Organizational Professionals Challenging Principal Autonomy and Professionalism?

Katarina Samuelsson; Mette Lilljenberg

doi:10.7577/pp.6332

Authors

Katarina Samuelsson University of Gothenburg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1004-2138
Mette Lilljenberg University of Gothenburg https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3170-1243

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.6332

Keywords:

organizational professionals, local education authority, principals’ work, occupational professionalism, organizational professionalism

Abstract

Swedish principals have traditionally enjoyed a high degree of autonomy, with extensive responsibility for local schools. However, changes in governance and the expansion of central administration have challenged the conditions for principal autonomy and work. Through a multiple-case study of six Swedish municipalities, this paper aims to expand knowledge of the expansion and work of organizational professionals and their implications for traditional professionals. The findings illustrate that principals perceive this expansion as both controlling and supportive. Principals’ perceptions vary according to organizational professionals’ training, experience, assignments, and approaches to local decision-making. Although the expansion of organizational professionals may challenge principal autonomy at a general level, at the level of practice, principals express navigating these challenges to preserve professional autonomy. Overall, the study demonstrates that it is possible for principals and organizational professionals to develop a mutual understanding of how to control quality and improvement work without undermining principals’ professionalism.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adolfsson, C.-H., & Alvunger, D. (2020). Power dynamics and policy actions in the changing landscape of local school governance. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 6(2), 128–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2020.1745621

Alamaa, L., Hall, P., & Löfgren, K. (2025). Managers, professionals, or public servants? Organizational professionals in the public sector as hybrid professionals. Public Administration, 104(1), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.70000

Alamaa, L., Hall, P. & Löfgren, K. (2024). Why are organizational professionals expanding in the Swedish public sector? The role of accountability. Public Policy and Administration, 40(1), 50–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520767241227068

Alvehus, J., & Andersson, T. (2018). A new professional landscape: Entangled institutional logics in two Swedish welfare professions. Nordic Journal of Working Life Studies, 8(3), 91–109. https://doi.org/10.18291/njwls.v8i3.109542

Antonsson, L. (2025). The autonomy of middle managers in local education administrations: A Swedish viewpoint. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 11(2), 135–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2024.2397828

Ball, S., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Policy actors: Doing policy work in schools. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 625–639. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.601565

Battilana, J. (2006). Agency and institutions: The enabling role of individuals’ social position. Organization, 13(5), 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508406067008

Cribb, A., & Gewirtz, S. (2007). Unpacking autonomy and control in education. European Educational Research Journal, 6(3), 203–213. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2007.6.3.203

Cronin, C. E., Schuller, K. A., & Bolon, D. S. (2018). Hospital administration as a profession. Professions and Professionalism, 8(2), Article e2112. https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.2112

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00372.x

Downe-Wamboldt, B. (1992). Content analysis: Method, applications, and issues. Health Care for Women International, 13(3), 313–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/07399339209516006

Evetts, J. (2009a). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913309X421655

Evetts, J. (2009b). The management of professionalism. In S. Gewirtz, P. Mahony, I Hextall & A. Cribb. (Eds.), Changing teacher professionalism: International trends, challenges and ways forward (pp. 19–30). Routledge.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2011). Case study. In Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research (4 ed., pp. 301–316). Sage.

Forsberg, T., & Cregård, A. (2023). Spänningar mellan chefs- och HR-arbete i en genusmärkt kommunal praktik [Tensions between managerial and HR work in a gender-specific municipal practice]. In Cregård, A., Forsberg, T., & Berntson, E. (Eds.), Samspel i kommunal administration: Lagspel, dragkamp eller hierarki [Interaction in municipal administration: Team play, tug-of-war or hierarchy] (pp. 87–106). Studentlitteratur AB.

Frostenson, M. (2015). Three forms of professional autonomy: De-professionalisation of teachers in a new light. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 2015(2), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.3402/nstep.v1.28464

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001

Hall, P. (2025). Varför ökar den offentliga byråkratin i Sverige? [Why is public bureaucracy increasing in Sweden?]. Malmö University Press.

Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers` work? Power and accountability in America´s schools. First Harvard University Press.

Jacobsen, A. J., & Buch, A. (2016). Management of professionals in school practices. Professions and Professionalism, 6(3). https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.1503

Jarl, M. (2025). Using unintended consequences to produce intended results: The governance of education in Sweden 1991-2020. Public Performance & Management Review, 48(1), 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2024.2410965

Jarl, M., Fredriksson, A., & Persson, S. (2012). New public management in public education: A catalyst for the professionalization of Swedish school principals. Public Administration, 90(2), 429–444. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2011.01995.x

Jerdborg, S. (2023). School principal re-positioning in a system of professional relations: The case of newly appointed principals in Sweden. Journal of Educational Administration and History, 55(4), 456–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220620.2023.2217086

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

Liff, R., & Andersson, T. (2021). Experts’ contribution to strategy when strategy is absent. A case study of quality experts in hospitals. Public Management Review, 23(9), 1377–1397. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1751256

Liljenberg, M., & Samuelsson, K. (2025). Contradictory policy demands—Perspectives on educational leaders’ shared responsibility for educational improvement. International Journal of Educational Management, 39(6), 1582–1595. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2024-0582

Liljenberg, M., Hirsh, Å., Jahnke, A., & Karlsson Pérez, Å. (2023). School principals’ perceptions of autonomy and control in low-SES communities—Navigating local school administration on the front line. Nordic Journal of Studies in Educational Policy, 9(3), 248–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/20020317.2023.2254677

Linde, S., & Svensson, K. (2021). Välfärdens aktörer: Utmaningar för människor, professioner och organisationer [Welfare actors: Challenges for people, professions and organizations]. Social Work Press.

Lingard, B., & Sellar. S. (2013). ‘Catalyst data’: Perverse systemic effects of audit and accountability in Australian schooling. Journal of Education Policy, 28(5), 634–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2012.758815

Mik-Meyer, N. (2018). Organizational professionalism: Social workers negotiating tools of NPM. Professions and Professionalism, 8(2), Article e2381. https://doi.org/10.7577/pp.2381

Nordholm, D., Wermke, W., & Jarl, M. (2023). 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., Wermke, W., Andersson, A., & Kotavuopio Olsson, R. (2024). 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., Jarl, M., & Wermke, W. (2025). School leader autonomy—A systematic review. Educational Administration Quarterly, Online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X251349562

Noordegraaf, M. (2020). Protective or connective professionalism? How connected professionals can (still) act as autonomous and authoritative experts. Journal of Professions and Organization, 7(2), 205–223. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/joaa011

Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism: Present-day professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society, 39(6), 761–785. https://doi-org.ezproxy.ub.gu.se/10.1177/0095399707304434

Noordegraaf, M., Van der Steen, M., & Van Twist, M. (2014). Fragmented or connective professionalism? Strategies for professionalizing the work of strategists and other (organizational) professionals. Public Administration, 92(1), 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2013.11.003

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD]. (2023). PISA 2022 results: The state of learning and equity in education (Volume 1). Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1787/53f23881-en

Parding, K. (2007). Upper secondary teachers' creation of discretionary power: The tension between profession and organisation [Doctoral dissertation]. Luleå tekniska universitet.

Paulsen, J.M., Johansson, O., Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., & Risku, M. (2014). Superintendent leadership under shifting governance regimes. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 812–822. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-07-2013-0103

Prøitz, T. S., Mausethagen, S., & Skedsmo, G. (2021). District administrators' governing styles in the enactment of data-use practices. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 24(2), 244–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2018.1562097

Richard, T. (2024). Novice school leaders’ turnover intentions: The role of working conditions and organizational factors. Educational Administration Quarterly, 60(3), 341–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X241253288

Saldaña, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

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. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-36970-4_3

SFS 2010:800 (2010). Skollag [The Education Act]. Sveriges Riksdag. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/skollag-2010800_sfs-2010-800

Sveriges Kommuner och Regioner (SKR) (2022). Kommungruppsindelning. [Municipality classification]. https://extra.skr.se/download/18.ef4ba7d1849a2f55db2898a/1669978414789/Kommungruppsindelning-2023.pdf

Ståhlkrantz, K., & Rapp, S. (2026). Leading for higher grades—Balancing school leadership on the fine line between accountability and professional autonomy. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 29(1), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2022.2098381

Ullman, A. (1997). Rektorn: En studie av en titel och dess bärare [The Principal: A study of a title and its bearer] [Doctoral Dissertation]. Stockholms universitet.

Yin, R. K. (2009), Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Sage.

Wermke, W., Jarl, M., Prøitz, T. S., & Nordholm, D. (2022). Comparing principal autonomy in time and space: Modelling school leaders’ decision making and control. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 54(6), 733–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2022.2127124

Ärlestig, H. (2014). Rektor och lärares yrkesprofessionalism [Principal and teachers’ professionalism]. In M. Törnsén & H. Ärlestig (Eds.), Ledarskap i centrum: Om rektor och förskolechef [Leadership at the center: About the principal and preschool director] (pp. 197–212). Gleerups.

Ärlestig, H., & Törnsén, M. (2014). Classroom observations and supervision—Essential dimensions of pedagogical leadership. International Journal of Educational Management, 28(7), 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-01-2014-0001