From the perspective of distributed leadership, the governing function does not come down merely to the individuals in positions of authority. Perhaps, people at the lower levels of organization also have the leadership talent and capability to influence and make decisions. In complex organizations, leadership can be distributed across the companies to so that control and influence spread evenly. Primarily, distributed leadership was meant to be implemented at schools but then it was applied to various spheres of business. Distributed leadership implies collective influence which gives the way to change and improvement.
Distributed leadership is quite a new approach to management, and many companies are reluctant to implement a risky innovation. Managers ask “Why should we distribute leadership when there is no guarantee of a better outcome?” Indeed, the practice is not a universal remedy applicable to every single business. On the other hand, it makes no sense to cherish traditional leadership if it is outdated and does not work properly for some particular company.
The concept of distributed leadership is sometimes criticized by the adherents of the traditional approach to exercising authority, nevertheless, the practice gave a good account to itself. Improved organizational performance can be seen on the example of schools. The difference between high performing and low performing educational establishments lies in the extent of leadership distribution.
Being about to implement distributed leadership in the company, original leaders have to carefully plan and deliberately orchestrate this practice. Distributed leadership is not the rule of everybody. A government which emerges spontaneously cannot make any positive impact upon the organization. That is why distributed leadership always include accountability and responsibility of leaders involved into it.