Keywords

Introduction

Over many decades, the literature and research around leadership and development work in schools have emphasised and cultivated practices that involve interaction, cooperation, sharing responsibilities, and the idea of doing things together (e.g. Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996; Hargreaves & Shirley, 2012; Leithwood et al., 2008, 2020; Spillane et al., 2004), and the research evidence supporting them up is extensive. (For an overview, see, e.g. Leithwood et al., 2020.) These approaches to leadership in schools are essential within the framework of making decisions and setting directions that have an impact on teachers’ work regarding common values and ways of working, and their realisation in practice (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 2002). International surveys (e.g. by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development [OECD], 2020) show that many countries have implemented policies that touch on these elements, yet they were realised in terms of the contextual factors framing education nationally and may manifest themselves differently in practice (Braun et al., 2011). In the context of Finnish comprehensive schools, the ideas of distributed leadership and involvement of teachers in schools’ decision-making form one strand of the education policy discourse – they have been integrated into the policy documents guiding principals’ work in schools (Finnish National Board of Education [FNBE], 2014). Further, they are visible in several policy reviews (FNBE, 2013) and development initiatives in the 2010s. That is, there seems to be an existing underlying ethos of collaborative and participatory school leadership practices that principals are supposed to realise in their schools.

While writing this, we are living in the global COVID-19 pandemic that started in 2020. This unexpected situation has emphasised the importance of practices based on collaboration, networking, and interaction in schools along with support from colleagues (Ahtiainen et al., 2022; Beauchamp et al., 2021; Harris & Jones, 2020; Marshall et al., 2020). If looked at from a longer-term perspective, it seems that the teaching profession and its historical roots in a culture of individualism have started to shift towards cultures of collaboration, at least in developed and high performing countries like Finland (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). Developments like this also require changes in school leadership, and scholars working with the phenomenon try to foresee and understand the probable changes in leaders’ roles and the leadership in the future (e.g. Azorin et al., 2022; Campbell, 2022; Netolicky, 2022). Whatever the future will look like, it will be built on the existing practices in individual schools. Taking this future perspective as a backdrop, we examined leadership groups as one of the means of enabling the sharing of leadership and the participation of teachers in decision-making, and through that, increasing opportunities for collaboration and interaction within schools. The purpose is to provide a snapshot of the current stage of a sample of schools in Finland regarding teacher involvement in outside classroom activities in school communities.

Our research questions (RQ) are:

  • What meanings are given to leadership groups as leadership structures in school communities? Through which discourses is teachers’ participation in decision-making constructed?

Leadership Group

Mapping the Terrain

The concept of the school leadership group – or management team – is known globally, and there are similarities in its composition across the OECD countries, and it typically involves principals and vice or deputy principals, and often teachers and department heads (who usually are teachers; OECD, 2020). Establishing a leadership group, and creating its internal cooperation, and further, practices that enable the group to reach for the teaching community with an aim of engaging in decision-making can all be considered to have elements of distributed leadership (Devos et al., 2014; Harris, 2008). The distribution of leadership acknowledges the potential of many people to be part of the leadership, but to be meaningful for its participants, the practice requires facilitation and clear goals (Harris, 2008). The very core of distributing the leadership lies in the interaction between the people – the leaders, teachers, and others working at the school – and their situations (Spillane, 2005). Moreover, the literature directs our focus on communication between leaders and teachers in these situations to formulate a shared vision for the work in the schools (Harris, 2012; Spillane et al., 2004), to create circumstances that support the realisation of that vision, and to enable the professional learning required to reach it (Hallinger & Heck, 2002). In addition, factors related to the earlier practices of leadership and the size and the stage of development of the school affect the way these processes can be carried out (Spillane et al., 2004; Harris, 2012). That is, the school context plays a central role.

The way leadership is distributed and the leadership structures organised is important when engaging the teaching community in the school’s decision-making and development processes (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a; Lummis et al., 2022; Stosich 2020). For example, teachers’ perceptions of having a functional and engaging school leadership group have been shown to be related to their organisational commitment (Devos et al., 2014; Hulpia et al., 2009). Thus, a leadership group not only functions as a framework for engaging its members in decision-making processes, but it also acts as a structure that further exemplifies school leadership practices and distributes leadership to the wider teaching community (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a). In her study on the characteristics of schools as learning organisations, Liljenberg (2015) emphasised the professional attitude within the community and how it is constructed in a dynamic interplay between the organisation of distributed leadership, legitimation of leadership, principal support and the set goals. Also, trust between the principal and the leadership group has been shown to be a central determinant of collaborative decision-making in schools (Supovitz & Tognatta, 2013). Overall, the principal has a crucial role in leading the organisation with a clear vision, yet for the school to flourish and develop, teacher-leaders need to be empowered to take on leadership roles and cross the boundaries of leadership structures in order to further influence, interact, and engage the whole professional community (Bouwmans et al., 2017; Liljenberg, 2015).

While leadership structures are considered to be facilitators of participation and engagement in school development and decision-making, they can also be viewed from the perspective of strategic leadership (Lahtero & Kuusilehto-Awale, 2015; also, Mantere & Vaara, 2008). The leadership group not only sets the school’s vision and prepares for joint decision-making processes but can also aim to take the school vision closer to teachers and their everyday work (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a; Bendikson et al., 2012; Lahtero & Kuusilehto-Awale, 2015). In other words, the objectives in the school strategy – let alone the whole idea of having a strategy – may feel distant and unrelated to teachers’ work, unless the content is operationalised, discussed, and, further, its implementation systematically evaluated and adjusted accordingly. From this perspective, the leadership group is an indirect facilitator and means for supporting the realisation of the strategy built around the main task of the organisation, teaching and learning (see Fonsén & Lahtero in this book).

The Finnish Context

There is no unified and binding national framework or policy guiding the comprehensive schools regarding the organisation of leadership groups, yet it is a typical way to organise the leadership in most of the schools that are medium-sized or larger (Ahtiainen et al., 2019; Ahtiainen et al., 2021a). In the context of comprehensive schools, the reason for having a leadership group is often connected to the need to distribute or delegate the principal’s workload and support the development of the school culture (Taipale et al., 2006) to the intended direction which can be related to goals such as increasing the transparency in decision-making and creating structures for teacher collaboration (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a; Goddard et al., 2015; Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). In some schools, the leadership is formed around a structure consisting of a number of teacher teams which are connected to the leadership group through their team leaders.

The autonomy of local education organisers (i.e. mainly municipalities) has a central role in providing guidance or supporting the development of leadership structures. Consequently, the practices are systematically emphasised to create local coherence in some municipalities (e.g. Lahtero et al., 2017), whereas in others, the responsibility for developing the leadership practices in a participative direction is given to the school principals. In general, it seems that many local education organisers have acknowledged the meaning of distributed leadership and the participation of teachers in a range of planning and decision-making processes, and that has resulted in municipal development projects having had a focus on these themes (Heikonen & Ahtiainen, 2021).

Earlier research has implied that there are differences between schools in terms of the established nature of a leadership group and the clarity of the roles and responsibilities related to it (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a). In practice, sometimes too few teachers are motivated and willing to work in the leadership group. This poses challenges for the establishment of a leadership group in an open and transparent way, which may negatively reflect on teachers’ perceptions of the leadership group and, further, their commitment to the work community (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a; Hulpia et al., 2009). However, there is evidence that teachers who have been involved in the leadership group have perceived it as an opportunity for professional learning and getting a wider understanding of the school as an organisation, and seeing both their own work, the joint development work by the professional community, and the school strategy as part of a bigger picture (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a).

Materials and Methods

Data Collection

The data were collected from principals and teachers with an electronic questionnaire in 16 municipalities in southern Finland outside the Helsinki capital area. These municipalities were participating in a school development programme. The data were collected before that work took place in autumn 2019, and 166 principals and 1114 teachers responded to the questionnaire. The data used in this study comprise answers to two open-ended questions concerning the school’s decision-making processes and experiences of working in the leadership group. Thus, the respondents working in schools that had established a leadership group and who had answered at least one of the two open-ended questions were included in this study (n = 311). The participants included 56 principals, 125 teacher-leaders (i.e. teachers with experience of being a member of the leadership group), and 130 teachers who had not worked in a leadership group. They were from 100 schools and represented the principal and teacher population well in terms of gender (83.9% female, 13.3% male, 2.8% other, do not want to report or missing) and age (5.7% 20–29 years, 17.4% 30–39 years, 38.9% 40–49 years, 33.2% 50–59 years, 4.7% 60 or older), although female teachers were slightly overrepresented. There were 288 responses to the question “Describe in your own words the decision-making at your school and the practices related to it. What works?” (54 principals, 99 teacher-leaders, 130 teachers). The second question “Describe your own experiences related to working in the school’s leadership group” included 98 responses (32 principals, 66 teacher-leaders). The written responses to the open-ended questions varied in their length from five words to several sentences.

Data Analysis

The data analysis was guided by a method based on what Alvesson and Karreman (2000) call the close range/determination approach to discourse in the study of organisations. That is, the approach pays attention to social practices – and possible variations in them – at the local level (in contrast to long range interest focusing on macro-system; Alvesson & Karreman, 2000). We used the method to examine (RQ1) what meanings are given to leadership groups as leadership structures in school communities in the responses of principals and teacher-leaders and, further, to look at (RQ2) the discourses through which teacher participation in decision-making is constructed by principals, teacher-leaders, and teachers. Our approach assumes that these three groups of educators depict the social context and practices of their schools in their written responses (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000; Mantere & Vaara, 2008). Due to the nature of the data, the written responses provided snapshots of social realities in several schools (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000), and this formed the basis for composing the discourses.

The analysis proceeded through five main phases. First, all the material was uploaded to Atlas.ti software for qualitative data analysis (Atlasti.com). In Atlas.ti, the data were organised according to the three respondent groups (principal, teacher-leader, teacher). The groups differ in their positioning in relation to decisive power and level of experience in school leadership, guidance of the practices implemented in the school, and decision-making practices (Anderson & Mungal, 2015; Henze & Arriaza, 2006). Second, the data were read through to get the first impression of the discourses across the data and within each respondent group. In the third phase, the passages of the data depicting meanings in relation to leadership groups and participation in decision-making were marked. Fourth, the material that was marked was organised according to the three respondent groups, and the contents of the marked data were looked at more closely to identify the dimensions related to leadership group and practices of participation in decision-making. Fifth, the following main strands of discourse were composed: the position and meanings given to the leadership group in school communities, discourse constructed of elements enabling participation in decision-making, and discourse constructed of hindrances to participation in decision-making.

Ethical Viewpoints

In this study, we followed the official guidelines of the Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2013). We conducted the research in responsible, honest, and accurate ways and guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality to the participants (see also Steneck, 2007). We received permission to conduct our research from the municipalities involved. We informed the participants about the research, their voluntary participation (without compensation), and the option to disengage from the research process at any phase. We carried out the study without causing harm to the participants and by treating them respectfully throughout the process.

Findings

The aim was to examine the meanings given to leadership groups as leadership structures in school communities (RQ1) and the discourses that concerned teachers’ participation in decision-making (RQ2). In the analysis, we noted that both the meaning-making regarding the leadership group and discourses around teacher participation were linked to the position of the respondent and their familiarity with these two themes at hand. Moreover, the social reality of the respondents reflected the local construction of means for making decisions, and the respondents’ own position, experiences, and given meanings in relation to the social reality (Alvesson & Karreman, 2000), yet the actual nature of these contexts stay implicit in this research design.

We divided the findings into three subsections according to the discourses (the position and meanings given to the leadership group, discourse constructed of elements enabling participation in decision-making, and discourse constructed of hindrances to participation in decision-making) of which the first focuses on the first research question and the subsequent ones on the second. At the end of this section, we visit them all in the concluding remarks.

The Position and Meanings Given to the Leadership Group in School Communities

In the responses of principals and teacher-leaders, the leadership group was given a meaning as a central and essential vehicle for school development. In this discourse, the leadership group was positioned as a secure and sustainable means that along with “providing stability [provided] a safeguard for the practices of schooling and stability for development of the practices” (Teacher-leader540). The meaning was further constructed in descriptions in which the leadership group was seen as a tool for coordinating everyday work in schools. The function of the leadership group was also stretched to include the practice of decision-making with the whole teaching community. Moreover, the principals’ and teacher-leaders’ responses included descriptions relating the meaning of the group to preparation of matters that required joint discussion and decision-making with all teachers during teacher meetings. One principal wrote about this as follows: “the issues that will affect the whole school community are first discussed and the layouts for practices drawn up in the leadership group” (Principal52). That is, the leadership group was positioned as setting the direction for the development work aimed at engaging all teachers, and one of its tasks was to cut down the workload regarding the preparation, as not all teachers needed to get involved in every step of the process.

Discourse Constructed of Elements Enabling Participation in Decision-Making

The discourse of enabling elements appeared in descriptions of both the leadership structures and the practices for participation in decision-making established in the schools. These two were partly intertwined especially in the responses of the principals and teacher-leaders who constructed practices of participation through structures that made them possible. The principals referred to structures such as teacher teams that were used as means for “sharing leadership [and responsibilities] in the form of independent teacher teams having certain assigned tasks – that independently developed their work” (Principal49). The work of teacher teams was constructed around various themes at the level of the whole school (e.g. well-being) or was based on subject areas or grade levels. Further, the purpose of the teams was to develop the areas assigned to them and make decisions independently or with the support of the wider teaching community. Moreover, the principals wrote about practices in teacher meetings that enabled rounds of preparation and joint discussion before making any decisions that concerned everyone. The existing structures were seen as supporting the decision-making as “the leadership group does the preparation, and the actual decision-making takes place in meetings with all teachers” (Principal58). Anyway, sometimes involving everyone in the decision-making and giving space for sharing various viewpoints “meant that all processes took a long time – however, over the years this method has proven to be worth the time and [was] increasing participation” (Principal99). Consequently, the meaning of structures and practices like these were justified by the increase in the opportunities for everyone to have a voice and get involved at the level of the whole school.

The teacher-leaders’ perceptions of structures for participating in decision-making in their schools resonated with the ones emerging among the principals. Teacher-leaders built their meaning-making through the relation between teacher teams and leadership groups, and they depicted the leadership group as a bridge between school leaders and the wider teaching community: “All teachers belong to a team, and in each of the teams there is a leader who is a member of the leadership group. The issues raised in teacher teams are taken to the leadership group, and information travels to the other direction [from leadership group to the teams] as well” (Teacher-leader794). Teacher-leaders perceived that matters that concerned teachers were processed together, and there were “opportunities for participation in joint discussion regarding school development, e.g. in teacher meetings [and] everyone was allowed to take issues forward to teacher meetings through the leadership group” (Teacher-leader684). As current or former members of the leadership group, teacher-leaders stated that it was less time consuming if things were prepared by a smaller group of people, and then brought to a meeting targeted at everyone. Especially in bigger schools, it appeared to be important to have smaller forums for sharing and discussion because then everyone could use their time more effectively and did not need to be involved in issues that did not concern them. Further, distribution of the duties was probably reducing the workload and can “support many to focus on their area of responsibility” (Teacher-leader840).

Among the teachers not involved in the leadership group work, this discourse presented itself in passages depicting the practices of “hearing teachers” in teacher meetings “in which the important matters are brought up, [and] everyone is allowed to voice their opinions or ask questions” (Teacher701). Thus, these opportunities were related spaces for joint discussions on topical matters at hand but were not explicitly connected to active involvement or participation in decision-making.

Discourse Constructed of Hindrances to Participation in Decision-Making

The hindrances regarding participation in decision-making were composed of dimensions of which some had points of connection with the enabling elements or presented the other side of them. One of these dimensions was the lack of time that stemmed from the nature of working in a school setting. The work with teaching and learning is framed by overlapping timetables affecting the way meetings and other gatherings within the teaching community can be organised, and it appeared “challenging to find a timeslot that would enable a joint discussion on common matters” (Teacher590). Further, it forced the schools to “make the decisions at the last minute and too hastily” (Teacher-leader274), which affected the flow of information concerning the decisions within the school. Thus, the information did not reach all teachers in time, and there were no opportunities to focus on the development in these processes. This dimension of the discourse was constructed in the writings of all the respondent groups. It formed one obstacle to the creation of collective practices and having a space for co-planning and shared discussion. Passages from the principals’ responses added the disturbance of development of common ways of working to this by stating that they were “not having enough time with teachers makes the development work difficult” (Principal20), and further, “there is no time to develop the leadership practices” (Principal29).

The other dimensions within this discourse were led by the teachers. They reflected the hindrances built through uncertainty concerning the meaningfulness related to participation of teachers in decision-making and the ostensible nature of this as a social practice. For example, one teacher expressed the view that “teachers have been involved but almost no decisions get made and even if we decide on something, the realisation remains indefinite. The whole thing feels really messy” (Teacher223). There seemed to be meeting spaces that allowed participation, yet in the end, these appeared to be somewhat superficial. That is, the decision-making processes lacked a structure or a genuine opportunity to have a say: “They ask the viewpoints of the teachers, but I am uncertain whether they are taken into account” (Teacher553). In addition, the hindrances were constructed through exclusion from the practice of decision-making leaving the teachers without opportunities to gain knowledge about the ongoing debate in their school. The teachers wrote about how their opinions were not listened to or they were afraid of getting criticised and had chosen to be silent. “The decisions made are presented to teachers as announcements and we do not discuss them together [in the teacher meetings]. In the worst case these things affect teachers’ work, and you cannot do anything about them” (Teacher803). These passages covered disappointment with assumptions related to “having opinions that are not perceived as interesting” (Teacher837) by the others or further, being left out of the discussions and decision-making processes within the school community as “the principal favours and listens to only a select group of teachers – not everyone’s opinion matters in the decision-making” (Teacher759). However, sometimes the exclusion was constructed as a choice because teachers did not see it necessary to be involved in decision-making in their schools at all.

A further dimension related to the superficial nature of participation was about the practices that are expected to follow from joint discussions and decision-making concerning the common ways of working in the schools. The principals, teacher-leaders, and teachers pointed out that there was a lack of commitment to the agreements, and it seemed that “the most challenging thing is to get all to work in a more coherent way despite some differences in opinion among the school staff” (Teacher606). Thus, despite being part of discussion and the processes of making decisions, not all teachers perceived the common agreements as binding in the school and were “not willing to do according to the decisions made or to develop the school” (Principal81).

Concluding Remarks

On one hand, the discourse positioning and giving meanings to the leadership group in the school community depicted its function through tangible elements of preparation work for teacher meetings. That appeared as a practice for facilitating joint decision-making processes. On the other hand, the leadership group was described as being a bit abstract, an almost engine-like force that kept the development of the school going and along with that provided security and stability. Both these dimensions within this discourse gave the impression that the members of the leadership groups perceived the group as a meaningful structure for both engaging the teaching community and acting in the forefront of the school’s development activities.

The way principals, teacher-leaders, and teachers viewed participation in decision-making in their school was constructed in relation to their position in the leadership structures. Principals and teachers-leaders closer to leadership and decision-making practices expressed clear linkages between the structures formed (e.g. teams) and the processes in which joint decision-making was facilitated (i.e. teacher meetings). The principals saw themselves as actors who organise the structures, whereas the teacher-leaders were active parts of these structures through their position as leadership group members. The structure perspective appeared to be thin and vaguely constructed among the teacher respondents who connected themselves to it by noting that they were allowed to voice their opinions and get their opinions heard in the processes of decision-making. Consequently, the discourse on elements that enabled teacher participation had dimensions showing the variation in intensity of the available means. For most of the teachers, the participation became possible through teacher meetings, in which matters were jointly discussed before the decision-making took place. That is, the level of participation involved at least the common spaces that allowed sharing the information, asking questions, and bringing forward opinions. The other form of participation was related to orientation being more individual, taking place through membership of a leadership group.

The finding that lack of time formed an overarching hindrance to participation was something that could almost be expected to appear in any discourse concerning practices taking place outside the classrooms. However, the way the other hindrances to participation in decision-making were constructed implied that having practices targeted at providing a common space for discussions and sharing viewpoints did not necessarily guarantee an experience of genuine involvement. This discourse concerned superficial participation and in places also the feeling of being excluded or not having opinions that would be of interest to others. In addition, this discourse was also embellished by observed unwillingness to commit to jointly made agreements among some teachers; thus, participation in decision-making did not always lead to realisation of coherent practices either.

Discussion

Although many scholars are keen to discuss, do research, and theorise around the themes of collaborative practices, distribution of leadership, and teacher participation in decision-making, we believe that it is also crucial to remain critical in imposing them on educators working in schools every day, as they do not provide a solution to educational issues per se. Instead, it is essential to keep our focus on the construction of meanings of these practices in relation to the main goal of schooling and its purposeful development in individual school contexts. In general, development of new or fine tuning the existing ways of working – with leadership or in any other area of practice – in a school calls for understanding of the school’s current situation as well as its past and being precise with the direction where to be headed in the future (Hargreaves & Fink, 2006; Harris, 2012). Anyway, collective ways of working seem to be here to stay, and as noted at the beginning of this chapter, their position may have become stronger during the years of COVID-19 pandemic.

Even though leadership in schools is inherently distributed or shared to some extent “as leadership is essentially organisational influence and direction” (Harris, 2008, 173), the assumption does not imply that all members of the organisation would or should be simultaneously leading (Harris, 2008) or having an equally central role in the processes of decision-making that is the focus of this study. A school community composed of teaching professionals as a context for social practices like leadership and joint decision-making forms complex and yet fruitful grounds for interaction between leaders and teachers. In the discourses, the processes of participation that involved hearing all teachers, common discussion, and opportunities for all having a say appeared to take and require time, which is a limited resource at school. That may force the school leaders to choose between swifter methods for decision-making among a selected few and a slower phase with wider participation of members of their organisation. These choices depend on the situation and context, but, in general, according to our study, allocating time and resources carefully for engaging and involving teachers in joint decision-making is “worth it” as one principal wrote. Considering this finding in light of prior studies, it becomes meaningful. That is, the ways leadership is distributed, the forms it takes among assistant/deputy principals and teacher-leaders, and, further, the cooperation within the group, and practices of participative decision-making all affect teachers’ commitment towards their school (Devos et al., 2014). In the framework of organising leadership groups, this requires stimulating collaboration, construction of group cohesion and clarity of roles, and goal orientation as well as the creation of a sense of we-ness among the group members (Devos et al., 2014). Moreover, the various aspects related to the situations of participation and decision-making “define and are defined by leadership practice in interaction” (Spillane, 2005, 145) taking place between the principal and teachers (Spillane, 2005). That is, structures and other channels organised within the school community function as the means for acting, and the interaction in situations is the key (Spillane, 2005). These spaces for interaction may create the experiences of self-actualisation and provide opportunities for dialogue between different groups within the school community and through that increase teachers’ interest in participation (Mantere & Vaara, 2008).

Moreover, it seems that the experiences of working in the leadership group and being involved in school level decision-making create the conditions for teachers to develop collective responsibility (Hargreaves & O’Connor, 2017). Although the experiences of those being closely involved in leadership groups are important and form one arena for professional learning (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a), the crucial question is whether and how leadership (group) could foster a culture of collaboration. And further, how leadership (group) enables interaction through which teachers who perceive school decision-making processes as distant could also see themselves in relation to the school development and decision-making and start moving towards the feeling of shared responsibility (Liljenberg, 2015). This requires proceeding with small steps that are mindful of clarity, transparency of the meaning of the practice, and descriptions of responsibilities, roles, and tasks (Ahtiainen et al., 2021a; Harris, 2008; Hulpia et al. 2009; Mantere & Vaara, 2008).

The discourse among the principals concerning the elements that enabled participation included a notion of the teacher team being autonomous regarding the assignments given to them. Positioning teacher teams like this signals an ideal of teachers’ capability to self- and co-organise their work and be goal-oriented in their teamwork. In addition, such positioning contains an assumption of trust between the members of the school community (Supovitz & Tognatta, 2013) along with a commitment to and shared understanding about the common direction set for the schoolwork. Thus, to function, this requires work with creating coherence in practices aimed at reaching the set aims, and the approach cannot allow a wide range of individual-level going it alone style practices.

The main emphasis in our reflection has been at the school level, but we see that the establishment of various structures and tools facilitating the interaction and participatory practices cannot be the responsibility of school principals and teachers alone. Earlier research has reminded us that if too few resources and long-term support for development are allocated at the school level, the policies directed at renewed practices and availability of structures do not necessarily lead to genuine changes in the ways of working or the beliefs and attitudes related to them, not even 10 years after their implementation (Ahtiainen et al., 2021b). Therefore, it is necessary to keep on providing opportunities for development and professional learning for educators working in schools (Hargreaves & Shirley, 2009). Further, it is also crucial to ensure that local education authorities guiding the work in schools have knowledge and competence that is up to date.

If we believe that the collective ways of working discussed in this chapter are here to stay, and will gain more ground in the future, that will mean changes for the teaching profession. Although there has been a slight shift in the understanding of teacher autonomy as the autonomy of the profession (collectively) instead of seeing it as the autonomy of the individual, the ethos of the latter still exists and puzzles the principals who are aiming towards participatory practices in their schools (Eisenschmidt et al., 2021). Furthermore, this is a question of pre- and in-service phases of training provided for educators working in the schools. We believe that the idea of collaboration and shared responsibilities should be present and nurtured throughout the career path if we wish to affect the understandings and beliefs around teacher and principal roles and leadership in the schools. Finally, we do not encourage practices built on collaboration and participation just for the sake of them. Rather, we assume that the complexity of today’s school reality will become more manageable if we encounter it together by combining the knowledge and skills of many rather than doing it alone.

Limitations and Future Research

Written responses to open-ended questions in an electronic survey enabled us to gather descriptions that touched on the theme of decision-making and teacher participation from 100 schools. Further, we were able to reach discourses that position the leadership group in a school context. However, the nature of the data was scattered and often lacked depth in content. Therefore, in some places, we could only scratch the surface, and this may have limited the construction of the discourses.

The topics looked at in this study provided some starting points for future examinations. Firstly, to understand better the circumstances in which schools operate regarding the establishment of various leadership structures, we would need to take a closer look at the available support, guidance, and common policies provided by the local education authorities. Second, we should direct our research interest towards teacher education to learn how the aspect of teacher role and its relation to the wider professional community is constructed during the early phases of their career.