Distributed leadership has become a hot item in the leadership literature. Since, leadership tasks became increasingly complex, especially in large secondary schools, there is a tendency to move away from the dominant hierarchical 'single person' leadership to an approach that stresses the distribution of leadership functions to other members of the school team (Bennett, Wise, Woods, & Harvey, 2003; Bush & Glover, 2003; Gronn, 2002; Harris, 2004). Notwithstanding that this 'distributed leadership' is a valuable alternative for the heroic models of leadership, a clear conceptual base is lacking and empirical quantitative research concerning distributed leadership is rather limited (Harris, 2002). This study aims to add a conceptual and methodological value to the distributed leadership literature.The central research questions are:1. How is the distribution of leadership among middle managers, senior managers, and the school leader perceived?2. What is the relation between the perception of the 'characteristics' of distributed leadership and the perception of the distribution of leadership?3. Which demographical and school variables influence the perception concerning the distribution of leadership? 4. Is there a difference in the perception of the school leader, senior managers, middle managers, and teachers concerning the distribution of leadership?In order to study these research questions, we identified 3 main leadership functions based on a literature review (Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999): (1) building a vision, (2) providing support to teachers, and (3) supervising teachers.First, multiple case studies were set up in 7 secondary schools. 60 Semi-structured interviews were performed with senior and middle managers and 41 teachers are interviewed in focus groups. Second, a survey was developed, based on the results of the multiple case studies. This survey consists of 3 parts.In the first part of the survey a line of research and theory is followed (Camburn, Rowan, & Taylor, 2003; Heller & Firestone, 1995; Pounder, Ogawa, & Adams, 1995) that conceptualizes leadership in terms of organizational functions (3 in our study: vision, support, and supervision) and examines which members of the school typically charged with exercising leadership, namely the school leader, senior managers, and middle managers, perform these functions. The items are based on validated scales of Hoy & Tarter (1997), Leithwood & Jantzi (1999) and Van Petegem et al (2006). All items are rated on a five-point Likert scale.In the second part, we investigate certain 'characteristics' of distributed leadership, e.g. role ambiguity (Rizzo, House, & Lirtzman, 1970), group cohesion (Litwin & Stringer, 1968), shared vision of the management team (Staessens, 1990), participation (Leithwood & Jantzi, 1999). All items are rated on a five-point Likert scale.The third part contained demographical (e.g. years of experience) and school (e.g. changes in the middle management structure) variables.After an extensive review with 16 'experts' (e.g. teachers, middle managers, school leaders, inspectorates), the questionnaire is tested in two pilot schools. Next, the survey is completed by the school leader, all senior managers, middle managers and teachers of grade 2 (i.e. 14 to 16 years old pupils) of 50 randomly chosen secondary schools. Main result of the multiple case studies is that some leadership functions are distributed (e.g. vision and support). However, the supervision of teachers remains mostly with the formal school leaders. A second important result is that the perception of the quality of leadership does not depend on the amount of distribution, but other variables play an important role (e.g. role clarity, group cohesion of the management team).These results of the multiple case studies should be complemented with the data of the quantitative research. The results of this quantitative research will be presented on ECER 2007.Bennett, N., Wise, C., Woods, P., & Harvey, J. A. (2003). Distributed leadership. Full Report National College for School Leadership. Bush, T. & Glover, D. (2003). School Leadership: Concepts and Evidence. Full Report National College for School Leadership. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. E. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: the case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 347-373. Gronn, P. (2002). Distributed Leadership. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second International Handbook of Educational Leadership and Administration (pp. 653-696). Dordrecht - Boston - London: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Hallinger, P. (2003). Leading Educational Change: Reflections on the Practice of Instructional and Transformational Leadership. Cambridge Journal of Education, 33, 329-351. Harris, A. (2002). Distributed Leadership in Schools: Leading or Misleading? A Paper presented at the British Educational Leadership, Management and Administration Society Annual Conference. Birmingham, UK.Harris, A. (2004). Distributed Leadership and School Improvement: Leading or Misleading? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. San Diego. Heller, M. J. & Firestone, W. A. (1995). Who's in Charge Here? Sources of Leadership for Change in Eight Schools. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 65-86. Hoy, W. K. & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The Road to Open and Healthy Schools: A Handbook for Change. California: Corwinn Press. Leithwood, K. & Jantzi, D. (1999). Transformational School Leadership Effects: a Replication. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 10, 451-479. Litwin, G. H. & Stringer, R. A. (1968). Motivation and organizational climate. Boston: Harvard University Press. Pounder, D. G., Ogawa, R. T., & Adams, E. A. (1995). Leadership as an Organization-Wide Phenomena: Its Impact on School Performance. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 564-588. Rizzo, J. R., House, R. J., & Lirtzman, S. I. (1970). Role conflict and ambiguity in complex organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 150-163. Staessens, K. (1990). De Professionele Cultuur van Basisscholen in vernieuwing. Een Empirisch Onderzoek in V.L.O.- scholen. Doctoraatsverhandeling. KULeuven. Van Petegem, P., Devos, G., Mahieu, P., Dang Kim, T., & Warmoes, V. (2006). Het beleidsvoerend vermogen in basis- en secundaire scholen. (Rep. No. OBPWO-project).