Shared Leadership and Governance in Swedish and Norwegian Schools
Implications for Leadership Autonomy in Quality Work
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.6467Nøgleord:
shared leadership, governance, quality work, school leader autonomyResumé
Shared leadership has gained impact in educational research and policy, and is often portrayed as key to quality enhancement in schools. However, intricate soft governance strategies, increased focus on school leaders’ responsibility for results and external quality assessment can all cause dilemmas due to differences in professional cultures, traditions and expectations of involvement in decision-making processes. In the Nordic countries, school leadership is often characterised as shared; however, these countries use different governance strategies to ensure quality, and research on shared leadership practices within quality work is limited. This comparative, mixed-method study aims to investigate and compare conditions for school leader autonomy in Sweden and Norway through exploring characteristics of shared leadership and school leaders’ experiences of governance in quality work. The two countries share a social-democratic background but have developed different approaches to education governance. Results show that governance and shared leadership in quality work in Sweden is characterised by comparatively clearer task division and roles. Governance strategies in Norway are more diverse, with more actors involved in sharing leadership, highlighting how different governance strategies can contribute to creating different conditions for school leader autonomy in the two countries.
Downloads
Referencer
Abrahamsen, H., & Aas, M. (2016). School leadership for the future: Heroic or distributed? Translating international discourses in Norwegian policy documents. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 48(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2016.1092426
Abrahamsen, H., Aas, M., & Hellekjær, G. O. (2015). How do principals make sense of school leadership in Norwegian reorganised leadership teams? School Leadership & Management, 35(1), 62–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.992775
Ahlström, B., & Aas, M. (2024). Leadership in low- and underperforming schools—two contrasting Scandinavian cases. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 27(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1849810
Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. (2017). Comparative case studies: An innovative approach. Nordic Journal of Comparative and International Education, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.7577/njcie.1929
Bergh, A. (2015). Local quality work in an age of accountability – between autonomy and control. Journal of Education Policy, 30(4), 590–607. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1017612
Billingsley, B., DeMatthews, D., Connally, K., & McLeskey, J. (2018). Leadership for effective inclusive schools: considerations for preparation and reform. Australasian Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 42(1), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.1017/jsi.2018.6
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. SAGE.
Brinkmann, S., & Kvale, S. (2018). Doing interviews (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781529716665
Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0046
Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Kemmis, S. (2024). Collaborating and distributing leading: Mosaics of leading practices. The Australian Educational Researcher. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-024-00690-8
Cheng, Y. C., Ko, J., & Lee, T. T. H. (2016). School autonomy, leadership and learning: A reconceptualisation. International Journal of Educational Management, 30(2), 177–196. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-08-2015-0108
Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (Third edition.; International student edition). Sage.
Connolly, M., James, C., & Fertig, M. (2019). The difference between educational management and educational leadership and the importance of educational responsibility. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(4), 504–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217745880
Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). School leadership and management from a distributed erspective: A 2016 retrospective and prospective. Management in Education, 30(4), 147–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020616665938
Döös, M., & Wilhelmson, L. (2021). Changing organizational conditions: Experiences of introducing and putting function-shared leadership (FSL) into practice in schools and pre-schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 20(4), 672–689. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2020.1734628
Döös, M., Wilhelmson, L., Madestam, J., & Örnberg, Å. (2018). The shared principalship: Invitation at the top. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 21(3), 344–362. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2017.1321785
Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230810863235
Gunnulfsen, A. E., & Leo, U. (2023). Principals’ roles in a Nordic education context: Shared responsibility and pedagogical engagement. In A. E. Gunnulfsen, H. Ärlestig, & M. Storgaard (Eds.), Education and democracy in the Nordic countries: Making sense of school leadership, policy, and practice (pp. 115–132). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_8
Gunnulfsen, A. E., Ärlestig, H., & Storgaard, M. (2023). Making sense of Nordic school leadership – four perspectives on similarities and variations. In Gunnulfsen, A. E., Ärlestig, H., & Storgaard, M. (Eds.) Education and democracy in the Nordic countries: Making sense of school leadership, policy, and practice (pp. 173–182). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_11
Hall, J. B., & Karseth, B. (2025). Juridification of Norwegian education: students’ rights to a safe and good school environment. Journal of Education Policy, 40(6), 1000–1021. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2025.2537179
Harris, A. (Ed.). (2009). Distributed leadership: Different perspectives. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9737-9
Harris, A., Jones, M., & Ismail, N. (2022). Distributed leadership: Taking a retrospective and contemporary view of the evidence base. School Leadership & Management, 42(5), 438–456. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2022.2109620
Hauge, T. E., Norenes, S. O., & Vedøy, G. (2014). School leadership and educational change: Tools and practices in shared school leadership development. Journal of Educational Change, 15(4), 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-014-9228-y
Hesse-Biber, S. (2018). Toward an understanding of a qualitatively driven mixed methods data collection and analysis: Moving toward a theoretically centered mixed methods praxis. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 545-563). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
Jarl, M., Fredriksson, A., & Persson, S. (2012). New public management in public education: A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public Administration (London), 90(2), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01995.x
Kim, T., & Weiner, J. (2022). Negotiating incomplete autonomy: Portraits from three school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(3), 487–521. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X221080374
Larsson, P., & Löwstedt, J. (2023). Distributed school leadership: Making sense of the educational infrastructure. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(1), 138-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143220973668
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2019.1596077
Leithwood, K., & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x08321221
Liljenberg, M. (2022). Drivers of improvement at local level – tension and support from coexisting logics. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 66(2), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2020.1788157
Liljenberg, M., & Andersson, K. (2020). Novice principals’ attitudes toward support in their leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1543807
Lorentzen, M. (2022). Principals’ positioning of teacher specialists: Between sensitivity, coaching, and dedication. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 25(4), 615–633. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2020.1737240
Lundahl, L., Arreman, I. E., Holm, A. S., & Lundström, U. (2013). Educational marketization the Swedish way. Education Inquiry, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.3402/edui.v4i3.22620
Lundström, U. (2015). Systematic quality work in Swedish schools: Intentions and dilemmas. Scandinavian Journal of Public Addministration, 19(1), 23–43. https://doi.org/10.58235/sjpa.v19i1.15628
MacBeath, J. (2009). Distributed leadership: Paradigms, policy, and paradox. In K. Leithwood, B. Mascall, & T. Strauss (Eds.), Distributed Leadership According to the Evidence (pp. 41–57). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203868539
Mausethagen, S., Prøitz, T. S., & Skedsmo, G. (2021). Redefining public values: Data use and value dilemmas in education. Education Inquiry, 12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2020.1733744
Ministry of Education and Research. (2017). Core curriculum – values and principles for primary and secondary education. Laid down by Royal decree. The National curriculum for the Knowledge Promotion 2020. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/53d21ea2bc3a4202b86b83cfe82da93e/core-curriculum.pdf
Monforte, J., & Úbeda-Colomer, J. (2021). Tinkering with the two-to-one interview: Reflections on the use of two interviewers in qualitative constructionist inquiry. Methods in Psychology, 5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metip.2021.100082
Moos, L. (2009). Hard and soft governance: The journey from transnational agencies to school leadership. European Educational Research Journal, 8(3), 397–406. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2009.8.3.397
Morse, J. M., Cheek, J., & Clark, L. (2018). Data-related issues in qualitatively driven mixed-method designs: Sampling, pacing, and reflexivity. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data collection (pp. 564–583). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526416070
Møller, J. (2009). Approaches to school leadership in Scandinavia. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 41(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620902808244
Møller, J., & Eggen, A. B. (2005). Team leadership in upper secondary education. School Leadership & Management, 25(4), 331–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/13634230500197132
Nehez, J., Sülau, V., & Olin, A. (2023). A web of leading for professional learning – leadership from a decentring perspective. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 55(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2114433
Nordholm, D., Wermke, W., Andersson, A., & Kotavuopio Olsson, R. (2022a). State, municipality and local community. Exploring principal’s autonomy and control in the rural north of Scandinavia. Education Inquiry, 15(4), 548-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/20004508.2022.2149059
Nordholm, D., Wermke, W., & Jarl, M. (2022b). In the eye of the storm? Mapping out a story of principals’ decision-making in an era of decentralisation and re-centralisation. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 55(4), 420-440. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2022.2104823
Nordholm, D., Jarl, M., & Wermke, W. (2025). School leader autonomy – A systematic review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 0(0), 0013161X251349562. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x251349562
Norqvist, L. & Ärlestig, H. (2021). Systems thinking in school organizations – perspectives from various leadership levels. Journal of Educational Administration, 59(1), 77-93. https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-02-2020-0031
NOU 2023:1. (2023). Kvalitetsvurdering og kvalitetsutvikling i skolen. Et kunnskapsgrunnlag. Kunnskapsdepartementet. https://www.regjeringen.no/contentassets/8758c1a973ae4f94ab67e3830c96b9c9/no/pdfs/nou202320230001000dddpdfs.pdf
OECD. (2012). Equity and quality in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
Opplæringslova. (2023). Lov om grunnskoleopplæringa og den vidaregåande opplæringa (LOV-2023-06-09-30). Lovdata. https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2023-06-09-30
Parker, C., Scott, S., & Geddes, A., (2019). Snowball Sampling. In P. Atkinson, S. Delamont, A. Cernat, J. W. Sakshaug, & R. A. Williams (Eds.), SAGE Research Methods Foundations. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526421036831710
Pont, B., Nusche, D., & Moorman, H. (2008). Improving School Leadership, Volume 1: Policy and Practice. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264044715-en
Poom-Valickis, K., Eve, E., & Leppiman, A. (2022). Creating and developing a collaborative and learning-centred school culture: Views of Estonian school leaders. Center for Educational Policy Studies Journal, 12(2), 217–237. https://doi.org/10.26529/cepsj.1029
Postholm, M. B. (2019). The school leader’s role in school-based development. Educational Research, 61(4), 437–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2019.1677171
Prøitz, T. S., & Mausethagen, S. (2022). Mellom administrasjon og faglig-pedagogisk arbeid - rektorrollen i reformtid i Norge. Paideia, 23, 7–20.
Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2017). Data use in education: Alluring attributes and productive processes. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 3(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2017.1328873
Prøitz, T. S., & Nordin, A. (2020). Learning outcomes in Scandinavian education through the lens of Elliot Eisner. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 64(5), 645–660. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2019.1595717
Rapley, T. (2014). Sampling strategies in qualitative research. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 49-63). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n4
Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of qualitative research. Oxford University Press.
Salo, P., Nylund, J., & Stjernstrøm, E. (2015). On the practice architectures of instructional leadership. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(4), 490–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214523010
Schulte, B. (2023). The policy-practice nexus as ‘politics of use’: Professional autonomy and the teacher agency in the classroom. In T. Prøitz, P. Aasen, & W. Wermke (Eds.), From Education Policy to Education Practice: Unpacking the Nexus (pp. 39–57). Springer.
Skollag. (2010/2025). Skollag (2010:800). Sveriges Riksdag. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800/
Skolverket. (2024). Curriculum for compulsory school, preschool class and school-age educare – Lgr22. https://www.skolverket.se/publikationer?id=13128
Spillane, J. P. (2005). Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678
Starr, K. E. (2014). Interrogating conceptions of leadership: School principals, policy and paradox. School Leadership & Management, 34(3), 224–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2014.905466
Sundberg, R. A. (2025a). Collective autonomy through school leader unions (2006–2021): Comparative case study from Sweden and Norway. European Educational Research Journal, 24(3), 372-393. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041241277921
Sundberg, R. A.(2025b). School leader autonomy in quality work: A comparative study from Norway and Sweden [Doctoral dissertation]. University of South-Eastern Norway, submitted for evaluation.
Tian, M., Risku, M., & Collin, K. (2016). A meta-analysis of distributed leadership from 2002 to 2013: Theory development, empirical evidence and future research focus. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 44(1), 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143214558576
Torres, A. C., Bulkley, K., & Kim, T. (2020). Shared leadership for learning in Denver's portfolio management model. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(5), 819–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X20906546
Ulhøi, J. P., & Müller, S. (2014). Mapping the landscape of shared leadership: A review and synthesis. International Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(2), 66–87.
Webber, C. F., Nickel, J., Hamilton, S., & Braunberger, D. (2024). Contextualised shared leadership: A Canadian case study. School Leadership & Management, 44(3), 318–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2024.2303636
Wildy, H., Forster, P., Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (2004). The international study of leadership in education: Monitoring decision making by school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4), 416–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410544044
Zhu, J., Liao, Z., Yam, K. C., & Johnson, R. E. (2018). Shared leadership: A state-of-the-art review and future research agenda. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 39(7), 834–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2296
Ärlestig, H., & Leo, U. (2023). Sweden – Good will on all governance levels is not enough to create sustainable improvement. In A. E. Gunnulfsen, H. Ärlestig, & S. Merete (Eds.), Education and Democracy in the Nordic Countries: Making Sense of School Leadership, Policy, and Practice (pp. 75-87). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33195-4_6
Aasen, P., Prøitz, T. S., & Sandberg, N. (2014). Knowledge regimes and contradictions in education reforms. Educational Policy, 28(5), 718–738. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904813475710
Downloads
Publiceret
Citation/Eksport
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2026 Rikke A. Sundberg, Elisabeth Hovdhaugen
Dette værk er under følgende licens Creative Commons Navngivelse (by).
Declaration on copyright
- The author/s will keep their copyright and right of reproduction of their own manuscript, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, but give the journal a permanent right to 1) present the manuscript to the public in the original form in which it was digitally published and 2) to be registered and cited as the first publication of the manuscript.
- The author itself must manage its financial reproduction rights in relation to any third-parties.
- The journal does not provide any financial or other remuneration for contributions submitted.
- Readers of the journal may print the manuscripts presented under the same conditions that apply to reproduction of a physical copy. This means that mass reproduction of physical copies or production of copies for commercial purposes is not permitted without the agreement of the author/s.
