Jukka Alava, Leena Halttunen & Mika Risku

CHANGING SCHOOL MANAGEMENT

STATUS REVIEW MAY 2012

Publications 2012:13

 Finnish National Board of Education and authors

Publications 2012:13
ISBN 978-952-13-5262-1 (PDF)
Layout: Edita Prima Oy/Timo Pivrinta/PSWFolders Oy
www.oph.fi/english/sources_of_information/publications

Abstract
The purpose of this report is to examine how Finnish doctoral theses describe management of educational institutions. Its main sources include doctoral theses completed
during the 21st century, but other Finnish and international research literature has also
been used in support of the analysis.
In keeping with the doctoral theses used as its main sources, the report focuses on
changes in school management within the general education sector in Finland over the
last two decades. The numerous significant social changes in Finnish society during the
late 1990s and the early 21st century seem to have inspired doctoral researchers both to
study school management and to examine its phenomena during the last two decades
in their theses. The most prevalent focus of their interest has been school management
within general education. There has been very little research into school management
within the vocational education and training (VET) sector, with the exception of professional higher education.
The first chapter of this report provides a concise review of research into and the recent
history of school management in Finland. The review determines the reports overall
analysis, where multidimensional change and the increasingly significant role of knowledge in management emerge as key perspectives. Change is involved in everything
discussed within the report in one way or another. The second chapter explores the
increasingly significant role of knowledge in management in more detail. It discusses
why knowledge has become such an important part of management, what knowledge
management means and how the increasingly significant role of knowledge influences
management. In addition, the chapter provides an overview of how doctoral theses have
produced information about school management.
The third and fourth chapters examine school management from the key perspectives
adopted in Finnish doctoral research in the 21st century. Chapter 3 focuses on changes in
school principals status and key operating environments, i.e. municipalities and schools.
Principals themselves are the main focus of Chapter 4. Both chapters aim to outline
current school leadership in general terms as well as to provide principals with practical
support for their own school management work.
The fifth chapter of the report concentrates on broad pedagogical leadership which,
based on 21st century Finnish doctoral research, seems to form a key part of current
and future principals school management work. It examines the concept and meaning
of pedagogical leadership and discusses how pedagogical leadership should be implemented at educational institutions. In addition, the chapter deals with the link between
broad pedagogical leadership, on the one hand, and knowledge management, distributed leadership and the new roles of teachers and principals as agents of the future, on
the other.
The report ends with a review of future research topics put forward in doctoral theses
and highlighted in the reports analysis; what is essential to study in the future. The hope
is that the reports list of references will help both those working in different positions
in the education and training field and researchers with their efforts to develop school
3

management and the school system in Finland. As to the English version of the report,
the authors wish the report to provide international readers an extensive and up-to-date
picture of school management in the 21st century Finland.

Contents

Abstract ...................................................................................................................3
Preface ...................................................................................................................6
1

Introduction ....................................................................................................7
1.1 Chain of changes ................................................................................................ 7
1.2 Boundaries, structures and parameters and breaking them down .................. 8

Knowledge management as part of change...................................................11

2.1 Conception of knowledge management ......................................................... 11
2.2 School management from the perspective of research .................................. 13
2.2.1 School management through the eyes of principals ............................. 14
2.2.2 School management through the eyes of different educational
practitioners ............................................................................................. 14

Changes in principals formal status and operating environments ...............16

3.1 Principals formal status.................................................................................... 16
3.2 Municipalities as principals operating environments..................................... 18
3.3 Schools as principals operating environments ............................................... 20

Change in principalship ................................................................................23

4.1 First steps towards pedagogical leadership..................................................... 23
4.2 One leader is no longer enough ..................................................................... 24
4.3 Major change of job description ...................................................................... 25
4.4 Conflicting pressures on principals working time time for
pedagogical leadership .................................................................................... 26
4.5 Towards the future and knowledge management .......................................... 28
4.6 Construction of principals leadership identity ............................................... 31
4.7 Organisational and leadership culture............................................................. 32
4.8 Principals well-being ....................................................................................... 34
4.9 Conclusions ....................................................................................................... 34

New pedagogical leadership..........................................................................36

5.1 Background to a new kind of leadership ....................................................... 36
5.2 Pedagogical leadership as a network of development processes .................. 37
5.3 Pedagogical leadership within educational administration and the
school system.................................................................................................... 41
5.4 Spotlight on distributed leadership.................................................................. 42
5.5 New roles of teachers and principals .............................................................. 43

Future research objects and needs ................................................................46

References

........................................................................................................49

Preface
Dear Reader,
School management has become an increasingly important factor in the education policy
debate. As resources become scarcer while demands are growing, issues relating to
management, leadership and principalship emerge in a new light. At the same time,
the extensive nature of management becomes more prominent. School management is
not only about administrative management but also about pedagogical and knowledgebased leadership. Leadership and leaders still play a crucial role in terms of school
development as well.
Educational institutions have more and more power to decide both on financial and
operational matters. Who exercises this power in reality is therefore not insignificant. The
opinions of leaders and principals are reflected in the decisions being made some more
than others. New opportunities have also brought about more and more responsibility
for the effects of decisions and the relative weight assigned to different functions. The
structure of the teaching staff and the distribution of their competencies are not without
consequence, nor are the school heads and principals own preferences say, a strong
interest in sports or the type of club activities offered by the school or whether any
emphasis is given to the use of new working methods and communications. All choices
and priorities have a bearing and can be seen in schools everyday operations and in
their future. In this way, they will surely also become visible in pupils and students
everyday lives and in the construction of their mindsets.
It is therefore highly justified to highlight the significance of leadership and leaders.
As an expert central agency, the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE) wants to
participate in raising the deliberations set out in this status review for further debate. The
status review also provides an overview of the phenomena and trends of Finnish school
management in a changing society.
By nature, status reviews are concise literature reviews compiling research, statistics and
indicators relating to the theme in question. Status reviews contribute to carrying out an
approach in line with the FNBE strategy where existing information is put together, processed and offered to decision-makers and various interest groups in an easy-to-use form.
The aim is to consolidate a knowledge-based approach in monitoring and development
of education and in decision-making processes.
Helsinki, 11th May 2012
Petri Pohjonen
Deputy director general
Finnish National Board of Education

Introduction

The purpose of this report is to examine what the most recent Finnish doctoral theses
reveal about school management, its developments and role in a changing Finnish society.
In international terms, research into school management has already been conducted for
several decades. It is fair to say that Anglo-American research literature, in particular,
appears to have had a considerable bearing on the way in which Finns have approached
school management (e.g. Kurki 1993). In Finland, research in this field has emerged
quite late in the day, mostly in the late 1990s, and only about thirty doctoral theses on
principals have been published to date (Risku & Kanervio 2011). The number may seem
modest, but it is, nevertheless, more than the amount published in other Nordic countries, for example ( Johansson 2011).
While there is plenty of school management research on an international scale, it is
important that school management is also examined from the perspective of Finnish
society. It is only through new domestic research that we can find out what school
management entails in Finland, how changes within municipal educational and cultural
administration influence the work of Finnish principals and in what ways these changes
need to be taken into account in development of Finnish school management.
This report focuses on doctoral theses produced on school principals in Finland during
the 21st century. The report charts the types of phenomena studied and the methodologies used in the research. Furthermore, the report describes the key results of the
studies and its authors aim to create an overview of Finnish school management in the
21st century, drawing on key research results. To create the overview, the authors have
also relied on international research and other Finnish literature on school management.
The report can be considered to be a continuation of the review prepared by Kolam
and Ojala (2001) for the Nordic Council of Ministers and the Finnish National Board of
Education, which focused on school management in Finland during the 1990s.

1.1

Chain of changes

While this report mainly concentrates on the last two decades (19902010), changes
that have influenced school management have definitely been made earlier. Changes in
different decades can be viewed as forming a chain of changes, which has resulted in
current school management. Based on doctoral research examining principals operating
environments, work, role and identity development over the last ten years, the chain of
changes seems to have culminated during the last two decades. The operating environments and duties of principals of the 1980s and the 2000s differ significantly from each
other (Risku & Kanervio 2011). It can also be presumed that the chain of changes will
continue and become even more intense (Kanervio & Risku 2009).
Prior change in the work of school heads and principals has been described by Isosomppi
(1996) in her doctoral thesis entitled Johtaja vai juoksupoika (A leader or a messenger).
She concluded that principals work had long concentrated on dealing with everyday
operations. Their work consisted of administration and its routines dealing with the
post, filling in forms and attending to other day-to-day business. Responding to tasks

assigned from higher levels of the school administration took up a considerable share of
a principals working day. The principals work was not independent, as the duties were
determined by the hierarchical structure of the school administration. The principals role
was to implement and supervise implementation of instructions issued by higher administrative levels. The central governments school administration had very strict control
over local authorities. A school head was the local representative of the states school
administration at school level (Mustonen 2003). During the 1960s and 1970s, an authoritarian top-down school administration was emphasised and culminated in the work
of principals and school heads, until it started to unravel in around 1972 and 1973 due
to growing social pressure (Alava 2007).
The priorities and responsibilities of school management seem to have been strongly
linked to other developments taking place in society (see Varjo 2007), such as changes
in the occupational structure, urbanisation, renewal of values and organisational cultures,
EU membership and other internationalisation, as well as changes made to education
policy and school legislation as a result of these. In this context, it is good to take note
of two years that have been essential turning points in developments in the work of
principals and school heads: 1978 and 1999.
In 1978, principals status changed considerably due to a so-called decision on principals, which introduced overall working hours for principals working at general upper
secondary schools and at lower secondary stages and large primary stages of comprehensive schools. This reform realised the objective of permanent posts for principals,
advocated by individual principals and the Finnish Association of Principals ever since
the 1950s. Recognition of the principals occupation as a specific profession in its own
right made considerable progress. Regardless of this step forward, the job description
and duties of comprehensive school principals, for example, were still regulated by
detailed lists of principals mainly administrative duties set out in the Comprehensive
Schools Decree. These duties were even further specified by numerous local standing
orders and rules of procedure, which were also task lists with the main emphasis on
administrative responsibilities (Alava 2007; Taipale 2000).
At the beginning of 1999, Finland completed a comprehensive reform of educational
legislation, which was preceded by legislative reforms in 1985, 1991 and 1993, among
others. The 1985 reform of legislation governing comprehensive schools and general
upper secondary schools dismantled provisions on group sizes and introduced the lesson
framework system. The 1991 deregulation exercise abolished the task lists of school
heads and principals from both the Comprehensive Schools Decree and the General
Upper Secondary Schools Decree. 1993, in turn, saw reform of the government transfer
system and a shift from task-specific transfers to a system based on certain calculation
criteria. (Souri 2009.)

1.2

Boundaries, structures and parameters and breaking them

down

The change affecting principals operating environments and work is only part of the
change taking place in global society as a whole. This change is of such a fundamental
nature that, along the lines of Zohar (2007), we can speak about a change of paradigm
in the way in which our world works. The Newtonian world, based on permanence,

unambiguous concepts, clear administrative structures and predictable consequences of

action, is changing into a quantum world characterised by constant change, ambiguity of
concepts, diverse networks and increasing difficulty in terms of anticipation.
Constant change is caused by the ongoing paradigm change, the quantum world in itself
as well as our inexperience in leadership in a new paradigm. Concepts take on several
meanings as we operate in different networks, which are required for the quantum world
to work and enabled by technological developments. This brings about both global
trends and local or glocal interpretations of and solutions to these trends (Knuuttila
2001; Vartiainen 1998). Anticipating the future in such a world is much more challenging
than it used to be.
The operating environments for school management in Finland mainly consist of
local (municipal) authorities or joint municipal authorities. Only a small proportion of
educational institutions are private or directly run by the State. (Opetushallitus [Finnish
National Board of Education] 2011.) Regardless of education provider, principals always
have boundaries, structures and parameters steering their actions. General education as
well as vocational education and training are governed both by national statutes and
local standards and guidelines issued by individual local authorities and joint municipal
authorities. Likewise, liberal adult education and basic education in the arts are regulated
both by special legislation and through each providers own guidelines.
Guidance and regulation mechanisms have changed considerably over the last 20 years.
The underlying factors of this change are effectively outlined in the doctoral theses by
Kunnari (2008) and Varjo (2007). Varjo studied Finlands education policy in the 1990s
and, in particular, the effects of international education policies and trends on formulation
of Finnish education policy. Controversies between development of the welfare society
and promotion of the market economy emerge as a key observation. Varjo suggests that
the end result has been strong education policy thinking based on performance guidance. Kunnaris research into the methods and practices of normative guidance in the
organisational culture of general upper secondary education from the 1950s through to
the 21st century, in turn, indicates that changes in education policy thinking are manifested in the descriptions of schools organisational cultures.
With the introduction of performance guidance, Finland has shifted from normative to
information-based guidance, which will be discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. At this
point, it is essential to point out that the process of adopting the new guidance method
is still ongoing. Both the world paradigm and the resulting change in guidance method
call for new structures and procedures as well as for a new leadership style at all levels
of the education system. The national education system, municipal educational administration and educational institutions are faced with a new situation. The entire education and training sector is challenged both by the currently ongoing worldwide uncertainty and by our radically changing conception of knowledge. They challenge both the
roles of teachers and principals and leadership in educational and cultural services in a
completely new way.
The new situation calls for all those operating in municipal educational administration
to adopt an even stronger future orientation alongside traditional teaching and management duties. In the future, teachers should therefore be seen more and more explicitly
as being agents of the future, while principals should be seen as being their leaders in
9

their new role. Whether this can be done within the current boundaries and parameters
is questionable. Challenges will include, at least, teachers employment and pay systems
and specification of professional qualifications requirements and management training
for principals and directors of education and culture (superintendents). It ought to be
clear that we must find new creative solutions and ways of thinking, either within the
existing boundaries and parameters or by breaking away from them.

10

Knowledge management as part of change

This chapter examines knowledge management, focusing on two perspectives. Firstly,

it discusses what knowledge management means and why there is a current tendency
to manage by information. Secondly, it describes how and what research has been
produced on school management in Finland during the 21st century.

2.1

Conception of knowledge management

Our current society is often called a knowledge or information society and we speak
about knowledge management, management by information, information management
and information-based guidance. What does this all mean?
According to Karvonen (2000), information is knowledge that is stored in a specific
format to enable further communication. Information becomes knowledge when recipients interpret it and incorporate it into their own knowledge structures. Our society is
called a knowledge society because knowledge is considered to be the most important
production resource and the source of organisational power. When speaking about an
information society, the emphasis is on the technological processing of knowledge and
its nature as information. ( Jalonen 2007, 100.) In its current form, the significant role of
knowledge in management is quite a new phenomenon, which is why its research and
terminology have not become structured (Lnnqvist 2007). It seems, however, that the
concept of knowledge management is becoming established as the term used for the
subject and field of research in Finland (see Lnnqvist et al. 2007).
Wilenius and Kamppinen (2001) examine the knowledge society, and similarly to Matterlart (2003), among others, suggest that societies have always functioned on the basis of
knowledge. According to Wilenius and Kamppinen, the deviation of the modern society
from earlier ones is specifically based on the change in the relationship between knowledge and information. As technology develops, knowledge residing in peoples minds
is converted into information in an ever wider range of formats, faster and faster and in
larger and larger amounts. The information generated can be processed, transmitted and
reproduced more and more efficiently, until it will again be transformed into knowledge
in peoples minds, forming the basis on which society functions.
Due to technological developments, the usability of information as a management tool
has grown significantly while also becoming increasingly challenging. Converting knowledge into information and processing information have become so easy that the amount
of information challenges our ability to take in the information we are faced with in
order to glean the knowledge that is relevant in terms of the workings of society. People
speak about concepts such as information overload (e.g. Levy 2008; Meier 1962; Murphy
& Gross 1969; Toffler 1970) and its Finnish equivalent infohky (Koski 1998).
In addition to the improved usability of information, the changing world has essentially
increased the significance of knowledge as part of management. The quantum world
described in Section 1.2 calls for a completely new type of management, where information and knowledge play a key role. People need increasing amounts of ever more

11

up-to-date information, which must also be more and more diverse. The most relevant
knowledge is often built in an organisations operating processes and peoples competencies ( Jalonen 2007), which is why people must be capable of dialogical processing
of knowledge (e.g. Kangaslahti 2007; Strandman 2009) and management must include
mentoring (e.g. Nikander 2003; Raasumaa 2010; Vulkko 2010). According to Risku, Bjrk
and Ferrigno-Brown (2012), Finnish schools can no longer operate successfully and to
a high quality standard without effective dialogue with pupils and their parents. Knowledge plays a more essential and complex role in management than ever before.
As the role of knowledge in management grows, the type of knowledge that is available and the ways in which knowledge is formulated and used become more and more
essential. The essential role of knowledge in management is aptly illustrated in the
Ministry of Education Development Plan for Education and Research 20072012, among
others. The Development Plan states that political decision-making must be based on
well-analysed evidence. In terms of its usability, the Development Plan suggests that wellanalysed evidence must both evaluate implementation of measures and anticipate their
impacts and that it needs to be produced diversely both by universities and by separate
research institutes. In an increasingly international world, knowledge is more and more
global and international comparison of the performance of education systems is all the
easier. The Development Plan therefore considers it essential for Finland to be involved
in global production of information, not only in terms of using it but also as a key
participant in determining the knowledge being formulated. The Ministry of Education
and Culture Development Plan for Education and Research for 20112016 consistently
continues along the lines set out by its predecessor.
This report aims to support knowledge management by providing knowledge and information about Finnish doctoral research into principals mostly carried out in the 21st
century for the purposes of developing school management in a changing Finland.
Consequently, the report contributes to realising the objectives set for research in the
Ministry of Education and Culture Development Plans for Education and Research for
20072012 and 20112016. In addition to producing domestic information, the report
can be considered to be linked to global information production in at least two ways.
Firstly, the report makes use of the study by Risku and Kanervio (2011) on Finnish principals, which forms part of a metastudy examining research into principals carried out
in 13 countries in the 21st century ( Johansson 2011). Secondly, the report complements
an international research programme that studies educational leadership at administrative, school and class levels. In Finland, the research programme is being funded by the
Ministry of Education and Culture and is being carried out by the University of Jyvskyls Institute of Educational Leadership, which is also represented in the steering group
of the international research programme. The programmes publications include a study
on the status and changes of educational leadership in general education in Finnish
municipalities by Kanervio and Risku (2009) and an article on Nordic superintendents
leadership roles by Johansson, Moos, Nihlfors, Paulsen and Risku (2011).
Regardless of the fact that knowledge management is a fairly new field of research, a
review by Kpp and Vuorio (2007) indicates that there has already been quite a lot of
research into this topic in Finland. While there are quite a few studies on knowledge
management in Finland, Kpp and Vuorio were only able to find two doctoral theses
completed in the field of education on knowledge management those by Sthle (1998)
and Tuomi (1999). Neither of these deals with the principals role.
12

Several of the 28 doctoral theses identified in the review of research into principals by
Risku and Kanervio (2011) can be regarded as being linked to knowledge management.
However, research specifically concentrating on knowledge management can mainly be
considered to include the doctoral theses by Lapiolahti (2007), Raasumaa (2011) and
Svedlin (2003). Lapiolahti and Svedlin studied local evaluation of education. Their findings will be discussed in more detail in Section 3.2, which examines municipalities as
principals operating environments. Raasumaa studied management of teachers knowledge. His research will be dealt with in more detail in Section 4.5, which focuses on the
future and knowledge management.

2.2

School management from the perspective of research

During the period from 2000 to 2010, a total of 28 doctoral theses that may be considered
to deal with principals were produced at Finnish universities. The figure is about 4%
of all 661 doctoral theses completed in the field of education and behavioural sciences
during this ten-year period. (Risku & Kanervio 2011.) Risku and Kanervio divide the
doctoral theses relating to principals into the following two categories: 13 focus on the
principals work and identity and 15 deal with the different operating environments of
their work. Of all the doctoral theses, 23 included research into principals at comprehensive schools, whereas principals at general upper secondary schools and polytechnics
were covered in eight and five theses, respectively, and principals at vocational institutions were studied in one thesis. This report does not include a more detailed discussion
of the five doctoral theses focusing on polytechnics (Antikainen 2005; Huuhka 2004;
Nikander 2003; Tiusanen 2005; Toikka 2002).
Doctoral theses have been produced comprehensively at different universities, including
the Universities of Helsinki, Joensuu, Jyvskyl, Tampere, Turku and Oulu. The highest
numbers of doctoral theses have been completed at the Universities of Jyvskyl (11
theses), Tampere (7) and Helsinki (5). In terms of timing, their publication years concentrate on the end of the decade, specifically on 20062010 (18). They are also characterised by the fact that several authors have either worked or are working as principals
themselves (Risku & Kanervio 2011). With the exception of one English-language thesis
and one Swedish-language thesis, all doctoral theses were written in Finnish.
The methodological solutions used in the doctoral theses are diverse however, the
small number of quantitative studies may be a cause for concern. Most theses have been
carried out using qualitative data collection methods, a few are based on both qualitative
and quantitative data, whereas only a couple are purely quantitative. Data has at least
partially been collected through interviews in almost all qualitative studies. With a few
exceptions, data has also been collected through observation, written contributions or
documents in parallel with interviews. Since the doctoral theses were mainly qualitative,
the number of participants is limited, ranging from less than ten to about 30 interviews.
The above-mentioned use of different methods does, however, complement the interview data in several studies.
Laudably many of the doctoral theses have been carried out with a view to collecting
data from different parts of Finland. Understandably, the research objective and an
individual researchers resources set restrictions on implementation of research, which
means that the data collected from the entire country remains, in particular in qualitative

13

studies, based on contributions collected from 1020 people. Nevertheless, the value of
these studies should be noted, similar to those theses that have only focused on a single
educational institution.

2.2.1

School management through the eyes of principals

The fact that about half of the doctoral theses focus on principals themselves or their
training and work is clearly visible in terms of from where and from whom research
data has been collected. Research data was exclusively collected from principals in nine
doctoral theses, while only a few did not include any principals perceptions. The voices
of principals can be clearly heard in research in this field.
The themes of the theses exclusively based on principals perceptions are very diverse.
Some take a feature or factor that unifies principals as their premise. In these cases, the
target groups have included award-winning principals (Hnninen 2009) or principals
with a coaching background (Pulkkinen 2011), or the perspective has been on principals gender ( Juusenaho 2004) or identity (Ahonen 2009). A couple of studies have
examined how principals cope with their work (Karikoski 2009, Lehkonen 2009). Other
studies concentrating on principals perceptions deal with their training (Taipale 2000),
building a schools vision (Kirveskari 2003), schools organisational cultures (Kunnari
2008), management of a multicultural school (Kuukka 2009) and management of comprehensive schools as a phenomenon of its time (Pesonen 2009).
Many of the theses based on principals perceptions have been carried out by collecting
data from different parts of Finland. Examples include studies by Ahonen (2008),
Hnninen (2009), Juusenaho (2004), Kirveskari (2003), Lehkonen (2009) and Pulkkinen
(2011). Depending on the research topic, they have either used purposive or random
sampling. Many studies have also aimed to examine school management with different
types of educational institutions in mind by including the perceptions of principals of
comprehensive schools, general upper secondary schools and vocational institutions in
the research data.

2.2.2

School management through the eyes of different educational

practitioners

The perceptions of other educational practitioners besides principals have also been
included in research data in about half of the doctoral theses completed during the
review period. In these cases, research data has mostly been collected from teachers and
other school staff in addition to principals (Hellstrm 2004; Kanervio 2007; Lahtero 2011;
Mustonen 2003; Mkel 2007; Vuohijoki 2006). The research objects have included the
school atmosphere, coping at work, organisational culture, change and development,
implementation and realisation of changes, as well as what principals are needed for and
what principals do.
In addition to principals, teachers and other school staff, research data has been collected
from municipal directors of education and culture, members of management teams and
municipal school boards, expert and consultative groups, as well as other municipal
civil servants ( Johnson 2006; Kanervio 2007; Kangaslahti 2007; Lapiolahti 2007; Nyknen
2010; Pennanen 2006; Raasumaa 2010). These theses have usually adopted a broader
perspective beyond a school level. They have most commonly focused on a municipal
level and its various phenomena, which have been examined from the perspectives
of different municipal practitioners. Examples include strategic leadership of municipal
14

educational administration, evaluation of education, the system of guidance and counselling services, management of comprehensive schools and change as a municipal challenge.
Similar to studies concentrating on principals perceptions, the authors of those studies
involving data collected from different educational practitioners have also aimed to
compile comprehensive data. The data used in five doctoral theses has been collected
from several municipalities (Mustonen 2003; Nyknen 2010; Pennanen 2006; Raasumaa
2010; Vuohijoki 2006), while another three include comprehensive data collected from a
single municipality ( Johnson 2006; Kangaslahti 2007; Lapiolahti 2007). Studies focusing
on examining a single school organisation aimed to include perceptions from the entire
staff in their analysis (Kanervio 2007; Lahtero 2011; Mkel 2010).
There were only two studies among the doctoral theses that did not include any principals perceptions in their research data. Vulkko (2001) has collected data for her thesis
relating to school-level decision-making exclusively from teachers, whereas Varjos (2007)
thesis on drafting education legislation is solely based on documents.

15

Changes in principals formal status and operating

environments

3.1

Principals formal status

Everyone seems to agree that the formal status of principals has changed significantly
over the last two decades and that the principals position must be seen as being a
specific profession in its own right (Risku & Kanervio 2011). Analysis of the change in
principals status can be regarded as forming the starting point for several studies and it
is taken into account in practically all doctoral theses completed in Finland during the
21st century. Aho, Pitknen and Sahlberg (2006, 119) summarise the change as follows:
The role of school principals also has dramatically changed since 1990. Principals
are not only the educational leaders of their schools but managers who are responsible for financing, personnel, and the results of their institutions. Previously, a school
principal was an experienced, senior teacher who was promoted for good service
to education. Todays school principal must be a qualified leader who understands
education development and has solid management skills to lead a school. Selection of
new school principals is often based on procedures more typical of the private sector,
with interviews and psychological tests to confirm the suitability of the candidate.

While the formal status of principals appears to have been addressed in almost every
doctoral thesis on principals completed in the 21st century, none of these concentrates
directly on studying principals status. Consequently, research information concerning
principals formal status and changes to it has to be gleaned from those sections of the
theses that discuss this aspect and from other studies.
A report drawn up by Souri (2009) for the Finnish Association of Principals suggests that
principals formal status is currently determined to a larger extent by general legislation
than by special legislation governing education and training. Souri does not consider this
development to be divergent from Finlands general legislative trend.
The 1998 Teaching Qualifications Decree (986/1998) enabled university-level qualification training for principals, which is considered necessary by most municipal directors of
education and culture, among others (Kanervio & Risku 2009). According to the Decree,
which is still in force, a person is qualified as a principal, when he or she has a higher
university degree; the teaching qualifications in the relevant form of education; sufficient
work experience in teaching assignments; and completed a qualification in educational
administration in accordance with requirements adopted by the Finnish National Board
of Education or studies in educational administration with a scope of no less than 25
credits organised by a university, or otherwise obtained sufficient knowledge of educational administration.
Reports by Taipale, Salonen and Karvonen (2006), Alava (2008), and Vrri and Alava
(2005) provide an illustrative overview of qualification and continuing training for principals in Finland. Although principals continuing training, in particular, has developed
over the last few years, there is still cause for concern about Finnish principals qualifica16

tion training, as expressed in an OECD report by Pont, Nusche and Hopkins (2008), and
reason to hope that it will also be developed in parallel with continuing training. This
has also been proposed by the Finnish Association of Principals (Souri 2009). By way of
example, Norway and Sweden started university-level qualification training for all principals in 2010 (Hybertsen Lys, Stensaker, Aamodt & Mjen 2010; Skolverket [Swedish
National Agency for Education] 2010).
Special legislation governing education and training requires each educational institution to have a principal, who is responsible for its operations. As the person responsible
for institutional operations, the principal must act in compliance with legislation and
the curricula drawn up in accordance with it. In discharging their duties, principals are
subject to official liability, i.e. primarily to compliance with general legislation governing
municipal civil servants (Act on Civil Servants in Local Government 304/2003). Special
legislation governing the education and training field and curricula are primarily binding
on education providers, which have an obligation to create conditions for and to evaluate implementation of statutory operations, rather than on principals. For this reason,
the Finnish Association of Principals advises principals to lodge a complaint against the
education provider in the event of failure to create the conditions required for statutory
school operations. (Souri 2009.)
In Finland, each education provider decides on the principals posts required and selects
principals, who primarily serve the education provider rather than central government.
In municipalities, principals are generally selected by the local education committee
(77.1% of municipalities) through an open application procedure (83.8% of municipalities), placing special emphasis on candidates formal qualifications, education, leadership qualities, experience and personality in the selection process (Kanervio & Risku
2009, 9395). Principals duties are determined in further detail in the standing orders,
administrative regulations and rules of procedure of education providers, i.e. mostly local
authorities (Local Government Act 365/1995). The detailed task lists of school heads
and principals were abolished as part of the 1991 deregulation process. Task lists have
not been reinstated, unlike in Sweden, for example, where legislation effective since
2011 again determines principals duties through detailed descriptions (Skollag [Swedish
School Act] 2010/800).
As legislation does not define principals duties in further detail and as local authorities have very different circumstances, there is considerable variation in principals job
descriptions. Consequently, the majority of doctoral theses on principals (e.g. Ahonen
2008; Karikoski 2009; Lahtero 2011; Lehkonen 2009; Mustonen 2003; Mkel 2007;
Pennanen 2006; Pesonen 2009; Raasumaa 2010; Vuohijoki 2006) concentrate on how the
latitude offered by principals formal status is manifested in their work in practical terms.
These findings will be examined in Chapter 4.
At this point, it is essential to bring up two aspects. Firstly, those who wish to see the
principals task lists of old reintroduced into Finnish legislation are probably few and
far between (see Souri 2009). Secondly, something still needs to be done, because the
legal status of principals appears to cause plenty of problems and contradictions in their
practical work. These problems involve issues such as principals time management
(Karikoski 2009; Mkel 2007; Pennanen 2006) and well-being (Lehkonen 2009; Vuohijoki 2006; see also Suomen Rehtorit [Finnish Association of Principals] 2005). Contradic-

17

tions are caused, in particular, by pressures from different expectations (Ahonen 2008;
Vuohijoki 2006) as principals try both to safeguard school operations according to the
obligations set out in special legislation and to act as representatives of the education
provider, i.e. their employer. A principals role may be very ambivalent, as they are
supposed to simultaneously carry out measures such as temporary lay-offs ordered by
the education provider and safeguard pupils rights during lay-off periods, create a positive image for the school and guarantee pupils right to a safe learning environment by
making public suspicions about indoor air problems in the school building, or assume
responsibility for evaluation of school operations in their own unit and improvements
required based on it in the midst of pressures to make savings (Souri 2009; see also Lapiolahti 2007 and Svedlin 2003).

3.2

Municipalities as principals operating environments

The relationship between central and local governments has been changed considerably
over the last two decades. According to the currently effective Local Government Act
(365/1995), Finland is divided into local authorities where the autonomy of residents is
safeguarded in the constitution. Local authorities must perform the functions laid down
for them by law, but they can autonomously decide the ways in which the functions are
performed. The Basic Education Act (628/1998) requires local authorities to organise
basic education for children of compulsory school age residing in their respective areas.
There is every reason to say that municipalities are key operating environments for
principals. According to statistics compiled by the Finnish National Board of Education
(Opetushallitus 2011), there were 3,100 municipal comprehensive schools in Finland
in 2009, whereas private schools only numbered 90. Local authorities are also the most
common providers of general upper secondary education, as municipal schools accounted
for 92% of all general upper secondary schools in 2009. According to Kanervio and Risku
(2009), almost all local authorities (96.7%) provide basic and general upper secondary
education on their own. Most principals consider that decisions made at municipal level
are the most important ones in terms of their work (Pennanen 2006).
Local authorities are required to organise their administration in compliance with the
Local Government Act (365/1995), but statutes give them considerable freedom to
organise their administration as they see fit. This freedom is also exercised in practice
and, at present, municipal organisations differ considerably from each other. In addition, municipal organisations are changing constantly partly on their own initiative
and partly under the central governments guidance through the Act on Municipal and
Service Restructuring, for example. In 2008, 94.3% of directors of education and culture
felt that provision of education and training services would change considerably within
their own municipality by 2015 (Kanervio & Risku 2009). As principals formal status is
quite open in legal terms, it is natural that it is defined in very different ways in municipal
standing orders, administrative regulations and rules of procedure and that their day-today job descriptions differ even more. Based on the points described above, it is not
surprising that the majority of research into principals and school management is placed
in a municipal environment.
Varjos (2007) doctoral thesis includes an analysis of why and how the relationship
between central and local governments has changed in education policy to become what

18

it is today. Varjo suggests that development of education policy is part of societys general
development, where the system-oriented centralised state administration has been under
pressure to change ever since the mid-1980s. For advocates of decentralisation, the
system of centralised administration has been too rigid and incapable of meeting the
challenges of a changing society. Furthermore, advocates of decentralisation appear to
believe that Finnish society is ready for local decision-making. Advocates of centralised
administration, in turn, seem to consider that the real motive of those advocating decentralisation is to strengthen the market economy as a social force, which they believe will
endanger the existence of the Finnish welfare state. (See also Rinne, Kivirauma & Simola
2002; Simola 2010, for example.) In addition to and also in lieu of standards and
their control, it seems that evaluation and performance guidance are becoming more and
more prominent management tools. (See also Ryynnen 2004.)
Kanervio and Risku (2009) suggest that local authorities appear to aim for independent
long-term and strategic development, with due consideration given to the operating
environment and the views of the central government. They aim to anticipate changes
in the operating environment and adjust functions accordingly, with a view to safeguarding services and ensuring sustainable development. Strategic development seems
to be significantly hampered by the scarcity of resources available for management
of educational administration. According to Kangaslahtis (2007) doctoral thesis, strategic leadership of municipal educational administration means seeking, identifying and
resolving complex problems on a continuous basis. In order for strategic leadership to be
successful, problems need to be examined openly, diversely and with dialogue through
close co-operation and discussions between elected representatives, top-level municipal
civil servants, staff and parents. Kangaslahtis research points out significant shortcomings in the ways in which principals have been trained for and involved in the strategy
work of municipal educational administration. Kangaslahtis main results are supported
by a doctoral thesis by Strandman (2009), among others.
Since 1998, education providers have had a statutory obligation to evaluate their operations and the effectiveness of these (Basic Education Act 628/1998, General Upper
Secondary Schools Act 629/1998). The doctoral theses by Lapiolahti (2007) and Svedlin
(2003), respectively focusing on a municipal level and a school level, suggest that local
evaluation of education does not, at least as yet, succeed particularly well in fulfilling the
obligation. Local evaluation of education does not seem to be linked to curricular objectives, thus failing to provide sufficient operational guidance for municipal educational
administrations and schools. One of the reasons for problems in local evaluation may
be attributed to the scarcity of staff involved in educational evaluation in municipalities
(Lfstrm, Metsmuuronen, Niemi, Salmio & Stenvall 2005; Rajanen 2000).
On the whole, local authorities have too few administrative staff to support both directors of education and culture and principals. As a result, directors of education and
culture seem to delegate their administrative duties to principals, who in turn pass their
tasks on to teachers. (Kanervio & Risku 2009; Pont, Nusche & Hopkins 2008.) When
speaking about scaling back administration, perhaps we ought to specify whether we
mean reductions in administrative work or in administrative staff. Although staff are
no longer needed for implementation of standards, supervision of implementation or
reporting on these, it seems fair to assume that knowledge management, among other
things, would still require adequate human resources. In addition, we should thoroughly
deliberate on what the basic task of administration is in our current society. Could the
19

task of administration be to cater for schools as diversely as possible by freeing up principals and teachers time from administrative routines to schools core work, for example?
When analysed through doctoral theses (Karikoski 2009; Mkel 2007; Pennanen 2006),
principals seem to spend an unreasonable share of their working hours doing administrative work, even as teachers seem to expect them to offer more and more pedagogical
leadership (Mustonen 2003; Mkel 2007; Raasumaa 2010).
In the light of research, municipalities appear to make for quite challenging operating
environments for principals. This challenging nature is emphasised by the non-existent
boundaries of principals formal status. It is hardly surprising that principals do not seem
comfortable being responsible for school operations. Nor do they feel that directors of
education and culture or municipal organisation structures are capable of supporting
them in their work. (Ahonen 2008; Suomen Rehtorit [Finnish Association of Principals]
2005; Lehkonen 2009; Vuohijoki 2006.)

3.3

Schools as principals operating environments

As principals operating environments, schools have changed significantly over the last
two decades. Gone is the school that the principal administered, ensuring implementation of standards and reporting on implementation. Today, a school as a principals
operating environment is a profit centre run by the principal as the manager of strategy,
finances, administration, human resources, pedagogy, performance as well as a diverse
service centre.
According to Kanervio and Risku (2009), every school had its own principal in 82.9%
of Finnish municipalities in 2009. The figure is not directly comparable with the results
(about 85%) of research conducted by Pirhonen and Janhunen (1995), but it probably
goes to show that there has not been any significant change over the last couple of
decades. A considerable proportion (21.4%) of directors of education and culture still
operate as principals, but the figure is slightly smaller than the percentage (25.1%) in
a study by Rajanen (2000). Assistant principals (in 13.8% of municipalities) and district
principals (in 6.2% of municipalities) are still not very common, but their numbers appear
to be growing as schools and municipalities become larger. It seems to be more common
for principals to head integrated primary and lower secondary schools than both lower
and upper secondary schools. The constantly decreasing number of schools i.e. the
fear of closure of ones own school must be visible in many principals work, even
though the topic has not been studied at doctoral level, with the exception of Kanervio
(2007).
The descriptions provided in the previous two sections (3.1 and 3.2) about principals
formal status and municipalities as principals operating environments also create the
framework for schools as principals operating environments. Nevertheless, schools definitely have their own unique meaning as operating environments for principals. Consequently, there are quite a few studies that specifically examine principals and school
management at a school level and from the perspective of managing a school.
As a general rule, doctoral research examining principals and school management at a
school level focuses on change. In Kanervios (2007) doctoral thesis, the school as the
principals operating environment creates a challenge for the principal, where at stake

20

is the existence of the school and, in broader terms, perhaps that of the private school
type as a whole. As a result of a battle for survival, the school is spared and legislation
is reformed. The doctoral thesis produces a theory of change, where the main result is
recognition of a crisis as key to change.
Hellstrm (2004) and Johnson (2006) studied how national school reform is carried out
at school level. As a result, Hellstrms doctoral thesis lays down a 20-point manifesto of
a successful school project, which will be examined in more detail in Section 4.1. Johnsons doctoral thesis emphasises teachers co-operation opportunities and the importance of well-planned and co-ordinated continuing training.
The doctoral theses by Kirveskari (2003) and Kunnari (2008) can be considered to highlight the meaning of making things visible amidst change. What is expressed supports
achievement of what is desired. Kirveskari examined school management from the
perspective of envisioning, i.e. creating visions. According to Kirveskari, envisioning and
visions intrinsically contain an expression of strategic intent and a statement on implementation of the intent. In addition to intent, a true visionary also expresses ideas about
organisation, equally masters the past, the present and the future, bears social responsibility for their environment and society and is able to limit the number of challenges.
Kunnaris research focused on a schools organisational culture. According to Kunnari,
the way in which members of a school community describe their schools organisational
culture also reveals something about their own thought patterns and ways of operating.
Describing the schools organisational culture intrinsically supports its development in
alignment with the expressed goals and visions.
The perspective of Raasumaas (2010) and Vulkkos (2001) doctoral theses is not perhaps
directly related to change management, but their findings will definitely support change
management at a school level as well. Raasumaa studied a principals actions at a school
level as the leader of teachers knowledge, connecting knowledge management to broad
pedagogical leadership in line with the description provided in Chapter 5 of this report.
Raasumaa suggests that a principal needs to focus actively and intensively on teachers
knowledge management. To support this objective, Raasumaa included in his thesis a
detailed handbook of knowledge management, which will be discussed in more detail
in Chapter 4 of this report. Vulkkos analysis focuses on teachers perceptions of the
schools general decision-making culture. She suggests that principals and teachers have
different perceptions of preparation and implementation of decisions and their schools
financial situation. Based on a survey conducted for basic education teachers (N=201),
teachers feel that a good decision-making culture is made up of sufficient background
information and preparation, open atmosphere, involvement, commitment to and monitoring of decisions, clear procedures and the principals appropriate action. According to
Vulkko, both teachers and principals seem to emphasise the significance of interaction.
When examining schools as principals operating environments, it is fair to point out,
in addition to the prominent role of constant change, that co-operation and networking
form an essential part of a principals work today. In itself, a school as an operating
environment creates the need for co-operation and participation in internal networks.
It is probably quite clear that a school does not operate in isolation but forms part of
the education providers consortium i.e. generally a local authority and participates
in sub-regional, regional, national and international co-operation. All this means that a

21

school as an operating environment requires the principal to participate diversely in a

wide variety of networks.
The ways in which doctoral researchers analyse co-operation, dialogue and networking
seem to vary quite considerably, which is why it is difficult to estimate the time spent
by principals on co-operation and networking commensurably from a research point of
view. Several researchers suggest, however, that co-operation, dialogue and networking
both within and outside the school form an important part of a principals work at
present. Karikoski (2009) writes about the huge amount of interactive situations that
principals are faced with. Principals involved in a doctoral thesis by Mustonen (2003)
perceived co-operation with stakeholders to form part of their core job description.
Mkel (2007) suggests that networking takes up a significant proportion (22%) of a
principals time. In Pennanens (2006) doctoral thesis, principals included co-operation
in everyday life management as an essential part of their work. According to Pesonen
(2009), principals expect school management to develop towards collegial management
between principals from different schools and to expand to take place in both internal
and external school networks. The changing society seems to set challenges for school
management, involving aspects such as development of pupils further study and life
skills through diverse co-operation. For her doctoral thesis, Nyknen (2010) specifically
studied these types of sub-regional guidance counselling and pupil welfare networks,
suggesting that networks require distributed leadership in order to succeed in their tasks.
She further suggests that it is important for principals to participate in multidisciplinary
and cross-administrative co-operation at its different levels.

22

Change in principalship

4.1

First steps towards pedagogical leadership

1999 was an important year in terms of development of municipal educational administration, as it marked the completion of a significant reform of school laws. The reform
process had already started in 1985, when the previous legislative reform of comprehensive schools and general upper secondary education entered into force. The new
lesson framework system increased local decision-making powers and local authorities
and schools had to assume responsibility for provision of education they were no
longer able simply to resort to legal provisions or guidelines issued by the State Provincial Offices. This significant delegation of decision-making powers both changed and
increased the content and responsibilities of principals work. This change and, in particular, the transition from the 1990s to the 21st century is illustrated by Mustonen (2003)
in his doctoral thesis entitled Mihin rehtoria tarvitaan (Why do we need a principal?).
Initially considered a minor tweak, the lesson framework reform ultimately turned out
to renew the principals role in quite a significant way. For the first time, principals were
now supposed to take a genuine lead role in their own schools pedagogical practices,
responsibilities and priorities, instead of simply implementing legal standards and regulations. The road towards pedagogical leadership had been paved. At school level, this
reform did not by any means progress without problems. It is obvious that not all principals were able to distribute lessons properly within the lesson framework, because this
was a completely new area of management skills, which differed essentially from their
prior job descriptions that had mainly consisted of managing administration and day-today routines. On the other hand, if teachers felt that lesson distribution was somehow
carried out against their own ideas, they opposed the planned implementation method.
Principals started to experience a new kind of resistance to change. Even as principals
were given considerable added responsibilities and powers in terms of teaching arrangements, they also immediately noticed that their work had become more difficult and that
they required new management skills. The need for management training increased.
As Mustonen (2003) points out in his doctoral thesis, the focus of regulation in the 1999
legislation was no longer on the school institution, but on education, its objectives and
the conditions for its implementation. The new laws laid down provisions on the objectives and contents of education, levels of education, forms of provision, and pupils rights
and responsibilities. With a few exceptions, they no longer included detailed provisions
on educational institutions, implementation of teaching, administration of education or
the position of school staff.
The main idea of this considerably radical reform of school administration was that the
objectives set for schools would be achieved through developing school-specific procedures and objectives based on regional, local and school-specific circumstances. These
operating models no longer come from up high; instead, a principal needs to be capable
of ensuring the viability of the school on their own and its ability also to perform well
in the long term. Delegation of decision-making powers to principals and school heads
genuinely emphasises the leaders responsibility for performance. (Mustonen 2003.)

23

One of the most important instruments guiding school operations is the curriculum
based on the National Core Curriculum. Every curricular reform has stirred quite heated
debates and implementation of reforms has generally caused problems at school level.
One of the most significant projects to carry out curricular changes was the so-called
Aquarium experiment implemented in 19921994, which continued as a broad Aquarium
project. The implementation method and success of the pedagogical development
projects under the Aquarium project has been studied in a doctoral thesis by Hellstrm
(2004). His research data was quite extensive, covering 339 projects co-ordinated by the
Finnish National Board of Education.
The objectives of Hellstrms doctoral thesis were both theoretical and practical. At a
theoretical level, the aim was to develop and deepen the concept of change approach
used in the development projects. When studying the projects, Hellstrm noticed that
participants involved in successful development projects were enthusiastic, innovative
and knowledgeable and that they carried out the projects of their own accord. In order
to be successful, a project had to be genuinely necessary and useful for the school.
Successful examples included both strategic and interactive elements. Project implementation required the principals strong pedagogical leadership and teachers well-being
at work. Hellstrm distilled his theoretical analysis into 20 practical tips for a successful
development project. He suggests that a successful development project requires,
among other things, concrete objectives, project participants own interest and expertise, a genuine need for the project, a sufficiently innovative and even radical approach,
involvement of reform-minded and enthusiastic teachers, ensuring teachers well-being,
maintaining a good atmosphere, as well as monitoring and rewards.

4.2

One leader is no longer enough

As principals were assigned increasingly extensive and demanding duties and responsibilities relating to finances, human resources administration, implementation of integrated basic education, integration of special needs pupils and, on the whole, overall
pedagogical development of schools, the idea that principals could not solve and decide
everything on their own started to become all the more clear. Along with increasing
responsibilities, another significant change in principals work in the early 1990s was the
need to expand leadership by putting the principles and practices of distributed leadership into practice. This change was also not easy, because the single leader approach
had been dominant for decades.
The view that an organisation only has one leader goes back a long way and involves a
yearning for a great, strong and charismatic leader. However, practical school management and a principals work have started to become something completely different.
Mustonen (2003) suggests that although ultimate responsibility still rests with the leader,
the leader promotes their own leadership by sharing responsibility and working with
teachers. Teachers co-operation and increasing ability to exercise decision-making powers
relating to their own work, in turn, support teachers professional development. When
allowed to participate in preparatory work, teachers will also become more committed
to the decisions. Thus, the expansion of a principals leadership brought about the first
steps towards distributed leadership. As noted above, along with increasing responsibilities, this was a new orientation for many principals, who were used to making administrative decisions alone in their offices. The change also opened up a new development

24

pathway towards teacher leadership, which introduces a completely new dimension into
both the teachers role and school management.

4.3

Major change of job description

A more detailed description of the principals work and its content has been of interest
to Finnish researchers for a long time now. The first broader studies on the topic were
carried out during the 1980s by Vaherva (1984) and Hmlinen, Luukkonen, Karjalainen
and Lonkila (1987). Based on the analysis presented by Mustonen (2003) in his doctoral
thesis, it is fair to say that the results of these two studies differ from each other in an
interesting way. According to the study carried out by Vaherva on principals career
profiles and training needs, a principal is first and foremost a pedagogical leader whose
primary duties include their own teaching work, following what happens at school,
drawing up school timetables, monitoring and evaluating their own school communitys
activities, as well as evaluating achievement of the teaching and educational objectives
set for schoolwork. Hmlinen, Luukkonen, Karjalainen and Lonkila, in turn, suggest
that principals see themselves more as administrators than as educational leaders. Principals feel that they should primarily attend to administrative duties, routines and interpersonal relationships. The research data of Mustonens own doctoral thesis included
perceptions of pedagogical leadership among early 21st century principals (N=129).
Several principals placed pedagogical leadership in the area of tricky interpersonal skills,
which they regarded as being a particularly challenging or downright disagreeable
area of operation.
In light of the most recent doctoral theses analysed in this report, the seemingly different
findings described above are easier to understand. It seems that, in order to outline the
current work of a principal, we need to perceive management work as a larger whole,
where the concept of pedagogical leadership, in particular, is being determined in a new,
more holistic way.
In his doctoral thesis on leadership of comprehensive schools, Pennanen (2006) deliberates both on the emphasis of the principals work and on its unique and contextual
nature. According to his data, managing things is still emphasised in management work
(70% of working time). The principals participating in the study only spent a third of their
working time on leading people. Pennanen points out that comprehensive school leaders
feel that their work emphasised both comprehensiveness and co-operation regarding
the management of practicalities. The participating leaders considered their work to be
demanding and future-oriented. They also perceived their work to be closely bound
to the school context. Management of school operations was characterised by dealing
comprehensively with practicalities and dependence on decisions made externally. Local
level decisions were regarded as being of particular importance. It is therefore fair to say
that, since the turn of the millennium, school leadership has been increasingly bound
to the school and to the specific local authority, joint municipal authority or some other
provider organisation within which the work is being done.
A specific additional challenge to the above-mentioned role of contextuality is introduced by the fact that, in keeping with municipal autonomy and new school laws, there
is no single municipal educational administration that one could study and then apply
in the same way in any municipality. There are just as many local educational adminis-

25

trations as there are municipalities and new ones are being created all the time, as the
countrys municipal structure is undergoing major reform. (See Ryynnen 2004.) It is
important to understand that leadership today is highly contextual. In addition to the
range of local authorities, every school is different. At play within schools are various
cultures, structures and internal power relations in a sense, school micropolitics (Malen
1995; Flessa 2009).
We may say that leadership is always born again; it cannot be carried over in the same
form. When a principal is appointed to a new educational institution, they cannot bring
their leadership from their previous school; instead, leadership needs to be reborn in
a new context, in a new administrative system and in a new culture. It is very difficult
to imagine that we could write a handbook on school management that would lay out
every single detail of administration, finances and management. Such a handbook would
have to be drawn up for each local authority, joint municipal authority or other provider
organisation, because they are all different. Due to the individual nature of organisations,
the challenges of management training in a school context are quite new.
According to Pennanen (2003), an additional problem for school management is brought
about by the fact that municipal school administration may be dominated by a traditional
culture of management by results or objectives and a top-down administrative tradition,
even if a new management style were pursued in terms of school management. It ought
to be clear that not all municipal educational administrations have as yet entered the era
of new school laws and new kinds of educational services. Pennanen suggests that social
issues and, in particular, potentially conflicting expectations are directed at management
by way of the school, which calls for solid expertise and skills in leading people alongside administrative duties and task management in other words, leadership skills in
addition to traditional management skills. Consequently, the basic role of a comprehensive school leader requires a new kind of professional competence.
The early 21st century is typically characterised by the speed of phenomena and a certain
chaos. It is possible to identify several phenomena at municipal and school levels that
we cannot interpret by means of traditional rational approaches. (Aula 2000; Juuti 2001.)
In a transformed operating environment, administrative competence is no longer enough
on its own in practical school management work. In many cases, the prevailing premises
for management at a municipal level are management by results and objectives, with no
room for leadership of people. The old bureaucratic management culture plays a key
role. It is therefore possible that the organisational culture of a new, dynamic and futureoriented educational institution and the municipal administrative culture are in conflict
with each other. In Pennanens (2003) study, the management of a municipal school
department still seemed to emphasise the importance of hierarchy when considering the
significance of national decisions, for example.

4.4

Conflicting pressures on principals working time time for

pedagogical leadership

In his doctoral research, Mkel (2007) used the autoethnographic approach to establish what principals really do. This extensive research, charting Mkels own work as
a principal over a period of 18 months, substantiated some earlier ideas of the work of
comprehensive school principals, but it also revealed a significant new functional area,

26

the implications of which are discussed by Mkel in his thesis. Based on Mkels use
of his own time, comprehensive school principals spend 33% of their working hours on
administration and decision-making, 31% on co-operation and management of interaction, 22% on human resources management and 14% on pedagogical leadership. One of
the significant findings of the study was how much time was spent on co-operation and
management of interaction, i.e. networking, as Mkel calls this functional area. In his
work, Mkel ponders how time spent on networking affects use of time in other areas
of management. Of particular concern to him appears to be the fact that the time spent
on pedagogical leadership seems quite modest considering the significance assigned to
it. For both Mkel and many other researchers, examination of pedagogical leadership
seems to be complicated by the ambiguity of the concept. In his own analysis, Mkel
associates the concept with teaching arrangements and development and curricular
work, while including working time arrangements under administration and in-service
training under HR management.
Pesonen (2009) shares Mkels concern for principals slanted use of time. Pesonen
studied the perceptions among principals working at comprehensive schools in a city
located in Eastern Finland of their work priorities, asking them to examine their recent
past (the 1980s and the 1990s), their present (20002010) as well as their future (the
2010s and the 2020s). According to these principals, at the time of the research at the
turn of the millennium, school management diversified in terms of content, even as
principals operating field expanded significantly. The principals felt that education and
teaching were getting trampled in management work. According to Pesonen, the principals experienced the situation to be conflicting, because management of educational
and teaching work was precisely what they regarded as being an essential part of their
management work.
Karikoski (2009) studied the work of primary and lower secondary school principals
by means of shadowing. She classified the observations that she had collected on principals functions according to their underlying factors, including quality improvement,
daily routines, strategic thinking and emotional skills. Working hours were emphasised
as follows: duties relating to management of day-to-day school operations took up about
40% of working hours, while tasks requiring emotional skills and strategic thinking
accounted for over 30% and over 20%, respectively. Conversely, the time spent on
duties involving quality improvement according to the criteria set out in the study only
accounted for about 8% of the total working hours.
Karikoski, Mkel and Pesonen express their concern about the inappropriate distribution of principals time. Karikoski suggests that the most important challenge of a principals work is to assure and improve the quality of teaching and learning. The prerequisite for success in this respect is strengthening collaboration both at a regional level
and within individual school communities. This will not succeed without distribution of
leadership, networking, continuous interaction and discourse, as well as command of
emotional skills. How principals faced with this challenge can manage to remain innovative and inspiring leaders is, according to Karikoski, a serious issue.
Pulkkinen (2011) studied the leadership styles of principals with top-level coaching
backgrounds. The aim was to find out whether there were any shared elements in
the leadership of sports coaches and principals and, in particular, whether there were
so-called transferences between these areas, i.e. whether there was something in the
27

leadership of a top sports coach that would benefit a principals leadership and vice
versa. As a result of the study, Pulkkinen identified five categories of leadership transferences, i.e. areas of leadership that, according to Pulkkinen, can be utilised within both
the sports world and the school world.
TABLE 1. Categories describing leadership transferences (Pulkkinen 2011, 160).
Leadership TRANSFERENCE
1.

Orientation towards people (anthropocentrism)

2.

Cyclicality

3.

Extensiveness of position

4.

Change tolerance

5.

Leadership behaviour

According to Pulkkinens study, orientation towards people and related human action
is one of the key dimensions describing leadership transference. Based on the study, it
is fair to say that it is important that the potentially hard varnish of a leader conceals a
humane individual who knows how to deal with people also as a leader. The second
category, cyclicality, describes the nature of the leaders work and the cyclicality that
dominates the annual calendar of both the sports and the school worlds. The third category, extensiveness of position, describes the changing world and those new areas that
need to be taken into account as part of leadership of both of the worlds being studied.
The fourth category, change tolerance, is related to change management. Those interviewed in Pulkkinens study considered change tolerance to be the kind of skill facilitating their own leadership that had most frequently been transferred from the sports
world to the school world. The fifth category of the study, leadership behaviour, covers
both educational and coaching leadership. This leadership had provided respondents
with good self-esteem and self-confidence while also maintaining healthy humility and
understanding of the limitations of their own knowledge. In both worlds covered by the
study, leadership behaviour was based on taking people into account and interactive
leadership.
These doctoral theses paint a picture of the principals work that highlights comprehensiveness and solid professionalism. The comprehensive nature of work seems to be
linked to strong and growing conflicting pressures enabled by factors such as the principals formal status (see section 3.1). Principals use of time does not seem to be appropriate in all respects. The concern about adequate opportunities for principals to carry
out one of their primary functions pedagogical leadership appears to be legitimate,
to say the least.

4.5

Towards the future and knowledge management

According to almost all the studies covered in this report, the operating field of schools,
principals and teachers is becoming more and more complex and challenging. At the
same time, the principals work seems to be getting more diverse and difficult. Change
and its implementation, meeting pedagogical challenges and continuous development of
teaching staff are playing an increasingly prominent role.

28

Kirveskari (2003) has studied the role of vision and strategic management in change
management. The research data comprised 17 principals responses to a thematic survey
and interview. In her study, Kirveskari concluded that vision management covers both a
strong will to change and renew and a vision for practical implementation of change. In
the study, vision and strategic managers are classified into two main categories: visionaries and developers. Kirveskari suggests that visionaries express how things should be
and feel responsible both for their own organisation and broader society. They take the
past, the present and the future into account in their actions. Developers behaviour, in
turn, is characterised by self-interest. They are more externally directed than visionaries
and they have a more passive attitude towards the future.
In her extensive doctoral thesis dealing with leadership and management in guidance
and counselling services, Nyknen (2010) studies students learning pathways and
analysing and correcting shortcomings detected in these. Nyknen examines guidance
and counselling services comprehensively across different structural levels and dimensions, ranging from the operational policy dimension to the temporal dimension, i.e.
the learning pathway. She also studies management of guidance and counselling services as multidisciplinary co-operation and networking between educational institutions.
The study provides an illustrative outline of the challenges and problems involved in
todays cross-administrative activities. The thesis challenges all those influencing a pupils
learning pathway to participate in close networking activities in order to safeguard the
learning pathway.
In her conclusions, Nyknen puts forward proposals for improvement of four different
areas of management, namely, management of structures, processes, personnel and
client processes. Nyknen suggests that management of structures should emphasise
examining guidance and counselling services as a whole within an organisation and
achieving resource synergies through multidisciplinary and cross-administrative co-operation. In terms of process management, the emphasis should be on the division of work
in the internal network, management of services based on evaluation, as well as creation of vision, strategy and organisational culture in order to guarantee inclusive services. Personnel management should highlight a leadership approach based on genuine
caring, creation of collaborative teams, development of distributed leadership and broad
participation in both planning and implementation. In addition, management of client
processes should be based on early identification of pupils needs, individualisation of
studies, equality of guidance and counselling services, as well as guaranteeing special
support for those who need it.
Raasumaa (2010) has approached the problem area of responding to future challenges
through knowledge management. In his study, he has started by defining what knowledge means in basic education. Through this definition, he proceeds to discuss knowledge management. Raasumaas thesis is extensive and thorough and it is not possible to
present its results and themes briefly, but it is a good idea to take note of two important
results: firstly, how Raasumaa crystallises knowledge management and, secondly, how
he opens up the concept of broad pedagogical leadership.
In his research, Raasumaa comes up with the following areas of a principals knowledge:
pedagogical knowledge, communal knowledge, external collaborative knowledge, leadership knowledge, individual development knowledge and personal knowledge. The
doctoral thesis opens up these knowledge areas diversely, functioning not only as a
29

scientific study but also as a handbook guiding towards practice in terms of both definition and management of knowledge.
Raasumaa classifies the leadership theory premises of different knowledge areas and
leadership styles as shown in the following table.
TABLE 2. Principals knowledge areas and their leadership theory premises (Raasumaa 2010, 261).
Principals knowledge area

Leadership theory premises

pedagogical knowledge

pedagogical leadership, teacher leadership

communal knowledge

team leadership, functional approach to leadership

external collaborative knowledge

management in networks, information management

leadership knowledge

management by objectives, change management, leadership styles, trait

theories of leadership

individual development knowledge

contingency theories of leadership, situational leadership, pathgoal

theory, transformative leadership

personal knowledge

psychodynamic leadership approaches

At the end of his thesis, Raasumaa draws up a synthesis of his results, showing a basic
education principal as a broad pedagogical leader. In addition to planning and organising teaching work, a principal as a broad pedagogical leader also attends to the qualitative development of knowledge and learning. This means that knowledge management
focuses, first and foremost, on identification of the contents of learning. The focus of
knowledge management lies on contextual knowledge development processes relating
to teachers professional development objectives.
Based on Raasumaas study, broad pedagogical leadership is determined on two main
dimensions, namely, influencing actors self-regulation and promoting dynamic interaction. According to Raasumaa, these dimensions, in turn, consist of the following areas of
management and leadership:
Influencing actors self-regulation
the principals successful self-management
knowledge of teachers
promotion of self-leadership and empowerment
supervision and help
guidance, sharing of information and advice
safeguarding opportunities for supplementary, further and continuing training

Promoting dynamic interaction

formulation of shared understanding
utilisation of distributed leadership
creation of a progressive learning culture
creation of lateral capacity required for learning
long-term and sustainable school development
management of network-based learning
creation of new pedagogical infrastructure

30

Raasumaas study opens up in a significant way the new dimensions and knowledge
areas of leadership that principals of comprehensive schools (and other educational
institutions as well) will need to master in the future in order to be able to function as
knowledge leaders and as principals leading their schools towards a renewing future.

4.6

Construction of principals leadership identity

Ahonen (2008) challenges all those working in school management to explore their own
leadership identity. Her doctoral thesis opens up an important point of view on principals identity as part of their increasingly challenging, diverse and complex job description. The essence of leadership in a principals personality becomes the key question.
As the themes of Ahonens research may be less familiar to many, it is necessary to start
by examining its definition of concepts. According to Ahonen, identity is the way in
which individuals define themselves through differences and similarities in relation to
their environment. Identity is constructed socio-culturally and has a strong connection to
language. Leadership is defined by Ahonen as the set of meanings that directs leaders
orientation towards leadership. This set of meanings, in turn, becomes concrete in their
speech and leadership action. Finally, leadership identity is the way in which leaders
define their leadership as part of their own selves. This leadership identity is constructed
in a social interaction process.
In terms of research results, Ahonens observations support the above-mentioned observations made by Pennanen (2003) on the fact that Finnish school leadership is socially
constructed and contextual, meaning that teachers, pupils, other staff and stakeholders
play a significant role in construction of leadership. According to Ahonen, principals feel
that they are under almost constant tension and conflicting pressures due to different
expectations. Solutions to coping with tensions and conflicting pressures construct and
shape a principals own leadership. Ahonens research suggests that leadership is not
static but instead varies from one situation and interaction to another. The principals
leadership styles also vary accordingly.
Construction of a principals leadership identity is essentially determined by the fact that
almost all principals have worked as teachers prior to becoming principals. Every principals professional identity thus includes personal experience of a teachers professional
identity. According to Ahonen, the fact that a principals self covers both principal and
teacher identities causes internal conflicts for principals. Ahonens research suggests that
principals aim to soften conflicts by means such as sharing decision-making powers,
changing meeting practices and regulating their own leadership. Through changes to
their own schools organisational culture, principals aim to influence the meanings
assigned to leadership. The objective of changing the meanings, in turn, is to create
space for their self-definition and their own professional development.
In line with Ahonen, every principal can explore their own school through those practical
meanings that school staff seem to assign to the schools functions. According to Ahonen,
the meanings assigned to functions by staff form the schools space of meaning, which is
interpreted personally by each member of staff. These interpretations form the schools
context and culture, where each principals own leadership identity is constructed.

31

The doctoral thesis by Hnninen (2009) is one of the few doctoral theses exploring
leadership in vocational education and training (VET). Hnninen focused her interest on
what sort of elements make up leadership and principals work in vocational education
and training. In addition, she used the grounded theory (GT) method to examine the
elements of good that VET leadership is built on. The grounded theory method applied
in the study means that the researcher does not have a predefined theoretical basis when
embarking on the research because there is no certainty in advance of what theoretical
discussion the phenomenon being studied is related to. The GT method is challenging
for the researcher, but it enables theorising, or creation of a new theoretical basis for the
phenomenon being studied.
Hnninen identifies five dimensions of principals work: a principal cares, a principal
wants to lead, a principal exercises power, a principal defines the pedagogical foundation and a principal lives in the time. These categories reflect both strong leadership
and genuine humaneness. The thesis also discusses the factors that unite all of the five
above-mentioned dimensions of a principals work. The uniting factors appear to be
responsibility, power and caring. In Hnninens study, responsibility means dedication
to the work, fairness and attending to peoples needs. Power, in turn, refers to the principals presence in all important decision-making processes and definition of policies
and decision-making practices. The third uniting factor, caring, can be seen in terms
of respect, humanity and collaboration. Hnninen regards humanity as being the core
category uniting and cutting through all of the above.
When analysing the research results presented in the previous two chapters on the
change in principals job description (Ahonen 2008; Hnninen 2009; Karikoski 2009;
Mkel 2007; Pesonen 200; Pulkkinen 2011; Raasumaa 2010), the aspect that inevitably
emerges at the forefront is a strong need for people skills and pedagogical knowledge.
At the same time, the more and more demanding job description appears to limit principals opportunities to spend time on and take action in precisely these areas. A principal
is increasingly caught between two fires. On the one hand, there are growing pressures
from the management of the local authority or the joint municipal authority for the principal to act as a strong change manager and a reformer of finances and structures. On
the other, pedagogical development of the school requires the principal to bear responsibility and have solid people skills, pedagogical understanding, a highly developed
leadership identity and a value basis that places emphasis on caring.

4.7

Organisational and leadership culture

One of the most important reforms of basic education at the beginning of the 21st century
was the transition to an integrated basic education lasting nine years. This change has
been studied by Johnson (2006) as action research with focus on change of structures
and teachers perceptions of change and by Lahtero (2011) from the perspective of
an integrated comprehensive schools organisational culture. In his research, Johnson
examined all schools providing basic education in one city and interviewed more than
70 teachers. The study indicated that although hierarchies and teachers roles seem to
change slowly, education appears to include more and more integration. The prerequisites of successful development activities identified in the study were safeguarding
teachers broad participation and interaction, continuous training and good planning and
co-ordination of projects.

32

In a very similar vein to how Ahonen discusses a principals leadership identity, Lahtero
defines leadership culture as a network of meanings. Lahteros research approach to
leadership culture is symbolic-interpretive. The thesis examines a principals leadership
by means of the school culture and the symbols associated with leadership by school
staff. Lahtero defines organisational culture as being a network of symbols and meanings through which members of the school organisation interpret their experiences and
which directs their actions. He defines leadership culture as being a subculture of organisational culture; a product of a meaning assignment and interpretation process relating to
leadership, which is incessantly shaped through the schools social structures.
Lahteros research opens up the organisational culture of one integrated comprehensive school in an illustrative manner. The study describes the integrated comprehensive
schools organisational culture at three levels: functional, verbal and material. The thesis
analyses these levels by means of symbols representing them. The analysis provides
a very detailed view of the integrated comprehensive schools organisational culture.
In addition to this detailed view, the analysis provides an excellent illustration of how
complex and strong a schools organisational culture is.
In addition to describing the integrated comprehensive schools culture, Lahteros study
dealt with the concepts of leadership and management. Lahteros analysis is based on
Sergiovannis (2006) argumentation, which does not make a distinction between leadership and management. Sergiovanni regards leadership as metaphorically consisting of
five forces: technical, human, educational, symbolic and cultural. In Sergiovannis model,
a principal uses the first three technical, human and educational forces to maintain
school operations. According to Sergiovanni, the symbolic and cultural aspects of leadership, in turn, are more profound forces, which help schools to reach excellence in
commitment and performance.
Based on his research data, Lahtero critically assesses Sergiovannis above-mentioned
model. He agrees with Sergiovanni in that the division into leadership and management
is artificial. However, Lahtero argues that separating the symbolic and cultural forces of
leadership from its technical, human and educational forces is questionable. In Lahteros
study, artefacts that initially seemed only to be manifested as technical, human and
educational leadership forces ultimately became symbols as well, as school staff also
assigned symbolic meanings to them. In other words, cultural and symbolic leadership
also seem to be linked to technical, human and educational leadership, as shown in the
figure below.
TECHNICAL LEADERSHIP

HUMAN LEADERSHIP

EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP

SYMBOLIC LEADERSHIP
CULTURAL LEADERSHIP
Figure 1. The five forces of leadership (Lahtero 2011, 154).
Lahteros research opens up a new perspective on leadership culture by examining it as
a network of meanings. In addition, Lahteros work offers an illustrative perspective on
the complexity and role of the schools organisational culture as part of the principals
everyday activities. It is fair to believe that both perspectives are useful for every principal as they deliberate on their own leadership activities.
33

4.8

Principals well-being

As this chapter on principals changing role clearly demonstrates, principals work has
become more and more demanding, stressful and time-consuming. This change in principals work has also been a cause for concern for the Finnish Association of Principals,
which conducted a survey of Finnish principals work reality in 2005 (Suomen Rehtorit
[Finnish Association of Principals] 2005). The report clearly revealed both principals
increasing workloads and how work pressures were reflected on their well-being at
work. While the survey does not provide an actual average of how many hours principals work per week, the answers given in interviews would suggest that their weekly
working time can be as high as 50 hours and, according to some respondents, absurd.
This survey also identifies increasing burn-out, even cynicism towards work, and a desire
to switch jobs as further causes for concern.
Principals well-being was a key focus of research in a doctoral thesis by Vuohijoki
(2006) entitled Pit vain selviyty; Tutkimus rehtorin tyst ja tyss jaksamisesta sukupuolen ja virka-aseman suhteen tarkasteltuna (You just have to cope: the work and
professional well-being of principals researched in relation to their sex and official position of authority). The study, carried out using the role-playing method, or the method
of empathy-based stories, focused particularly on school management, principals job
descriptions and well-being at work. The results painted a disquieting picture of principals well-being. As many as 80% of principals felt overstressed and almost half wanted
to switch to another job. One of the reasons behind principals well-being problems
seemed to be the fact that, in parallel with their customary principals duties, the majority
of principals also regularly performed other tasks (such as office and property maintenance tasks) which would be more naturally assigned to someone else. The results are
similar to those of the 2005 survey by the Finnish Association of Principals. The diversification of principals job descriptions corresponds to the results of several studies
described earlier in this report (Mustonen 2003; Mkel 2007; Pennanen 2006; see also
Kanervio & Risku 2009).
In addition to charting principals well-being, Vuohijoki discusses ways to improve it.
She stresses the importance of creating adequate conditions for management work and
suggests that the conditions have declined significantly over the last few decades. Vuohijoki argues that principals professionalism should be given stronger emphasis. The principals work should be seen as being a specific profession in its own right, for which it
should also be possible to acquire proper training. Vuohijoki highlights the significance
of university-level training for principals and its development in an increasingly professional direction. Furthermore, Vuorijoki proposes that principals status within municipal
administration be strengthened and calls on their superiors to provide them with stronger
support. Vuohijokis research indicates that only 10% of principals felt that they received
enough support from their superiors.

4.9

Conclusions

Chapter 3 examined principals operating environments and Chapter 4 focused on principals themselves through 21st century Finnish doctoral research. These discussions may
be distilled into the following six conclusions about what types of principals appear to
be needed in 21st century Finnish society.

34

Firstly, every individual aspiring to become a principal must understand that the principals work is currently completely different from what it used to be as recently as in
the early 1990s. They need to have the right orientation towards the principals position.
They need to be aware of the demanding nature of the job while also understanding
the great opportunities provided by the new school laws for principals to develop their
schools. This new principalship challenges individuals with a strong orientation towards
reforming the school and, consequently, Finnish society to get involved.
Secondly, principals job descriptions are becoming more and more extensive. Even if
it were possible to remove tasks that do not belong to the job description successfully,
as suggested by Vuohijoki (2006), the field of a principals management and leadership skills would still remain very extensive, as evidenced in doctoral theses by Mkel
(2007), Lahtero (2011) and Raasumaa (2010), for example. When pupils holistic learning
pathways are taken into account in the analysis, as they should be, the requirements
of principals management and leadership skills are further supplemented with broad
networking and multidisciplinary co-operation skills, as outlined by Nyknen (2010),
among others.
Thirdly, based on all of the above, it is increasingly clear that the principals occupation
is a specific profession in its own right, which should be supported through solid university-level initial training and extensive and integrated further and continuing training.
This training needs to be based on research, which means that it is also necessary to
ensure the conditions for research into Finnish school management.
Fourthly, principals need to internalise the major changes that are currently taking place
in the teachers role and its essence. An essential part of this development is the change
of leadership towards distributed leadership and broad pedagogical leadership.
Fifthly, it is imperative to be able to meet the expectations, emerging from research as
ever stronger conflicting pressures, on principals to function both as pedagogical leaders
of their schools and as managers responsible for dealing with increasing administrative
workloads. These conflicting pressures seem to put unreasonable physical and mental
strain on principals.
Sixthly, it is necessary to place a stronger emphasis on the future-oriented nature of
principals work. This necessity is manifested in two different ways. Firstly, there will be
significant structural changes at a municipal level in the near future (see e.g. Kanervio
& Risku 2009), which require consideration of the objectives and views of and competent involvement from municipal educational administration. Secondly, meeting the challenges of the quantum world of the future requires new types of knowledge and learning
from our society and its members. Schools must be capable of enabling this new knowledge and learning. Teachers and principals work should place emphasis on building
the future through the learning of children, young people and adults as well as through
schools participation in society as a whole.

35

New pedagogical leadership

This chapter concentrates on broad pedagogical leadership which, based on 21st century
Finnish doctoral research, seems to form a key part of current and future principals
school management work. The chapter discusses reasons why pedagogical leadership
has become as significant as it appears to be today. It examines the concept and meaning
of pedagogical leadership and discusses how pedagogical leadership should be implemented at educational institutions. In addition, the chapter deals with the link between
broad pedagogical leadership, on the one hand, and knowledge management, distributed leadership and the new roles of teachers and principals as agents of the future, on
the other.

5.1

Background to a new kind of leadership

As Chapter 2 indicates, there has been a significant change in school management. In the
simplest terms, this change can be described as a transition from normative guidance to
information-based guidance, but it is, in fact, a much broader phenomenon. The change
is not only about whether we use legal standards or information for guidance or what the
relationship between normative and information-based guidance is. What is much more
relevant is that the entire way in which we perceive the nature of knowledge in the first
place is changing profoundly.
The educational administration and school management that functioned in the operating
environment of a Newtonian world, based on permanence, unambiguous concepts, clear
administrative structures and predictable consequences of action, are becoming something completely new in the operating environment of a quantum world. The quantum
world is characterised by constant change, ambiguity of concepts, diverse networks and
increasing difficulty in terms of anticipation. The quantum world calls for a different type
of management and leadership than the Newtonian world. The new central position of
knowledge and its significant role in management become more prominent. Already, the
previous Ministry of Education and Culture Development Plan for Education and Culture
for 20072012 considered it essential for Finland to be involved in global production of
information, not only in terms of using it but also as a key participant in determining the
knowledge being formulated. The latest Ministry of Education and Culture Development
Plan for Education and Research for 20112016 logically continues along the lines set
out by its predecessor.
The train of thought created by the new definition of the relationship between knowledge and management in Chapter 2 is consistently supplemented by the reviews of
doctoral theses in Chapters 3 and 4. The new kind of relationship between knowledge
and management seems to require both new types of knowledge and learning and
increasingly significant and intensive influence of knowledge and learning on management. The dimension that is emerging as being key to school leadership is broad pedagogical leadership. Pedagogical leadership has interested researchers and school heads
in Finland for a long time now, but no common definition or interpretation has been
created (see, for example, Toivonen 1976; Hmlinen 1986; Their 1994; Kurki 1993;
Lonkila 1991; Mkel 2007; Raasumaa 2010). The situation is even more problematic in

36

international literature and research, where the contexts and concepts and paradigms of
school management differ considerably between different countries.

5.2

Pedagogical leadership as a network of development

processes

A very high number of the doctoral theses presented in Chapter 4 of this report deal
with pedagogical leadership from several different perspectives, but none has comprehensively linked pedagogical leadership to school management. The researcher who has
perhaps proceeded farthest in this respect is Raasumaa (2010), whose synthesis finishes
up presenting a basic education principal as being a broad pedagogical leader. In addition to planning and organising teaching work, Raasumaa suggests that a principal as a
broad pedagogical leader also attends to the qualitative development of knowledge and
learning. Raasumaa includes knowledge management under pedagogical leadership and
expands pedagogical leadership into a need and concept relating to the entire organisation.
Building on the doctoral thesis by Taipale (2004), among others, it is probably possible
to expand Raasumaas view even further also to cover other organisations besides
schools. Taipales doctoral thesis is a case study on superiors as team tutors and pedagogical leaders in a process organisation. The study was carried out in a company and
reversely utilises educational research and terminology concerning pedagogical leadership. Taipale (2004, 72) defines pedagogical leadership as being the superiors ability to
guide subordinates towards the common goal, make the specified visions and objectives
visible and teach people to understand and interpret, as well as discuss and manage
interaction by means of positive interdependence and openness.
It is probably fair to say that the role of every organisations leader nowadays is to be
the organisations pedagogical leader responsible for development and management
of organisational knowledge, staffs professional development, utilisation of distributed
leadership, development of a creative learning culture and management of networkbased learning. The new broad pedagogical leadership seems to be formed in a network
of interaction and development processes used by the superior to influence and develop
staffs attitudes, behaviours and actions. A principals broad pedagogical leadership may
be crystallised as presented in Figure 2.

37

Figure 2. A principals broad pedagogical leadership.

A principals broad pedagogical leadership covers both direct and indirect pedagogical
leadership while also being interactive. The key aspect in a principals direct pedagogical
leadership is the principals direct guidance and support for teachers knowledge and
learning both as part of everyday school operations and by means such as development
discussions. A principals indirect pedagogical leadership refers to the way in which
the principal leads the schools key development processes, which indirectly guide and
support knowledge and learning both among teachers and within the entire school
organisation. A principals pedagogical leadership needs to be interactive so as to allow
resources at different school levels to participate in pedagogical leadership as appropriately as possible. In this case, members of the school organisation will form a community
of learners, where the principal is a learner along with everyone else.
At an educational institution, it is possible to distinguish four key development processes:
1.
2.
3.
4.

curriculum development;
development of the organisational culture;
creation of vision objectives and agreeing on strategies; and
specification of the basic mission.

It is essential to carry out the four above-mentioned functions as development processes

rather than individual events and measures. It is also key to ensure that the development processes form an integrated whole. Furthermore, it is important to understand
that development processes need to be led. It is precisely the leadership required by
development processes that makes them key practical pedagogical leadership tools and
channels of influence for a principal.

38

The curriculum is a schools most important management tool and management of the
curriculum planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement process lies in the
core of the principals pedagogical leadership. The curriculum is the end result of this
curriculum development work and provides a guideline for the school. The curriculum
planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement process is work that requires
broad interaction which involves both the need and the opportunity for the principal
to exercise significant influence and leadership vis--vis teachers. As part of curriculum
development, it is necessary to examine teaching staffs competencies, development
needs and knowledge management. The curriculum development process highlights
the roles of both teachers and the principal as learners and developing individuals. It
is therefore possible to consider that the objective of internal school development is to
create a community of learners (see Moilanen 2001).
Management of the curriculum development process lies in the core of a principals
pedagogical leadership. If the principal does not lead the process, it will be led by
someone else, which means that the principal gives up perhaps their most important
pedagogical leadership tool. Since management of the curriculum development process
cannot solely be technical management, it is also fair to say that a school principal needs
to be a solid pedagogue with teaching qualifications. Being a professional manager is not
enough on its own for successful school management.
Several international studies (e.g. Barth 2007; Sergiovanni 2006) have indicated that a
schools organisational culture has an essential bearing on the schools performance and
learning outcomes. Similar results have also been obtained from other organisations (e.g.
Harris & Obgonna 2000; Van Houtte 2004). The Finnish doctoral researchers dealing
with school cultures include Kunnari (2008), Lahtero (2011) and Vulkko (2001), offering
similar views (for more information, see Chapter 4).
The significance of a schools organisational culture is included in the instructions
issued by the Finnish National Board of Education to those involved in drawing up
local curricula. According to the Finnish National Board of Education, a schools educational objectives, values and cross-curricular themes should also become concrete in the
organisational culture. The aim is to create a culture which is open and interactive and
supports co-operation both within the school and with homes and other areas of society.
(Opetushallitus [Finnish National Board of Education] 2004.) An organisational culture is
not created at a weekend seminar; nor can it be forced into existence. An organisational
culture is the result of long-term development work and it reflects the organisations
psychological past and its perception of its values and management (see also Kunnari
2008).
Development of an organisational culture is a principals second key pedagogical leadership tool. On the other hand, if the principal does not lead development of the schools
organisational culture, someone else will do it anyway and the culture will nevertheless
develop in some way. As the organisational culture seems to have an essential bearing
on a schools operations, it would be a big mistake on the principals part to fail to take
the lead on the schools organisational culture.
A schools objectives should be oriented towards the future and they should not only
include short-term targets but also long-term objectives. In this respect, we often speak
about vision objectives, the significance of which is discussed by Kirveskari (2003) in
39

her doctoral thesis. Several studies have indicated that the vision plays a key role in
organisational change and reform processes (see Alava 1999; Antikainen 2004; Kotter
1996; Porras & Silvers 1991; Tiusanen 2005; Taipale 2004). Besides the role of the vision,
research also highlights the fact that an organisations vision cannot only be about the
top managements vision. The vision must be created with emphasis on broad participation and utilisation of the entire organisations competencies. This is also the only way to
ensure staffs genuine commitment to the vision and organisational reform.
Management of the planning, implementation, evaluation and improvement process of
the schools vision objectives is a principals third key pedagogical leadership tool. If the
principal does not lead the schools vision work, someone else will do it, or teachers will
mainly have their own objectives and ideas of school development and its future. In the
worst case, there may be several different ideas and interpretations of the schools vision
within the school, which makes it impossible to develop the school in a determined
manner.
Every school must note down its own basic mission. The mission gives both meaning and
justification to the schools existence and operations. The mission needs to be recorded
in the school curriculum and it should also preferably be visible in other important planning documents. It is regrettably often the case that people consider it unnecessary to
discuss and record the mission because the schools basic mission has been laid down
in legislation. This means that the ultimate purpose of and justification for the schools
operations may remain detached from what people do at school and how the school
operates. Neither does ignoring the basic mission enable its contextualisation for the
schools operating environment.
Discussion about the schools basic mission is a principals fourth key pedagogical leadership tool. Discussing the mission does not mean deviating from the law quite the
contrary. This discussion is essential because the school community needs to consider
the purpose and justification of its existence thoroughly. In addition, the basic mission
as described in legislation is implemented at every school in its own way and discussion
about the mission offers an opportunity to support its implementation by supplementing
it with the schools own local perspectives. School staff need to address their values and
ethical principles when discussing the mission at the latest.
Principals pedagogical role can also be examined from the perspective of teachers.
Teachers graduate from university teacher training departments. Teacher training departments provide them with professional teaching qualifications, which may be regarded as
being a sort of driving licence for the teaching profession. In the same way as a young
person is not a fully-fledged driver once they receive a driving licence from a driving
school, a teacher is not a fully-fledged teacher once they receive the certificate attesting
to their teaching qualifications from a university. The teachers work and development as
a teacher have only just started, just like a newly qualified driver is only starting to learn
to act naturally in traffic as a motorist. As a newly graduated teacher leaves university to
start their first job, responsibility for their development shifts from the teacher training
department and its didactic experts to the schools principal. This development responsibility will remain with the principal throughout the teachers career, for as long as
over 40 years. This career development of teachers has been examined in an interesting
manner by Jrvinen (1999) in her study on the different stages of teachers professional
development process and the principals role in supporting teachers professional devel40

opment. The study emphasises the significance of the principals pedagogical leadership
throughout the teaching career. Jrvinens view receives international support from US
researchers Blas and Blas (2001), among others, who found out, when exploring the
actions of successful principals, that one of teachers most crucial wishes for their principal was support for their professional development.

5.3

Pedagogical leadership within educational administration

and the school system

Section 5.1 examined pedagogical leadership from the perspectives of schools and,
above all, principals. Pedagogical leadership is not, however, confined to school level
but should be included at all levels of the school system from individual teachers to the
Minister of Education and the Director General of the Finnish National Board of Education (FNBE). The same elements and principles that were examined in Section 5.1 in relation to principals pedagogical leadership can be found at all levels of the school system.
Only the change of pedagogical leaders remits due to the change of levels has a bearing
on conclusions drawn about the analysis of pedagogical leadership.
Although Finlands municipal structure and administration of municipal educational services are very varied, almost all local authorities have a person in charge of administration
and management of educational services, who can be called an education director or a
superintendent. In the same way as a principal is responsible for the learning outcomes
and growth of pupils and students at their school, an education director is responsible
for the outcomes of the schools operating under their educational administration. A
principals key resources include school staff, parents, pupils and students, as well as
the funds allocated to the school. An education directors key resources are the same
but at the level of the municipalitys educational administration as a whole rather than
an individual school. Just like principals, education directors are also bound by both
national objectives and municipal strategic and education policy priorities. At the core
of a principals pedagogical leadership lies attending to knowledge and learning at their
own school. At the core of an education directors pedagogical leadership, in turn, lies
attending to knowledge and learning within the municipalitys educational administration
as a whole. Principals pedagogical leadership focuses, first and foremost, on supporting
teachers knowledge and learning. An education directors pedagogical leadership, in
turn, focuses on supporting principals knowledge and learning in particular. Just like a
principal, an education director is not only responsible for functioning as the immediate
administrative superior but also for being the pedagogical leader of their subordinates
knowledge and learning. A principals remit covers the school and an education directors remit covers the municipalitys educational administration as a whole.
Based on several doctoral theses, Chapter 4 suggested that principals time is often allocated inappropriately. Principals need more time for pedagogical leadership of their own
school, but their working hours seem to be increasingly allocated to dealing with school
administration. According to Kanervio and Risku (2009), the amount of conflicting pressures on the use of education directors time is at least equal to those facing principals.
Municipal education departments often seem to have too few staff to perform the strategic and pedagogical leadership duties required of education departments. Education
departments human resources only appear to stretch mainly to dealing with the necessary administration.

41

According to Kanervio and Risku (2009), education directors are definitely aware of
the significance of strategic leadership; human resources just do not seem to allow
consistent strategic development of municipal educational administrations. As for pedagogical leadership, it seems that education directors often impose it on principals both
for time management reasons and because they do not understand the new nature and
role of pedagogical leadership in development of educational administration. In the
same way as at a school level, someone else will also fill the void of pedagogical leadership at a municipal level, if the education director does not act as the pedagogical
leader. If this is the case, the education director will lose one of their most important
tools for managing educational administration. If an education director fails to act as the
pedagogical leader, this may lead to inconsistent development of educational services
and increasing inequality between schools, among other things. According to Vuohijoki
(2006), principals need much more support from their education directors than they
seem to be getting at present.
The demand for education directors pedagogical leadership naturally sets new requirements for their own competencies, qualifications and management training. The current
situation, where education directors are not even provided with nationally defined qualifications requirements or holistic management training programmes, does nothing to
promote their pedagogical leadership skills and willingness to act as pedagogical leaders.
In the same way that we have examined the pedagogical leadership responsibilities of
principals and education directors, we can also study the pedagogical leadership of the
Minister of Education and the FNBE Director General. Based on their respective remits,
the Minister of Education and the FNBE Director General are both responsible for the
learning outcomes of the educational institutions of all Finnish education providers,
which makes them the highest pedagogical leaders in the country. Their essential duties
include definition of national education policies at a political level and balanced development of different sectors of the education system. Their key pedagogical leadership
functions should include attending to knowledge and learning within the school system,
so as to ensure that national learning outcomes correspond to the objectives specified
for these. Their pedagogical leadership should focus, in particular, on supporting knowledge and learning among education providers and municipal civil servants responsible
for educational administration. Similar to education directors at municipal level or principals at school level, their pedagogical leadership and its implementation require substantial understanding of both the new nature and role of pedagogical leadership and time
investment, strong dialogue, and management and leadership skills.

5.4

Spotlight on distributed leadership

The school development processes described in Section 5.2 cannot be implemented

through traditional administrative or management-oriented leadership. According to many
Finnish researchers (e.g. Kirveskari 2003; Pesonen 2009; Raasumaa 2010) as well as the
extensive OECD report on improving school leadership by Pont, Nusche and Moorman
(2009), for example, these processes require broad distributed i.e. shared leadership.
We have travelled a long way from the Great Man theory of a single leader, which used
to define management of both schools and other organisations. While distributed leadership is widely accepted in principle as the current approach to leadership, there is still
much to be done in terms of its practical implementation.

42

A school is a unique management environment and differs significantly from other

organisations. Schools are characterised by the fact that they are loosely-coupled organisations (Weick 1985) which, in addition to the principal and staff, include the maintaining
organisation, pupils and students and their parents, as well as a wide variety of other
stakeholders.
If we examine school management from the principals perspective, we can imagine the
principal being at the centre of the school organisation and all parties involved in the
organisation placed around the principal, as if on the circumference of a circle. In the
resulting figure, the principal becomes surrounded by what is often perceived to be a
grey area, which conceals a considerable resource for distributed leadership.
We can examine this distributed leadership resource made up of different parties in terms
of both expert and ownership powers and responsibilities. The principals broad pedagogical leadership means guiding and supporting this distributed leadership resource.
Guidance and support should focus both on each party individually and on ensuring
that the distributed leadership resource made up of different parties forms an integrated
whole in terms of school operations.
Every relationship between the principal and a party involved in the school organisation contains areas and functions of distributed leadership which are typical of the
relationship in question and which the principal must lead as the schools pedagogical
leader. Leading the distributed leadership resource made up of teaching staff means
that the principal enables and leads teachers powers and responsibilities in terms of
influencing the schools key elements, such as operational policy, curricula, learning
materials, budgets, human resources policy, continuing training, evaluation and practices. As the pedagogical leader of the distributed leadership resource comprising pupils
and students, the principal enables and leads the genuine involvement of pupils and
students in school development. Just like with teachers, pupils and students, leading
the distributed leadership resource consisting of external stakeholders also requires the
principal to engage in new co-operation relationships partnerships. Leadership shared
with parents, in turn, includes aspects such as shared responsibility for education and the
schools mission, values and practices.
Distributed leadership is an absolute prerequisite for broad pedagogical leadership to
succeed. Distributed leadership creates involvement and ownership and, through these,
collaboration. Distributed leadership enables making the most of the organisations full
potential. In broad pedagogical leadership, distributed leadership focuses on leading the
entire organisations knowledge and learning. As a key way of functioning in leadership
interactions emerges a partnership enabled by dialogue and mentoring, where every
member of the organisation is a learner. The organisation thus becomes a community of
learners.

5.5

New roles of teachers and principals

Distributed leadership increases teachers power and responsibility, both requiring and
enabling them to assume a completely new role in school development. Almost every
doctoral thesis examined in this report contains a vision of a radical change in schools
operating environment and renewal of management philosophy required by this change.

43

According to Kanervio and Risku (2009), among others, the operations of both municipal
educational administrations and schools will be fundamentally reformed in the near
future. A major challenge will be how teachers and principals respond to changes and
reforms.
It ought to be clear that a teachers job description can no longer be based on holding the
required number of weekly lessons, but it needs to take their participation in the schools
holistic development into account in a visible manner. A change in the job description
will bring about at least three types of challenges. Firstly, initial and continuing teacher
training will have to support the change in teachers job description more effectively.
Secondly, teachers pay system will have to be reformed so as to meet todays needs.
Thirdly, it is imperative to make room for strategic thinking and school-level development in teachers professional orientation.
Finlands development into a welfare state after the Second World War can be regarded
as being its nation-building phase of national unification, which has several points of
contact with the efforts of 21st century developing countries to develop their societies.
Development of the education system, educational administration and educational institutions has played a key role in the nation-building efforts of Finnish society. We have
made basic, upper secondary and higher education available to the entire nation free
of charge. We have created an effective and high-quality school system, which provides
studies and qualifications that are highly appreciated. This appreciation extends to both
general and vocational education and training. Working in various professional roles
within the school system is among young peoples most popular dream jobs year after
year.
Achievement of the educational objectives that played a key role in Finlands nationbuilding work can also be considered essential for the social development aspirations of
developing countries of the 21st century. Education and training, knowledge and learning
are key to national unification. Just like in Finland, professional development of teachers
and principals also plays an essential role in school development in developing countries.
While Finland is by no means complete as a country, it is probably fair to say that our
country has finished the basic nation-building phase of our national unification. We are
now moving on to the next phase in our national development, where the view on the
future is key. The future includes the transition from a Newtonian world to a quantum
world discussed in Section 1.2. Building a good national and global future in a quantum
world future creation - becomes a key objective of social development.
In a situation characterised by uncertainty and instability both in Europe and throughout
the whole world, educational administration plays an ever more crucial role. In a situation where external change is more and more frequently unpredictable and where
predicting the year ahead is increasingly challenging, it is wrong to give up and submit
to being carried along by market forces. This is precisely a situation that calls for agents
of the future and what party could be better equipped to take on this task than educational administration? The task of educational administration is, after all, to educate
future generations. Furthermore, in global terms, educational administration is probably
the largest industry in the world. It is time for educational administration to raise its
profile and become more strongly engaged in building the future.
44

Teachers new key task needs to be building the future. The change in the role of
teachers creates a major challenge for teacher training departments. The task of teacher
training departments needs to be to train agents of the future. It is no longer enough for
teachers to be well versed in pedagogy. In addition to pedagogy, teachers need a strong
future orientation.
The new role of teachers requires reform of the role and responsibility of principals.
Principals need to be leaders of agents of the future at their schools. The new role and
responsibility requires new types of qualifications and competencies from principals,
which is why principals qualifications requirements and management training will have
to be reformed as well. In the future, principals training programmes should train principals as leaders of agents of the future.

45

Future research objects and needs

The doctoral theses studied in this report mainly comment on individual research
objects, but also some common themes for future research. The further research projects
presented in the doctoral theses mostly concern more advanced or extensive research
into the theme of the thesis in question. The perspectives suggested by the doctoral
researchers mainly remain confined to expanding and deepening the themes of their
own research. Some researchers would expand their research by comparing it with
another corresponding research topic (Kanervio 2007) or by including perspectives of
other school staff besides principals and teachers in the phenomenon being studied (e.g.
Juusenaho 2004; Lahtero 2011; Pesonen 2009).
Among further research objects, it is possible to distinguish three research themes put
forward in several doctoral theses. The first of these is research into change and development work. Hellstrms (2004) doctoral thesis focusing on implementation of a development project suggests a number of research ideas focusing on carrying through change
as research objects for the future. Likewise, Kirveskari (2003) and Kunnari (2008) put
forward further research topics concentrating on the change and development of schools.
A second future research theme mentioned in several doctoral theses is studying leadership at different levels of school and municipal organisations. Several objects of leadership and management taking place at different levels were mentioned. One of Kirveskaris (2003) further research objects is examining the role of the management teams work
in long-term planning. Lahtero (2011) and Pesonen (2009) suggest studying assistant
principals and network management, respectively. Both Pesonen (2009) and Mustonen
(2003) propose investigating the most effective methods of centralising and decentralising tasks and decision-making processes at municipal and school levels. Since 2008,
the University of Jyvskyls Institute of Educational Leadership has carried out a national
research programme funded by the Ministry of Education and Culture, charting the status
of and changes in educational leadership in general education at municipal, school and
class levels. The programme has rapidly become international and will probably produce
significant basic information about management and leadership at different levels of
municipal educational administration as soon as within the next few years.
A third future research theme that seems to be common to some extent is distributed
leadership. Doctoral theses have suggested that distributed leadership and research into
the theme should focus on a school level (Kirveskari 2003; Pesonen 2009; Raasumaa
2010). The increasing focus of future research needs on different levels of leadership
and distributed leadership are well in line with the significance of distributed leadership
described in Chapter 5 and its understanding in broader terms beyond unit level.
In Chapter 5, the authors of this report suggest broad pedagogical leadership as a key
perspective of the school system, municipal educational administration and school
management. Several doctoral theses examining principals work and duties also highlight the need for pedagogical leadership and bemoan its scarce resources. Nevertheless,
pedagogical leadership is not raised as a significant future research topic in the further
research objects covered. According to the analysis set out in this report, however, broad
pedagogical leadership should be an essential further research topic for the future. In
46

addition, the doctoral theses produced to date have mainly examined principals work
here and now. The new role of educational administration as an agent of the future
requires a perspective focusing more and more on studying what future principalship is
and should be like.
Management of early childhood education and care should also become one of the
essential future research themes at the latest by the time when early childhood education and care will be transferred from social to educational services in accordance with
the Ministry of Education and Culture Development Plan for Education and Research for
20112016. It is necessary to examine the change and unification as well as leadership
in early childhood education and care. It would be desirable that, in addition to the two
doctoral theses focusing on leadership in early childhood education and care (Halttunen
2009; Nivala 1999), the topic would be equally important as a research topic as principalship, because the same bugbears and future challenges are also visible in leadership
in early childhood education and care as in other sectors of educational administration.
While the doctoral theses produced in Finland during the 21st century are quite extensive
and their data has often been collected from many different parties, they do have one
distinct deficiency: only two theses examined the perceptions of pupils or students and
only one studied those of their parents. The small amount of research into the perceptions of pupils, students and their parents is probably also reflected in the fact that only
one doctoral thesis (Kuukka 2009) examined principalship in a multicultural educational
institution. Even that research did not include perceptions of pupils, students or parents,
but the data consisted of principals views instead. Johnsons (2006) doctoral thesis
focusing on basic education included a survey conducted for pupils and Tiusanens
(2005) doctoral thesis examining polytechnics contained a few interviews with students.
Kangaslahtis (2007) doctoral thesis relating to basic education, in turn, covered a survey
conducted for parents in the initial stages of research.
It is definitely understandable that the research topic limits the group on which the
research is focused, but raising the voices of both pupils and parents would also have
befitted several of the studies carried out during the review period. Pupils, students or
parents are only mentioned among further research projects suggested in two doctoral
theses. Antikainen (2005) mentions studying the interactivity of the teacher/pupil relationship through a pupil survey or interviews as one further research project, while also
referring to the necessity of conducting a longitudinal study. Vulkko (2001), in turn,
would continue research relating to decision-making by examining parents experiences
of educational decision-making processes at a municipal level.
All of the above-mentioned themes put forward in the doctoral theses are certainly worthwhile research objects for the future. In this respect, the resources available to conduct
this research will become a challenge. A doctoral thesis is most commonly produced
by a single individual, which means that both qualitative and quantitative research will
remain relatively limited in terms of data, for example. At the same time as it is necessary to attract new postgraduate students, it would also be important to safeguard other
types of research. Today, research should be increasingly carried out in research teams
and through research programmes. Building more extensive research schemes could
deepen and expand research into educational administration which has, to date, been
more or less dominated by doctoral theses. More extensive research programmes could

47

also result in interdisciplinary research, which could broaden 21st century research based
on an educational science orientation.
The University of Jyvskyls Institute of Educational Leadership has focused its research
on the following four areas: The principalship and the development and identity of
the educational leader; Understanding school change and developing organisational
culture; Creating and leading a professional organisation and individual competencies;
and Management structures and evaluation procedures in education. Doctoral theses
have been produced in all these research areas and all are also represented in the further
research objects described in this chapter. However, each research area also includes
significant black holes. These black holes can only be partially filled by doctoral theses
produced at different universities. In addition to producing fragmented information, each
research area could form its own research programme. When planning new research, it
is also important to ask what sort of information we need. Chapter 2 points out that a
quantum world requires understanding of both global and glocal situations this means
that research needs are also both global and glocal.
Along with creating more extensive and long-term research programmes, another essential aspect is how the research information obtained will be used and made available. As
the report points out, 28 doctoral theses have been produced on principals during the
21st century what is yet to be established is how well these have spread to the attention
of principals and other people working with education. At the same time as we need
support for research, we also need good channels to disseminate research information.

48

References
Aho, E., Pitknen, K. & Sahlberg, P. 2006. Policy development and reform principles of basic and secondary education in Finland since 1968. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available online at: http://www. seeeducoop.net/education_in/pdf/workshop/tesee/dokumenti/education-in-finland-2006.pdf.
Ahonen, H. 2008. Rehtoreiden kertoma johtajuus ja johtajaidentiteetti. [Leadership and leader identity as
narrated by headmasters.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 352.
Antikainen, E-L. 2005. Kasvuorientoitunut ilmapiiri esimiestyn tavoitteena Tapaustutkimus ammattikorkeakoulussa. [Growth-oriented atmosphere as a goal of leadership A case study at a polytechnic.] Acta
Universitatis Tamperensis 1088.
Alava, J. 2007. Koulutuksen kytnt. Teoksessa A. Pennanen (toim.). Koulun johtamisen avaimia. [Practice
of training. In: A. Pennanen (ed.). Keys to leading a school.] Jyvskyl: PSkustannus.
Alava, J. 2008. School Management Training. Country Report: Finland. HEAD Country Report 2005. Norwegian School of Management. Studies in Education Management Research, No 31. Oslo: BI.
Aula, P. 2000. Johtamisen kaaos vai kaaoksen johtaminen? [Chaos of leadership or leadership of chaos?]
Juva: WSOY.
Barth, R. S. 2007. Culture in Question. In: M. Fullan (ed.). Educational Leadership. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Blas, J. & Blas, J. 2001. Empowering Teachers. What Successful Principals Do. California: Corwin Press.
Flessa, J. 2009. Educational Micropolitics and Distributed Leadership. Peabody Journal of Education 84.
Halttunen, L. 2009. Pivhoitoty ja johtajuus hajautetussa organisaatiossa. [Day care work and leadership
in a distributed organization.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 375.
Harris, L. C. & Ogbonna, E. 2000. Leadership style, organizational culture and performance: empirical evidence from UK companies. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 11 (2).
Hellstrm, M. 2004. Muutosote. Akvaarioprojektin pedagogisten kehittmishankkeiden toteutustapa ja onnistuminen. Helsingin yliopiston soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos: Tutkimuksia 249.
[The way of change the implementation and success of pedagogical development projects at the experimental schools of the Aquarium project. Department of Applied Sciences of Education: Research Reports 249.]
Huuhka, M. 2004. Johtaminen luovassa asiantuntijaorganisaatiossa. [Leadership in a creative expert organisation.] Oulu: Oulun yliopistopaino.
Hybertson Lys, I., Stensaker, B., Aamodt, P.O. & Mjen, K. 2011. Ledet til ledelse. Nasjonal rektorutdanning i grunn- og videregende skole i et internasjonalt perspektiv. Delrapport 1 fra Evaluering av den
nasjonale rektorutdanningen. Oslo: Nordisk institutt for studier av innovasjon, forskining og utdanning.
[Towards leadership. The national training programme for school leadership in primary and secondary
education in an international perspective. Sub-report 1 for evaluation of the national school leadership
training programme. Oslo: Nordic Institute for Studies in Innovation, Research and Education.]
Hmlinen, K., Luukkonen, J., Karjalainen, A. & Lonkila, T. 1987. Koulun sisisen kehittmisen kokeilu
Kajaanin koululaitoksessa v. 198386. Oulun yliopiston kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta. Tutkimuksia 45/1987.
[Experiment of internal school development in the Kajaani school system in 19831986. University of Oulu,
Faculty of Education. Research Reports 45/1987.]
Hnninen, R. 2009. Hyvn elementit ammatillisen koulutuksen johtajuudessa ja rehtorin tyss. [The Elements of the Good in the Field of Vocational Education and in a Principals Work.] Jyvskyl Studies in
Education, Psychology and Social Research 352.
Jalonen, H. 2007. Tietojohtaminen julkishallinnon organisaatiossa. Teoksessa A. Lnnqvist, K. Blomqvist,
M. Hannula, A. Kianto, H. Krkkinen, M. Maula & P. Sthle (toim.). Tietojohtaminen tutkimusalueena.
Pilotkustannus Oy, 96112. [Knowledge management in a public sector organisation. In: A. Lnnqvist, K.
Blomqvist, M. Hannula, A. Kianto, H. Krkkinen, M. Maula & P. Sthle (eds.). Knowledge management as
a field of research.]
Johansson, O., Moos, L., Nihlfors, E., Paulsen, J. & Risku, M. 2011. Nordic superintendents leadership roles:
cross national comparisons. In: J. MacBeath & T. Townsend (ed.). International Handbook on Leadership
for Learning. Dordrecht: Springer.

49

Johnson, P. 2006. RAKENTEISSA KIINNI? Perusopetuksen yhtenistmisprosessi kunnan kouluorganisaation muutoshaasteena. Chydenius-instituutin tutkimuksia 4/2006. [STUCK IN STRUCTURES? The integration
process of basic education as a change challenge for the municipal school organisation. Chydenius Institute
Research Reports 4/2006.]
Juusenaho, R. 2004. Peruskoulun rehtoreiden johtamisen eroja: sukupuolinen nkkulma. [Differences in
comprehensive school leadership and management. A gender-based approach.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 249.
Juuti, P. 2001. Johtamispuhe. Aavaranta-sarja no. 48. [Leadership Speech. Aavaranta Series No. 48.] Juva: PSkustannus.
Jrvinen, A. 1999. Opettajan ammatillinen kehitysprosessi ja sen tukeminen. Teoksessa A. Etelpelto ja P.
Tynjl (toim.). Oppiminen ja asiantuntijuus. Tyelmn ja koulutuksen nkkulmia. Helsinki: WSOY.
[Teachers professional development process and supporting it. In: A. Etelpelto & P. Tynjl (eds.). Learning
and expertise. Viewpoints from working life and education.]
Kanervio, P. 2007. Crisis and Renewal in one Finnish Private School. Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 323.
Kanervio, P. & Risku, M. 2009. Tutkimus kuntien yleissivistvn koulutuksen opetustoimen johtamisen
tilasta ja muutoksista Suomessa. Opetusministerin julkaisuja 2009: 16. [A study on educational leadership
in general education in Finnish municipalities. Publications of the Ministry of Education 2009:16.]
Kangaslahti, J. 2007. Kunnan opetustoimen strategisen johtamisen kytntj ja dilemmoja kartoittamassa.
Turun yliopiston julkaisuja. Sarja C, Scripta lingua Fennica edita, osa 257.
[Mapping the Strategic Leadership Practices of a Municipal Educational Organization. Publications of University of Turku, Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series C, Scripta lingua Fennica edita, Vol. 257.]
Karikoski, A. 2009. Aika hyv rehtoriksi selvik koulun johtamisesta hengiss. Helsingin yliopiston
kyttytymistieteellisen tiedekunnan soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos: Tutkimuksia 297. [Good enough as a
principalhow to survive leading a school. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Applied Sciences of Education: Research Reports 297.]
Kirveskari, T. 2003. Visiot oppilaitoksen johtamisessa Tulevaisuuden tahtotilaa muodostamassa. [Visions
in the management of schools Forming a strategic intent for the future.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis
933.
Knuuttila, S. 2001. Paikan henki ja kulttuurin muuttuvat tulkinnat. Teoksessa Suomen Kuntaliitto. Kunnat
virtaavassa maailmassa. [The spirit of the place and changing interpretations of culture. In: Association of
Finnish Local and Regional Authorities. Municipalities in a world in flux.] Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy, 4558.
Kolam, K. & Ojala, I. 2001. Koulunjohtajat ja rehtorit Suomessa. Teoksessa Koulun johtaminen pohjoismaisessa vertailussa. Opetushallitus, Arviointi 8/2001. [School heads and principals in Finland. In: School
management in Nordic comparison. Finnish National Board of Education, Evaluation 8/2001.]
Koski, J. T. 1998. Infohky ja muita kirjoituksia oppimisesta, organisaatiosta ja tietoyhteiskunnasta. [Information overflow and other writings about learning, organisations and the information society.] Helsinki:
Gummerus.
Kotter, J. 1996. Leading Change. Harvard Business School. Boston.
Kunnari, E. 2008. Kohti ulkorajoja Lukion toimintakulttuurikuvaus ohjauksen ja johtamisen nkkulmasta.
Helsingin yliopiston kyttytymistieteellisen tiedekunnan soveltavan kasvatustieteen laitos: Tutkimuksia
289. [Towards the outer boundaries. The description of the operational culture in the upper secondary
school from the view of steering and leading. University of Helsinki, Faculty of Behavioural Sciences, Department of Applied Sciences of Education: Research Reports 289.]
Kurki, L. 1993. Pedagoginen johtajuus. Tampereen yliopiston Hmeenlinnan opettajankoulutuslaitos.
Julkaisu no 28. [Pedagogical leadership. University of Tampere, Hmeenlinna Teacher Education Department. Publication No. 28.]
Kuukka, K. 2009. Rehtorin eettinen johtaminen monikulttuurisessa koulussa. Sen yhteisen hyvn lytminen. [Head teachers ethical leadership in a multicultural school. Finding the common good.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1435.
Kpp, L. & Vuori, V. 2007. Opinnytetyt tietojohtamisen kentss. Teoksessa Lnnqvist, A., Blomqvist,
K., Hannula, M., Kianto, A., Krkkinen, H., Maula, M., Sthle, P. (toim.). Tietojohtaminen tutkimusalueena.
Pilot-kustannus Oy, 44-62. [Academic theses in the field of knowledge management. In: Lnnqvist, A.,
Blomqvist, K., Hannula, M., Kianto, A., Krkkinen, H., Maula, M., Sthle, P. (eds.). Knowledge management as a field of research.]

50

Lahtero, T. 2011. Yhteniskoulun johtamiskulttuuri symbolis-tulkinnallinen nkkulma. [Leadership

culture in unified comprehensive school, symbolic-interpretative approach.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education,
Psychology and Social Research.
Lapiolahti, R. 2007. Koulutuksen arviointi kunnallisen koulutuksen jrjestjn tehtvn Paikallisen arvioinnin toteutumisedellytysten arviointia ern kuntaorganisaation nkkulmasta. [The evaluation of schooling as a task of the communal maintainer of schooling what are the presuppositions of the execution of
evaluation in one specific communal organization.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social
Research 308.
Lehkonen, H. 2009. Mik tekee rehtorista selviytyjn? Perusopetuksen rehtoreiden ksityksi tyss selviytymisestn. [What makes a principal a survivor? Basic education principals perceptions of surviving in
their work.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1454.
Levy, D. M. 2008. Information Overload. In: Himma, K. E. & Tavani, H. T. (eds.). The Handbook of Information and Communication Ethics. New Jersey, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 497515.
Lnnqvist, A. 2007. Mist tietojohtamisessa on kyse? Teoksessa A. Lnnqvist, K. Blomqvist, M. Hannula, A.
Kianto, H. Krkkinen, M. Maula & P. Sthle (toim.) Tietojohtaminen tutkimusalueena. Pilot-kustannus Oy,
1118. [What knowledge management is all about? In: Lnnqvist, A., Blomqvist, K., Hannula, M., Kianto,
A., Krkkinen, H., Maula, M., Sthle, P. (eds.). Knowledge management as a field of research.]
Lnnqvist, A., Blomqvist, K., Hannula, M., Kianto, A., Krkkinen, H., Maula, M., Sthle, P. (toim.) 2007.
Tietojohtaminen tutkimusalueena. [Knowledge management as a field of research.] Pilot-kustannus Oy.
Malen, B. 1995. The micro-politics of education: Mapping the multiple dimensions of power relations in
school politics. In: J. D. Scribner & D. H. Layton (eds.). The study of educational politics. Washington, DC:
Falmer.
Mattelart, A. 2003. Informaatioyhteiskunnan historia. Tampere: Osuuskunta Vastapaino.
[Finnish translation of the French original: Histoire de la socit de linformation (English translation: History of the Information Society).]
Meier, R. L. 1962. A Communication Theory of Urban Growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Moilanen, R. 2001. A Learning Organization: Machine or Human. Jyvskyl Studies in Business and Economics. No. 14.
Murphy, K. & Gross, R. 1969. All you need is love. Love is all you need. New York Times, p. SM36.
Mustonen, K. 2003. Mihin rehtoria tarvitaan. Oulun yliopisto, Kasvatustieteiden tiedekunta, Kajaanin opettajankoulutusyksikk. [Why do we need a principal? University of Oulu, Faculty of Education, Kajaani
Department of Teacher Education.]
Mkel, A. 2007. Mit rehtorit todella tekevt. Etnografinen tapaustutkimus johtamisesta ja rehtorin tehtvist peruskoulussa. [What principals really do. An ethnographic case study on leadership and on a
principals tasks in comprehensive school.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research
316.
Nikander, L. 2003. Hyv mielt ja yhteistyt. Johtajien ja esimiesten ksityksi johtajuudesta ammattikorkeakoulussa. Hmeen ammattikorkeakoulun ja Tampereen yliopiston Ammattikasvatuksen tutkimus- ja
koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja 3. [High spirits and Cooperation. Conceptions of leaders and administrators
of leadership in a polytechnic. Publications of HAMK University of Applied Sciences and University of Tampere Research Centre for Vocational Education, No. 3.]
Nivala, V. 1999. Pivkodin johtajuus. [Leadership in day care.] Acta Universitas Lapponiensis 25.
Nyknen, S. 2010. Ohjauksen palvelujrjestelyjen toimijoiden ksitykset johtamisesta ohjausverkostossa.
Matkalla verkostojohtamiseen? Koulutuksen tutkimuslaitos: Tutkimuksia 25. [Leadership and management
in guidance and counselling networks: conceptions of actors. Moving towards leadership and management
in networks? Institute for Educational Research: Research Reports 25.]
Opetushallitus 2004. Perusopetuksen opetussuunnitelman perusteet. Helsinki: Opetushallitus. [Finnish National Board of Education 2004. National Core Curriculum for Basic Education. Helsinki: Finnish National
Board of Education.]
Opetushallitus 2011. Koulutus ja tutkinnot. Haettu osoitteesta http://www.oph.fi/koulutus_ja_tutkinnot.
[Finnish National Board of Education 2011. Education and qualifications. Retrieved from: http://www.oph.
fi/koulutus_ja_tutkinnot (information available in English at: http://www.oph.fi/english/education).]

51

Pennanen, A. 2003. Peruskoulun johtaminen, modernista kohti transmodernista johtamista. [Leading Comprehensive School, from Modern towards Transmodern Leadership.] Acta Universitatis Ouluensis Escientiae
Rerum Socialium 82.
Pesonen, J. 2009. Peruskoulun johtaminen aikansa ilmi. Joensuun yliopiston kasvatustieteellisi julkaisuja 132. [Comprehensive school leadership phenomenon of its time. University of Joensuu Publications in
Education No. 132.]
Pirhonen, E-R. & Janhunen, P. 1995. Kuntien sivistystoimen hallinto 1995. Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto.
[The administration of the provision of education in municipalities in 1995. Helsinki: Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities.]
Porras, J. & Silvers, R. 1991. Organization Development and Transformation. Annual Review of Psychology.
No. 41.
Pont, B., Nusche, D. & Moorman, H. 2009. Improving School Leadership: Policy & Practice. OECD.
Pulkkinen, S. 2011. Valmentajataustan merkitys rehtorin tyss. [The Significance of a Coaching Background in a Principals Work.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research 407.
Raasumaa, V. 2010. Perusopetuksen rehtori opettajien osaamisen johtajana. [Knowledge management functions of a principal in basic education.] Jyvskyl Studies in Education, Psychology and Social Research
383.
Rinne, R., Kivirauma, J. & Simola, H. 2002. Shoots of revisionist education policy or just slow readjustment?
The Finnish case of educational reconstruction. Journal of Education Policy, 17 (6), 643658.
Risku, M., Bjrk, L.G. & Browne-Ferrigno, T. 2012. Schoolparent Relations in Finland. Journal of School
Public Relations, 33, 4872.
Risku, M. & Kanervio, P. 2011. Doctoral and regular research on principals in Finland 20002010. In: O.
Johansson (ed.). Rektor en forskningsversikt 20002010. Vetenskapsrdets rapportserie 4:2011, 161186.
[Principal a Research Survey 20002010.] Available online at: http://www.vr.se/download/18.229574d613
24d7e8ad98000398/Rektor++en+forsknings%C3%B6versikt+2000-2010.pdf.
Ryynnen, A. 2004. Kuntien ja alueiden itsehallinto kehittmisvaihtoehdot. [Local and regional self-governance development options.] Helsinki: Edita.
Sergiovanni, T. 2006. The Principalship; A Reflective Practice Perspective. Boston: Pearson.
Simola, H. 2010. Restructuring the Truth of Schooling Essays on Discursive Practices in the Sociology and
Politics of Education. Finnish Educational Research Association, Studies in Education No. 48.
Skolverket 2010. Rektorsprogrammet. [Swedish National Agency for Education 2010. National School
Leadership Training Programme.]
Strandman, K. 2009. Se vain ilmestyi Vuorovaikutukseen perustuva strategian viestint kuntaorganisaatiossa. [It just appeared Interactive strategy communication within a municipal organization.] Acta
Universitatis Lapponiensis 168. Suomen Rehtorit ry [Finnish Association of Principals] SURE-FIRE. 2005.
Taipale, A. 2000. Peer-assisted leadership menetelm rehtorikoulutuksessa. Helsingin yliopiston opettajankoulutuslaitos. Tutkimuksia nro. 213. [Peer-assisted Leadership Method in Principal Training. University of
Helsinki, Department of Teacher Education. Research Reports No. 213.]
Taipale, M. 2004. Tynjohtajasta tiimivalmentajaksi. Tapaustutkimus esimiehist tiimien ohjaajina ja pedagogisina johtajina prosessiorganisaatiossa. [From supervisor to team coach. Case study in leaders as team
tutors and pedagogical leaders in a process organization.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1033.
Taipale, A., Salonen, M. & Karvonen, K. (toim.) 2006. Kuorma kasvaa voiko johtajuutta jakaa? Kokemuksia oppilaitosjohtamisen hyvist kytnnist. Opetushallitus ja tekijt. Helsinki: Hakapaino.
[Taipale, A., Salonen, M. & Karvonen, K. (eds.) 2006. The burden is growing can leadership be shared?
Experiences of good practices in school management. Finnish National Board of Education and authors.]
Their, S. 1994. Pedagoginen johtaminen. [Pedagogical leadership.] Tampere: Tammer-paino Oy.
Tiusanen, O. 2005. Tyyhteisn kehittminen ja trkeimmt muutosvlineet. Tapaustutkimus Helsingin liiketalouden ammattikorkeakoulun eli Helian henkilstn ja johdon kehittmisksityksist, muutosvlineist
ja muutosmalleista 19951997. [Development of work community and the most important tools of change. A
case study on the development perceptions and tools and models of change of staff and leadership at Helia
University of Business and Applied Sciences in 19951997.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1121.
Toffler, A. 1970. Future Shock. New York: Bantam Books.

52

Toikka, M. 2002. Strategia-ajattelu ja strateginen johtaminen ammattikorkeakoulussa. [Strategic thinking

and strategic management at a polytechnic.] Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 873. Tampere.
Toivonen, E. (toim.). 1976. Koulun pedagogien johtaminen. Suomen Kuntaliitto. Vantaa: Kunnallispaino.
[Toivonen, E. (ed.). 1976. Pedagogical leadership of a school. Association of Finnish Local and Regional
Authorities.]
Vaherva, T. 1984. Rehorin ammattikuva ja koulutustarve. Jyvskyln yliopiston kasvatustieteiden laitoksen
julkaisuja A 5/1984. [A principals career profile and training needs. University of Jyvskyl Department of
Education Publications A 5/1984.]
Van Houtte, M. 2004. Why boys achieve less at school than girls: the difference between boys and girls
academic culture. Educational Studies 30 (2).
Varjo, J. 2007. Kilpailukykyvaltion koululainsdnnn rakentuminen. Suomen eduskunta ja 1990-luvun
koulutuspoliittinen knne. Helsingin yliopisto. Kasvatustieteen laitoksen tutkimuksia 209.
[Drafting Education Legislation for the Competitive State. The Parliament of Finland and the 1990s Change
in Education Policy. University of Helsinki, Department of Education, Research Reports 209.]
Vartiainen, P. 1998. Paikallisen ja globaalin uusi vlitn yhteys vai epjrjestys? Teoksessa Hnninen, S.
(toim.) Miss on tss? Yhteiskuntatieteiden, valtio-opin ja filosofian julkaisuja 18. SoPhi. Jyvskyln yliopisto. Jyvskyl Saarijrvi.
[A new direct connection between local and global or disorder? In: Hnninen, S. (ed.). Where is here? Publications in Social Sciences and Philosophy 18. SoPhi. University of Jyvskyl.]
Vulkko, E. 2001. Opettajayhteisn kokema ptksenteko kouluorganisaatiossa. Joensuun yliopiston kasvatustieteellisi julkaisuja 66. [Decision-making in school organization as experienced by the teacher community. University of Joensuu Publications in Education No. 66.]
Vuohijoki, T. 2006. Pit vain selviyty. Tutkimus rehtorin tyst ja tyss jaksamisesta sukupuolen ja virkaaseman suhteen tarkasteltuna. Turun yliopiston julkaisuja. Sarja C, Scripta lingua Fennica edita, osa 250.
[One Just Has to Survive. A Study on Principals Work and Coping at Work from the Point of View of Gender
and Position. Publications of University of Turku, Annales Universitatis Turkuensis, Series C, Scripta lingua
Fennica edita, Vol. 250.]
Vrri, K. & Alava, J. 2005. School Management Training. Country Report: Finland. HEAD Country Report
2005. Oslo: BI Norwegian School of Management. Studies in Education Management Research, No 15.
Weick, K. 1985. Sources of Order in Underorganized Systems. Themes in Recent Organisational Theory. In:
Y. Lincoln (ed.). Organisational Theory and Inquiry. The Paradigm Revolution. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Wilenius, M. & Kamppinen, M. 2001. Tieto ja sen kytt kunnissa. Teoksessa Suomen Kuntaliitto. Kunnat
virtaavassa maailmassa. [Knowledge management in municipalities. In: Association of Finnish Local and
Regional Authorities. Municipalities in a world in flux.] Helsinki: Hakapaino Oy, 113122.
Zohar, D. 1997. Rewiring the Corporate Brain. San Francisco USA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

53

Online
ISBN 978-952-13-5262-1

Finnish National Board of Education

www.oph.fi
54 /english/sources_of_information/publications