This paper is situated in a larger research project concerned with how principals deal with controversial issues in their everyday practice. One early finding is that resistance to change is perceived as controversial issue by many principals (Rantala, forthcoming). In this paper I seek to deepen knowledge about the resistance from employees that principals meet and how they deal with it.

Having to change is inevitable. As society changes, schools and preschools also need to change to meet the demands which is placed on children and pupils both during and after their time in school. The principal, as a change leader, has the responsibility over and an important role in the improvement work that must take place (SFS, 2010:800; Timperley, 2011), but leading change work is no easy task (Holmes, Clement & Albright, 2013; Starr, 2011). Leading change involves dealing with resistance (Dolph, 2017; Starr, 2011) and resistance is always in relation to power (Foucault, 2002).

There is a vast body of research that describes how leaders carry out or should carry out change work (e.g. Fullan, 2015; Hargreaves et.al., 2010; Kotter, 2014). Research has also focus on strategies that principals need to adapt to enable change management to lead to change (e.g. Shaked and Schechter, 2017; Soini, Pietarinen & Pyhältö, 2016; Wang, 2018). But it also emerges, in research, that change leadership is complex and that the strategies even can collide (e.g. Homes, Clement & Albright, 2013).

Previous research on teachers' resistance to change has focused on resistance to specific changes, for example change in the curriculum (Kazakbaeva, 2021), resistance against educational reforms, for example introduction of in-service teacher certification (Choi, 2017) or quality assurance policies (Terhart, 2013). These studies show how resistance can arise when there is a lack of support and resources to create understanding for the change initiative (Kazakbaeva, 2021). Resistance can be expressed implicitly and that there can be prestige in the fact that the change initiative must succeed (Chio, 2017; Terhart, 2013). Research shows four factors that influence human resistance, self-interest, different values, low tolerance and lack of trust (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2013).

There are knowledge gaps in research regarding teacher's resistance to change in relation to principal's strategies, which is done in this paper. The aim is to study principals’ and deputy principals´ leadership of change, by analyzing principals’ and deputy principals ‘description of employee’s resistance and their strategies to handle it in school development work. This is then discussed in relation to power techniques. 

Amundsdotter et.al. (2015) and Linghag et.al. (2016) describes, anchored in Foucault’s theory of power techniques (2002; 2003; 2008), three different techniques, repressive, pastoral and regulated. They use these concepts both to describe employees' resistance and the principals' strategies for dealing with it. Amundsdotter et.al. and Linghag et.al. describes repressive resistance as clear and direct resistance, pastoral resistance takes more subtle expressions or is masked in other forms, e.g. lack of time or resources, and regulated resistance is about placing responsibility on others. Repressive strategies are for example when principals refer to laws or governing documents, blaming individuals, threats reporting or raising to a higher instance, pastoral strategies refer to offering help and guidance, demonstrating benefits, inspiring and motivating and regulatory strategies refer to building the change into the organization by emphasizing that it is a shared responsibility, reminding of the mission and what different roles entail. In this paper this concept is used to both to categorize and analyze the principals' and deputy principals' descriptions of employees' resistance to change and to categorize and analyze their descriptions of strategies they use to deal with the resistance.

The material that forms the basis of the study is based on qualitative questionnaires, with open answers, to principals and deputy principals. This choice was made to go beyond numerical measurement and instead to be able to capture the principals and deputy principals perspective (Cohen, Manion & Morrison 2018). In the questionnaire, it is initially described that in this study, resistance can be expressed both as explicit and implicit and can create both challenges and be a driving force. In the questionnaires the principals and deputy principals are first asked to describe a situation where they have met or dealt with employee's resistance. After this, they described how the resistance expressed itself, how they handled it, how they experienced the situation and what effect they believe their handling had. Although the survey has open answers and the principals are asked to answer in detail, the answers are relatively short, but it is still possible to read out different patterns that are described in the results and then discussed in relation to power techniques. A total of 37 (K-12 and adult education) principals and deputy principals responded to the questionnaire (18 principals, 18 deputy principals and one was excluded due to incomplete answers). The informants consist of both men (8) and women (29). About a third have worked 2-3 years (12), a third 4-5 years (13) and a third have worked 6 years or more (12). These principals and deputy principals are responsible for between less then 5 and over 36 employees, most of them have 26 or more. The material is thematically analyzed based on Amundsdotter's et.al. (2015) and Linghags et al. 2016) concepts repressive, pastoral, and regulated resistance and strategies which they anchor in Foucault's (2002; 2003; 2008) theories of power techniques. They have used these concepts to be able to discuss and analyze resistance and strategies along with change actors, in public organizations, how are working with equality and diversity. In this paper it is instead about the resistance that principals and deputy principals meet and their strategies in dealing with it.

The results show that all of them describe situations where employees resist top-down management in the form of resistance to decisions about changing working methods or reorganization that come either from the principal, deputy principal or higher up in the steering chain. This resistance takes mainly a repressive form by employees express their opinions and show emotions. The other forms, pastoral and regulated resistance, are also represented, albeit on a smaller scale. The informants’ strategies mainly take a pastoral form, by informing, listening, giving employees the opportunity to express their opinions. The result also shows that they use a mixture of strategies. The effect of this strategy’s is either that the employees have adapted the change, have ended their employment or that the situation is not completely resolved. By using mostly pastoral strategies, give employees a lot of space to express opinions and feelings about the change but also give them the opportunity to influence how the change is carried out. None of the informants describes that employee’s resistance has an effect of what is to be changed. The norm that schools and teachers should develop and that leaders should be able to decide what should change seems to be strong. This seems to form a friction surface between the teacher profession and the change management. Resistance is seen as inevitable in change work and may arise from the fear of losing power (Kotter & Schlesinger, 2013). For leaders, it is important to try to understand the resistance instead of seeing it as an obstacle to be overcome (Watson, 1982). Resistance can create opportunities to reflection on and evaluate the change initiative. Seeing resistance as inevitable and productive can influence how resistance is experienced and what strategies a leader adopts.

Amundsdotter, E., Ericson, M. Jansson, U. & Linghag, S. (2015). Motstånd och strategier i jämställdhetsarbete. Karlstads universitet. Choi, T-H.§ (2017). Hidden transcripts of teacher resistance: a case from South Korea. Journal of Education Policy, Vol. 32, no. 4, p. 480–502 Cohen, L., Manion, L. & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education (8 ed.) Routledge. Dolph, D. (2017). Resistance to Change: A Speed Bump on the Road to School Improvement?. Journal of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, 1(1), 6-20. Foucault, M. (2002). Sexualitetens historia. Band 1. Viljan att veta. Daidalos. Foucault, M. (2003). Övervakning och straff: fängelsets födelse. Arkiv förlag. Foucault, M (2008). Diskursernas kamp. Brutus Östlings bokförlag Symposion. Fullan, M. (2015)- Freedom to change – Four strategies to put your inner drive into overdrive. John Wiley & Sons Hargreaves, A. et al. (eds.) 2010. Second International Handbook of Educational Change. Springer Science & Business Media. Holmes, K., Clement, J. & Albright, J. (2013). The complex task of leading educational change in schools. School Leadership & Management, Vol. 33(3), p. 270-283, Kazakbaeva, R. (2021). From language of enemy to language of opportunity. Journal of Educational Change (2023) 24:317–343. Kotter, J. & Schlesinger, L. (2013). Choosing Strategies for Change. Harvard Business Review. Kotter, J. P. (2014). Accelerate - Building strategic agility for a faster-moving world. Harvard Business Review Press. Lindhag, S., Ericson, M., Amundsdotter, E. & Jansson, U. (2016). I och med motstånd. Förändringsaktörers handlingsutrymme och strategier i jämställdhets- och mångfaldsarbete. Tidskrift för genusvetenskap. Vol 37(3), p. 8-28. Shaked, H. & Schechter, C. (2017). School principals as mediating agents in education reforms. School Leadership & Management, Vol. 37(1-2), p. 19-37. SFS 2010:800. The education act. Soini, T., Pietarinen, J. & Pyhältö, K. (2016) Leading a school through change – principals’ hands-on leadership strategies in school reform. School Leadership & Management, Vol. 36(4), p. 452-469. Starr, K. (2011). Principals and the Politics of Resistance to Change. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, Vol. 39(6), p. 646–660. Terhart, E. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: reflecting an inconvenient truth. School Leadership & Management, Vol. 33(5), p. 486-500. Timperley, H. (2011). Knowledge and the leadership of learning. Leadership and Policy in Schools, Vol. 10(2), p. 145-170. Wang, F. (2018). Leadership as a subversive activity: principals’ perceptions, International Journal of Leadership in Education, Vol. 21(5), p. 531-544. Watson, T. (1982). Group Ideologies And Organizational Change. Journal of Management Studies, 19(3), ss.259-275.