Suchergebnisse

This thesis studies political elites' beliefs about the ideal party leader. This ideal, like other human ideals, is characterized by ambivalence. The thesis explores the ambivalence expressed in party elites' leadership ideal and how it can be understood. The study draws primarily on qualitative interviews with members of the party elites in the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party in Sweden. Specifically, it analyzes the "life world" of the party leaders, party secretaries, group leaders in the Swedish Parliament, and election committee chairmen. Building on classical and modern research on leadership and political parties, the thesis derives an analytical tool to guide the interviews which covers six aspects of party leadership: Characteristics, Leadership style, Tasks, Freedom of action, Representation, and Status. The empirical analysis shows that the elites' party leadership ideal is ambivalent and different across the two parties. The ambiguities can be summarized as dichotomies, where the ideal leader should encompass both sides of the dichotomy. The Social Democratic Party elites' ideal is represented by two dichotomies: the leader versus the team and the party versus the government. To bridge the ambiguities, the elite resort to the idea of "anchoring". This notion resolves conflicts between the leader and the surrounding team and the party and the government. The ideal of the Liberal Party's elites includes four dichotomies: dogmatism versus pragmatism; idea versus person; appearance (outward-looking) versus action (inward-looking); and free versus constrained. Unlike the case of the Social Democratic Party, it is less evident how the Liberal Party's elites accommodate the ambiguities. However, an emphasis on accountability and maintaining a balance between existing conflicts, partially remedies the dilemma. Also, the idea of leadership within the Liberal Party is less problematic compared to the Social Democratic Party. In sum, while the Social Democrats' ideal resembles the "friendly father figure", the Liberals' ideal is portrayed by the "superficial intellectual". The findings also indicate that the way in which the parties were established, their experience of being in government, size, ideology, and position within the party system affect their beliefs about leadership ideals.

This article takes its stand in an international discussion about how NPM reforms affect public servants' notions about core public values. More specifically, it analyses how school leaders relate to the values of political control, rule of law, economic efficiency, professionalism and users' influence. It raises the question whether it matters, in terms of how they embrace these values, their organisation is public or private. 975 school leaders (481 working for public schools and 472 for private schools) have completed a written questionnaire containing 15 postulations linked to the five core values. The study's main finding is that the differences between the two categories of school leaders are quite small although differences exist. The similarities could reflect a development in recent decades where private schools have undergone politicisation and public schools companyisation. The study indicates that school leaders on both sides try to defend all values simultaneously, in some way. Furthermore, when trying to handle value conflicts they seem to avail themselves of other strategies than those connected to dominating models of rationality, which often conceptualise public actors' response to value conflicts as a matter of balancing or striking trade-offs.

This article takes its stand in an international discussion about how NPM reforms affect public servants' notions about public core values. More specifically, it analyzes how school leaders relate to the values of political control, rule of law, economic efficiency, professionalism and users' influence. It raises the question whether it matters, in terms of how they embrace these values, whether their organization is public or private. 975 school leaders (481 working for public schools and 472 for private schools) have completed a written questionnaire containing 15 postulations linked to the five core values. The study's main finding is that the differences between the two categories of school leaders are quite small. The study indicates that school leaders on both sides try to defend all values simultaneously. When trying to handle value conflicts they seem to avail themselves of other strategies than those connected to dominating models of rationality, which often conceptualize public actors' response to value conflicts as a matter of balancing or striking trade-offs.

This paper provides insight into the legislative process behind the current Education Act of Sweden. The aim is to shed light on how and why it came to prohibit joint leadership for principals. Joint leadership is a sub-form of shared leadership between managers characterised by complete formal authority, hierarchic equality and merged work tasks. The sharing of a principal's position is, in previous research, identified as potentially favourable for principals and schools as it decreases principals' often heavy workload. Five retrospective interviews were done with people involved in the legislative process. The analysis points out both distrust in the governing line and uninformed notions of leadership among legislators as explanations behind the prohibition. In the legislative work, joint leadership was at most a marginal issue. Thus the legal prohibition was an unintended side-effect, yet completely in line with traditional and uninformed notions of leadership. The principle of singularity ruled and joint leadership was extinguished for principals without considering whether this favoured or harmed the overarching aims of the Education Act: increased peda-gogical responsibility and leadership with a focus on the students' learning, results and democratic upbring-ing.