Describing and measuring leadership by applying a social network perspective 4 81 central members (see the bold printed scores of school teams K to L in Table 4.5). The reverse is the case as well (see the scores in italics of school teams A to J in Table 4.5). The bold and italics represent a division of the scores in three parts (the highest score minus the lowest score, divided by three, added to the lowest and highest part, which indicates the boundaries). By utilizing and interpreting this combination of social network measures, we were able to exploratively differentiate between school teams with respect to their level of distributed leadership (see the three different parts in Table 4.5; school teams with italic scores indicate a relatively low level, the middle group without italics or bold scores a moderate level, and bold printed a high level of distributed leadership). Table 4.5 Descriptive Network Statistics per School Team on Advice-seeking Team size Density Reciprocity Indeg. Centr. Central members per team % (number of central members) School principal Teacher Coachteacher A (13) 0.405 0.456 0.289 6 (1) 1 C (10) 0.464 0.588 0.273 16 (2) 1 1 E (11) 0.521 0.444 0.273 8 (1) 1 J (7) 0.551 0.593 0.265 12,5 (1) 1 M (5) 0.686 0.417 0.163 12,5 (1) 1 D (11) 0.636 0.659 0.207 25 (3) 1 2 F (11) 0.678 0.659 0.214 16 (2) 1 1 B (12) 0.718 0.589 0.166 28 (4) 2 2 G (9) 0.611 0.618 0.110 27 (3) 1 1 1 K (7) 0.857 0.762 0.122 25 (2) 1 1 I (9) 0.764 0.800 0.125 11 (1) 1 N (6) 0.833 0.800 0.200 50 (3) 1 1 1 H (10) 0.800 0.861 0.099 40 (4) 1 1 2 L (7) 0.857 0.810 0.122 62 (5) 5 Note. Indeg. Centr. means Indegree centralization. Coach-teachers are teachers who perform the supervisor role of the implementation. Central members are persons who are asked for advice by more others. 4.4.4. Visualizing differences between school teams with sociograms Within social network studies, sociograms are commonly used to visualize results and provide an overview of the network structure. We present sociograms of two school teams that are indicative for two ‘extremes’ regarding distributed leadership in our sample, school team C and school H (see Table 4.5 for their scores). Figure 4.1 (team C)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw