Suchergebnisse

This master's thesis seeks to map the discourse on trust-based management and leadership (TBML) in some of the largest Norwegian newspapers. Namely to assess 1) the Norwegian discourse compared to tendencies otherwise in Scandinavia, 2) which actors are most active within the discourse, 3) the terminology used to frame TBML, as well as aspects of the newspapers, 4) attitudes towards TBML and their development, and 5) the development in the spread (mention) of TBML over time. Over 180 newspaper articles have been selected, covering a period of eleven years (2010-2020). They are registered and analyzed by utilizing a combination of quantitative and qualitative content analysis. Concepts from discourse analysis are drawn upon throughout. The results are viewed and discussed within the frame of the initial five-part division of focal areas and discussed in light of relevant theory on the fields of trust, discourse, and the spread of management and leadership ideas. The findings indicate that the Norwegian discourse gains momentum simultaneously as the rest of Scandinavia, though with a few more odd peaks in mention, related to specific, highly politicized and debated topics. By sector, political representation and attitudes, the actors that are most active within the discourse are political, social-democratic and positive towards TBML. The most positive actors towards TBML, by level of position, are political and public leaders. I tie these individual groupings of actors to different theoretical contributions on the spread of management ideas, hereunder diffusion theory, the translation of ideas, the life-cycle perspective, and the analogy of resistance. Pronounced negative mention of TBML does not occur, however, TBML is often problematized by individual actors through a line of thought that sees "trust" as a phenomenon that cannot be united with a professional reality that calls for control. The problematization of TBML is also more frequent in regional newspapers and by actors on employee level. The findings also indicate that the shift in conceptual focus from "leadership" exclusively, to "management (steering) and leadership" over the last three years, results from a process of learning. "Steering" as a counter-concept, paradoxically becomes more common at the same time. This is tied to the leader-employee division and its impact on the spread, reception and implementation of ideas. To the degree the spread of TBML can be mapped by article frequency over time, it seems to follow an S-shaped diffusion line. However, other important aspects than the visual development in article frequency are in line with different approaches to the spread of management ideas, as highlighted throughout the analysis. ; publishedVersion

Master i styring og ledelse ; 2017, the city council of Oslo decided that trust-based governance and management should be its guiding principle in the governance of the city. The purpose of this assignment is to provide a better understanding of the model of trust and how the boroughs in the city of Oslo have put this into practice. We have explored how trust-based governance and management is perceived by Oslo's district directors. The key issue we are addressing is: How has the idea of trust-based governance and management changed the governance practices in the management of Oslo's city districts? The study has a qualitative approach and we conducted a total of five in-depth interviews with district directors. Their subjective reflections and thoughts about trust-based governance and management provide information about how this has changed governance practices across city districts. We have looked at the instrumental and cultural perspective, as well as the theory of trust, governance and leadership and implementation. Furthermore, the City Council case from 2017 on trust-based governance and management is central. The study shows that trust-based management has no clear, standardized practice in the districts. The study also reveals that there have been few major changes related to governance and management since the introduction, but that the districts are constantly changing. By contrast, the trust model has contributed to increased awareness of the concept of trust, goal and performance management and empowerment of employees. In addition, there is a shift towards seeing things from the perspective of the user, rather than simply keeping the user in mind, in the effort to improve services across city districts. ; publishedVersion

Centre of Excellence (CoE) is a politically initiated financing scheme from the Research Council in Norway aiming for long term, high quality and innovative research, contributing towards solving the big challenges of our society. Two evaluations conclude that this scheme is a success. These evaluations does not however pay much attention to the role of the administration in that regard. This master-thesis investigate how administrative leaders in the CoE contribute towards goal achievement. This has not previously been studied. For the data collection individual interviews was chosen, because they provide an open and investigative approach, well suited to gather relevant information. The analysis are based on organizational theory for public organizations, theories about organization types and previous research regarding the role of administrative personnel in research and higher education. The administrative leaders in CoE work in the interface between academic work and administration. My research shows that most of them have an academic background. They are highly educated, on master or PhD level, and some have research experience beyond that. Most of them have relevant work experience with a good overview of how the research and university systems work. The administrative leaders can further be recognised by their ability to create a good work environment and their social integration skills. This is very important in CoE, not the least because the centres depends heavily on recruitment of international research staff. In this regard good language skills and intercultural competence are also important. These leaders contribute to goal achievement through relieving the researchers and facilitating research related tasks, like conferences and meeting places, and haveing a good overview and ensure internal and external information flow. They also organize social activities and function as a central hub or connector. The administrative leader role demands a mix of knowledge and competencies, resembling the role of the classic middle range leader in the professional bureaucracy of today. With a great variety of different assignments coupled with being a connector for tasks and functions, both vertical and horizontal in the organization. In addition the administrative leader in a CoE also works close with the research leaders and the research activities at the centre. CoE are organized as time-limited projects with high demands and expectations. My study shows that the administration apparatus in CoE is important for goal achievement, but also that it is necessary with one 100% administrative leader or coordinator in a CoE, in order to take care of and coordinate the interests of the centre, both internally and in relation to the host institution. These CoE administrative leaders are a highly selected group regarding qualifications and background, which is something to be aware of when planning these kinds of research units, but also concerning the status- and role of administrative research personnel in general. ; publishedVersion

Master i styring og ledelse ; I denne masteroppgaven har jeg undersøkt hvorfor Haugesund og Karmøy har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i kommunereformen. Haugesund ønsker en storkommune på Haugalandet, mens det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, vil at Karmøy skal være egen kommune også i fremtiden. Kommunene er store i norsk sammenheng med rundt 40.000 innbyggere hver. De har en rekke likhetstrekk, likevel er de ulike på noen sentrale punkt. Haugesund er en sentralisert by, mens Karmøy er desentralisert, med tre byer og flere bygder. Reformen er initiert nasjonalt, mens gjennomføringen skjer lokalt. Regjeringens argumentasjon ligger hovedsakelig i reformens mål og virkemidler. Tidligere undersøkelser viser imidlertid at ulike lokale forhold også kan virke inn på sammenslåingsprosesser lokalt. Hensikten med undersøkelsen har vært å finne ut hvorfor kommunene har kommet frem til ulikt utfall i reformen, om Regjeringens argumentasjon har hatt ulik betydning i beslutningsprosessene, og hvilken betydning lokale forhold har hatt for utfallet. Undersøkelsen har vært gjennomført som en komparativ casestudie, med personlige intervjuer. Informasjonen fra intervjuene danner grunnlaget for analysen. Reformens målsettinger har vært vesentlige for begge kommunene. Særlig aktuell er målsettingen om en mer helhetlig og samordnet samfunnsutvikling. Kommunene er en del av det Regjeringen kaller flerkommunale byområder. Kommunegrensene samsvarer ikke med de funksjonelle samfunnsutviklingsområdene. Dette gir utfordringer i forhold til arealplanlegging. Haugesund er regionsenter med regionsenter-utfordringer, den mangler eksempelvis areal til videre vekst. Kommunen ser kommunesammenslåing som løsningen på mange av sine utfordringer. Det politiske flertallet i Karmøy, ser ikke at reformens målsettinger nås ved kommunesammenslåing. Karmøy er en stor, veldreven kommune. Den har lite å hente på å inngå i en storkommune. De interkommunale problemene løses gjennom interkommunalt samarbeid. Når det gjelder styringsvirkemidlene har disse hatt liten betydning for utfallet. De fleste informantene etterlyser hardere virkemiddelbruk for å lykkes med reformen. Alle informantene beskriver at lokale forhold har vært viktige i reformprosessen. Langvarige, historiske og kulturelle konflikter mellom kommunene har gjort sammenslåing vanskelig. Lokale forhold som ulik kommuneøkonomi, forholdet by-land, identitet og til dels tjenestelokasjon har bidratt til det negative utfallet i Karmøy. Til tross for at Karmøy er større enn Haugesund, ser det ut for at sentrum-periferi konflikten har vært viktig for utfallet i de to kommunene. ; In this study, I have tried to find out why Haugesund and Karmøy have reached different outcome in the local government reform. Haugesund wanted one large municipality in the region, while the political majority in Karmøy, wanted Karmøy to remain as one municipality, further on. The municipalities are big in a Norwegian scale, with approximately 40.000 citizens. They are very much alike, but differ at some points. Haugesund is a city with centralized structure, while Karmøy is decentralized, consisting of three villages and several rural centres. The reform is a national initiative from the government, but is carried out locally. The arguments from the government contain both political goals and -instruments. According to previous studies, several local conditions may influence on local merging- processes. The intention of the study is to find out why the two municipalities have reached different outcomes in the reform, whether political goals and instruments have different impact on the local decision making processes, and whether local conditions have influenced on the outcome. The study is a comparative case study using personal interviews. Information from the interviews is used in the analysis. According to the political goals, they seem to have been important to both municipalities. Most relevant is a more holistic and coordinated community development. The municipalities are a part of what the government calls multi-communal city areas. These are areas where the administrative boundaries no longer reflect people's daily-life areas. This gives certain challenges according to spatial planning. Haugesund is the center of the region with some typical city-problems. One is lack of space to further growth. Haugesund sees the reform as the solution to their problems. The political majority in Karmøy do not think that the reform will contribute to goal achievement. Karmøy is large, and does well. It will not have much to gain by joining a merged municipality. Inter-municipal cooperation solves regional problems. The political instruments of the reform, have been quite unimportant to the outcome in the municipalities. Most informants believe that the instruments should be harder, for the government to succeed. All informants report that local conditions have been important to the outcome. Longlasting historical and cultural conflicts have complicated the process. Differences in economy, the center-periphery relation, identity and partly location questions, have contributed to the negative outcome in Karmøy. Even though Karmøy is the largest of the two, it seems that the center-periphery conflict has been important in both municipalities. ; acceptedVersion