An individual understanding of leadership in education has been challenged for some time by various shared approaches to leadership (e.g. Charteris et al., 2024), directing the focus towards shared responsibility for student learning and results and signalling a democratic approach to leadership (Gronn, 2008). School leadership is also evolving as a profession, establishing collectivity through a shared epistemic base, shared values and ethics (Bøje et al., 2022). These trends pointing towards leadership as something collective might bring dilemmas that affect how school leader autonomy plays out empirically (Wildy et al., 2004). Research on collectivity in school leader’ autonomy, however, is sparse. This paper presents findings from a qualitative comparative case study from Sweden and Norway conducted between 2021-2025. Data material consists of documents, semi-structured interviews, ethnographic fieldnotes as well as survey-data. The aim is to explore the relationship between individual and collective dimensions of school leader autonomy, asking the following question: What role does collectivity play in the formation of school leader autonomy in Sweden and Norway? The exploration is framed by a conceptual understanding of autonomy as capacity for critical thinking in navigating options and constraints, and as multidimensional and relational embedded in normative systems (Schulte, 2023; Wermke et al., 2022). Through zooming in on quality work (Elken & Stensaker, 2018), collectivity in three different leadership sites is analysed. Results from the study so far show that policy capacity and control of individual professionalism are interlinked in the formation of collective autonomy in school leader union settings. Shared leadership practices are highly valued by school leaders in both countries, but leadership autonomy is tested when actors do not share the same views, and much time is spent ensuring consensus. This can be challenging when politics and society at large demand quick results. Additionally, findings indicate that school leaders’ experience of autonomy is not necessarily reduced by legislation framing leaders’ responsibilities, as in the Swedish case of systematic quality work, but rather that lack of clear responsibility might lead to a vaguer sense of individual autonomy, and unintentionally shifting the focus from quality work as processual towards the performativity of assessing results. The study sheds light on the complexities of school leader autonomy in the contexts of two Nordic countries, providing new perspectives on collectivity in leadership autonomy to take into considerations when staking out the way forwards in developing education policy and leadership practice for the future.

Bøje, J. D., Fredriksen, L. F., Ribers, B., & Wiedemann, F. (2022). Professionalisation of school leadership : theoretical and analytical perspectives. Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. Charteris, J., Smardon, D., & Kemmis, S. (2024). Collaborating and distributing leading: mosaics of leading practices. The Australian Educational Researcher. Elken, M., & Stensaker, B. (2018). Conceptualising 'quality work' in higher education. Quality in higher education, 24(3). Gronn, P. (2008). The future of distributed leadership. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2). Schulte, B. (2023). The Policy-Practice Nexus as 'Politics of Use': Professional Autonomy and the Teacher Agency in the Classroom. In T. Prøitz, P. Aasen, & W. Wermke (Eds.), From Education Policy to Education Practice: Unpacking the Nexus (pp. 39-57). Springer. Wermke, W., Jarl, M., Prøitz, T. S., & Nordholm, D. (2022). Comparing principal autonomy in time and space: modelling school leaders' decision making and control. Journal of curriculum studies, 54(6). Wildy, H., Forster, P., Louden, W., & Wallace, J. (2004). The international study of leadership in education: monitoring decision making by school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(4).