Networking among deputy superintendents – Window dressing or navigating complexity?

Abstract

External networks among deputy superintendents seem to be an increasing phenomenon in a sector that faces a rapid change and a high working load. Is this the new way to learn and improve the organization or just a social gathering with little value? In this study, the significance of networking among deputy superintendents is explored. This group of middle managers is less studied compared to superintendents. The following questions have guided the study: How are their networks designed? What themes and issues do they focus on? What networks are considered relevant? The data for this study were collected through a survey of participants in a seminar series arranged by the Swedish National Professional Association for Superintendents. Networking appears to blend operational, personal, and strategic issues, intertwining practical matters with personal and professional growth to address present challenges and future requirements. Even if networking is seen as less formal it requires individual engagement as it is embedded in a process to become a professional space that benefits both the individual and the school organization. Networks appear to provide essential resources for navigating the complexities embedded in tangled logics and the frequently unpredictable processes that follow.

School leaders are increasingly engaging in networking as it offers strong opportunities to exchange insights about policies, their implementation, best practices, and challenges they face (Ärlestig and Johansson, 2020). In most countries, ambitious policy goals set at the national level guide local schools’ aims and goals, and actors at all levels must accept appropriate responsibilities and act accordingly to provide high quality education with continuous school improvement. This requires both individual and organizational level collaboration with, and between, Local Education Authorities (LEAs) and other stakeholders. LEAs strongly influence the quality of local schools. In a country with a strong welfare regime, such as Sweden, civil servants are expected to handle complex and sometimes conflicting logics in a rational, transparent, and efficient manner (Björk and Tengblad, 2023; Cregård et al., 2023; Johansson and Ärlestig, 2022). Thus, it is essential for actors within LEAs to have the expertise, capacity, and judgement required to address contemporary challenges effectively, and the exchange of knowledge plays an important role in maintaining it. Moreover, societal (and hence educational) contexts are heterogeneous and changing increasingly rapidly, so networking has expanded in both scope and significance. Managing national and international level expectations, while addressing the needs of local schools and individual students, requires a comprehensive understanding of leadership and governance involving multiple perspectives.

Simultaneously, it is essential to contextualise and adapt knowledge to specific local settings, which involves balancing immediate solutions with long-term strategies on home turf, while avoiding the straitjacket of localism and avoiding ‘home blindness’. For this, it is essential to be informed about, and learn from, the experiences and activities of other LEAs. Networking interactions are much more relationship-driven and focused on the exchange of complementary knowledge than formal meetings (Campbell and Fullan, 2019; Moos et al., 2016; Powell, 1990; Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016). Hence, the participation of actors within LEAs in networks outside their own organizations is strategically important and clearly warrants attention. Previous related research in Nordic contexts has primarily concentrated on the impact of changes in governance structures in local schools (Foss and Kratz, 2022; Moos et al., 2016). Deputy superintendents play key roles in these structures in Sweden, as described in the following section. Thus, interactive roles in layers of governance and opportunities to network with leaders in other LEAs and organizations may be highly important factors for both formulating and implementing effective strategies, but they have received little attention. Therefore, in this article we address these aspects. The following questions are specifically addressed. How are their networks designed? What themes and issues do they focus on? What networks are considered relevant?

The crucial role of deputy superintendents

Governance of the educational system in Sweden is often described as involving a ‘chain’ of authorities from national level through the LEAs to the local schools (SOU, 2015: 22). However, in Sweden the size of LEA organizations varies substantially (Liljenberg and Andersson, 2021) so in some municipalities a superintendent is the closest superior to school principals while in others there may be one or two middle management layers between the principals and superintendents. Unlike superintendents the deputy superintendents generally have specified scopes of responsibility or areas of expertise, rather than accountability for the entire organization like a superintendent. Their roles in the intermediate layers are important, but under-researched, and they can potentially make substantial contributions to educational leadership in their municipalities, as noted by Hargreaves and Shirley (2020):

The nature and importance of leadership in these middle zones can create more efficient systems for implementing top-down priorities on the one hand or build collective capacity to address and activate the democratic and professional aspirations of local groups and communities on the other. (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2020: 93)

In many Swedish LEAs, the number of deputy superintendents has expanded, in attempts to combine specialized skills with broader contextual understanding. This has led to the creation of various managing positions between superintendents and principals, such as school form managers, area managers, development managers, and officials responsible for specific aspects of services, e.g., educational quality or student health (Cregård et al., 2023). This is illustrated by the identification of 55 titles of leaders in Swedish LEAs (Johansson and Ärlestig, 2022), clearly indicating an increasing variation in the organization of LEAs. In this article, we refer to all of these municipal officials as deputy superintendents. Deputy superintendents undoubtedly have important positions in the governance system, playing a vital role in the implementation of policies and the empowerment of principals (Fullan and Quinn, 2024). Hargreaves (2023), who made significant contributions to educational research, described this role as ‘leading from the middle, not in the middle’. He also stressed the value of these middle-tier leaders, and their engagement in networking, for educational advances and collaborations.

… leaders who work from the middle areas of school districts or networks shouldn’t act just as linkages in the transmission systems of educational organizations. They should drive transformational change in their own rights. (Hargreaves, 2023: IV)

Without engagement of the middle, the top lacks first-hand knowledge of what is happening in the schools, and the bottom lacks colleagues who can help to communicate what is transpiring in other schools undertaking similar reforms. The idea of introducing a middle level, middle tier, or simply middle leadership in school systems has therefore become increasingly attractive. (Hargreaves and Shirley, 2020: 95)

Their insights, responsibilities, and interactions profoundly affect the competence and readiness of principals, as well as the operational dynamics of local schools (Liljenberg et al., 2023). Deputy superintendents have a range of interests in professional development, from practical approaches and problem-solving to more theoretical and reflective considerations of their own roles and the mission and conditions of schools (Liljenberg et al., 2023). While LEAs’ sizes and geographical and socioeconomic conditions vary, no standardized set of competencies has been prescribed for this role within a LEA. However, many deputy superintendents have prior experience as principals. Consequently, they can often provide valuable first-hand insights into how principals think and act at the school level, as well as empathetic, well-informed bridges between the LEA level and local schools.

In an era of increasing specialization and inter-organizational networking, knowledge of external views, practices and responses to challenges is essential for enlightened decision-making and developmental initiatives. Networks provide neutral spaces where values, aims, policies and both their interpretation and operationalization are discussed (Liljenberg et al., 2024). Deputy superintendents, along with other educational leaders, dedicate a significant portion of their time to attending meetings that may have diverse objectives and functions (Alvesson, 2022). However, general features include activities that foster the exchange of experiences and knowledge, thereby expanding participants’ perspectives, and engagement in external benchmarking. This is known to facilitate leaders’ efforts to ensure that their organizations maintain essential standards of quality and efficacy (Björk and Tengblad, 2023; Moos et al., 2016; Torfing et al., 2020). Hence, superintendents frequently establish contacts outside their own organization. Much less is known about whether the deputy superintendents are also expected to seek out and engage in networks outside their own organization, their interest in participation, and if so, in what types of networks. Thus, here we explore these aspects of their activities, noting that cooperative efforts can take various forms, mainly focusing on deputy principals’ motivations to participate in networks and the kinds of networks involved.

What is a network?

Networking has become a common way for members of public organizations to exchange information and experiences and learn together (e.g., Foss and Kratz, 2022; Hargreaves, 2023). It is a specialized form of collaboration that may have diverse forms and objectives. However, key common features are proactive and voluntary participation (which provides inherent flexibility) and primary aims to contribute to and derive benefits from the exchange of information and expertise. There are at least three forms of network: operational, personal and strategic (Ibarra and Hunter, 2007). Operational networking is prevalent within organizations. The main aims are to enhance organizational efficiency, aid the completion of tasks, and foster the development of strong working relationships. Hence, the matters addressed are largely determined by specific duties and the organizational framework. Personal networking focuses on the exchange of ideas and the enhancement of both individual and professional growth. This often involves interaction with contacts in other organizations who have shared and current interests, but inclusion of individuals capable of making referrals and offering diverse viewpoints is crucial. Strategic networks are oriented towards future-focused discussions of priorities and upcoming challenges, with the establishment of connections who can provide support for current efforts and/or insights into potential developments. As networks are self-organized to a high extent they can be drivers of school improvement (Díaz-Gibson et al., 2017), and networking is an integral element of most organizations.

Public institutions, in particular, can be viewed as systems that are interconnected with other entities (Azorín et al., 2020). This interconnectivity is crucial, especially in environments where there are strategic needs to understand the constant dynamic changes in similar organizations. The importance of networks has also been increased by the rise of specialization, growing interest in cross-sector cooperation and knowledge-sharing (Hargreaves, 2023; Rincón-Gallardo and Fullan, 2016). This has engendered the concept of ‘network governance’, as some networks have become increasingly engaged in (and even responsible for) various organizational activities and aims, such as school improvement (Ehren and Perryman, 2018).

Clearly, the purpose and significance of networks can vary greatly, depending on their specific objectives and context. Hence, in addition to the three forms of networks already outlined, three types of networks with distinct kinds of requirements and objectives have been distinguished (Hargreaves, 2023). These are improvement networks, in which leaders collaboratively address urgent, shared issues; innovation networks, oriented towards the dissemination of new knowledge and practices; and implementation networks, which typically have hub-and-spoke arrangements with local clusters for implementing prioritized policies of governments or other large-scale organizations. Networks are also commonly classified as tight or loose (Foss and Kratz, 2022). Tight networks have structured, formal gatherings with obligatory attendance, which fosters deep relationships and collaborative efforts. In contrast, loose networks have a more open meeting structure, inviting any participants who are interested and available. These networks typically focus on information-sharing, providing knowledge that is relevant to specific situations.

In addition to the diversity in aims and types of networks, how they are facilitated and led affect their quality of content and working forms. Many facilitators are concerned with fostering learning and encouraging exchange (Kubiak, 2009).

To encapsulate, networks are versatile, and their structure can be based on various organizational principles and interests. Distinct categories include tight versus loose, specialist versus generalist, local versus national, frequent versus occasional and problem-solving versus knowledge oriented. They may also focus on shared commitments or facilitation of information and experience exchange. Much of the strength of networks stems from this diversity and adaptability (Fullan, 2024; Hargreaves, 2023). In our research, we have chosen not to predefine the nature of the network in our inquiries, enabling open exploration of these dimensions.

Empirical foundations of the study

In this study we examine the responses of 49 participants from two consecutive cohorts who attended a series of seminars organized by the Swedish National Association for Superintendents. The purpose of the series is to enhance the professionalism of superintendents and deputy superintendents and to explore current issues, challenges, and opportunities. Over four two-day residential sessions in a year, the series offers a professional space where professional expertise, policy, and research can be discussed. The two cohorts completed a web-based questionnaire that included a mix of open-ended and closed questions about their involvement in networks outside their own organizations. The quotations in the result section are based on the answers to the open-ended questions. Of the 49 participants, 30 responded, yielding a response rate of 61%. Most respondents had a deputy superintendent position, such as school form manager or area manager, with a couple serving as superintendents or in other leadership roles. These positions were mainly in relatively large municipalities (mostly with populations exceeding 36,000, about a quarter with populations between 16,000 and 36,000, and a tenth with fewer than 16,000 inhabitants). The national average for Swedish municipalities is 36,000 and the median is 16,000, so our study featured a diverse cross-section of respondents from Swedish municipalities, although the sample was not proportionally representative.

The formulation of the survey questions was based on dialogues with participants from earlier cohorts of the National Superintendent seminars, which explored both the frequencies and specific instances of issues or activities they encountered and engaged in. The acquired data were subjected to thematic content analysis (Hsieh and Shannon, 2005) involving several steps, including continuous discussions and interpretations by the authors. The material was coded inductively, focusing on identifying and describing thematic elements in the data, rather than attempting to derive average opinions as our intention was to elucidate and exemplify how deputy superintendents understand and use networks. To illustrate these themes and their meanings, a number of pattern-forming statements relevant to the purpose of the study were selected.

A theoretical approach – Interdependent layers of governance

In a constantly changing national and global context, perceptions of what are considered important and effective working methods also change. Swedish public schools are institutions that are deeply imbued with fundamental democratic values. However, they are also subject to potential conflicts of interest, goals and logics (in a frame factor theory perspective) linked to ambitious goals of the national curricula, the municipalities’ fiscal constraints, and legal requirements (Lindensjö and Lundgren, 2014; Steen et al., 2016). In addition, aims and ideas linked to the ‘audit society’ concept (Jacobsson and Svensson, 2017; Power, 1997) are becoming increasingly prominent. This is evident in the increasing prevalence of audit processes such as control, evaluation, and periodical international comparisons of education. In Sweden and many other countries, agencies such as the National School Inspectorate also strongly influence local schools and LEAs (Ärlestig and Johansson, 2020). However, these instruments of governance are not absolute; they are subject to interpretations and negotiations.

This theoretical approach suggests that such shifts in values, interests, ideology, constraints and myriads of other factors shape and frame educational processes, thus leading to different outcomes or outputs (Svedberg, 2004, 2016). Furthermore, a fundamental dilemma of the welfare state is that everyone wants to obtain better services, without paying correspondingly more for them, especially when resources are limited. Rising standards of living can exacerbate this dilemma, due to increasing dissatisfaction associated with rising expectations. Thus, the complexity of public education is well documented and this complexity has escalated (Campbell and Fullan, 2019; Magnusson, 2018; Torfing et al., 2020). This dilemma of the welfare state has directly affected the education sector in various ways. For example, some parents act as ‘customers’ in schools and demand customized services, representing a shift in the conception of education from a public to a private good (Englund and Bergh, 2020). Moreover, in recent decades the role of the state in Sweden has fundamentally changed from being a provider of education for children and youths to a regulator in a kind of school market (Uljens and Nylund Smeds, 2021). There have also been shifts in prevailing governance logics, each leaving an imprint on both national and local educational systems and current governance mentality (Lindblad, 2018; Svedberg, 2016). Old Public Administration (OPA) is characterized by emphasis on values, structural principles, and regulations that are intended to secure a stable democracy. According to this logic one expects to see ‘… the formal organization in action’ (Lapsley and Knutsson, 2017: 8), with heavy reliance on bureaucracy and administrative routines. New Public Governance (NPM) introduced ideas and practices from the private sector, emphasizing efficiency, manageability, and competition, regarding citizens as customers in a market entitled to high-quality services. A third governance logic, New Public Service Governance (NPSG), emphasizes networks, collaboration, and relational agreements (Osborne, 2006; Torfing et al., 2020). This involves fostering partnerships and cooperation between different sectors and levels of governance and placing greater emphasis on relational and trust-based interactions. Key characteristics of NPSG include collectively, collaboration, co-ordination, co-creation, co-production and common goods (Popeda and Hadasik, 2023).

However, the introduction of a new governance logic does not necessarily result in replacement of previous logics. The three governance logics mentioned above constitute different layers that coexist, mix, and collectively shape practices within contexts of local conditions, which can be described as a bounded rationality (Cregård et al., 2023). Torfing et al. (2020) metaphorically describe this set of logics as layers in a cake, where newer layers, like the attractive frosting and appetizing berries on top, are most visible, but the foundational layers of older governance paradigms are still influential and continue to provide essential support in this cake. These interdependent layers of governance logics and the dynamic interactions between them add to the complexity of current educational governance and contribute to the substantial variation in structures, mentalities, and nomenclatures across municipalities (Jacobsson and Svensson, 2017; Johansson and Ärlestig, 2022). In summary, today's educational governance and management of education is conditioned by different frames, rooted in and continually influenced by both historical and current models, trends and logics (Björk and Tengblad, 2023; Cregård et al., 2023).

Findings

During the past decade there has been a strong increase in leadership positions at the LEA level in Swedish education (Ärlestig and Leo, 2023; Cregård et al., 2023) with a corresponding rise in numbers of middle-level leaders’ interactions. The scope of these deputy superintendents’ tasks and responsibilities varies, potentially influencing their willingness to, and interest in, participating in external networks. Both networking and governance are highly complex, multi-dimensional phenomena, as illustrated in the preceding sections. One of our findings elaborated in the discussions is that networking is a process with several phases and features that besides the actual networking meeting include preparation and a process after the activity to make it meaningful for both the individual and the organization. Thus, in an attempt to summarize leaders’ expressed views of networking coherently and as fully as possible, within space limitations, we present our findings regarding three main dimensions of networking. These are the How (the structure of these networks, and how they are designed and conducted), the What (their content, in terms of the issues discussed within them and what the leaders deem relevant), and the Why (the motivation, i.e., reasons for participating in them and participants’ expectations). Even if our survey does not provide comprehensive insights into the complexities involved, it provides valuable illustrations of some of the key dynamics.

The ‘how’ – Designing networks

Key elements of networking include the descriptions and justifications of networks’ design and structure, as well as the dynamics of relationships and interactions. The choice of collaboration partners is significant, as networks vary so strongly from closed, exclusive circles that require personal initiative or invitations for participation, to almost completely open forums. The role of networking in participants’ lives also varies enormously, from virtually non-existent to a major component of their interactions. In this section we concentrate on describing the variation between the networks’ overall design and structures rather than how they are led and working forms within them. Our survey reveals that about half of the respondents were involved in one or two networks, while a third was engaged in three or more. This suggests a keen interest in forming enduring connections in specific areas. However, active participation is a prerequisite for networking, limiting the number of networks an individual can effectively engage in.

The frequency of network meetings that the respondents attended varied considerably. Most of the networks convened meetings roughly twice per semester, but some others gathered more frequently and some less often. More frequent meetings generally demand greater effort from participants. In terms of formats, only about a tenth of the attended meetings were purely digital, and approximately equal numbers of physical gatherings and hybrid (digital and physical) models accounted for the other ca. nine tenths.

Participant numbers in these networks also varied. Nearly half of the networks involved had 10–15 members, a similar proportion had 2–9 members, and less than a 10th had more than 15 members. Thus, the typical respondent in our study was a school-form manager, at the time of the survey, participating in two networks, each with 10–15 members, meeting physically twice per semester. A smaller share of respondents abstained from network participation. Some stated that this was because they regarded networking as unproductive, due to its generality, time-consuming nature, and lack of tangible outcomes.

I experience that it is more focused on self-affirmation than development in the leadership role in the networks I have participated in. My own development has come through courses and conferences (where the collegial learning is obvious and the most important part) – the network meetings are more about ‘storytelling’ than learning. It's like a conversation without a communication model – it can be interesting, but it doesn’t contribute to any depth or increased understanding.

This quotation highlights several potentially negative aspects of networking. One is the lack of a shared understanding or objective in discussions, as some participants often use the platforms that networks provide to talk about their work (or brag about their achievements) rather than enriching or broadening the conversation. The absence of a common framework for dialogue or methods that provoke group learning and enhance expertise increases the risks of network meetings devolving into social gatherings rather than professional forums. Such an absence of structure makes networking comparable to window-dressing, looking good but lacking substance. Initiating a network also requires proactive effort. One of the participants expressed a perceived need for networks, as follows.

I sent out an invitation through email. The next morning eight people had replied that they wanted to participate.

Desires to start and/or develop networks with colleagues that people want to collaborate with or have some other connection with is a recurrent theme in our respondents’ expressions. They also suggested that collaborations among schools or educational formats within the same region are common seeds of network formation. The networks frequently have participants from neighbouring municipalities, focusing on specific topics like preschool education or the development of skills. In some cases, the regional organizations or actors remain constant while the thematic focus shifts.

We have decided to meet in the different municipalities, and the one we are visiting has described how the systematic quality work is organized there. Then, everyone has had an opportunity to bring up a pressing issue that we’ve discussed.

This quotation exemplifies a discussion on quality assessment, a significant and recurring task that frequently requires enhancements and fresh perspectives to boost the motivation of principals and teachers. Listening to others’ concrete examples is said to stimulate one's own questions and efforts to resolve dilemmas.

A crucial element of successful networking is personal compatibility; individuals often seek connections with others who have similar interests and with whom they have a personal connection. Networking advocates emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and contributions; without these a network's sustainability is at risk. Inconsistent participation is a factor that contributes to reductions in network prioritization, as cited by one of the respondents.

Another aspect discussed is the contrast between expectations within a network and other forms of interaction and collaboration that offer knowledge and motivation for action. Sometimes activities regarded as cooperative, such as seminars or meetings to address issues of mutual interest, are conceptually intermingled and collectively referred to as networking. This highlights a need to be mindful of the discussion format and expectations set for participants. For instance, in large organizations or municipalities with numerous interaction channels and information flows networking may be perceived as less crucial than in smaller entities. On the other hand, some respondents indicate that finding an effective network can be challenging, particularly for those new to roles like deputy superintendent in a municipality, who may feel isolated in their position.

The ‘what’ – Themes and issues

The structural arrangements outlined in the previous section are important determinants of a network's content and meaningfulness. The topics addressed within networks are highly diverse. The respondents expressed a general appreciation of discussions centered on practical matters such as problem-solving, school organization, and process management, as well as deliberations on future challenges at local, national, and global levels. Many participants seemed to particularly value networks’ provision of platforms for exchanging information, experiences, and collaborative learning. Some highlight the importance of enjoying the meetings and creative process they foster. A recurrent theme is the possibility for human recognition within the network. When participants openly share both successes and failures, it fosters a supportive environment that facilitates the viewing of issues from diverse perspectives. One respondent articulated the value of recognition as follows:

Networking is important /…/ a vent where we can safely and confidentially discuss our challenges and receive support from wise and experienced colleagues. However, it's important that everyone takes responsibility for participation, as it becomes difficult when continuity is lacking.

This quotation emphasizes the appreciation for the combination of a safe conversational environment and substantive relevance within a network Another set of raised issues (closely linked to leadership and governance) pertains more directly to operational matters, including organization, children's and students’ health, competence, collaboration, and quality assessment. In Sweden, where municipalities have some autonomy to organize schools as they see fit, exchanging ideas on interpreting and implementing national policies is particularly relevant due to the existence of competing objectives at the national level. One participant underscored that this exchange is a form of active participation in, and strengthening of, democracy:

Our mutual reflections strengthen society development and quality. I believe that it strengthens democracy if public leaders meet and discuss their role as managers in a politically governed organization.

Given the varied organizational structures of LEAs and schools, understanding the intentions and strategies of other LEAs for prioritizing and managing different issues is crucial. Often, discussing dilemmas, their causes, and potential solutions is most straightforward with individuals who have positions at similar levels, but in other structural and relational contexts. Clearly, discussions about both short-term dilemmas and long-term issues are appreciated, but as mentioned in the previous (‘How’) section, the structural constraints and enablers of the issues discussed may vary considerably.

Geographical proximity can potentially foster both a sense of camaraderie and competition. There is educational and strategic value in gaining insights into neighbouring LEAs’ approaches to current issues at various levels. Observing similar approaches can be reassuring, while discovering different methods can be either inspiring or discouraging. This presents opportunities for learning and self-reflection, serving as a remedy against insularity and local biases. Furthermore, networks can extend beyond educational realms, encompassing collaborations with other social agencies and organizations, such as child and adolescent psychiatric services, social services, police authorities, and universities. These diverse interactions suggest a wide array of meaningful and reflective opportunities within networks, especially when engaging with professionals from different fields and with other experiences.

The ‘why’ – Networks of relevance

We discerned four primary themes in our respondents’ comments that indicate the main reasons that deputy superintendents (at least those in Swedish LEAs) engage in networks: collaborative learning, information exchange, community building and support, as well as strategic collaboration and coordination. Findings regarding each of these themes are discussed in the following sub-sections. The most important reason for joining a network seemed to be the opportunities it provides for collaborative learning with others who have similar interests. In some mentioned networks, learning is a major focus. These include networks linked to professional development programs, such as one established to develop the competence of principals nationally, and superintendents’ seminars, where participants value discussions and create networks for ongoing exchange and getting …

input on what is happening in other municipalities and other municipalities’ perspectives on my dilemmas and hear about their dilemmas.

This quotation clearly indicates appreciation for a collaborative environment in which participants can share and reflect on current challenges. Furthermore, other quotations confirm that sharing perspectives with other participants was not the only perceived benefit; the respondents also saw significant value in listening to others’ solutions and alternative approaches. ‘Learning from each other so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel’, as one put it. In some networks the participants extend beyond practitioners to include researchers and educators from various universities, who contribute by sharing research articles for discussion, and merging theoretical frameworks with practical applications. As one respondent commented:

What makes this networking so successful is that some participants are new and several have participated over time. This contributes to good and safe conversation. /…/ Another successful aspect is the mix of lectures, collegial conversations, and school visits. The fact that we meet for several days means that the experience of being in this ‘networking bubble’ contributes to a successful outcome.

This quotation illustrates participants’ appreciation of sharing experiences, and discussing effective practices, challenges, and processes, which enhances their understanding of their own leadership and underscores the value of collaborative learning, knowledge exchange, and professional development. These aspects are closely linked to the objectives of personal networks (Ibarra and Hunter, 2007).

The second key motivation for network participation is to exchange information on navigating and executing various tasks. Understanding developments in other LEAs, especially in responses to policy or societal changes, offers new insights and strategies for addressing specific issues. This exchange aids in evaluation of the quality and processes of their own leadership and municipality, and the acquired knowledge can be leveraged to strengthen arguments for specific changes in organizational practices, processes or goals (operational and strategic). Many of the involved networks are regional or tied to specific school areas, so the participants have similar backgrounds and interests. This is closely linked to the third expressed reason for participating in networking: community-building and the associated support. The respondents noted that getting to know people with relevant positions in their localities facilitated the sharing of information and played an important role in fostering close cooperative relationships. The fourth reason for participation in networking is strategic collaboration and coordination across organizational boundaries, recognizing the potential strength in sharing tasks and commitments. Participants in some of the involved networks reportedly initiated specific processes or addressed issues affecting multiple municipalities, clearly indicating a focus on strategic collaboration and pooling resources for joint projects.

Discussion

Our survey provided clear insights into deputy superintendents’ perceptions of participation in networks and their motivations for engaging in them. There is great variation in their structure and format, but networks must have appropriate qualities to meet the participants’ expectations. The themes of our respondents’ comments indicate that what is seen as essential for successful governance is changing. They indicate strong recognition of the importance of knowledge of and insights into other organizations’ and actors’ practices and responses to challenges, as well as feedback regarding their own organizations’ processes. They also indicate that although networking may be less formal than many other interactions (especially those within organizations), it still requires substantial commitment from individual participants, during several important phases to establish a professional space that benefits both individuals and their educational organizations. A valuable observation in our study is that operational issues that networks (of relevant types for actors such as our participants) address seem to be related to and conditioned by the complexity and uncertainty that arises in interactions between different layers of governance logics. These logics consist of both material elements – that is, structures such as the organization of staff – and symbolic elements in the sense of ideas and creation of meaning about what is required of the core business (or service) and how it can be managed. Thus, the logics operate by providing actors with both social identities and a common language in shared conceptions of what is appropriate and correct to do, how best to do it, and what constitutes a good outcome (Björk and Tengblad, 2023). The dynamics in the wake of different logics take different forms in different contexts. They also apply to trends and fashions, i.e., ‘the frosting and the red berries’ on top. NSPG was supposed to resolve issues of trust, but it has not proved to be the universal solution its proponents claimed (Alexius, 2021).

To get a more holistic view of networking we have structured our article around three defining dimensions: the how, what and why of networking. Regarding the ‘how’ dimension, we found that the typical respondent was a deputy superintendent who actively engaged in two networks, each with 10–15 participants, and members met physically twice per semester. Responses of our participants showed that the ‘what’ dimension is very broad, as the networks focus on diverse aspects of educational challenges, leadership dynamics, quality management, and collaborative initiatives within educational contexts. Finally, concerning the ‘why’ dimension, we found that appreciated networks have relevant content and are relationally stimulating. Other appreciated aspects include collaborative learning, sharing of new ideas, increased understanding, a humble and open conversational climate, development of shared views and exchange of relevant experiences. Networks with these features provide opportunities not only to validate participants’ effective and helpful practices, but also to obtain critical perspectives and insights that can assist beneficial change in their organizations.

Networking appears to blend operational, personal, and strategic issues (Ibarra and Hunter, 2007), intertwining practical matters with personal and professional growth to address present challenges and future requirements. This duality has both strengths and weaknesses. Setting up networks appears to offer many degrees of freedom. Participation in an external network enables mirroring and challenges domestic blindness, as similarities of practices can validate an organization's approaches, while encountering differences or unusual approaches is cognitively stimulating and can promote beneficial change. The design can be more or less freely adapted to the network's purpose without necessarily being bound by the routines, traditions and hierarchies of specific participants’ own organizations. Some prefer tight connections, while others favour more open-ended and relaxed collaboration (Foss and Kratz, 2022). Our respondents also indicated that the relative importance of the personal goal of establishing working relationships and gaining helpful insights for addressing specific issues varies. In this way, a network can provide professional spaces with high degrees of openness for mutual exploration of the complex challenges that arise from interactions between the multiple layers of governance (Hargreaves, 2023; Thelin, 2020).

Networking is rewarding because it can add to participants’ personal status through being trusted to represent their organization and be its public face. A person who has many external contacts can acquire detailed knowledge about other municipalities and a highly valuable relational network, which adds to social capital. Furthermore, a network meeting is not an isolated event, but embedded in a process with six phases. The first is participation in discussions before the meeting, each participant's preparation of their own contributions to the planned theme, and exploration of personal expectations and concerns. Our data reveal that the design and organization of the network create various expectations and the participants choose to engage in networks that they think can give them most value. The second phase involves participation in the actual network meeting; taking actions; noting the tone of conversations, mindsets, and dynamics; sharing information; engaging in discussions and gaining ideas; and becoming inspired or discouraged. Collectively this affects the participants’ perceived meaningfulness of the meeting. The third phase consists of subsequent engagement in post-meeting discussions, gossip, and comparison of impressions with colleagues. Some of our respondents emphasized the importance of having colleagues in the same network to deepen the internal discussions and actions. The fourth phase is formulation of lessons learned. Our respondents provided several examples of their own learning. The fifth phase consists of evaluation and implementation of ideas from the networking in participants’ own organizations, and the sixth involves preparation and planning for the next network meeting, as a host or participant. The data also indicate that participants who have the most positive experiences also have active roles in their networks. Recognition of these phases shows that networking continues between the actual meetings, and that it involves both internal and external processes with ritual elements, and both symbolic and real values. Hargreaves (2023) argued that networks have different appeal to different people and that ‘progressives and romantics are drawn to relationships rather than bureaucracy as instigators of change’ (122). Another aspect is whether the relations are symmetrical (with equal terms) or not, and whether elements of competition or unspoken agendas have an impact. If so, this conflicts with the ideally egalitarian character of a network. As one of our respondents highlighted, the social dynamics in a network can be described through metaphors. A network can be like a: meeting place, marketplace, black tie party, ritual, club for like-minded people, source of inspiration, think tank, or place to spy on competitors (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003; Svedberg, 2019). These varied and imaginative metaphors suggest that involvement in networks can entail power dynamics and personal resonation, engaging both thoughts and emotions. It should be noted that metaphors are not just poetic or rhetorical flourishes, instead they are fundamental elements of our everyday language and thinking processes. Our conceptual system is largely metaphorical, which influences the way we perceive, think about, and act in the world (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003).

This study is based on expressed views of a limited number of respondents, which hinders judgement of the answers’ representativeness. Subsequent discussion with deputy superintendents has corroborated our results, based on their experience, but also indicated needs for further research on deputy superintendents and their networking. The individuals’ learning and organizational effects of networking, and the ways that networks work and develop also warrant attention.

Conclusions – Networks as professional spaces

Networks have become increasingly common, but they clearly have highly diverse foci, lifespans and designs. As with any other form of activities they also have highly variable quality, ranging from primarily window-dressing platforms for individuals to showboat and participate without significantly impacting their organizations’ work to forums for crucial interactions that provide essential knowledge and competence for organizational progress. Instead of giving a comprehensive overview we hope this article will initiate reflections on whether networking complements, coincides with, or substitutes for other forms of meetings or informal interactions. This is particularly pertinent in an era marked by sharp societal and value shifts, in which access to information and the expansion of relationships may be crucial for navigating evolving expectations and opportunities. For others it gives opportunities to navigate in complex situations as they receive valuable insights from other participants’ knowledge and experience as well as feedback on their own work.

Deputy superintendents, particularly those new to their role, may not always have access to other organizations and their representatives. Engaging in a network requires individual initiative and perseverance to find opportunities that align with one's own needs and areas of responsibility. As in any decision-making process, there is a risk of a confirmation bias. In this manner, networking can be beneficial for those who identify and find suitable groups, while potentially excluding others. Thus, networks likely contribute to increased diversity, and potential differences in effects on individuals and organizations between networking and other forms of collaboration also warrant attention. As with many other forms of professional interaction, the value of time spent in networks depends on the quality of engagement, which determines whether the outcomes are superficial or contribute to a deeper understanding. However, due to its diversity and flexibility, networking may offer deeper, broader and more open professional spaces to navigate complexities than other forms of interaction.

Networks involving deputy superintendents address a broad spectrum of issues, including the provision of education for children, students and adults, alongside recruitment difficulties. They also tackle ‘soft’ issues, such as policy development related to quality work, resource allocation, curriculum design, management of organizational dilemmas, and salary policies. As manifestations of government logics may differ across LEA contexts, the variation and specific nature of these issues are of keen interest within the networks. In addition, as the strength of networks stems from diversity and adaptability (Fullan, 2024; Hargreaves, 2023) the variation shows that deputy superintendents have diverse aims and needs that can be met in networks, as their own activities are key inputs in the meeting. They also provide forums for exchanging ideas and information with interconnected entities (Azorín et al., 2020), thereby contributing to innovation, improvement and implementation (Hargreaves, 2023).

In summary, the appreciated networks provide professional spaces with relevant content and relational stimulation. A network offers less prejudiced perspectives than those generally encountered in internal meetings, enabling participants to view their own organizations in a new light. As Bruner (1996: 45) commented on the assumptions concerning the reality in which we are immersed, ‘The fish will be the last to discover water’. The conditions and perspectives of other network participants provide appealing possibilities to create professional spaces for discovering new concrete opportunities and solutions that are stimulating and may benefit their own organizations. Thus, networks may provide essential resources for navigating the complexities embedded in intertwined logics and the frequently unpredictable processes that follow.