Two decades ago, Starrat (2001) claimed that a qualified form of democratic leadership in schools (DSL) is not only possible, but also necessary. The sense of urgency that Starratt voiced at the time alluded to the ethical discrepancies of formal schooling that DSL is able to counter by promoting equity, active citizenship and empowerment, self-actualization, and the creation of a democratic culture in which free and equal individuals share and construct knowledge for the betterment of the school and even society as a whole. Yet, there are also those who assert that DSL is not only morally advantageous, but also enhances organizational effectiveness especially in a reality characterized by increasing complexity, wicked problems, cultural diversity and in a world radically transformed by the effects of technology and the forces of globalization (e.g., Begley & Zaretsky, 2004; Harber & Trafford, 1999; Woods, 2004); not to mention the disruptiveness caused by a global pandemic and an environmental crisis, which necessitate more distributive, collaborative and responsive forms of leadership and governance (Harris & Jones, 2020). More specifically, DSL, it is argued, has the ability to alleviate contradictions and tensions by making participation and collaboration (as well as other brokering strategies) central to the effective functioning of educational organizations (Gale & Densmore, 2003).

Alongside this dual (functionalist-ethical) argument for applying DSL, which originates from Dewey’s understanding of democratic governance’s highly developed ethical problem-solving capacities (Dewey, 1922; Wergin, 2020), there is also acknowledgment of the complexities, tensions and paradoxes involved in both the conceptualization and application of DSL (Guttman, 1999; Marsh, 2007; Reitzug & O’Hair, 2002). Corresponding to the growing attention to dilemmas of educational leadership (Author, 2021; Arar & Saiti, 2022; Bogotch & Kervin, 2019; DeMatthews & Mawhinney, 2014; Goldring & Greenfield, 2002; Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2016), DSL discourse is problematized from two different and interrelated directions. The first is the competition between different philosophical views of democratic governance in DSL discourse. Consequently, each competing view proposes different responses to the tensions and complication inherent to democratic governance. Second, given the above intricacies of DSL, it is possible to argue that its application compounds the dilemmas involved in leading educational organizations rather than alleviates them (Author, 2021).

The aim of this paper is to further the exploration of democratic leadership and governance by elaborating its inherently dilemmatic nature. Rather than viewing dilemmas and inner tensions as debilitating democratic governance and thus as demanding reconciliation or resolution, a dilemmatic approach views tensions between core values as one of its defining features and as central to its sustained implementation. The presentation will position a dilemmatic approach in relation to two generic approaches to DSL in the literature: the modernist and postmodernist. After identifying tensions and complications that unfold in each generic approach, a dilemmatic approach to DSL will be presented based on a discussion of both Chantal Mouffe’s (2000) agonistic-pluralist model, and Jurgen Habermas’ deliberative democratic model (1996). A dilemmatic approach goes beyond the above two opposing views by regarding DSL as a variable mode of democratic governance, characterized by a dynamic movement across different democratic models.

The present discussion engages in literary analysis and critical assessment of the discourse on democratic school leadership and governance. Based on a critical reading of leading views in the literature on democratic theory, particularly Habermas (1996) and Mouffe (2000), a dilemmatic approach will be presented by applying Marsh’s (2007) democratic governance model. Marsh’s model provides the conceptual-methodological basis for clarifying the competing ‘points of (con)tension’ of different democratic governance types and visualizes these by placing these types on a bi-dimensional axis. This bi-dimensional model illustrates the variable nature of a dilemmatic approach and organizes the ‘movement’ of a dilemmatic democratic governance among these points. Wenger’s (1998) four dualities of educational design provide the principles for understanding the ‘mechanism’ or logic that ‘activates’ the movement between democratic governance styles.

The main conclusion drawn from a dilemmatic approach to DSL is that it is a dynamic mode of governance which is continuously engaged in addressing competing core values, which are inherent to any decision and policy-making process. Applying Wenger’s (1998) four dualities of educational design (participation-reification; identification-negotiation; global-local; emergent-designed), the paper characterizes the mechanism driving the dynamic ‘movement’ among different educational governance styles. While dynamism and movement are central to a dilemmatic approach, this is not to say that it calls for instability and indecisiveness, but a consistent awareness to the tensions between core values that lie at the heart of any democratic governance style. Some of the core attributes of a dilemmatic approach to DSL will be presented and discussed: • leadership entails, first and foremost, awareness of the tensions built into democratic governance, and this entails checks and balances. • ongoing assessment of the need for change against the need for stability and order • accepting that rules and hierarchy are part of the organization even though the nature of these rules and hierarchy is fluid and constantly renegotiated. • participation and the need for dialogue may sometimes be put in check by questions of shared vision, which at times might be the cause of resistance and dissent. • Alternative values, and paths-not-taken, continue to impact decision-making processes. It therefore involves creating “adaptive spaces” that are able to accommodate competing thoughts, views and understandings

Begley, P. T., & Zaretsky, L. (2004). Democratic school leadership in Canada’s public school systems: Professional value and social ethic. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 640–655. Dewey, J. (1922). Democracy and education. New-York, N.Y: The Macmillan Company Gale, T., & Densmore, K. (2003). Democratic educational leadership in contemporary times. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(2), 119–136. Guttman, A. (1999). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. MIT Press Harber, C., & Trafford, B. (1999). Democratic management and school effectiveness in two countries: A case of pupil participation? Educational Management & Administration, 27(1), 45–54. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2020). COVID 19–school leadership in disruptive times. School Leadership & Management, 40(4), 243–247. Marsh, J. (2007). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. State University of New York Press. Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. Verso Reitzug, U. C., & O’Hair, M. J. (2002). Tensions and struggles in moving toward a democratic school community. In G. Furman (Ed.), School as community: From promise to practice (pp. 119–142). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Starrat, R. J. (2001). Democratic leadership theory in late modernity: An oxymoron or ironic possibility? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4(4), 333–352. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wergin, J. F. (2020). Deep learning in a disorienting world. Cambridge University Press. Woods, P. A. (2004). Democratic leadership: Drawing distinctions with distributed leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 3–26