The complexities of leisure-time center staff’s leadership in the leisure-time center learning environment

Abstract

This paper studies leisure-time center staff (L-tCS) leadership based on the concepts of leadership perspective and leadership style. The purpose is to understand how L-tCS describe their work in terms of leadership in the didactic room by answering the following open-ended question in an online survey: How would you describe your leadership in the learning environment? The study was carried out through an analysis of 355 responses, and the analysis was based on previous research on the relationship of frame factors to the learning environment. The findings demonstrate, firstly, that there are often frame factors with negative effects on the work climate and that limit the L-tCS’s capacity to vary their leadership and, secondly, that the L-tCS use widely different leadership perspectives and leadership styles. The choice of a specific perspective or a possible shift between different perspectives helps the staff to define the current situation from a specific point of view.

Keywords:

• leadership
• learning
• leisure-time center
• staff

Public Interest Statement

The purpose of this study is to offer a deeper understanding of how leisure-time center staff (L-tCS) describe their leadership. Based on the concepts of leadership perspective and leadership style, the aim is to analyze the teachers’ responses to a question about how they would describe their leadership in the leisure-time center learning environment. The data are based on 355 responses to an online survey sent out to L-tCS. The findings demonstrate that there are often frame factors with negative effects on the learning environment’s working climate and that limit the L-tCS’s capacity to vary their leadership. The findings also demonstrate that L-tCS, qualitatively speaking, use widely different leadership perspectives and leadership styles. The choice of a specific perspective or a possible shift between different perspectives helps the staff to define the current situation in view of a specific staff effort.

1. Introduction

Just like any leader, staff at leisure-time centers (L-tCs) face the complicated responsibility of organizing collegial collaborations and both individual and group learning processes by applying their skills (see for example Hippinen Ahlgren, 2013). (Leisure-time centers in certain countries are synonymous with afternoon schools and extended education.) The General Recommendation of the Swedish National Agency for Education states “that good quality depends on there being teachers and pedagogues in L-tCs able lead and develop the work in accordance with the curriculum, and apply knowledge of current research in practice” (National Agency for Education, 2014, p. 23). Particularly complicated is that learning at L-tCs is expected “to be formal, informal and situation-driven” (p. 14), and that staff should “notice and utilize students’ interest and create situations in everyday life where students can be challenged in their learning” (p. 14).

The National Agency for Education (2014) also states that the staff are experts on intergroup relations and student development and learning. This includes the ability to understand students’ moods, develop a sense of security and peace and quiet among the students and enhance their self-esteem. The Schools Inspectorate (2010) emphasizes that the starting point of the students’ activities are play, students’ curiosity and informal as well as situation-driven learning. This results in many L-tCs spending much time on students’ free play or independent activities. The staff, however, state that there is trouble in the student group, to some extent, which is why “play without support from or with adults nearby could be problematic” (p. 23). This implies a need for flexibility in terms of an unvoiced leadership with complex attention to context, situation, specific activities, the student group, and individual students.

Leisure-time teachers (L-tTs), like school teachers, have the responsibility to educate, teach, and lead students and teaching. The responsibility for educating includes “aims at pupils acquiring and developing knowledge and values” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 9). Simply expressed, teaching is what and how the teacher partly communicates the substance that, according to current governing documents, is included in the education, partly considering the individual students’ conditions and needs. In terms of leadership, the curriculum stipulates that “the school should provide pupils with structured teaching under the teacher’s supervision, both as a class and on an individual basis” (Skolverket, 2011, p. 15). This means that teachers have a leadership responsibility for organizing the teaching offered to students. This responsibility of influencing students is not explicitly expressed as a teaching responsibility (cf. Granström, 2007, 2012). In the case of L-tTs, it is the question of a knowledge gap. The present study is an attempt to help close this knowledge gap over the long term.

Here, leadership refers to a specific behavior that leisure-time center staff (L-tCS) practice to influence students’ or colleagues’ attitudes and behavior (Jacobsen & Thorsvik, 2008). This means that leadership: (1) could be seen as a series of actions carried out by one or several persons, (2) is aimed at making people learn or do something, and (3) should contribute to the business achieving its goals (Jacobsen & Thorsvik, 2008). This definition does not distinguish between formal and informal leadership, or between leadership with or without staff responsibility. Instead, leadership always applies when others should be influenced or convinced. In this context, it is an issue of staff interactions with the learning environment available at their L-tCs.

A complication is that L-tCS commonly seem not to think or talk about exercising leadership in the L-tC learning environment. Their focus seems to be on educating and teaching the students, not on how to organize the pedagogical activities that educate and teach students. This may limit the knowledge of how staff influence, respond to and convince student groups and individual students at L-tCs. The skills found demonstrate, for example, that L-tCS believe in their professional expertise (Hjalmarsson, 2010); that the L-tCS strive for joint exploration and articulation of possible knowledge with the students (Saar, Löfdahl, & Hjalmarsson, 2012); that students have the capacity for active learning (Lindström, 2012); that there are deficiencies in facilities, relationships between students and adults and preventive work based on “the L-tCs’ specific needs and circumstances” (Schools Inspectorate, 2010, p. 8). The meaning of the lack of knowledge about L-tCS’s leadership, in terms of educational activity and students, is that the leadership the staffs applies at the L-tCs almost seems to be a blind spot in other research on L-tCs (see for example Evaldsson, 1993). An exception is Ursberg (1996), which connects three interaction styles with 25 keywords that are in turn distributed between four leadership roles.

The purpose of this study is to understand how L-tCS describe their work in terms of leadership by answering the following open-ended question in a survey: How would you describe your leadership in the learning environment? In the first part of the paper, background information on L-tCs is given, after which the L-tCs’ structural circumstances are reported, followed by a section on leadership theory. The second part presents the method, results, discussion, and conclusions.

2. Background

Many children in Sweden between the ages of 5 and 12, i.e. from preschool to grade 6—and sometimes even older—are enrolled in L-tCs. In 2013, 85% of those enrolled were aged 6–9 years (National Agency for Education, 2015a). Consequently, the changes in the Swedish L-tCs provide a valuable context for the presentation of the results (see Table 1).

Table 1. Total number of L-tCs and number of enrolled students in Sweden from 2007 to 2014, broken down by number of enrolled students per department and per employee

Year	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014
Number of L-tCs	4.426	4.297	4.328	4.290	4.277	4.316	4.178	4.194
Number of students enrolled in L-tCs	334.563	346.130	357.622	378.488	396.598	411.255	425.945	444.395
Number of students/ department	33.5	34	36	38.1	38.8	40.1	40.4	41.1
Number of students/employee	11.1	11.8	12	12.3	12.3	12.4	12.9	13.1

Source: National Agency for Education (2015a, 2015b).

The first row of Table 1 shows that the number of students enrolled in L-tCs decreased by 232 from 2007 to 2014. The second row shows that the number of students enrolled in L-tCs has increased by 109,832. In the third row, the number of students per department has increased by approximately 8. Finally, the fourth row shows that the number of students per employee has increased by 2. Overall, the table shows that the burden on L-tC learning environments in terms of frame factors 2 (time) and 3 (student group) in Figure 1 probably increased during this time period. First, the more students per employee, the less time the employee will probably have for each student. Second, the more the students per department, the more likely that the study conditions will become increasingly complex. These changed conditions may in turn be reflected in the respondents’ responses.

Figure 1. External and internal conditions, and the didactic room

The National Agency for Education (2014) notes that the purpose of an L-tC is to serve as a complement to other forms of education such as preschool, elementary school, primary special school, special school, saami school, and forms that otherwise fulfill compulsory school attendance. The activities at the L-tC should “stimulate student development and learning and offer meaningful leisure and recreation. The education should be based on a holistic view of students and their needs. The L-tCs will further promote versatile contacts and social solidarity” (p. 10). Implicitly, L-tCs’ frame factors 4–7 in Figure 1 and L-tCS’ work with social relationships are very important features of the students’ learning processes (Ihrskog, 2011; Johansson & Ljusberg, 2004; Saar et al., 2012).

However, Hjalmarsson (2013) identified a tendency toward friction between the formulated ideal in policy documents and the reality within the L-tCs’ practice. This is also shown by Evaldsson (1993), who demonstrated relatively radical differences in L-tCS’ attitudes to children in two L-tCs. In one L-tC, the children’s individual responsibility was emphasized, while the other emphasized the staff’s and the children’s shared responsibility. This means that Swedish L-tCs are not homogenous units; instead, they are dependent on the practice of the culture and norms in certain institutional contexts and situations.

L-tCs have, together with preschools and schools, the task of “contributing to the best possible conditions for student development and learning” (National Agency for Education, 2014, p. 13). It is important that the staff at the different institutions “have knowledge of each other’s duties. A common approach to learning in the different types of schools does not prevent noting the L-tC’s individuality” (p. 13f). A problem highlighted by the Schools Inspectorate (2010) is that the curriculum should be applied in L-tCs but uses the school as a starting point (p. 32). See also Boström and Augustsson (2016) for a critique of this “schooling.”

The General Recommendation from the National Agency for Education (2014) emphasizes the staff’s leadership role to create an educational and didactically meaningful learning environment by “noticing and using students’ interests and creating situations in everyday life where students can be challenged in their learning” (p. 14). These are the observations and conditions for utilization that are analyzed in this study. Different opinions exist about how this could and should work. The Schools Inspectorate (2010) points out certain deficiencies: “the activities offered at many L-tCs are too often unstructured and poorly planned and lack a conscious educational intention to support children’s development” (p. 18).

Nordin (2013) argues that L-tCs should focus on their complementary task and not compensate for schools. Schools have always been dominated by formal learning, and L-tCs by the informal. But the fact is that both formal and informal learning are available in schools and L-tCs. However, many agree that the L-tCs’ strength are their informal learning, variation in learning and willingness create motivation and a desire to learn (see e.g. Saar et al., 2012). Children’s learning should be “at the heart of the complement, not school’s subject teaching” (Nordin, 2013, p. 53). L-tCs should be a complement through practical application of what schools theoretically convey.

Hansen Orwehag and Mårdsjö Olsson (2011) highlight three approaches to L-tCs’ complementary relationship to schools: an environment where children can get a break from schoolwork, content that supports schoolwork and L-tCs supporting and connecting children’s lives and learning to schoolwork. The first two approaches imply a focus on school, while the third implies “that school needs help to form a whole in the children’s lives” (p. 120). It is the third approach that the authors associate with their “view on learning in free environments” (p. 120), i.e. L-tCs.

Jensen (2011) emphasizes that children need to be able to choose freely what to do based on their interests. This assumes that L-tCs can offer “a wide variety of learning situations” (p. 143). Hippinen Ahlgren (2013) shows how L-tCS can create stimulating learning environments using relatively modest means and didactic skill. A concrete example is the so-called mobile play-box, which can be an educational solution to a lack of space (Boström, Hörnel, & Frykland, 2015).

Facilities for leisure-time activities can range from classrooms to well-adapted, converted facilities with a strong focus on L-tCS. Kane (2013) argues that it is important that L-tCS choose between “didactic positions promoting either that, what or how children play” (p. 184), based on current relational and physical circumstances. This corresponds well to the National Agency for Education’s (2014) General Recommendation emphasizing “creative work and play as essential aspects of active learning” (p. 11); at L-tCs, there “is opportunity to work with various forms of expression: drama, music, dance, art and design” (p. 11). However, the Schools Inspectorate (2010) has previously highlighted problems with facilities and frame factors 3, 6, and 7 in Figure 1: “at too many L-tCs children and adults react to high volume, crowding, stress and lack of opportunity for children to withdraw for peace and quiet” (p. 8).

3. Frame factors and learning environment

All leadership takes place in the context of certain given structural conditions (Gustafsson, 1999). A valuable analytical starting point is to distinguish between external and internal conditions, i.e. frame factors, and the didactic room. The didactic room, the ellipse in Figure 1, is used to create a situated frame for the definition of L-tCS leadership (see Boström & Augustsson, 2016). Didactic means an organized, situated interaction between L-tCS and students/student groups, regardless of whether the interaction occurs within or beyond physical walls. The ellipse in Figure 1 is an attempt to define the didactic room with respect to the frame factors. The concept of the didactic room is used to emphasize that teaching may well take place during a game of rounders or in the company foyer prior to a study tour, as in a traditional classroom.

The external conditions correspond to (a) the established objectives of L-tCS, depending on [1] (b) the time L-tCS “have at their disposal” [2] and (c) the student group composition in terms of study conditions [3] (Gustafsson, 1999, p. 48; Lindblad & Sahlström, 1999). In addition to the mentioned conditions, external conditions also include the subject matter [4] (Gustafsson, 1999) and the “teachers’ assessments and structuring of activities” [5] (Lindblad & Sahlström, 1999, p. 75).

The internal conditions are about what Lindblad and Sahlström (1999) describe as “internal limits” formed situationally and interactionally (p. 78), which, they argue, corresponds to whole-class teaching [6] and bench work [7]. During whole-class teaching, “there are few opportunities [for students] to contribute to the social interaction” (p. 80), other than as a listener; “whole-class assumes that a large number of students are not involved in the discussion” (p. 80). During bench work, students can work individually or in pairs, which is why the student’s bench partner, if any, is a “socially regulated choice” (p. 81) constituting “a socially constructed framework structuring classroom learning and socialization” (p. 82).

The difference between whole-class and bench work does not exist in L-tCs, but by replacing bench work with working individually or in small groups, the difference has some relevance; in L-tCs there are activities in larger and smaller groups as well as individual activities (National Agency for Education, 2014). This also makes the relationship between group and individual work relevant at L-tCs. At L-tCs, however, there is something unique that cannot be found in school: the opportunity for students to learn informally during their free time (Hippinen Ahlgren, 2013; Jensen, 2011). This means that students, beyond school’s formal learning and in their free time, can learn based on their own interests.

L-tCs have been identified as sanctuaries that primarily care about students’ personal interests (Jensen, 2011; Kane, 2013; Löfdahl, Saar, & Hjalmarsson, 2011). The design of the L-tC learning environment has not been recognized to the same extent as that of schools, though there are some such studies (see for example Hippinen Ahlgren, 2013; Johansson & Ljusberg, 2004). As a consequence, a broad knowledge base is lacking about what goes on in L-tC learning environments.

4. Theory on leadership

Leadership is described in a number of ways (Northouse, 2007), and their common denominator is to influence others’ attitudes and behaviors. Leadership is sometimes described as personal characteristics, and other times as skills, behaviors (styles), situational approaches, matching between leaders and the context, the ability to motivate employees, interaction between leaders and employees, charisma, team building, a psychodynamic approach and leadership associated with gender, culture, and ethics (Northouse, 2007).

Leadership in educational contexts is often associated with the leadership of the school. Hallinger (2003) wrote about instructional leadership and transformational leadership. Instructional leadership is related to the fact that the principal exercises a relatively direct influence on the school, in the form of “coordination and controlling others to move toward goals that may have been set at the top of the organization” (p. 343). Transformational leadership is focused on creating a climate for empowerment in terms of “supporting the commitment of teachers” (p. 343). Regardless of whether both leadership theories are applied individually or integrated, they do not include the specific leadership that teachers need to use in the didactic room.

Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) report seven strong claims about successful school leadership. One of these claims is about the combined influence of leadership from various sources, such as “individual teachers, staff teams, parents, central office staff, students and vice principals—as well as the principal or head teacher” (p. 34), and emphasizes the existence of an indirect effect on student learning and achievement (cf. Leithwood & Mascall, 2008). The result can be interpreted as having the potential to widen the meaning of applied leadership in an organization, from primarily involving people in formal leadership positions in the school to including people in defined areas of the school. This is the central idea of this study on how L-tTs describe their work in terms of leadership in the didactic room. L-tTs have no formal leadership, but they are still expected to lead the activities in the L-tCs’ didactic rooms.

It is now possible to define the level of analysis for this study. The study differs from previous studies of leadership in school in four respects. Firstly, the study includes staff in L-tCs that are often located in a subdivision of the school at large. Secondly, it is about teaching staff and not about the formal leader’s leadership. Third, leadership is specifically expressed within the framework of the didactic room, instead of within the school at large (cf. Hallinger, 2003; Leithwood et al., 2008; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Finally, leadership primarily takes place in relation to teaching and learning, rather than to other staff and their engagement. This kind of demarcated leadership in the didactic room is neglected in the literature (see Boström & Augustsson, 2016).

The purpose of this study is to understand how L-tCS describe their leadership in the didactic room in terms of perspective and style. Perspective refers to conceptual frameworks and sets of assumptions, values and ideas that L-tCS can switch between from one minute to the next (Charon, 2004). However, perspective does not predict L-tCS what to think or do from one minute to the next, unlike attitude. The concept is flexible and serves as guidance, rather than as an imperative valuation of what the L-tCS is currently observing, interpreting, and focusing on in the outside world. When someone changes one perspective to another, he or she also changes one conceptual framework, set of assumptions, set of values, and set of ideas to another. Comparing the perspective concept with the attitude concept, then, attitude is a psychological tendency expressed through the approval or disapproval of something specific. An attitude presupposes an object that the perception is directed toward. In addition, an attitude toward the school system, politics or bullying, for example, is assumed to be relatively permanent over time. That is, a lot is required for a change in attitude.

A person can change perspective from one minute to the next. For example, it is possible to switch between viewing bullying based on the perspective of society, the workplace, school, the bully, or the victim. Regardless of the choice of perspective, the current perspective may frame how bullying is viewed and approached.

If one’s perspective is about a mental approach, i.e. what a leader observes, then the style is about the leader’s strategic approach, i.e. how the situation or circumstance is addressed. This means that the style can complement the perspective concept. Regardless of which perspective a leader adopts and switches to in a certain situation or circumstance, the leader has the freedom to choose how to strategically approach that perspective. An example of how style can be used in the L-tC is shown by Ursberg (1996). She connects 3 interaction styles with 25 keywords, which are in turn distributed between four leadership roles: the instructor “gives practical advice in the form of guidelines on what and how children should proceed” (p. 132); the motivator “challenges the children’s own ability to create and find their own solutions” (p. 136); the informer “presents the upcoming activities and sets out rules and norms of social order” (p. 143); and the server organizes “everyday life around the child so that it from an adult perspective works well here and now, i.e. foster the child in the moment” (p. 211).

The perspective and style concepts used in this study should be seen as Weber’s (1994) ideal types, whose characteristics can fit with L-tCS’s descriptions of their leadership in the learning environment.

4.1. Ideal type

In this study, the perspective and style concepts are used as starting points for analyzing the descriptions submitted by the L-tCS. The usage is supported by Max Weber’s concept of “ideal type.” According to Lundquist (1983), an ideal type can be created “through a one-sided refinement of one or a few aspects, under which a number of individual phenomena—more or less real—are arranged into a unified theoretical construct” (p. XXIV). This is what Weber writes (1994):

An ideal type is formed by the one-sided accentuation of one or more points of view and by the synthesis of a great many diffuse, discrete, more or less present, and occasionally absent concrete individual phenomena, which are arranged according to those one-sidedly emphasized viewpoints into a unified analytical construct (Gedankenbild). In its conceptual purity, this mental construct (Gedankenbild) cannot be found empirically anywhere in reality. It is a utopia. (p. 263f)

In this context, the analytical structure was implemented based on five alternative ideal-typical perspectives and three alternative ideal-typical styles, with which an L-tCS member’s comments can be paired. It is important to emphasize that “alternative” means that an L-tCS member can theoretically switch between all perspectives and styles but in practice prefers/has an inclination for one or a few of them. To perceive a more dynamic level of flexibility in the approach between alternatives, a more detailed analysis is required than is possible to carry out using the data this study is based on.

4.2. Ideal types of leadership

All L-tCS use leadership in their contact with colleagues and students. Leadership is about structure as well as process, i.e. to lead what comes prior, during and after, in time and space, and to be responsible for the emotional mood in which this occurs. Here, leadership is primarily about relationships between people. Therefore, leadership is best understood as a situated dynamic social process of influence in which the manifestation of leadership can instantaneously alter between people. Accordingly, it can be concluded that leadership is primarily an act and not a role or a person (Alvesson & Ydén, 2000).

Leadership is usually expressed in a stream of a constant organization of activities at the L-tC. It is about an organization supporting and servicing the actions and concrete activities that colleagues and students have expressed. The implication of this is, as Czarniawska (2005) writes, that organization-building “leaders [are those] provide service, and the service they provide is organization” (p. 89). This means that when someone organizes, (s)he also acts as a leader.

It is in the didactic room, as described in Figure 1, that the L-tCS apply their leadership perspectives and styles. Below, leadership perspectives are presented first, followed by leadership styles.

As Figure 2 shows, this study is based on five leadership perspectives that L-tCS can theoretically switch between in an instant: structural, symbolic, political, human, and self-conscious (cf. Augustsson & Boström, 2012).

Figure 2. Relationship between the different ideal types of leadership perspectives

The use of a particular perspective depends on how the L-tCS interpret and understand the interaction within the limits of a certain learning situation or learning environment with respect to a specific activity involving the student/student group. For L-tCS and leaders, it is theoretically possible to switch between noting the need for better organization of the didactic room and then perceiving the origin of a collaborative difficulty/conflict between two or more students. This could immediately be followed up by a self-awareness of one’s own contribution to the current organization/collaborative difficulty, which in turn could immediately turn into sympathy with the individual student. Leadership skills lie in the ability to instantaneously switch between different perspectives.

The structural perspective assumes that there is a need in the didactic room for awareness and understanding of what different types of students and student groups lack in terms of boundaries and rules of conduct create and maintain good social order (Bolman & Deal, 2005). The assumption for the symbolic perspective is based on the importance of students feeling social belonging and security in the social context they share with others, which in turn strengthens their self-esteem (Northouse, 2007; Yukl, 2010). The political perspective assumes that in groups consisting of more than two people, loyalties and disagreements usually develop between groups and individuals, leading to negotiations, bargaining and competition (Bolman & Deal, 2005). The human perspective is based on the assumption that people need to know about and have proof of their development, both individually and together (Bolman & Deal, 2005; Dahlkwist, 2012). The self-conscious perspective is based on the assumption that it is important that L-tCS be self-aware, as it enables them to influence their impact on students and what is currently taking place in the didactic room (Yukl, 2010).

Leadership style refers to a set of behaviors based on certain premises, such as the authoritarian, democratic, and laissez-faire styles (Bolman & Deal, 2005; Larsson et al., 2003; Northouse, 2007). The premises of this study are based on the style concepts developed by Larsson (2010) and Larsson et al. (2003): non-leadership, conventional leadership, and developmental leadership. Non-leadership is an approach in which leaders behave reactively and thus avoid active responsibility. Such avoidance can be both strategic and ill-considered. Conventional leadership is associated with L-tCS motivating students using a “carrot and stick” or different types of conditional agreements. The results are monitored through various types of checks. Developmental leadership is characterized by L-tCS representing an L-tC’s core values, combining an objective adult perspective on these values with confirmation of student groups’ and individual students’ performance in the didactic room.

Both the details and the merging of the concepts of leadership perspective and leadership style in the didactic room should be understood and explained in this study.

The meaning of Table 2 is that the concept of perspective precedes the application of the individual leadership style by the concept making alternative views visible, which L-tCS instantaneously can switch between, depending on certain frame factors in the didactic room, i.e. the context, situation, interaction, and student. Regardless which leadership style the L-tCS member then uses, the style refers to a behavior and thus to a certain social approach.

Table 2. Combination of leadership perspectives’ and leadership styles’ ideal types

	Structural	Symbolic	Political	Human	Self-conscious
Non-leadership
Conventional leadership
Developmental leadership

5. Method

This study is based on an online survey sent out to 11,109 L-tCS employed at L-tCs in Sweden during the winter of 2012/13. The survey was created using the Netigate software and distributed by the Swedish Teachers’ Union via an email link (Netigate, 2014). The Swedish Teachers’ Union emailed the link to all of its members registered as L-tCS, and 4,043 people responded, i.e. 36%. None of the researchers had access to the Swedish Teachers’ Union’s mailing list. Among the respondents, 289 of Sweden’s 290 municipalities are represented.

Out of the 4,043 respondents, 3,659 (90%) indicated their age in a quantitative manner. They ranged between 21 and 70 years of age, with a mean age of 45. 3,646 stated their gender, of which 80% were women. The question of highest level of education was completed by 3,671 participants (90%). Out of these, 3,502 (87%) stated that they had a university or college education, while the remaining participants reported upper-secondary education, elementary school, primary school, lower grammar school or other.

The survey’s introduction informed the participants about the aim of the study and that participation was voluntary and anonymous. While working on the study, the Swedish Research Council’s rules for ethical research in the humanities and social sciences were considered (Hermerén, 2011). The survey included 21 questions on the L-tC learning environment. Some questions were multiple choice, while others were open, with room for comments. The survey generated both numerical and qualitative data in the form of free text.

The survey was not created based on the concepts of leadership perspective and leadership style (Augustsson & Boström, 2012). Instead, the responses were tested against the concepts afterward. The aim of this study was to, based on one open-ended question in the survey (“How would you describe your leadership in the learning environment?”), develop an in-depth understanding of how L-tCS describe their leadership in the learning environment. The open-ended question was answered in some form by 1,903 respondents, with anything from a dash (—) across “don’t know” to a relatively short or wordy description. The responses were analyzed and coded by the author in relation to the analysis model presented in Table 2. Totally 355 (19%) of the responses from as many people could be coded. I discussed my interpretations of the responses with colleagues who analyzed other parts of the questionnaire. These discussions led to some tinting of the interpretations, but mostly there was a match between different researchers’ views of how the data should be perceived.

A number of considerations were made before and during the analysis. The primary aim of the analysis was to note the responses specifically describing how the leadership worked, rather than what type of person the participants believed they were. That is, the selected observations reported on what, or how, the L-tCS did as leaders, e.g. “I like to encourage students to …” This approach was chosen to strive for good validity by selecting the literally most relevant answers submitted to the survey question. As a consequence, more evaluative and descriptive observations have been omitted, e.g. “I think I am a good leader who …”

Another consideration was given to searching for responses that were as qualitatively different as possible, regarding both leadership perspective and style, in relation to their ideal type. The goal has been to search for response patterns within the framework for the broadest range of ideal types possible. The perspective concept dimensions, in the form of conceptual framework, assumptions, values, and ideas, were invaluable in this analysis (Charon, 2004).

The analysis was carried out using the software NVivo for Mac (NVivo, 2014). The survey responses were exported from Netigate as a PDF file. The PDF was then imported into NVivo, where the data were interpreted and systematically compared with the definitions of the perspective and style concepts in Table 2. The author carried out the analyses after having both read and coded all of the answers and searching for specific strings. For example, the code “self-awareness” was specifically searched for in NVivo by searching for responses that contained the string “I am.”

The encoded data were edited to increase the intelligibility of the responses; for example, some quotes were edited in terms of spelling and transposition of words. In other responses, words or sentences were omitted because the responses also focused on another aspect or mentioned what had already been reported in another response. Each response came from a unique individual. Since no responses from different people were combined and no one person appears twice in the results, there was no practical reason to encode individual responses.

The analysis results for the open-ended survey question were problematic for several reasons. One reason is that only 19% of the responses could be coded in relation to the applied theory. The other is that the 355 coded responses corresponded to only 8.7% of the 4,043 people who responded to the survey. However, since research on L-tCs and L-tCS’s working conditions is a neglected research area, it is important to also illuminate studies like this one. One way to illustrate L-tCS’s work effort is to highlight and theorize about the leadership in practice that can be identified among them. Therefore, even a study such as this one could be valuable despite its lack of representativeness, at least for future studies. However, it is not possible to draw any generalizable conclusions from the study’s results.

6. Results

This section combines the data with the analysis model presented in Table 2. Overall, it was possible to code 355 responses, from as many respondents, as leadership perspective or leadership styles. First, responses representing the pure ideal types of leadership perspectives and leadership styles are presented, followed by responses combining perspectives and styles.

6.1. The pure ideal types

Of the above-mentioned, 355 responses 237 were coded as pure leadership perspectives or leadership styles.

6.1.1. Ideal typical leadership perspectives

This section presents and discusses the responses selected because they represented ideal types of leadership perspectives. The perspective concept includes a total of 101 citations, with each response coming from a unique individual.

Table 3 shows that 53% of the perspective concept responses had a structural emphasis, while only 8% emphasized self-consciousness. This means that L-tCS probably primarily observe stability/instability and order/disorder (cf. Andersson, 2013).

Table 3. The number and distribution of responses on leadership perspectives

Structural	Symbolic	Political	Human	Self-conscious	Total
54	11	7	21	8	101

The structural perspective included a total of 54 responses. Two are as follows:

As a leader, I use the environment as an L-tCS [member], presenting materials, organizing situations for learning, being available or starting adult-led activities. [I] Convey to children what activities are coming up, what room is open and what opportunities are available.

Often interrupted by students who need help, telephone, check on students going home on their own, cloakroom contact with parents …

Overall, these responses on awareness and understanding demonstrate what different types of student groups need as well as the setting of boundaries and social rules to maintain a good social order. The bottom response also suggests the presence of such factors that affect different conditions in the learning environment, such as conflict between performing the current educational activity and providing services to individual students and to parents (cf. time, student group and the teacher’s assessment and structuring of activities in Figure 1).

The symbolic perspective includes a total of 11 responses and is represented by the following: “I can lead the group with close friendship and good relations.” This response can be interpreted as representing knowledge of the importance of students feeling a sense of belonging to the didactic room.

The political perspective includes seven responses and is represented by the following: “I like to take care of groups and teach them different things. However, the autumn has been characterized by resolving conflicts; I hope the spring will be better.” This response demonstrates a glimpse into the social processes between individuals and groups, for which the L-tCS’ repertoire of courses of action for relationships between groups appears to be particularly important (cf. student group in Figure 1).

The human perspective includes 21 responses corresponding to the following:

The kids can come to me with suggestions on what they want to do. I can do things together with them if they would like. I can show them how to do something; if they hesitate, I give suggestions while explaining that there are often many solutions to one thing. I work age-appropriately and see that there are also differences among the kids in terms of maturity; I’m a supportive L-tCS rather than a leader.

This response shows an understanding of individual students and the group’s specific development needs in a creative learning environment.

Finally, the self-consciousness perspective includes eight responses, of which the most characteristic is the following:

I see myself as a leader with a reflective approach where I think about what could be the most ideal for the children and their time at the leisure-time center. I try to be perceptive to the children but also a good role model to them and try to influence their leisure with a focused approach to the future, so that they will become independent, responsible, democratic citizens.

This response represents an idea of how an L-tCS member could handle different types of social micro-aspects. Reading between the lines, the L-tCS’s ability to separate themselves from the current situation/relationship becomes evident.

Overall, these responses provide examples of five qualitatively different leadership perspectives affecting L-tCS, one of which makes complications in the learning environment visible. This does not mean that such complications are rare but that many of them do not correspond to the ideal types.

6.1.2. Ideal typical leadership styles

Responses representing the ideal types of leadership styles are presented and discussed here. There were 137 responses in total.

Table 4 shows that 47% of the responses emphasized a developing approach, while the reminder covered 24 and 28%, respectively. Compared to the perspective concept in Tables 3 and 4 indicates there the perspective and style concepts were relatively independent. If there had been an obvious dependence, the share of the structural perspective should have been closer to the share of conventional leadership style.

Table 4. Number and distribution of responses on leadership styles

Non-leadership	33
Conventional leadership	39
Developmental leadership	65
Total	137

The ideal non-leadership style included 33 responses and was represented by the following: “Available like a tool to use, sometimes more, sometimes less.” This response shows that the participant does not proactively interfere in the interactions within the didactic room but instead serves as a reactive resource for the students. The reference to the leadership is highly distanced.

When it comes to the ideal conventional leadership style, it was possible to encode 39 more or less pure responses. An example is: “Today, we’ve got so many kids that most of my time is unfortunately spent keeping track and ‘guarding’ so that nobody gets hurt or starts a fight.” This response shows that L-tCS often have to adopt a controlling and corrective attitude, followed by checks of various kinds (cf. modifier “today” with the third and fourth rows of Table 1). (Compared to Figure 1, this suggests that a primary occurrence of problems with the objective, time, student group and teacher’s assessment and structuring of activities).

The final pure ideal type is the developmental leadership style, which, incidentally, was the most common. A total of 65 responses could be placed into this category, and one example was:

Supervise the kids in situations, offer activities, involve the kids within certain limits, identify and clarify the activities for kids and parents as well as colleagues. Connect the activity, efforts, and consequences to welfare schemes, theme work, policy documents etc. Trying to show main theme …

In this response, the participant represents the L-tCs’ core values and an objective adult perspective, combined with confirmation of student performance.

6.2. The combined ideal types

The combined ideal types include a total of 118 statements from as many respondents.

Table 5 shows that the most common combination was the human perspective with the developmental leadership style, followed by the self-conscious perspective with the developmental and conventional leadership styles. Together, these three dimensions covered 52% of the responses.

Table 5. Number and distribution of the combination of leadership perspectives and leadership styles

	Structural	Symbolic	Political	Human	Self-conscious	Total
Non-leadership	0	2	1	2	9	14
Conventional leadership	3	3	4	7	15	32
Developmental leadership	12	12	2	29	17	72
Total	15	17	7	38	41	118

6.2.1. Structural

The structural perspective emphasizes the need for someone who has overall responsibility over what goes on in the didactic room. This means that the non-leadership style (0) is contradictory and thus impossible to combine with a structural perspective.

However, the conventional leadership style (3) fits the controlling and correcting attitude and conditional agreements, as a complement to a structural perspective. One respondent wrote: “I feel like a supervisor, often raising my voice asking the kids to stop running, no shouting, put things back, clean up … I have few opportunities to interact with the kids” (cf. objectives, time, student group, and whole class in Figure 1).

Similarly, the developmental leadership style (12), in which the L-tCS act as a role model by showing personal care and inspiring and motivating students and the student group, was combined with a structural perspective:

I’m involved in planning and leading learning talks in which we bring up, among other things, what learning environments can look like. I put the learning environments into good order at my department. I, together with my colleague, talk to the kids so that they become involved.

The above response demonstrates the possibility to combine a structural perspective with both conventional and developmental leadership styles. The total number of combinations, however, shows that the structural perspective is not dominating in the didactic room.

6.2.2. Symbolic

The symbolic perspective is based on the assumption that social belonging provides a sense of security and enhances self-esteem. The perspective can be seen as being both possible and sometimes appropriate to combine with a non-leadership style (2). One respondent gave the following answer to how he described his leadership in the learning environment: “Sometimes passive, as we advocate free play.”

The conventional leadership style (3) can also be combined with a symbolic perspective:

I try to be clear as a L-tCS, setting up clear boundaries for the kids so they know what to deal with. Within these boundaries, however, I want the kids to feel free to discover, create and interact with others, quite simply “freedom within limits.” At my current workplace, I feel that I’ve become a little too strict with my “boundaries” because there are so many kids to lead, so sometimes I’ve felt like a “whiny old lady” constantly reminding the kids about the rules …

The respondent emphasized the need for a conventional leadership style to keep the student group together, based on the current circumstances of having a large student group (Figure 1) in the learning environment.

The symbolic perspective may also be associated with a developmental leadership style (12):

I limit the number of kids in certain rooms to encourage the play. I’m often actively involved in artistic activities, jumping and being on stage. I lead the assembly, but it’s still the kids’ assembly. I challenge the kids’ thoughts and like to give them problems to solve.

This response shows how the respondent tries to lay the foundation for social belonging to inspire security and strengthen the students’ self-esteem by structuring the activities and serving as a challenging role model in the didactic room (see frame factor 5 in Figure 1).

6.2.3. Political

The political perspective means that there is often negotiation, bargaining, and competition in groups of more than the two people. The response expressing a non-leadership style (1) suggested a critical understanding of leadership in the learning environment: “Too much due to absent colleagues.” However, it is difficult to understand exactly what the response refers to, other than insufficient staff.

Responses that could be associated with a conventional management style (4) also emphasized a critical view:

If we could spend less time, e.g. putting up and taking down the chairs [from tables], tying skates, resolving conflicts … we’d have more time to complete school in a much better way. But on the other hand, I also see it as an informal connection to the children.

This response is particularly interesting because it suggests a meaning of limiting external and internal frame factors in the learning environment as having both advantages and disadvantages (cf. time, student group, and bench work in Figure 1).

When combining the political perspective with a developmental leadership style (2), a constructive approach among L-tCS, students and the learning environment becomes visible.

As staff, we have different roles. Someone has an overview and is the one to walk among the kids, watching how they play. The rest of us can carry out a particular activity, such as playing games with a few kids or being responsible for sewing. All materials have been laid out, and the kids can be inspired without any adult presenting it all. We have few but clear rules at the leisure-time center. We call them “The Big Five.”; you don’t need more than five rules. We adults do, however, have a clear leadership role. But it’s all about building relationships.

This response shows how the L-tCS complete each other by switching between social proximity and distance from the student body (cf. subject matter, whole-class teaching and bench work in Figure 1).

6.2.4. Human

The human perspective is based on people needing to know and seeing proof that they are developing, both individually and together.

For situations in which an independent approach on behalf of the student would be favorable, a non-leadership style (2) could be beneficial: “I’m available for the students. Inspire them and try to catch those who aren’t doing anything or need help getting started” (cf. bench work in Figure 1). Important in the response is that the active students and those who have started are not mentioned.

Similarly, a conventional leadership style (7) could be appropriate: “I am super strict when needed but also very flexible. [I try to] use the kids’ wishes and responsibility; kids also need to feel needed!’

However, the human perspective was dominated by the developmental leadership style (29):

I’m currently taking a drama class … which has made me reflect on my leadership. Through the book Dramaledarskap [Drama Leadership] … I’ve got new and deeper knowledge of my way of leading the group. I see myself as a democratic leader controlling my group based on the laws, rules and values of society. I try to involve the students in taking responsibility for their leisure-time center and its activities. My practice is based on students’ ideas, and in that way, they also care about the true spirit of the leisure-time center!

This response is an example of how the L-tCS try to develop the individual students using their own skills, rules of conduct, students’ participation, and personal responsibility and student involvement in the didactic room.

6.2.5. Self-consciousness

The self-conscious perspective emphasizes the importance of L-tCS’s self-awareness and awareness of their impact on students and what is currently taking place in the didactic room.

Sometimes, this is a part of a non-leadership style (9): “I’m an observer and often let the kids move freely in what they choose to do and support those who need support or help.”

And sometimes, it is about being active based on a conventional leadership style (15):

I think I’m a strong leader taking up a lot of room but also very perceptive and have a weekly tally sheet of the kids I’ve seen and know something about, not just at the leisure-time center but also in school.

It could even be a question of a dynamic and flexible developmental leadership style (17):

I set the limits, and within these, the kids have student influence. The limits move further away when I feel that they take responsibility for their actions. Conflict management takes place with respect for both parties. No one should feel offended when I talk to them. Even the “guilty party” should feel that s/he has my respect. I’m the adult who first and foremost is reliable and secure and, secondly, is fun and a friend.

This response emphasizes an awareness of the need for limits, student participation, personal responsibility, conflict management, respect for others, stability, and being easygoing.

This study shows that L-tCS described the use of different leadership perspectives and leadership styles in their work with regard to both external and internal frame factors. Overall, they switched between noting the degree of or need for stability and order, social belonging, cooperation and conflict, personal affirmation and self-reflection. L-tCS also use different approaches, such as reserved or evasive, controlling and corrective or encouraging participation and creativity. In short, the didactic leadership responsibilities they described were usually both extensive and varied.

6.2.6. Limitations

Many L-tCS work in the tension between tradition and new forms of governance, but these traditional and new forms of governance have not been compared and analyzed in this paper.

There are both advantages and disadvantages to the use of Weber’s (1994) concept of “ideal type.” An advantage is that they enable the identification of a qualitative range, in which there may be any number of variations. A disadvantage is that they may omit complications and conflicted relationships. This was taken into consideration in the analysis by including responses underlining complications and conflicted relationships.

7. Discussion and conclusions

The purpose of this study is to understand how L-tCS describe their leadership in the didactic room. Based on the concepts of leadership perspective and leadership style, the study was carried out through an analysis of L-tCS’s answers to the open-ended question: “How would you describe your leadership in the learning environment?”

The study was based on an ideal typical model of analysis, which enabled study of the extent of the qualitative variation in the descriptions of the leadership perspectives and leadership styles, as expressed by the L-tCS. The model enabled the identification of examples of ideal-typical positions of influences between which an L-tCS member can alternate.

The analysis is based on the frame factors in Figure 1. A learning environment could consist of physical space, allocated resources, available teaching material, and time resources as well as the consequences these may have on the work environment and student health (Svedlin, 2011). The implications of this are, first, that the frame factors listed in Figure 1 affect educational and didactic activities in terms of working environment and health and, second, that the educational and didactic activities react to the frame factors. Consequently, people affect and are affected by the physical and social environment when they interact with it (Björklid & Fischbein, 2011). This enables the learning environment to be perceived as a broader concept than the frame factors. Included in this broader concept is a social environment where children “feel safe and a sense of belonging,” in terms of identity-building (Hippinen Ahlgren, 2013, p. 106).

The learning environment as a broader concept is an appropriate framework for this analysis of L-tCS’s perceptions of their leadership, i.e. their understanding of their influence on, treatment, and persuasion of student groups and individual students at the L-tC. L-tCs’ frame factors and learning environment are important for children from a variety of perspectives. At the same time, L-tCS work in the tension between tradition and new forms of governance, which partly has repercussions on their attitudes, vocational profession, and L-tC learning environments (Boström et al., 2015), and partly on their leadership, which is described as a “distanced leadership with more supervising role” (Andersson, 2013, p. 94). In other words, school priorities have at least indirect effects on L-tCS’s leadership (Leithwood & Mascall, 2008; Löfdahl et al., 2011).

The results show that both external and internal frame factors (see Figure 1) often affect the learning environment’s work climate unfavorably and limit L-tCS’s ability to vary their leadership. Table 1 shows that the frame factors time and student group in particular have changed over the past eight years. The results show, however, that L-tCs’ have qualitatively diverse leadership perspectives and leadership styles within didactic rooms. The choice of a specific or a possible shift between different perspectives helps L-tCS to define the current situation in terms of needing a specific proactive or active staff effort. Regardless of the L-tCS’s choice of effort, there are three leadership styles to choose from, allowing alternation among reserved or evasive; controlling and corrective; or encouraging participation and creativity. A developed ability for flexible switching between leadership perspectives and leadership styles corresponds well to the National Agency for Education’s (2014) view of the staff’s expertise in group relations, student development, and learning.

In conclusion, this study shows that L-tCS’s description of their leadership is about exercising authority/influence, developing a comprehensive sense of social belonging, managing the interactions with and between students, developing and changing the students involved and developing an awareness of the importance of their own presence in the didactic room (Augustsson & Boström, 2012, 2016). The analysis of combined leadership perspectives and leadership styles defines the results of, for example, Hippinen Ahlgren (2013), Saar et al. (2012), and Ursberg (1996), on the importance of L-tCS constantly balancing the interests of large and small groups of students as well as individual students, in relation to various teaching activities. The results implicitly also underlined the tension between the ideal in the governmental policy documents and the L-tCs’ reality, as Hjalmarsson (2013) describes, as well as the differences between L-tCs as reported in Evaldsson (1993).

It can be concluded that enhanced awareness of alternative leadership perspectives and alternative leadership styles among L-tCS can enable a strategic mix of observation, perception, compliance, responsibility, authority, determination, relationship orientation, and self-awareness (cf. Ursberg, 1996). Based on this conclusion, there are three key implications. First, it is important to systematically teach in L-tCS training (and possibly also for other pedagogues) the possibility for them to flexibly combine different leadership perspectives with different leadership styles to optimize their influence on teaching and pupils. Such training would prepare aspiring L-tCS for the complexity that often prevails in an L-tC. Such preparation increases the probability that the new L-tCS member recognizes the reality from his or her recently completed education. Knowledge of and skill in such combinations would likely be beneficial for future L-tCS’s professionalism, learning environments and educational activities in which they will be involved (cf. Björklid & Fischbein, 2011). Second, it is important that each L-tC’s principal supports the L-tCS’s potential need for continuing professional development in leadership within the didactic room. Third and finally, the school principal should note the hierarchical difference between school and L-tCs’ preferential right of interpretation (cf. Boström & Augustsson, 2016).

7.1. Strengths and weaknesses of the study

This study has strengths and weaknesses. One strength is that it contributes to an increased understanding of L-tCS’s alternative leadership perspectives and leadership styles, providing insight into the qualitatively different approaches that L-tCS describe using at L-tCs. This enables constructive highlighting of the complexity of the L-tCS’s didactic leadership. The study also enables the presentation of perceptions of frame factors affecting the learning environment, which thus directly or indirectly affect L-tCS’s choice of leadership perspective and style. A large group of students in substandard facilities imposes a structural leadership perspective to a greater extent, combined with a conventional leadership style, than a developmental approach toward individual students.

A weakness of the study is that it was not possible to study the actual existence of the leadership perspectives and styles. Only reporting the descriptions of the identified perspectives and styles was possible, and not of L-tCS’s skills in using them flexibly in time and space. Analyzing such flexibility would require a longitudinal study allowing for repeated observations and personal interviews over time. Nor was it possible to follow up on L-tCS’s comments with follow-up questions to expand and deepen their responses.

7.2. Future research

In a future longitudinal study, it would be valuable to analyze the extent to which L-tCS combine different leadership perspectives with different leadership styles in both time and space, in relation to individual students and student groups, under different circumstances and in different situations.

Funding

The author received no direct funding for this research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Gunnar Augustsson

Gunnar Augustsson, PhD, is a full professor of education at Mid Sweden University in Sweden. He specializes in inter-organizational relations, leadership, workplace learning, group relations and higher education. Augustsson is a professor and has mainly researched working life, and in this study, he applies this experience to analyze leisure-time teachers’ working situation and pedagogical mission. This makes it possible to study leisure-time teachers’ work situation from both organizational and pedagogical perspectives.