Distributive leadership differentiates itself from charismatic leadership as
it does not only focus on the personal qualities, roles, functions of a single individual. Distributive leadership, also called shared leadership, focuses on the collective and systematic social processes, emerging from interaction of a number of actors. It is not something one individual does to a group of others but rather a group activity that works within as well as through group bonds (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003). As stated in the distribution theory, no one individual can make all decision as decisions are emergent, and come from a number of areas which cannot be known to only one person (Hutchins, 1995). According to Hatcher (2005), distributive leadership creates an organizational culture in which leadership is regarded as knowledge, leading to the idea that nowadays we need leaders with knowledge and expertise. For instance, in a business organization nowadays, more knowledge is required in order to stay competitive on the market than it was before, hence, not only one manager can handle the decision-making process but it has to be a collective operation. Shared leadership is a dynamic and interactive leadership process and its core objective is to lead the individuals towards achievement of the collective goal. Unlike the traditional leadership process, distributive leadership does not appoint one single leader but entails broad power-sharing among a set of individuals (Pearce, Manz & Sims Jr., 2009). Advantages and disadvantages Historically speaking, leadership has been centralized around one single individual who holds all the power and authority, who inspires, commands and controls followers. This paradigm has been reinforced globally through media coverage of prominent leaders in the course of history. Nonetheless, in the ever changing circumstances of today, the information and knowledge overflow and the quick pace of technological development, it is not possible anymore for one mind to grasp everything. Shared leadership conveys exactly this message: in certain environments, it is more efficient to distribute power in the form of knowledge among a group of individuals, who can rise to the occasion in a given situation without being formally appointed as leaders, and afterwards step back, allowing others to share the leadership (Pearce, Manz & Sims Jr., 2009). This form of leadership is quite advantageous for the competitiveness of different companies in the growing market economy. Senior staff for example does not have that much time on their hands for market research decisions, hence, distributing the tasks among knowledgeable subordinates will guarantee better results. Furthermore, nowadays leadership decisions call for a quicker temp: there is no time to waste on bottom-to-top discussions. This is why the power of decision making has to be distributed in a more horizontal manner which will ensure faster response in times of crisis, for instance. Shared leadership also inevitably spurs discussion which generally leads to out-of-the-box ideas, innovation and improved relationship within the
working place. In an environment where power is distributed, individuals
have the opportunity to open themselves and create freely as there is no borderline restricting their power (Pearce, Manz & Sims Jr., 2009). Additionally, this collaborative leadership process can be useful in situations of transitioning power from one leader to another without disrupting the working process. Nonetheless, distributed leadership can lead to a chaotic environment. People are mostly used to having a single designated leader who gives all the orders and according to whose rules followers should act. Without a clear leading figure, chaos and disorder may arise, leading to a counterproductive environment. Confusion can be caused by conflicting opinions among the co-leaders, possible unhealthy competition, or also by high dependence on only one of the distributive leaders (Corey, Corey & Callanan, 2011). In a business organization for instance, employees may choose to share work projects with the leaders that support their point of view, resulting in a bias within the organization. Additionally, this may lead to lack of attention to detail, neglecting of certain projects and subsequently, low work quality. Furthermore, a financial disadvantage of this leadership model is the increase in costs when having more than one assigned leader. In order to promote equality within the staff, companies need to keep equal and fair salaries which may cause financial issues. Today, distributed leadership is mostly used in different education institutions. A suitable environment for this leadership variation would be institutions of higher education where knowledge is definitely treated as form of power. What is more, nowadays not only university staff but also students have to be much more involved in the decision-making processes of education, hence, shared leadership with the involvement of student figures, such as associations and unions, can greatly contribute to the development of the education systems in many countries. Moreover, having in mind the growing number of entrepreneurial organizations, this model may find its place in many start-up business ventures where discussion and quick thinking is of high demand.