82 and 4.2 (team H) present the sociograms of these two school teams. School team C is of a larger size than school team H, with two members more. The circle sizes are based on the indegree and represent by how many members this specific team member is asked for advice. Moreover, black circles represent central members, calculated as the members with the relative largest indegree of their school team, grey circles represent all other team members with lower indegree scores. Furthermore, the thick lines represent reciprocal relationships, whereas the thin lines represent nonreciprocal (one-way) relationships. We compared the two sociograms of Figure 4.1 and 4.2 on the collective, dynamic, and relational aspects of distributed leadership. First of all, school team H was more collective than school team C, since team H had relatively more connections and no team members were excluded. However, solely studying this collective aspect does not lead to a reliable conclusion about differences between school teams regarding distributed leadership, since the two sociograms do not indicate large differences. The dynamic aspect strengthens the collective aspect by indicating that school team H was more dynamic than school team C: School team H (see Figure 4.2) had three different sizes of circles, all team members were being asked for advice by more than one team member (see Figure 4.2 in which no small circles were present), and more central members were present (see four black circles in Figure 4.2), compared to school team C (see Figure 4.1), in which eight different sizes of circles, meaning by how many others members are asked for advice, are present. Regarding the roles of central members, within school team C, the two central members were a teacher and coach-teacher; within school team H, the central members were two coach-teachers, one teacher, and the school principal. To draw even more reliable conclusions about the distributed leadership structure within teams, the relational aspect helps to show the hierarchy within a network and indicates another difference between school team H and C. The thick lines in the sociograms indicate reciprocal ties and school team H has distinctly more reciprocal ties than school team C. In summary, these sociograms visualize distributed leadership, help to indicate that all three aspects contribute to describing distributed leadership within school teams, and suggest that school team H had a less hierarchical network structure, which indicates more distributed leadership than school team C.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw