-institutional study. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 183–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276629 Cherkowski, S., & Brown, W. (2014). Towards distributed leadership as Standards-based practice in BC. Canadian Journal of Education/Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 36(3), 23-46. Chitpin, S. (2020). Decision making, distributed leadership and the objective knowledge growth framework. [The objective knowledge growth framework] The International Journal of Educational Management, 34(2), 217-231. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-0314 Cowie, B., Jones, A., & Harlow, A. (2011). The distribution of leadership as an influence on the implementation of a national policy initiative: The example of the laptops for teachers scheme. School Leadership and Management, 31(1), 47–63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540561 Dampson, D. G., & Frempong, E. A. (2018). The ‘Push and Pull’ Factors of Distributed Leadership: Exploring Views of Headteachers across Two Countries. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 4(2), 121–127. https://doi.org/10.20448/journal.522.2018.42.121.127 Dampson, D. G., Havor, F. M., & Laryea, P. (2017). Distributed Leadership an Instrument for School Improvement: the Study of Public Senior High Schools in Ghana. Journal of Science, Humanities and Arts - JOSHA, 5(1), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.17160/josha.5.1.374 Didier, N. (2022). Are we ready? Labour market transit to the digital economy. Journal of Adult and Continuing Education, 28(1), 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971420983347 du Plessis, A., & Eberlein, E. (2018). The Role of Heads of Department in the Professional Development of Educators: A Distributed Leadership Perspective. Africa Education Review, 15(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1224583 du Plessis, A., & Heystek, J. (2019). Possibilities for distributed leadership in South African schools: Policy ambiguities and blind spots. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219846907 du Plessis, A., & Heystek, J. (2020). Possibilities for distributed leadership in South African schools: Policy ambiguities and blind spots. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(5), 840–860. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219846907 Floyd, A., & Preston, D. (2018). The role of the associate dean in UK universities: distributed leadership in action? Higher Education, 75(5), 925–943. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-017-0178-1 García Torres, D. (2018). Distributed leadership and teacher job satisfaction in Singapore. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(1), 127–142. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-12-2016-0140 Gedik, S., & Bellibas, M. S. (2015). Examining Schools’ Distributed Instructional Leadership Capacity: Comparison of Elementary and Secondary Schools. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(6), 101-110. Göksoy, S. (2015). Distributed Leadership in Educational Institutions. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(4), 110-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119 https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637900 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-10-2018-0314 https://doi.org/10.1177/1477971420983347 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143219846907 35 Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed leadership as a unit of analysis. Leadership Quarterly, 13(4), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(02)00120-0 Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2), 126–149. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311304670 Hallinger, P. (2014). Reviewing Reviews of Research in Educational Leadership: An Empirical Assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539–576. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X13506594 Hairon, S., & Goh, J. wp. (2015). Pursuing the elusive construct of distributed leadership:Is the search over? Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214535745 Harkin, D. G., & Healy, A. H. (2013). Redefining and leading the academic discipline in Australian universities. Australian Universities' Review, 55(2), 80-92. Harris, A., & DeFlaminis, J. (2016). Distributed leadership in practice: Evidence, misconceptions and possibilities. Management in Education, 30(4), 141–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616656734 Hartley, D. (2010). Paradigms: How far does research in distributed leadership “stretch”? Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(3), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209359716 Hashem, R. (2022). ‘Al Faza’a’ leadership: An implicit cultural barrier to distributed leadership in Jordanian public schools. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(1), 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932580 Hawkes, D., Johansson, C., & McSweeney, C. (2017). Distributed leadership and research degree administration: Understanding the role of a good programme administrator for professional doctorate programmes. Management in Education, 31(4), 194–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020617738186 Heikka, J., Pitkäniemi, H., Kettukangas, T., & Hyttinen, T. (2019). Distributed pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership in early childhood education contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 00(00), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1623923 Heikka, J., Pitkäniemi, H., Kettukangas, T. & Hyttinen, T. (2021) Distributed pedagogical leadership and teacher leadership in early childhood education contexts, International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24:3, 333-348, DOI: 10.1080/13603124.2019.1623923 Holloway, J., Nielsen, A., & Saltmarsh, S. (2018). Prescribed distributed leadership in the era of accountability: The experiences of mentor teachers. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 46(4), 538–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143216688469 ILO.(2020).The Digitization of TVET and Skills Systems. https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_752213.pdf ITU. (2021).Digital Skills Insight 2021. https://academy.itu.int/itu-d/projects-activities/research-publications/digital-skills-insights/digital-skills-insights-20 21 Ji, H.X. (2019). "Organizational inertia" and its improvement strategies in grade groups under the background of school reform. Research on Educational Development, 10, 17–24. https://doi.org/10.14121/j.cnki.1008-3855.2019.10.005 Jones, S., & Harvey, M. (2017). A distributed leadership change process model for higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276661 Jones, S., Harvey, M., Hamilton, J., Bevacqua, J., Egea, K., & McKenzie, J. (2017). Demonstrating the impact of a distributed leadership approach in higher education. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276567 Jones, S., Harvey, M., Lefoe, G., & Ryland, K. (2014). Synthesising theory and practice: Distributed leadership in higher education. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 42(5), 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213510506 Katewa, E., & Heystek, J. (2019). Instructional and Distributed Self-leadership for School Improvement: Experiences of Schools in the Kavango Region. Africa Education Review, 16(2), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1267575 Kelley, C., & Dikkers, S. (2016). Framing Feedback for School Improvement Around Distributed Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 392–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X16638416 Kılıçoğlu, D. (2018). Understanding Democratic and Distributed Leadership: How Democratic Leadership of School Principals Related to Distributed Leadership in Schools? Educational Policy Analysis and Strategic Research, 13(3), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.29329/epasr.2018.150.1 Klar, H. W. (2012a). Fostering department chair instructional leadership capacity: Laying the groundwork for distributed instructional leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 15(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.577910 Klar, H. W. (2012b). Fostering Distributed Instructional Leadership: A Sociocultural Perspective of Leadership Development in Urban High Schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 365–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2012.654886 Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Fostering the capacity for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading school improvement. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1005028 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220932580 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1623923 https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---ed_emp/---emp_ent/documents/publication/wcms_752213.pdf 36 Lefoe, G. E., Parrish, D. R., Keevers, L. M., Ryan, Y., McKenzie, J., & Malfroy, J. (2013). A CLASS Act: The teaching team approach to subject coordination. Journal of University Teaching & Learning Practice, 10(3), 8-14. Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (2008). Distributed leadership according to the evidence. Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence, 38(1), 1–288. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203868539 Li, T.L. You, C. Guo, Y.Q. (2021). The Goals, Directions and Factors of digital transformation. Digital Competency Centre, Mckinsey-Beijing. Liang, J. G., & Sandmann, L. R. (2015). Leadership for Community Engagement: A Distributive Leadership Perspective. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(1), 35-64. Liljenberg, M. (2015). Distributing leadership to establish developing and learning school organisations in the Swedish context. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(1), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143213513187 Liu, P. (2020). Motivating teachers’ commitment to change through distributed leadership in Chinese urban primary schools. [Teachers and leadership in Chinese schools] The International Journal of Educational Management, 34(7), 1171-1183. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0431 Liu, Y.T., & Chen, S. J. (2017). The connotation characteristics and practice path of distributed school leadership. Global Education Outlook, 46, 109–115. Liu, Y. (2020). Focusing on the Practice of Distributed Leadership: The International Evidence From the 2013 TALIS. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 779–818. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907128 Liu, Y. (2021). Distributed leadership practices and student science performance through the four-path model: examining failure in underprivileged schools. [Failure in underprivileged schools] Journal of Educational Administration, 59(4), 472-492. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2020-0159 Liu, Y., Bellibaş, M. Ş., & Gümüş, S. (2021). The Effect of Instructional Leadership and Distributed Leadership on Teacher Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Mediating Roles of Supportive School Culture and Teacher Collaboration. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 49(3), 430–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438 Lumby, J. (2019). Distributed Leadership and bureaucracy. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(1), 5–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217711190 Malin, J. R., & Hackmann, D. G. (2017). Enhancing Students’ Transitions to College and Careers: A Case Study of Distributed Leadership Practice in Supporting a High School Career Academy Model. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 16(1), 54–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2016.1181191 Mayrowetz, D. (2008a). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07309480 Mayrowetz, D. (2008b). Making sense of distributed leadership: Exploring the multiple usages of the concept in the field. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 424–435. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X07309480 Melville, W., Jones, D., & Campbell, T. (2014). Distributed leadership with the aim of reculturing: A departmental case study. School Leadership and Management, 34(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.849681 Miškolci, J. (2017). Contradictions in practising distributed leadership in public primary schools in New South Wales (Australia) and Slovakia. School Leadership and Management, 37(3), 234–253. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1293632 Miškolci, J., Armstrong, D., & Spandagou, I. (2016). Teachers’ perceptions of the relationship between inclusive education and distributed leadership in two primary schools in Slovakia and New South Wales (Australia). Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 18(2), 53–65. https://doi.org/10.1515/jtes-2016-0014 Modeste, M. E., Hornskov, S. B., Bjerg, H., & Kelley, C. J. (2018). School leadership practice across international policy contexts: Organizational roles and distributed leadership in Denmark and the United States. Educational Management Administration and Leadership. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218807489 Modeste, M. E. & Kelley, C.J. (2020) Examining Distributed Leadership Practices by School Grade Configuration, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19:2, 209-238, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2018.1514057 Modeste, M. E., Hornskov, S. B., Bjerg, H., & Kelley, C. J. (2020). School leadership practice across international policy contexts: Organizational roles and distributed leadership in Denmark and the United States. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 48(2), 324–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218807489 Modeste, M. E., Nguyen, C., Nafziger, R. N., & Hermansen, J. (2022). Socially distributed leadership in elementary schools: teacher and staff leadership practice in Denmark and the USA. Journal of Educational Administration, 60(2), 188-206. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2020-0243 O'Donovan, Margaret. "The Challenges of Distributing Leadership in Irish Post-Primary Schools." International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 8.2 (2015): 243-266. Olson, M. (1979). The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press. OECD (1979). School-based curriculum development. Paris: OECD. Özdemir, M., & Demircioğlu, E. (2015). Distributed leadership and contract relations: Evidence from Turkish high schools. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(6), 918–938. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214543207 Pak, K., & Desimone, L. M. (2019). How Do States Implement College- and Career-Readiness Standards? A Distributed Leadership Analysis of Standards-Based Reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(3), 447–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18799463 https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-12-2019-0431 https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20907128 https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-07-2020-0159 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220910438 https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1514057 https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143218807489 https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-11-2020-0243 37 Printy, S., & Liu, Y. (2021). Distributed Leadership Globally: The Interactive Nature of Principal and Teacher Leadership in 32 Countries. Educational Administration Quarterly, 57(2), 290–325. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548 Purcell, J. W. (2014). The Engaged Community College: Supporting the Institutionalization of Engagement Through Collaborative Action Inquiry. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 105-112. Rikkerink, M., Verbeeten, H., Simons, R. J., & Ritzen, H. (2016). A new model of educational innovation: Exploring the nexus of organizational learning, distributed leadership, and digital technologies. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 223–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9253-5 Ross, L., Lutfi, G. A., & Hope, W. C. (2016). Distributed Leadership and Teachers’ Affective Commitment. NASSP Bulletin, 100(3), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636516681842 Sales, A., Moliner, L., & Francisco Amat, A. (2017). Collaborative professional development for distributed teacher leadership towards school change. School Leadership and Management, 37(3), 254–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1209176 Scribner, J. P., Sawyer, R. K., Watson, S. T., & Myers, V. L. (2007). Teacher teams and distributed leadership: A study of group discourse and collaboration. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(1), 67–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X06293631 Seong, D. N. F., & Ho, J. M. (2012). How leadership for an ICT reform is distributed within a school. International Journal of Educational Management, 26(6), 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513541211251370 Sewerin, T., & Holmberg, R. (2017). Contextualizing distributed leadership in higher education. Higher Education Research and Development, 36(6), 1280–1294. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2017.1303453 Sgarzi, M. (2021). TVET advocacy: ensuring multi-stakeholder participation. UNESCO-UNEVOC. Sharma, M. D., Rifkin, W., Tzioumis, V., Hill, M., Johnson, E., Varsavsky, C., … Pyke, S. (2017). Implementing and investigating distributed leadership in a national university network–SaMnet. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 169–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276660 Purcell, J. W. (2014). The Engaged Community College: Supporting the Institutionalization of Engagement Through Collaborative Action Inquiry. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 18(3), 105-112. Sibanda, L. (2017). Understanding distributed leadership in South African schools: Challenges and prospects. Issues in Educational Research, 27(3), 561–581. Sibanda, L. (2018). Distributed leadership in three diverse public schools: Perceptions of deputy principals in Johannesburg. Issues in Educational Research, 28(3), 781–796. Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004a). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 3–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. B. (2004b). Towards a theory of leadership practice: A distributed perspective. In Journal of Curriculum Studies (Vol. 36). https://doi.org/10.1080/0022027032000106726 Spillane, J. P., & Orlina, E. C. (2005). Investigating Leadership Practice : Exploring the Entailments of Taking a Distributed Perspective . Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 157–176. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760500244728 Supovitz, J. A., & Tognatta, N. (2013). The Impact of Distributed Leadership on Collaborative Team Decision Making. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12(2), 101–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2013.810274 Tahir, L. M., Lee, S. L., Musah, M. B., Jaffri, H., Said, M. N. H. M., & Yasin, M. H. M. (2016). Challenges in distributed leadership: evidence from the perspective of headteachers. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(6), 848–863. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-02-2015-0014 Tapio, J. L., Raisa, S. A., & Niina, L. (2019). Finnish principals: Leadership training and views on distributed leadership. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(10), 340–348. https://doi.org/10.5897/err2018.3637 Thien, L. M., Adams, D., & Koh, H. M. (2021). Nexus between distributed leadership, teacher academic optimism and teacher organisational commitment: a structural equation modelling analysis. [Distributed leadership] The International Journal of Educational Management, 35(4), 830-847. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-05-2020-0278 Thien, L. M., & Chan, S. Y. (2022). One-size-fits-all? A cross-validation study of distributed leadership and teacher academic optimism. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 50(1), 43–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220926506 Tian, M., & Risku, M. (2019). A distributed leadership perspective on the Finnish curriculum reform 2014. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 51(2), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2018.1499806 Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576 Timperley, H. S. (2005). Distributed leadership: Developing theory from practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(4), 395–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220270500038545 Tubin, D., & Pinyan-Weiss, M. (2015). Distributing positive leadership: The case of team counseling. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 43(4), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214523012 Vuori, J. (2019). Distributed leadership in the construction of a new higher education campus and community. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 47(2), 224–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217725322 Wallace, M. (2002). Modelling distributed leadership and management effectiveness: Primary school senior https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20926548 https://unevoc.unesco.org/bilt/BILT+Library/lang=enakt=au/st=adv/qs=UNESCO-UNEVOC https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220926506 38 management teams in England and Wales. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 13(2), 163–186. https://doi.org/10.1076/sesi.13.2.163.3433 Wan, S. W. Y., Law, E. H. F., & Chan, K. K. (2018). Teachers’ perception of distributed leadership in Hong Kong primary schools. School Leadership and Management, 38(1), 102–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2017.1371689 Wang, H.P., Sang, M., Huang, Y.Q., Xiong, S.Q., Jin, C.D. (2019). Research progress of distributed leadership in nursing filed. PLA Nursing Journal, 36(3), 71–74. Wieczorek, D., & Lear, J. (2018). Building the “Bridge”: Teacher Leadership for Learning and Distributed Organizational Capacity for Instructional Improvement. International Journal of Teacher Leadership, 9(2), 22–47. Woods, P. A. (2016). Authority, power and distributed leadership. Management in Education, 30(4), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665779 Youngs, H. (2017). A critical exploration of collaborative and distributed leadership in higher education: developing an alternative ontology through leadership-as-practice. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 39(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2017.1276662 Yuen, J. H. P., Victor Chen, D. T., & Ng, D. (2016). Distributed leadership through the lens of Activity Theory. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 44(5), 814–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215570302 Zala-Mezö, E., Bormann, I., Strauss, N. C., & Müller-Kuhn, D. (2019). Distributed leadership practice in Swiss “eco-schools” and its influence on school improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 0(0), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1631855 Zala-Mezö, E., Bormann, I., Strauss, N.C., & Müller-Kuhn, D. (2020) Distributed Leadership Practice in Swiss “Eco-Schools” and Its Influence on School Improvement, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19:4, 673-695, DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2019.1631855 Zepke, N. (2007). Leadership, power and activity systems in a higher education context: Will distributive leadership serve in an accountability driven world? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 10(3), 301–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603120601181514 Zhang, X.F. (2011). Distributed leadership: Origin, concept and implementation. Comparative Education Research, 9, 44–49. Zhao, X.L., Chen, G.M. (2018). Principal cross-border leadership: connotation, function and promotion strategy. Educational Theory and Practice, 38(26), 3-5. Zuckerman, S. J., Wilcox, K. C., Durand, F. T., Lawson, H. A., & Schiller, K. S. (2018). Drivers for Change: A Study of Distributed Leadership and Performance Adaptation During Policy Innovation Implementation. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(4), 618–646. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1384500 https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1631855