To what extent is the purpose and mission of your organisation or setting shared across the different constituents involved (leaders, staff, learners, local community)?
i would say it is largely shared. i do think though that one of the important factors here is the 'purpose and mission', which is very broad and non-specific in my context. so as the vision and purpose gets more specific, it may not be as enthusiastically shared by the stakeholders.
To what extent is leadership distributed in your area department and/or organisation?
the main educational organization i work with/for is a global academic society that focuses on education (of spinal surgery). it has a dual structure in which the leadership positions (committee members and chairs) are elected by the members of the organization for 2 to 3 year terms whereas most work is done by paid officers. this is a structure in which it is very difficult to, even, talk about leadership. there exists a very hierarchical reporting structure though so i should say that if there is any leadership, it is not distributed as per the definition by Spillane.
How are the leadership activities stretched across leaders, staff, learners and the community?
Decisions are taken at various levels; local (national), regional (e.g., Europe) and international (global). the lower two levels do not exercise any autonomy nor any responsibility on their decisions and acts though. all needs to be ratified by the international board and tasks and then delegated to lower levels or individuals. as an example, i was delegated to become the fellowships 'champion' two years ago but with no authority and consequently, no responsibilities.
Who decides how this distribution takes place?
the international board.
Who would be held responsible for perceived failures in leadership activity and/or be given credit for successful leadership?
Activity 4.5.2 Delegated leadership
i would say it is largely shared. i do think though that one of the important factors here is the 'purpose and mission', which is very broad and non-specific in my context. so as the vision and purpose gets more specific, it may not be as enthusiastically shared by the stakeholders.
the main educational organization i work with/for is a global academic society that focuses on education (of spinal surgery). it has a dual structure in which the leadership positions (committee members and chairs) are elected by the members of the organization for 2 to 3 year terms whereas most work is done by paid officers. this is a structure in which it is very difficult to, even, talk about leadership. there exists a very hierarchical reporting structure though so i should say that if there is any leadership, it is not distributed as per the definition by Spillane.
Decisions are taken at various levels; local (national), regional (e.g., Europe) and international (global). the lower two levels do not exercise any autonomy nor any responsibility on their decisions and acts though. all needs to be ratified by the international board and tasks and then delegated to lower levels or individuals. as an example, i was delegated to become the fellowships 'champion' two years ago but with no authority and consequently, no responsibilities.
the international board.
the international board.