Leadership today is more complex than ever. This is why many schools use distributed leadership to share responsibility. When implemented well, this model helps staff to grow, step forward and improve how leadership works across the school.
However, distributed leadership fails in international schools when leaders assume that participation equals empowerment. Some people contribute differently depending on culture and workplace norms, so leaders must understand cultural factors to ensure that initiatives are successful.
There are several practical approaches leaders can take to mitigate cultural dissonance and ensure that everyone has their opportunity to be heard. Here are several ways you can do that:
1. Rotate the chair in meetings
Rather than one formal leader always controlling the agenda, airtime and decisions in meetings, responsibility is shared across the team.
When taking this approach, it is essential to have non-negotiable norms established:
- The chair is a facilitator, not the decision-maker.
- Each agenda item has a clear time allocation.
- Agreed protocols ensure that all voices are heard.
The incoming chair prepares the agenda for the meeting using a shared template, aligned to team priorities. They frame each item, invite contributions, summarise thinking and clarify next steps.
When leaders speak first, their views can create an authority bias, making it harder for others to challenge, contribute alternatives or think independently.
In one middle leadership team I led, we rotated the chair weekly over a half-term. Initially, senior voices dominated. Over time:
- Middle leaders shaped the agenda and led discussion.
- Contributions became more balanced.
- Challenge and alternative perspectives increased.
2. Share agendas and invite written contributions
Sharing agendas with plenty of time before meetings gives staff time to think, not just react.
This democratises participation by converting meetings from performances of confidence into forums for prepared contribution.
Linked to this, not everyone feels confident verbalising their thinking in a meeting, so allowing written contributions can significantly broaden participation and surface ideas that might otherwise go unheard.
Using a shared live document (rather than emails that get lost), the chair can circulate a small number of focused prompts in advance (eg, “How is this improving learning, not just generating data?” or “What are the strengths and limitations of each option?”).
This allows colleagues to reflect, contribute succinctly and raise concerns without the pressure of speaking on the spot. Where appropriate, anonymity can further increase confidence, keeping discussion focused on the issue rather than the individual.
3. Track participation
Using a participation tracker can discreetly capture authentic contributions. I have used this in meetings and planning sessions, recording who initiates ideas, who builds on the thinking of others and who regularly defers.
This made visible what was often hidden: some of the most thoughtful contributors were not speaking at all.
Tracking participation can help you to try to ensure that space is given for all attendees to have an opportunity to speak and share insights.
4. Remember the importance of linguistic flexibility
Of course, on top of this, it is important to consider the language being used within a distributed leadership model.
When teams are international, culturally mixed or professionally diverse, rigid communication can cause misunderstanding, silence or passive compliance.
In practice, this comes down to two key areas:
- Directive versus invitational language: some cultures value directness; others may perceive blunt directives as disrespectful or face-threatening. Leaders need to understand the place for each to elicit the best responses possible.
- Public challenge versus private enquiry: there is a big difference between “Would this work?” and “You can do this, right?” Public challenge may trigger a loss of face and defensiveness, whereas allowing space for quiet, private responses can help new ideas to come to the fore.
I have witnessed initiatives disappear into compliance when directive language was used in a public forum and agreement was given merely to preserve face.
Conversely, I have seen this work well during the rollout of an initiative. In one instance, a head of department was driving the implementation of bar modelling in maths through a more directive, compliance-driven approach. Language such as “You know how to do this” led to quiet resistance, with some staff reverting to more familiar, traditional methods rather than risking a loss of face by admitting uncertainty.
But by shifting to invitational language and creating space for private reflection, the conversation became more open and solution-focused. This surfaced underlying gaps in understanding that had previously been assumed to be secure. Addressing these through targeted support led to clearer alignment and more consistent practice.
More than just distributing tasks
In international and culturally diverse schools, participation must be intentionally designed. Leaders who adapt meeting structures, notice whose voices are missing, use language carefully and provide different routes for contribution are far more likely to unlock the expertise already within their teams.
The practical challenge for school leaders is simple: do not just distribute tasks, actively distribute confidence, clarity and influence. When that happens, leadership becomes a collective strength rather than a bureaucratic exercise.
Sam Crews is deputy head academic at Peponi House school in Kenya, with 15 years’ experience in educational leadership across two continents
