| Abstract [eng] |
There are at least two theoretical interpretations of what determines the duration of the head of any organization or institution, when the head is appointed according to a predetermined procedure for a fixed term, but without limiting the number of terms. Normative management theory states that the duration of the manager's tenure is determined by good performance results in the organization. This can be revealed through the annual reports provided by managers and the results of their work evaluation, as well as through the degree of achievement of the institution's strategic goals. The theory of politicization states that the long duration of a leader's term of office depends on his direct membership in the party or other connections, indirectly establishing relations with political subjects. In such a case, it can be observed that when appointing a manager to a leadership position or extending his term of office, a case of success is more likely when the manager is somehow connected to a political party that has influence in a defined geographical space (e.g. municipality) than in the case where there are no connections. Based on these two conflicting perspectives, this paper examines the reasons for the duration of the term of office of heads of general education schools in Lithuania. It has been noticed that some school heads are constantly re-elected for a new term and can lead the school even for several decades, while others end their work after the first five years (i.e. one term). In the presence of such two possible approaches explaining the duration of the term of office of the head and the observed dichotomy between the (non)turnover of school heads, there is a need to find out which reason better explains the duration of the headship of directors of general education schools in the case of Lithuania. In a general sense, the topic of politicization is not new in the Lithuanian research field. However, there is still an unexamined topic in order to understand which of the two reasons examined in the study determines the duration of the terms of office of heads of Lithuanian general education schools, which is done in this master's thesis. Thus, the aim of this work will be to investigate what explains the term of office of the heads of Lithuanian general education schools - whether it is the politicization of the heads or whether good performance results are shown. After summarizing the relations of cooperation between school leaders and politicians, it became clear that it is difficult to draw a rational boundary between the direct influence on school leaders (politicization) and healthy cooperation on both sides. After conducting the interview, it is understood that there is still a feeling of disagreement in the education community in Lithuania as to what should be considered good performance results. It is understood that each school and its context are different, so having the same criteria for a good evaluation is impossible. Furthermore, the evaluation system of the heads of general education schools still remains flawed. There is a lack of experts capable of formulating the year's operational tasks, and municipal education departments lack the competencies not only to properly advise school leaders, but also to evaluate them thoroughly. The hypotheses of good performance are rejected and do not have essential significance for the continuation of the manager's term of office, because in this case, good performance is more reminiscent of paper factors, but not the real management situation, and all the other problems are related to this. Meanwhile, politicization is a strong enough factor, but it is most noticeable and active in smaller municipalities that are constantly re-elected by the same party, where there are generally no non-politicized school heads, and belonging to a party other than the majority in the municipality can lead to a shortened term of office. |
