The aim of this paper is to illuminate novice department heads' positioned talk, concerning leadership aspects in the context of Swedish Higher Education. The 1993 reform made universities more autonomous and free from governmental influence. At the same time new, goal and performance related, systems for resource allocation were introduced. Another result of this reform was that questions about leadership and management were put on the agenda both by the Government and the National Agency for Higher Education. The debate that followed awoke my interest of leadership discourse in higher education. This paper is one part of a larger research project that empirically consists of the following parts:1) A study of leadership talk amongst department heads during a period of about four years. This study took part at Umeå University during the years of 1995 to 1999. 15 department heads were interviewed at seven occasions during this period of development from novice to more experienced leaders. They also answered a self-evaluation form once a year.2) A study of leadership talk amongst department heads and faculty from four departments in other parts of Sweden. This study was conducted during autumn 2002. Two departments were picked from an illustrious university and two from a newer college. A total amount of 37 informants were interviewed from these departments. The interviews were carried out with department heads, administrative staff, doctoral students, lecturers and professors.The frame of reference in this study is based on a post structural and non- dualistic theoretical framework which suggests that discourse theory can help us understand reality as discursive and the talk about leadership in Higher Education as socially constructed within a specific discourse. Thus, discourse can be seen as a built up by different subject positions.Five subject positions can be constructed in the discourse of academic leadership amongst the 15 novice department heads. Subject position 1, which in this material is a strong position, can be described as containing fuzzy and negatively connoted talk about leadership, with statements concerning the needs for extensive support to manage the situation. Subject position 2, is characterized by talk of academic leadership as something visionary and goal-focused and not as taking care of more operative aspects of department management. Next subject position, no. 3, consists of talk of academic leadership as something people do and create together, in collective and democratic processes and discussions. Subject position 4 and 5 are more peripheral. Position 4, represents talk about leadership in universities as something very complex where you have to be both colleague and executive manager at the same time and position 5, holds talk about leadership as something creative that contains a great amount of freedom and opportunities if you succeed to delegate responsibilities and tasks.As a final comment, it will be interesting in the further analyze of this research, to discuss identity formation and development, when following the novice department heads through their talk about leadership, over the four years of time. Will the subject positions be the same or what happens over time and why?