Describing and measuring leadership by applying a social network perspective 4 79 study successful if the correlations between density and reciprocity were positive and the correlations between density and centrality were negative, and if the approach distinguished possible differences between school teams. 4.4. Results 4.4.1. Distributed leadership descriptives in school teams In order to measure distributed leadership, we calculated social network descriptives for all school teams on team level (see Table 4.3). The scores indicated moderately to highly dense networks (41% to 86%), which means that moderately to many of the possible ties were present between members in the advice network, though this varied considerably between school teams. The same holds for reciprocity (42% to 86%), which means that moderately to many pairs of team members sought advice from each other. Regarding network indegree centralization, all school teams scored low to medium (10% to 30%). This means that some school teams had central members who were more often asked for advice and a periphery with members who were rarely asked. Other school teams did not show such a difference between central members and members in the periphery, indicating less of a hierarchy exists in asking for advice. Regarding individual indegree centrality, we studied how many central members were present in each school team and which function they had within their team. Most school teams had more than one central member. In 12 out of 14 teams, teachers performed a central member role. In 4 school teams they were the only central member, in the other teams they shared their central member role with the coach-teacher (in 5 teams) and school principal (in 3 teams). Coach-teachers played a central member role often as well, with a score of 11 out of 14 teams. In 2 school teams, they were the only central member. School principals played a central member role in only 3 out of 14 teams (all three being primary schools), and never performed this central member role alone; in all three cases, they shared the central member role with both a coach-teacher and teacher. Table 4.3 Minimum and Maximum Percentages of Network Descriptives over all School Teams Advice-seeking (%) Density 41 – 86 Reciprocity 42 – 86 Network indegree centralization 10 – 30 Individual indegree centrality (central members) 6 – 62
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw